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)

• Positive Behaviour Support (PBS): An evidence‑based framework that integrates Functional Behaviour Assessment (FBA), proactive environment design, skills teaching, and reinforcement—within a rights‑based and quality‑of‑life agenda (Carr et al., 1999; Gore et al., 2013).
• FBA: A structured process to identify the function of behaviour (e.g., escape, attention, access to tangibles, sensory/automatic) using records, interviews, direct observation, and sometimes experimental analysis (Iwata et al., 1994; Beavers, Iwata and Lerman, 2013).
• BSP: A document—and, more importantly, a set of daily practices—that describes proactive strategies, replacement skills, reinforcement systems, responses/crisis steps, and a measurement plan (NDIS Commission, 2019; NICE, 2015).

---

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)

1. Start from function. Behaviours are solutions to problems from the person’s point of view—ways to escape tasks, obtain attention/items, or regulate sensation. Plans that meet the same function with safer, easier behaviours change faster (Iwata et al., 1994; Tiger, Hanley and Bruzek, 2008).
2. Teach, don’t just manage. Replacement skills (communication, waiting, tolerating “no”, transitions) plus coping/regulation routines reduce the need for the old behaviour (Tiger, Hanley and Bruzek, 2008; NICE, 2015).
3. Design the environment. Predictable schedules, first‑then boards, visual timers, graded task demands, choice‑making, and sensory supports prevent many spikes (Gore et al., 2013; NICE, 2015).
4. Reinforce what you want to see. Use preference assessments to find effective reinforcers; start dense and immediate; fade toward natural contingencies to sustain dignity and independence (Fisher, Piazza and Roane, 1992).
5. Coach for fidelity. Plans fail without practice and feedback. BST reliably improves staff implementation in real settings (Sarokoff and Sturmey, 2004; Parsons, Rollyson and Reid, 2012).
6. Measure and adapt. Two to three weeks of baseline, then regular review. If graphs are flat, revisit the function, right‑size the skill, and tighten reinforcement (Beavers, Iwata and Lerman, 2013).

---

NDIS essentials (Australia)

• Capability and safeguards: The Positive Behaviour Support Capability Framework guides practitioner competencies; providers must ensure reporting to the NDIS Commission when regulated restrictive practices are used and pursue a reduction plan (NDIS Commission, 2019; NDIS Commission, 2021).
• Authorisation: Each state/territory has an authorisation scheme for regulated restrictive practices; your BSP should reference approvals and expiry dates, and the fade plan.
• Documentation: Interim BSPs address immediate risk; comprehensive BSPs embed proactive strategies, skill plans, and reduction pathways (NDIS Commission, 2019).

---

Red flags that a plan needs urgent overhaul

• No explicit function and no baseline data.
• Over‑reliance on reactive/punitive steps or vague “consequences.”
• Restrictive practices without authorisation or no fade plan (NDIS Commission, 2021).
• The person’s goals are missing; the plan is hard to read or not used in daily routines.
• No training/coaching or data reviews for months.

---

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

• Pick one primary metric per target (frequency, duration, latency, intensity rating).
• Add ABC notes for pattern finding; use a scatterplot for time‑of‑day hotspots.
• Check inter‑observer agreement occasionally to keep data trustworthy.
• Review every 2–4 weeks; adjust when progress stalls (Beavers, Iwata and Lerman, 2013).

---

Training that actually sticks

Use BST with brief, repeated sessions where the behaviour occurs:

1. Instruction (what/why), 2) Modelling (show), 3) Rehearsal (do), 4) Feedback (coach).
   Post cue cards at the point of performance; refresh training for new staff or when drift appears (Sarokoff and Sturmey, 2004; Parsons, Rollyson and Reid, 2012).

---

Ethical guardrails

• Prioritise dignity, choice and participation; treat behaviour as communication (Gore et al., 2013; NICE, 2015).
• Align with the person’s cultural and communication needs; provide interpreters/AAC.
• Treat any restrictive element as temporary, last resort, with oversight and a clear fade plan (NDIS Commission, 2021).

---

A printable 12‑point quality checklist

1. Goals are person‑centred and measurable.
2. An FBA with a clear function is documented.
3. Baseline data exist for each target.
4. Antecedents are tailored to real contexts.
5. Replacement skills are taught and easier than the problem behaviour.
6. Reinforcement is function‑matched, dense early, then faded.
7. Responses are least‑intrusive and rehearsed.
8. Any restrictive practice is authorised, reported, and fading.
9. BST provided to all implementers; cue cards posted.
10. Data review every 2–4 weeks with graphed trends.
11. Plan includes generalisation/maintenance steps.
12. The person/family experience improving quality of life.

---

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