By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
A level system is a structured behavioral framework in which a client's current level — which determines their access to reinforcers, privileges, or behavioral expectations — is contingent on meeting specified behavioral criteria. Clients advance to higher levels by meeting criteria (gaining access to additional reinforcers or reduced demands) and may be demoted to lower levels when behavioral criteria are not met. The system functions as a shaping procedure: successive approximations toward the target behavior contact reinforcement through advancement, while the graduated structure allows the criteria to be initially set at a level the client can meet and progressively increased as behavior improves.
Synchronous engagement refers to the behaviors required for active participation during shared activities or group instruction — attending to the presenter, following group directives, participating when prompted, and sustaining engagement across the duration of the activity. It is clinically important because it is a prerequisite for benefiting from group instructional formats. Children who do not demonstrate synchronous engagement cannot access the learning opportunities available in group instruction, creating a functional exclusion from those educational contexts regardless of formal placement. Improving synchronous engagement directly expands the instructional contexts that are clinically viable for a given client.
Level systems can produce several potential side effects: emotional responses to demotion (frustration, crying, aggression) when reinforcer access is removed or reduced; negative contrast effects when the reinforcer value of items at lower levels decreases because higher-level reinforcers have been sampled; learned helplessness when criteria are too high to be met consistently; and generalized negative associations with the behavioral setting if the system is experienced as aversive. BCBAs should monitor these possibilities through data collection on behavioral indicators — problem behavior frequency, session refusal, affect ratings — not only on the target behavior the system is designed to improve.
Items that represent basic rights rather than privileges should not be contingent on level assignment in level systems. This includes meals, appropriate rest, social interaction with family, access to communication, and basic safety. Items that are ordinarily freely available in the educational or home environment — participation in preferred activities during free time, access to personal belongings, basic social interaction with peers — should generally not be removed as a level demotion consequence. Level systems that restrict access to these items may incorporate punishment components that exceed what is ethically justifiable under Code 2.09's least restrictive requirement.
Level systems and token economies both use conditioned reinforcers as intermediate steps to behavior change, but they differ structurally. Token economies typically involve earning tokens contingent on specific behaviors and exchanging them for backup reinforcers, with access to backup reinforcers determined by the number of tokens earned. Level systems determine reinforcer access based on the client's current level, which is itself determined by recent behavioral history — creating a behavioral momentum effect where the current level influences reinforcer access across sessions. Level systems have a temporal continuity that token economies may not, which can create both therapeutic advantages and side effect risks not present in simpler token systems.
Assent for level system participation should be obtained before implementation by explaining the system in terms accessible to the client's language comprehension level, including what behaviors are required, what consequences follow, and what the client can expect at each level. During implementation, behavioral indicators of assent withdrawal — consistent refusal to participate, emotional distress upon level demotion, verbal protests about the system — should be treated as clinically meaningful data rather than behavioral incidents to be managed. If assent indicators suggest the system is experienced as aversive despite producing behavioral improvements, the BCBA should evaluate whether the behavioral goals justify the cost and whether an alternative approach would be more appropriate.
Level systems are most clearly indicated when: simpler reinforcement procedures have been implemented adequately and not produced sufficient behavior change; the behavioral targets require shaping across multiple approximations with sustained behavioral support; the setting's staffing and structure can support consistent implementation across all staff; and the client's cognitive and behavioral repertoire is sufficient to benefit from level-contingent contingencies. Simpler procedures — specific differential reinforcement programs, token boards, contingency contracts — should be exhausted before implementing the additional complexity of a level system. Level systems are inappropriate when the client cannot understand the contingencies or when basic rights would be restricted as demotion consequences.
Initial level criteria should be set at a level the client can meet at least 80% of the time during baseline measurement, ensuring that the system begins by producing advancement rather than demotion. As behavior improves, criteria are raised incrementally — similar to the logic of a multiple-treatment criterion design in instructional programming. BCBAs should review criteria at regular intervals and adjust based on data: if a client is meeting criteria consistently across multiple sessions, criteria should be increased; if demotion is frequent and producing negative side effects without behavioral improvement, criteria may need to be lowered before being gradually raised again. Data drive criteria adjustment, not schedules.
Fading a level system involves gradually shifting from level-contingent reinforcer access toward more naturalistic reinforcement schedules while maintaining the target behaviors. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of levels, expanding the criteria window (less frequent level reassignment), introducing natural reinforcement for the target behaviors that can maintain them after the artificial system is removed, and teaching the client self-monitoring skills that provide internal behavioral feedback. The fading process should be data-based — continued reinforcement with stable data over a specified number of sessions before the next fading step — and should include explicit generalization programming to ensure target behaviors maintain in contexts where the level system was not in place.
Informed consent requires that families receive an honest account of both the evidence supporting a proposed intervention and the concerns that have been raised about it. For level systems, this means explaining the behavioral rationale and the evidence for effectiveness alongside the documented concerns about side effects, the conditions under which those side effects are more or less likely to occur, and what monitoring procedures will be in place to detect and address them. BCBAs who present level systems without acknowledging the controversy are not providing genuinely informed consent. Families who understand both sides are better positioned to participate meaningfully in treatment planning and to monitor their child's response to the intervention.
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.
Use of a Level System to Improve Synchronous Engagement | Learning | 0.5 Hours — Autism Partnership Foundation · 0.5 BACB General CEUs · $0
Take This Course →0.5 BACB General CEUs · $0 · Autism Partnership Foundation
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.