By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · April 2026 · 12 min read

Advocacy, Policy, and Justice: How Behavior Analysts Can Shape Behavioral Health at Every Level

Overview & Clinical Significance

Behavioral health policy is not an abstraction that exists outside the clinical encounter. It is the infrastructure that determines whether your clients receive services at all, how much funding supports those services, and what legal protections exist when things go wrong. This course, presented by Portia James, examines the intersections of behavioral health public policy, local funding decisions, and the legal system through the lens of real cases that have affected individuals with behavioral health needs.

The case of Brendan Depa, a Black Autistic child who was arrested, detained, and held in solitary confinement following a behavioral incident with a school professional, illustrates precisely why behavior analysts cannot afford to remain on the sidelines of policy discussions. When behavioral health incidents are criminalized rather than treated, the consequences fall disproportionately on individuals who are already marginalized by race, disability status, or both. For behavior analysts, this is not a peripheral concern. It is central to our ethical mandate.

The clinical significance of policy engagement extends well beyond individual advocacy. When local districts allocate funding for mental health services, they are making decisions that determine caseload sizes, service availability, and the quality of behavioral supports in schools and community settings. Behavior analysts possess unique expertise in understanding the contingencies that shape behavior at both the individual and systems level. That expertise is critically needed in policy spaces where decisions are often made without input from those who understand behavioral principles.

This course challenges the traditional boundary between clinical practice and public engagement. For many behavior analysts, the scope of practice feels limited to direct service delivery, program design, and supervision. However, the BACB Ethics Code makes clear that behavior analysts have responsibilities that extend to the welfare of the broader community. When systemic failures lead to the criminalization of behavioral health crises, our silence becomes complicity. Understanding how policy, funding, and legal proceedings interact is essential for any behavior analyst who wants to practice with integrity and impact.

The roundtable format of this presentation reflects the collaborative nature of effective advocacy. No single professional can address the complexity of behavioral health policy alone. By bringing together perspectives on public policy, local governance, and legal implications, this course provides a multi-dimensional view of how change happens and where behavior analysts can contribute most effectively.

Background & Context

The relationship between behavioral health services and public policy in the United States has evolved significantly over the past several decades. Deinstitutionalization, the expansion of community-based services, and the growth of insurance mandates for behavioral health treatment have all been shaped by policy decisions at federal, state, and local levels. Despite these advances, significant gaps remain, particularly in how behavioral health crises are handled in educational and juvenile justice settings.

School-based behavioral health services are funded through a patchwork of federal, state, and local sources. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that students with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education, including behavioral supports when needed. However, the adequacy of those supports depends heavily on local funding decisions. District-level meetings where budgets are set and priorities are established often determine whether schools have access to trained behavior analysts, crisis intervention teams, or mental health professionals at all.

The criminalization of behavioral health incidents in schools is a well-documented phenomenon that disproportionately affects students of color and students with disabilities. When a student in crisis encounters a system that lacks adequate behavioral supports, the default response is too often punitive rather than therapeutic. School resource officers may be called to manage situations that would be better handled by a behavior analyst or mental health professional. The consequences can be severe, including arrest, detention, and involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Brendan Depa's case is emblematic of these systemic failures. The intersection of race, disability, and institutional response created a situation in which a child's behavioral health needs were met with criminal legal action rather than appropriate support. For behavior analysts, this case raises urgent questions about the systems in which we work and the policies that govern them.

The historical context also includes the ongoing struggle for adequate Medicaid reimbursement for ABA services, state licensure laws that define scope of practice, and the advocacy efforts that have expanded insurance coverage for behavioral health treatment. Each of these advances was achieved through policy engagement by professionals and families who understood that clinical excellence alone is not sufficient when the systems surrounding our clients are broken.

Behavior analysts have a conceptual framework that is uniquely suited to policy analysis. Contingency analysis, systems thinking, and an understanding of how environmental variables shape behavior at scale are all tools that can be applied to understanding and changing public policy. The challenge is translating that conceptual knowledge into practical advocacy skills that behavior analysts can use in real-world policy settings.

Clinical Implications

The clinical implications of behavioral health policy are both direct and far-reaching. At the most immediate level, policy decisions determine service access. When a local district reduces funding for behavioral health services in schools, the behavior analyst working in that district may see increased caseloads, reduced support staff, or the elimination of positions altogether. These changes directly affect the quality of services that clients receive.

For behavior analysts working in school settings, the absence of adequate policy frameworks can create impossible clinical situations. When a student with a behavior intervention plan experiences a crisis, the response should be guided by that plan and implemented by trained professionals. When policy gaps mean that no such professionals are available, or when institutional culture defaults to punitive responses, the clinical plan becomes irrelevant. The student's outcomes are determined not by the quality of the behavioral assessment but by the adequacy of the system in which that assessment is embedded.

The legal implications are equally significant. When behavioral health incidents lead to legal proceedings, as in the Brendan Depa case, behavior analysts may be called upon to provide expert testimony, consult on appropriate behavioral supports, or advocate for alternatives to incarceration. Understanding the legal landscape, including the rights of individuals with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and IDEA, is essential for behavior analysts who work with populations that are at risk of criminalization.

Policy engagement also has implications for how behavior analysts conceptualize their role. The traditional clinical model positions the behavior analyst as a technician who designs and implements interventions for individual clients. A policy-informed model expands that role to include advocacy for the systems-level changes that make individual interventions possible and effective. This does not mean abandoning clinical rigor. It means recognizing that clinical outcomes are constrained by systemic factors that can only be addressed through policy.

The implications for assessment and treatment planning are concrete. When conducting a functional behavior assessment in a school setting, the behavior analyst should consider not only the immediate antecedents and consequences of the target behavior but also the systemic variables that shape the school environment. Are there adequate behavioral supports? Is the school culture punitive or restorative? What policies govern crisis response? These systemic variables are part of the functional context and should inform treatment recommendations.

Finally, the clinical implications extend to supervision and training. Behavior analysts who supervise trainees have an obligation to prepare them for the realities of practice, which increasingly include navigating complex policy environments. Teaching supervisees how to advocate for their clients within institutional settings, how to participate in policy discussions, and how to recognize when systemic failures are contributing to poor client outcomes is an essential part of competent supervision.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical dimensions of behavioral health policy engagement are grounded in the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts. Several code elements speak directly to the responsibilities that behavior analysts have beyond the individual clinical encounter.

Code 2.01 (Providing Effective Treatment) requires behavior analysts to advocate for and provide the most effective treatment supported by the best available evidence. When policy barriers prevent clients from accessing effective treatment, this code creates an ethical imperative to address those barriers. Accepting systemic obstacles as immovable features of the practice environment is inconsistent with the commitment to effective treatment.

Code 1.01 (Being Truthful) is relevant when behavior analysts are called upon to inform policy discussions. Whether testifying before a legislative body, presenting data at a school board meeting, or providing expert consultation in a legal proceeding, behavior analysts must ensure that their representations are accurate and grounded in behavioral science. The temptation to overstate evidence or make claims beyond what the data support must be resisted, even when the policy goal is sympathetic.

Code 2.15 (Interrupting or Discontinuing Services) addresses situations in which services are interrupted by factors outside the behavior analyst's control. Policy changes that reduce funding, eliminate positions, or restrict service eligibility can create exactly these situations. The code requires behavior analysts to take reasonable steps to facilitate the continuation of services, which may include policy advocacy to prevent or reverse harmful changes.

Code 3.01 (Responsibility to Clients) establishes that the behavior analyst's primary obligation is to the client. When institutional or systemic pressures conflict with client welfare, the behavior analyst must prioritize the client. In the context of behavioral health policy, this may mean advocating against institutional practices that harm clients, even when doing so creates professional risk.

The intersection of race, disability, and the legal system raises additional ethical considerations. Code 1.07 (Cultural Responsiveness and Diversity) requires behavior analysts to actively engage in self-education about cultural variables that affect their practice. The disproportionate impact of punitive policies on students of color with disabilities is a cultural and systemic issue that behavior analysts must understand and address.

Code 2.09 (Involving Clients and Stakeholders) emphasizes the importance of including clients and their families in treatment decisions. In the policy context, this principle extends to ensuring that the voices of those most affected by behavioral health policies are included in policy discussions. Behavior analysts can serve as bridges between the communities they serve and the policy bodies that make decisions affecting those communities.

The ethical obligation to engage in policy advocacy is not without boundaries. Behavior analysts must be careful to distinguish between advocacy that is grounded in behavioral science and personal political opinions. The credibility of the profession depends on maintaining the distinction between empirical claims and value judgments, even as we recognize that all policy decisions involve values.

Assessment & Decision-Making

Assessing when and how to engage in behavioral health policy advocacy requires the same systematic approach that behavior analysts bring to clinical decision-making. The first step is identifying the contingencies that maintain current policy arrangements. Just as a functional behavior assessment identifies the environmental variables that maintain a target behavior, a policy analysis identifies the stakeholders, incentives, and institutional structures that maintain current policy outcomes.

When evaluating whether to engage in policy advocacy, behavior analysts should consider several factors. First, what is the evidence that the current policy is producing harmful outcomes for clients or communities? This evidence should be as rigorous as the evidence we expect in clinical practice. Data on service access, outcome disparities, and the experiences of affected individuals and families are all relevant.

Second, what are the available avenues for advocacy? Local district meetings, state legislative sessions, professional association activities, and public comment periods all represent opportunities for policy engagement. The appropriate venue depends on the level at which the policy operates and the nature of the change being sought.

Third, what is the behavior analyst's scope of competence with respect to the policy issue? Just as we would not implement an intervention outside our clinical competence, we should not advocate for policy positions that are beyond our professional expertise. Behavior analysts have legitimate expertise in behavioral assessment, intervention design, and the conditions that support behavioral health. We do not have inherent expertise in constitutional law, education finance, or criminal justice reform, though we can collaborate with professionals who do.

The decision-making process for policy engagement should also consider potential conflicts of interest. Behavior analysts may benefit financially from policy changes that expand service access or increase reimbursement rates. While these policy changes may also benefit clients, the potential for conflict must be acknowledged and managed transparently.

A practical framework for policy engagement includes the following steps: (1) identify the policy issue and its impact on client welfare, (2) gather data on the scope and severity of the impact, (3) identify the decision-making body and the process for providing input, (4) prepare testimony or comments that are grounded in behavioral science, (5) collaborate with other professionals and stakeholders, and (6) follow up to assess the impact of advocacy efforts.

For the specific issue of behavioral health crises in schools, the assessment should include analysis of the school's crisis response protocols, the availability of trained behavioral health professionals, the rate at which behavioral incidents result in law enforcement involvement, and any disparities in how students of different racial or disability backgrounds are treated. These data points provide the foundation for evidence-based advocacy.

What This Means for Your Practice

If you are a practicing behavior analyst, this course challenges you to expand your conception of professional responsibility. Policy engagement is not extracurricular. It is an extension of your commitment to client welfare and effective treatment.

Start by learning about the policy environment in which you practice. Attend a local school board meeting. Review your state's behavioral health funding allocations. Understand the licensure laws that govern your practice and the legislative processes that can change them. These are not abstract exercises. They are reconnaissance for effective advocacy.

In your clinical practice, begin documenting the systemic barriers that affect your clients' outcomes. When a student cannot access behavioral supports because of funding limitations, document it. When a crisis response protocol defaults to law enforcement involvement rather than behavioral intervention, document it. These data become the evidence base for policy change.

Build relationships with professionals in related fields, including attorneys, educators, social workers, and policy analysts. Effective advocacy is collaborative, and behavior analysts bring a unique perspective that complements the expertise of other professionals. The roundtable format of this course models the kind of interprofessional collaboration that effective policy work requires.

Finally, recognize that policy engagement is a skill that can be developed through practice. Like any behavioral repertoire, advocacy skills improve with shaping and reinforcement. Start with low-stakes opportunities, such as writing a public comment or attending a community meeting, and gradually build toward more significant advocacy efforts. The welfare of your clients and the integrity of the profession depend on behavior analysts who are willing to take their seat at the table.