Bad vs good behaviour support plans: what separates them
Bad vs good behaviour support plans: what separates them Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 30/12/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. By TherapyNearMe.com.au. Australian context with NDIS terminology. General information only; not a substitute for personalised clinical or legal advice. In emergencies call 000. If restrictive practices are being used, follow your state/territory authorisation requirements and NDIS reporting obligations. Why this comparison matters A behaviour support plan (BSP) is meant to deliver better quality of life and safer participation, not just fewer incidents. In Australia, best‑practice BSPs align with Positive Behaviour Support (PBS)—a rights‑based, function‑informed approach that prioritises teaching new skills and redesigning environments while actively reducing and eliminating restrictive practices (Carr et al., 1999; Gore et al., 2013; NDIS Commission, 2019; NICE, 2015). Poor plans can entrench crisis‑driven responses, over‑rely on punishment, and miss the person’s goals. Quick definitions (so we are comparing like with like) Side‑by‑side: bad vs good behaviour support plans Domain Bad BSP Good BSP (PBS‑aligned) Purpose “Stop the behaviour” is the only goal. Quality‑of‑life focus plus safety (participation, communication, choice), with behaviour change as one route to those ends (Gore et al., 2013; NICE, 2015). Assessment Little/no FBA; relies on labels (e.g., “non‑compliant”). Clear FBA with hypothesised functions and setting events; data to support the analysis (Iwata et al., 1994; Beavers, Iwata and Lerman, 2013). Person‑centredness Written about the person, not withthem; goals are service‑centred. Co‑designed with the person/family; goals reflect what matters to them; accessible language/visuals (NICE, 2015). Antecedent design Generic rules; demands unchanged; noisy/overwhelming environments ignored. Environmental fit: predictable routines, visual supports, graded demands, sensory accommodations (Gore et al., 2013). Skills teaching Missing; assumes “knowing better” equals doing better. Replacement skills matched to function (e.g., Functional Communication Training to request a break/help/access) with practice plans (Tiger, Hanley and Bruzek, 2008). Reinforcement Token charts tacked on; rewards withheld for long periods; accidental reinforcement of problem behaviour. Differential reinforcement (DRA/DRI/DRO) tied to function; dense, immediate reinforcement early, faded to natural contingencies (Fisher, Piazza and Roane, 1992). Responses Punitive, vague (“use consequences”); escalates control; reinforces behaviour by mistake. Least‑intrusive, function‑informed responses; rehearsed de‑escalation; clear crisis steps; post‑incident review. Restrictive practices Used by default; not authorised; no plan to fade. Only as last resort with authorisation, reporting, and a documented reduction pathway (NDIS Commission, 2021; NICE, 2015). Fidelity & training Plan emailed; no coaching; drift common. Behavioural Skills Training (BST) for all implementers: instruction, modelling, rehearsal, and feedback in‑situ (Sarokoff and Sturmey, 2004; Parsons, Rollyson and Reid, 2012). Measurement No baseline; no graphs; decisions by anecdote. Simple, feasible data plan(frequency/duration/latency/intensity + ABC notes; occasional IOA); review every 2–4 weeks (Beavers, Iwata and Lerman, 2013). Generalisation Skills collapse outside clinic/classroom. Plan for generalisation and maintenance across people/places from day one (Stokes and Baer, 1977). How good plans are built (and why they work) NDIS essentials (Australia) Red flags that a plan needs urgent overhaul What “good” looks like in practice (a mini‑case) Context: 10‑year‑old with loud vocalisations and task refusal at school.FBA: Behaviour occurs during writing tasks, especially after transitions; function = escape from high‑effort writing.Plan: (a) Antecedents—visual schedule; “first‑then”; short writing bursts with choices; keyboard option; noise‑reducing headphones. (b) Skills—Functional Communication Training to request a 2‑minute break or help; tolerance training to wait 30–60 seconds. (c) Reinforcement—stickers → points → 5‑minute preferred activity for each completed block. (d) Response—prompt FCR; if escalation, reduce demands; debrief after. (e) Data—frequency of loud vocalisations; duration on‑task; weekly graph review.Outcome (8 weeks): 65% reduction in vocalisations; doubled on‑task duration; plan faded to natural praise and class privileges.Why it worked: Replacement skills were easier and faster than the problem behaviour to achieve escape/help, and the environment demanded less at once while skills grew (Tiger, Hanley and Bruzek, 2008; Stokes and Baer, 1977). Building a feasible measurement plan Training that actually sticks Use BST with brief, repeated sessions where the behaviour occurs: Ethical guardrails A printable 12‑point quality checklist References Beavers, G.A., Iwata, B.A. and Lerman, D.C. (2013) ‘Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of problem behavior’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), pp. 1–21. Carr, E.G., Horner, R.H., Turnbull, A.P., Marquis, J., Magito‑McLaughlin, D., McAtee, M., Smith, C.E., Ryan, K.A., Ruef, M. and Doolabh, A. (1999) Positive Behavior Support: Evolution of an applied science. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Fisher, W.W., Piazza, C.C. and Roane, H.S. (1992) ‘A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers in the natural environment’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), pp. 491–498. Gore, N.J., McGill, P., Toogood, S., Allen, D., Hughes, J.C., Baker, P., Hastings, R.P., Noone, S.J. and Denne, L.D. (2013) ‘Definition and scope for positive behavioural support’, International Journal of Positive Behavioural Support, 3(2), pp. 14–23. Hanley, G.P., Jin, C.S., Vanselow, N.R. and Hanratty, L.A. (2014) ‘Producing meaningful improvements in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analyses and treatments’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), pp. 16–36. Iwata, B.A., Dorsey, M.F., Slifer, K.J., Bauman, K.E. and Richman, G.S. (1994) ‘Toward a functional analysis of self‑injury’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), pp. 197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1982, 2, 3–20.) LaVigna, G.W. and Willis, T.J. (2012) ‘The efficacy of positive behavioral support: A literature review’, Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(5), pp. 1504–1514. NDIS Commission (2019) Positive Behaviour Support Capability Framework. Canberra: NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. NDIS Commission (2021) NDIS (Restrictive Practices and Behaviour Support) Rules 2018 — Guidance and Practice Advice (updated). Canberra: NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) (2015) Challenging behaviour and learning disabilities: prevention and interventions for people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges (NG11). London: NICE. Parsons, M.B., Rollyson, J.H. and Reid, D.H. (2012) ‘Evidence‑based staff training: A guide for practitioners’, Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(2), pp. 2–11. Sarokoff, R.A. and Sturmey, P. (2004) ‘The effects of behavioral skills training on staff implementation of discrete‑trial teaching’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(4), pp. 535–538. Stokes, T.F. and Baer, D.M. (1977) ‘An implicit technology of generalization’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), pp. 349–367. Tiger, J.H., Hanley, G.P. and Bruzek, J. (2008) ‘Functional communication training: A review and practical guide’, Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(1), pp. 16–23. How to cite this article Therapy Near Me (2025) ‘Bad vs good behaviour support plans: what separates them’. Available at: https://TherapyNearMe.com.au
Bad vs good behaviour support plans: what separates them Read More »













