This comparison draws in part from “Unvailing the Shadows: The History of Misuse and Abuse in Disability Guardianship by Jeff Newman” by Jeff Newman (BehaviorLive), and extends it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. The decision framework, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →Two fundamentally different frameworks govern decision-making for adults with intellectual disabilities who may need support: plenary guardianship, which transfers legal authority to another person, and supported decision-making, which preserves the individual's legal personhood while providing structured human support for the decision-making process. Kerry et al. (2026) found that wellbeing and distress in adults with intellectual disabilities can be measured directly and reliably—a finding that supports the premise that client quality of life, not guardian preference, should be the primary outcome measure in evaluating guardianship arrangements. BCBAs who understand both frameworks are better positioned to advocate for the approach that best preserves client dignity and autonomy.
| Factor | Evidence-Based Approach | Traditional Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Personhood | Plenary Guardianship: Legal personhood substantially transferred to guardian; individual loses right to make most or all decisions independently | Supported Decision-Making: Legal personhood fully retained; individual makes their own decisions with structured human support |
| Consent in ABA Practice | Plenary Guardianship: Guardian provides informed consent; client assent is ethically required but legally secondary; risk that guardian's preferences override client interests | Supported Decision-Making: Client provides informed consent with support; assent and consent are unified in the client; decision quality depends on quality of the support network |
| Risk of Misuse | Plenary Guardianship: Historical and ongoing risk of guardians using legal authority to control, isolate, or exploit the individual they are responsible for | Supported Decision-Making: Risk of manipulative influence by support network members who do not operate with formal accountability structures; less likely to produce legal abuse but informal influence can still be problematic |
| Evidence for Outcomes | Plenary Guardianship: Associated with reduced community participation, lower self-determination scores, and in some studies, increased risk of exploitation by the guardian themselves | Supported Decision-Making: Growing evidence base showing that people with intellectual disabilities can make meaningful, self-consistent decisions with structured support; associated with higher self-determination and quality of life |
| BCBA Practice Implications | Plenary Guardianship: BCBA must obtain guardian consent; must document client assent separately; must monitor for conflicts between guardian direction and client wellbeing | Supported Decision-Making: BCBA works directly with client on consent; may need to communicate with support network members; client's own preferences are legally authoritative |
| Transition Planning | Plenary Guardianship: Once established, difficult to modify or remove; requires court proceedings to change scope or guardian; creates path dependency for ongoing service decisions | Supported Decision-Making: More flexible; support arrangements can be modified as the individual's skills and network evolve; does not require court proceedings to adjust |
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Use this framework when approaching unvailing the shadows: the history of misuse and abuse in disability guardianship by jeff newman in your practice:
Does the data support a need for intervention? Is there a meaningful impact on the individual's quality of life, safety, or access to reinforcement?
YES → Proceed to assessment NO → Document reasoning, monitor
A functional assessment should guide intervention selection. Avoid defaulting to standard protocols without individual analysis. Consider environmental variables, setting events, and private events.
YES → Select evidence-based approach matched to function NO → Complete assessment first
Goals should be co-developed. Assent and informed consent are ethical requirements. The individual's preferences and values matter in selecting both goals and methods.
YES → Proceed with collaborative plan NO → Engage in shared decision-making
This course covers the clinical and ethical dimensions in detail with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Unvailing the Shadows: The History of Misuse and Abuse in Disability Guardianship by Jeff Newman — Jeff Newman · 2 BACB Ethics CEUs · $45
Take This Course →We extended this decision guide with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind each approach, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
256 research articles with practitioner takeaways
244 research articles with practitioner takeaways
239 research articles with practitioner takeaways
2 BACB Ethics CEUs · $45 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide
Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.