By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
The PDC-HS is a structured assessment tool that identifies the environmental variables most likely responsible for a specific staff performance problem. It systematically evaluates four domains: task clarification and prompting, equipment and materials, training, and performance consequences. Using it before designing a PIP ensures that the intervention is matched to the actual cause of the performance problem rather than defaulting to retraining regardless of cause. A staff member performing incorrectly because prompts are absent needs different interventions than one performing incorrectly because the skill was never adequately trained. The PDC-HS makes this distinction explicit and evidence-based.
ACT-consistent feedback delivery uses several accessible principles without requiring structured ACT protocols. Defusion — noticing that a thought is just a thought — can be introduced by acknowledging that it is normal to have self-critical reactions to feedback and that those reactions do not need to drive behavior. Values clarification can be incorporated by asking the staff member what they care about in their work and connecting performance targets to those values. Present-moment focus can be encouraged by directing attention to specific, recent behavioral observations rather than generalizations about patterns or character. None of these require the supervisor to be an ACT therapist — they require an understanding of the core processes and willingness to incorporate them into supervisory conversation.
An empowering PIP begins with accurate diagnosis of what is causing the performance problem and designs interventions that actually address those causes. It includes explicit resources and support — training, clearer antecedents, structured feedback — not just consequences for continued underperformance. It frames targets as skill and support goals rather than compliance requirements. It involves the staff member in identifying barriers and solutions, which increases both accuracy of the analysis and buy-in to the plan. And it is delivered in a supervisory relationship that has enough reinforcement history to make the corrective function of the PIP meaningful rather than purely aversive.
Documentation before initiating a PIP should include: specific behavioral descriptions of the performance problem (not global characterizations), with dates, contexts, and direct observation data; a summary of the feedback or training that has already been provided and the response to it; results of any performance analysis assessment; and a clear statement of the performance standard against which the problem is being measured. This documentation serves both supervisory and organizational purposes: it provides the basis for designing a targeted intervention and, if the PIP is ultimately unsuccessful, creates a record that adequate support was provided before any adverse personnel action.
Reinforcement in a functional PIP is consequence-based: it follows specific, observed target behaviors contingently and increases their frequency. Praise that is non-contingent, generic ('you're doing great'), or delivered on a fixed schedule regardless of performance quality does not function as reinforcement in this sense. In a PIP context, reinforcement means identifying specific behavioral targets, establishing a monitoring system that tracks those targets, and ensuring that correct performance is followed by identified reinforcers — which may include specific verbal feedback, preferred assignments, scheduling flexibility, or public recognition, depending on what actually functions as a reinforcer for that individual.
The classic diagnostic question is: does the staff member perform correctly when conditions strongly support it? If a staff member implements a prompting procedure correctly during observations but reverts to error patterns when unsupervised, the problem is unlikely to be a skill deficit — the skill is present but is not maintained under natural conditions. This suggests a consequence problem: the environment is not consistently reinforcing correct implementation when the supervisor is absent, or is inadvertently reinforcing the shortcut behavior. If the staff member cannot demonstrate correct implementation even under ideal conditions, a skill deficit is indicated and retraining is the appropriate response.
PIP completion criteria should be operational: specific behavioral targets measured at defined intervals using specified methods. For example: 'Implementation fidelity on the DTT data sheet at or above 90% across three consecutive observation sessions' is a complete criterion. 'Demonstrating improvement in data collection' is not. Criteria should also address maintenance: some PIPs appropriately include a monitoring period after the formal support phase to verify that performance is maintained before the PIP is formally closed. Closing a PIP based on subjective supervisor impression rather than behavioral data undermines both the integrity of the process and the ability to demonstrate that supervisory standards were met.
Emotional reactions to PIPs — anxiety, defensiveness, shame — are predictable and should be planned for rather than treated as disruptive. ACT-consistent responses include acknowledging the difficulty of receiving this kind of feedback, normalizing the emotional reaction without amplifying it, and redirecting attention to what the PIP is for — addressing specific behaviors, not evaluating the person's worth. Supervisors who have built reinforcement-rich supervisory relationships before a performance problem arises are better positioned for this conversation; the reinforcement history makes the relationship a context of support rather than purely evaluation. Avoid the common error of minimizing the severity of the problem to reduce the staff member's distress — this creates ambiguity about expectations and may undermine the urgency of the improvement targets.
The most common errors include: designing retraining interventions for consequence-based problems (the skill is present but not maintained, so retraining the skill changes nothing); setting vague or unmeasurable targets that prevent accurate completion determination; front-loading consequences (termination risk) without front-loading support resources (training, environmental modifications, increased feedback frequency); failing to involve the staff member in the analysis, which reduces both accuracy and motivation; and designing one-size-fits-all PIPs that do not account for the specific function of each individual's performance problem. Each of these errors produces PIPs that are administratively functional but clinically useless.
Technology-assisted feedback — session recording review, electronic data systems, mobile feedback apps, and video-based self-monitoring — extends the supervisor's reach between direct observation contacts and creates more frequent feedback opportunities without increasing supervisor time proportionately. In PIP contexts, technology can support data collection on target performance behaviors between sessions, enable supervisee self-monitoring using structured digital forms, and provide supervisors with interim data to assess progress without requiring an additional observation. The key constraint is that technology feedback should supplement, not replace, the personal supervisory relationship that provides the context in which feedback is received and acted on.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Empowering Staff Through PIPs — Kerry Ann Conde · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $0
Take This Course →1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $0 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
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.