Category Archives: collaboration

Get ready to learn about ASD and trauma

Featured

Posted by in adults, Autism, BACB CEU, Behavior Analysis, behavior cusp, Behavioral Cusp, CEU, children, collaboration, Community, continuing education, contraindicated procedures, Cusp Emergence University, CuspEmergenceUniversity, Education and Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis, learning, podcast, resources, risk analysis, risk assessment, risk versus benefit analysis, TI-ABA, TIABA, TIBA, trauma, trauma-informed behavior analysis

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

By Dr. Camille Kolu, Ph.D., BCBA-D

Behavior analysts who treat people with autism probably know that ASD often co-occurs with trauma. But did you know that up to 50 percent or more of people with autism may have experienced trauma, that ASD itself is a risk factor for experiencing trauma, or that children with autism may be around 2.5 times more likely to experience foster care, itself another risk factor for trauma?

These findings are some of the reasons researchers (as well as research-practitioners, including those of us at Cusp Emergence) urge practitioners to adopt screening in order to support the huge group of people affected by both trauma and ASD (see Brenner, Pan and Mazefsky et al. on the need for screening, and special behavioral differences that occur in this population).

ASD and TIBA: Our newest upcoming course on CuspEmergenceUniversity.com

They are also just a few of the things you’ll learn when you take the upcoming course on CuspEmergenceUniversity on trauma and autism (coming Fall 2021). Other topics we cover include:

-client examples from both child and adult populations whose experiences include autism and trauma

-literature references helping practitioners discover more about what trauma related experiences people with autism may face

-how behaviors themselves can be risk factors for additional trauma

-behavior programming examples that may be counterindicated procedures depending on the individual needs of autistic people who faced trauma

-examples of ASD communication needs that have been particularly helpful to target when supporting this population after trauma

-behavioral cusps that can make a huge difference after trauma

-examples of worst case scenarios people face when trauma history is not taken into account for individuals with autism after trauma….

…and much more. We also cover how Cusp Emergence uses the SAFE-T model and Assessment (including our risk versus benefit tools) to be more supportive, mitigate risks unique to autism and trauma, and learn more about the whole person and their needs.

Just can’t wait for the CEU course on autism and trauma to be posted in the coming months? Tune in to The Autism Helper’s podcast. Dr. Kolu’s interview with Sasha Long, BCBA is live and we’re excited to share it with you!

25 Things I Want You to Know: Ways I use trauma to inform my practice of behavior analysis

26 Thursday Aug 2021

Posted by in adults, Autism, BACB CEU, Behavior Analysis, boundaries of competence, CEU, children, collaboration, Community, continuing education, contraindicated procedures, Cusp Emergence University, CuspEmergenceUniversity, Education, mental health, resources, risk versus benefit analysis, TI-ABA, TIABA, TIBA, trauma, trauma-informed behavior analysis

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This is the 21st article in a series on Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis by Dr. Camille Kolu, BCBA-D

I often hear from educators and behavior analysts, “What do you actually do differently if your client has faced trauma, given your role as a behavior analyst?” In this bulleted series we’ll get there, but we’ll start with what I would want you to understand about myself as your client (or teammate!) who has experienced adverse experiences. Here we list 25 different things I want you to know. (As a hint, each thing we can understand about a person could be a bridge, if you choose to walk through this difficult thing to a shared place of understanding on the other side. We’ll explain in more detail in future posts, or you can check out our course library over at CuspEmergenceUniversity if you’re interested in expanding your boundary of competence). But first, if I were your client or team member – if my past involved trauma – I would want you to understand that now, with the presence of historical trauma,

I MAY:

  • have difficulties calming down when under pressure
  • have difficulties using “appropriate” behaviors even after years of programmed reinforcement for using them
  • have mental health concerns that have never been appropriately addressed because my behavior masks my needs
  • have medical problems that are going unaddressed because my providers have never asked me about my trauma history, despite it being a fact that it confers serious medical risks. (See the incomparable Nadine Burke Harris talk about her work on this, and the amazing takeaways, in her classic TED Talk– or see some of her research and outcomes on using screening tools)
  • be more likely to use certain “challenging behaviors”
  • and find it more reinforcing, even important, to use behaviors you would describe as challenging
  • use behaviors that are more resistant to change than you are used to as an instructor, therapist, parent, supervisor or friend
  • find certain interventions painful, difficult, or harmful
  • find some kinds of social interactions difficult or painful
  • have trouble controlling some of my bodily functions, but may not be able to describe to you why
  • experience “triggers” in the environment that you can’t see (but that an experienced provider could locate, document, and learn to help me explore or move with, as appropriate)
  • experience some times of the day, week, month, or year that are marked by aversive events for me that you won’t know about
  • may not be able to explain WHY this time is difficult or why I am using an “old pattern of behavior”
  • find it more difficult to perform, or to learn and remember new things than others of my age, skill level, or occupation – even if “on a good day” I can do this just fine. (By the way, have you read The Four Agreements? Do you know how important it is to take nothing personally and know that others are doing their best (and how critical it is for you to do the same)? If not go check it out.
  • use occasional behavior that is mistaken as “ADHD” or “ODD”, or more, but that is actually related to how I was mistreated
  • have been given misdiagnoses, treatments that didn’t work, or medications that made my problems worse or that interacted with each other in harmful ways that hurt my body and cognitive function
  • attempt to advocate but get ignored when I try to communicate pain, mistreatment, or a medical concern
  • be more likely to experience FUTURE trauma because of what I faced before
  • lack a reinforcing and useful repertoire (e.g., full complement of skills and things to enjoy), especially if I faced treatments that just tried to “teach me a replacement behavior” for a few challenging things I did, instead of understand and grow me as a person in the context of my own community, needs and desires for my future
  • be part of a long line of marginalized people or one of multiple generations exposed to trauma
  • have a chance to change our lineage… if you help

After all, I AM:

  • a human being with interests, feelings, and great potential for growth and joy
  • more likely to experience certain risks (I may be at greater risk of losing my educational or therapeutic setting, go through harmful discipline practices, be exposed to law enforcement interaction, for example)
  • in need of understanding, an informed supervisor and system of support, and someone who will document my challenges so we can work on them, but not emphasize them so much they ignore my strengths, needs and skills
  • capable of much more on my best day than I show on a hard day… but I am always doing “my best” at the time, given what I have been through and what I AM going through, and despite what it looks like

Taking these points as a starting place, future posts in this series explore what I NEED as a person who may have faced these things, and what I DO as a behavior analyst who cares. We’ll also share some of what I need from my supervisors or systems administrators! What would you add to this list? What are some of your action items?

Self-paced SAFE-T Assessment Training is here!

Featured

Posted by in adults, Autism, BACB CEU, Behavior Analysis, behavior cusp, Behavioral Cusp, CEU, children, collaboration, Community, continuing education, contraindicated procedures, Cusp Emergence University, CuspEmergenceUniversity, Education, ethics, mental health, resources, risk analysis, risk assessment, risk versus benefit analysis, supervision, teaching ethics, TI-ABA, TIABA, TIBA, trauma, trauma-informed behavior analysis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s finally here! We have learned so much from workshop attendees, trainees and supervisees in this area over the past several years, and appreciate the attendance, feedback and support of everyone who has taken the training or used a version of the SAFE-T Assessment. Coming on Monday, the booklet and training for assessing trauma-related factors affecting our clients of behavioral services, are available ONLINE as a self-paced course. This course provides a download of the new and expanded SAFE-T Checklist booklet, which contains several tools enabling the screening and documentation of over 200 trauma-related factors, and a Risks and Needs form to help teams understand (and document) how these factors confer risks (and converge in risk factors that must be solved or mitigated to protect our clients, teams, and ourselves). The booklet contains an extensive reference section and team supportive tools as you use your new knowledge to better align your team’s skillset with the Ethics Code, and the individualized needs of behavior services clients after trauma.

Several of our behavior analytic and collaborator clients across institutions, educational facilities and private companies clients have shared that learning to assess risk factors related to trauma, and to apply this information to their teams’ FBAs and risk mitigation plans, took their skillset to the next level – essentially affording them an opportunity to acquire an important behavioral cusp for their teams.

Some new components of the booklet include:

  • An optional buffer/ resilience score to assess whether protective environmental and therapeutic components of a client’s plan are in place (to understand some ways that trauma gives rise to medical and behavioral challenges and some buffering factors that can help, please see the book or scholarly articles by Dr. Nadine Burke Harris (e.g., Oh D.L. et al. 2018), who is the Presidential Scholar for 2021’s upcoming Association for Behavior Analysis International’s conference. She will address the critical topic of breaking the intergenerational cycle of adversity, and screening for ACES (adverse childhood experiences).
  • Table of potentially contraindicated procedures (cross referenced with items and risk clusters assessed in the Risks and Needs form)
  • Information about over 50 risk clusters (groups of related risks in the 6 assessed sections of the SAFE-T Assessment)
  • Cross-reference tables showing, for each item we screen for, the location(s) in the SAFE-T Checklist
  • Infographic on components of a trauma-informed FBA
  • Brief templates for Risk Versus Benefit Analysis and Risk Mitigation Planning
  • The IPASS (Inventory of Potential Aversive Stimuli and Setting Events) tool and instructions
  • References (organized by topics) covering over 40 areas or topics of literature related to trauma (including relationships of ACES to medical problems, ACT and intellectual disability, ACT and anxiety, foster care and adoption, the relationship of abuse to pain, drug use and trauma, and much more).

Time required: The course includes about 4.5 hours of video content in 12 lessons, each followed by a brief quiz.

Price (includes 4.5 CEU course and SAFE-T Assessment booklet download): $189.99

For $20 off through the end of February, use the coupon code “SAFET20”.

To register: cusp.university

Contraindicated behavioral procedures after trauma

08 Tuesday Sep 2020

Posted by in adults, Behavior Analysis, collaboration, continuing education, contraindicated procedures, Education and Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis, enriched environment, mental health, praise, RAD, reactive attachment disorder, risk versus benefit analysis, schedules of punishment, TIBA, trauma, trauma-informed behavior analysis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

This is the 20th article in a series on Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis by Dr. Camille Kolu, BCBA-D

In medicine, contraindicated procedures are those that are withheld due to the potential harm they might cause to a patient. More and more, behavior analysts are interested in learning about someone’s history, in part to lessen the risk they will do a client harm.

We are tasked, ethically, to do no harm (and see the BACB Ethical and Professional Code item 4.02); to evaluate potential risks and side effects of interventions and to weigh the possible benefits of each (see 2.09 and 4.05); and to avoid using harmful reinforcers or those that require excessive motivating operations to be effective (4.10).  For RBTs as well as those certified at higher levels, ethics obligates us to protect our clients from harm (see RBT Ethics Code section 2.02).

In our live webinars (please see CuspEmergenceUniversity.com where we list topics we train frequently on– any course you see there is available as a live webinar training or, in some cases, available as an on-demand training), we receive frequent questions like this:

What kind of procedures should be avoided when working with a new client after certain types of trauma? Are there certain procedures we should give more thought to after a client has been through challenges we know about? What do we do if so?

Given these wonderful questions, today’s post shares a few basic procedures that may be contraindicated – at least at first—given a specific combination of historical factors involving trauma.

Of course, it’s not black and white. Often this should just be the first step for the team, a conversation in which people consider potential for risk conferred by historical variables. The team can then make a more careful decision in order to mitigate possible risks and maximize the benefit of any procedures selected, along the lines of what our code suggests in item 4.05. Though each procedure below is potentially contraindicated at first, it could be appropriate later in treatment, or perhaps from the beginning- the point is that this should depend on an individualized risk versus benefit analysis of the other options available to the team, the client’s history and needs, the severity of the past abuse or neglect or trauma, etc.

  1. For a client who has experienced previous food insecurity, food related abuse or neglect, and/or severe food deprivation:

One potentially contraindicated procedure is using edible reinforcers.

Notes: Here there are risks to the client, and also potential risks to the client’s relationship with their caregivers and team members. The conditions necessary to establish the motivating operation for reinforcement may be similar to previously neglectful or abusive conditions, or may act as conditioned motivating operations that make harmful behaviors temporarily more likely. In our history treating clients after these circumstances, we have also experienced something related to behavioral contrast in this situation. For example, a client who was provided edible reinforcement in their new applied behavior analysis setting then went home and used dangerous and surprising behaviors related to their neglectful history. The client’s foster family was caught off-guard by these new behaviors, but they could have been predicted during team education on how edible reinforcers might need to be avoided at first when conditioning new team members as reinforcing (and as instruction-related discriminative stimuli).  

2. For a client who has been involved in previous sexual abuse (including when the client also makes allegations):

One contraindicated procedure is assigning a 1:1 without additional oversight.

Notes: Here there are risks to both the client and additional team members. When the team receives this case, it would be contraindicated to immediately assign 1:1 support without preventative measures such as training for the 1:1 and supplemental recording, additional oversight or whatever is deemed necessary.

3. For a client who has experienced medical complications from sexual or physical trauma (e.g., this could include incontinence, fecal smearing or related concerns, etc):

One contraindicated procedure is conducting toilet training without oversight from a medical professional, additional training or consultation by someone with expertise in this circumstance, etc.

Notes: In this situation, respondent and operant interactions can occur that are dangerous to treat without expertise; the client can risk serious complications and worsening medical problems; there is a risk of further conditioning the experiences of voiding (and related rituals) as aversive; there is a risk of occasioning behaviors related to the past abuse, or pairing aversive events with team members involved in the procedures; and more.

4. For a client who has experienced previous neglect or adverse circumstances (such as deaths of parents, removal from unsafe conditions, or experiencing war, dangerous immigration or poverty related issues), resulting in deprivation of basic needs and social interaction:   

Some potentially contraindicated procedures involve attention related extinction, differential reinforcement of appropriate versus inappropriate requests, or time out from attention reinforcement.

Notes: In this situation, there are safer procedures to begin using that could avoid some of the harmful side effects of removing attention contingent on unsafe behavior. A child with a serious history of neglect may have used behaviors that can seem bizarre or out of context for typical child development, but that were critical to the child’s survival. At the same time, it may not be appropriate to pair new team members with procedures that were used in the child’s neglect, even if the “intent” is different. There are many procedures that can be used more safely, such as using enriched environments and fixed time schedules, to provide monitoring, insure high levels of safe attention, and begin to condition adults as neutral stimuli again, if needed, after harmful interactions with adults in the person’s past.

5. For a client who has been affected by physical and/or sexual abuse, behaviors and circumstances consistent with reactive attachment disorder, or multiple and changing caregivers in childhood:

One potentially contraindicated procedure might be contingent praise statements to establish compliance related behaviors.

Notes: In this situation, a client may have had a history in which adults could not be trusted, behaved inconsistently or inappropriately, or paired unsafe and harmful actions with typical caregiving behaviors. Clients who experienced this may initially present as lacking “a compliance repertoire”, but it may be contraindicated to attempt to establish and praise compliance, for several reasons. Some may be overly compliant, and lack self-help and self-advocacy repertoires that are critical to autonomy; if they are still going home at night after the school day to an unstable situation or multiple foster homes, to praise rigid compliance may increase the risk of further victimization or contribute to future abuse. At the same time, initial praise for compliance may damage relationships between the client and new caregivers who have not “earned” the right to praise the client’s behavior by establishing a history of consistency and helpful interactions. Furthermore, praise might already be conditioned as aversive for the client and could sabotage the caregiver’s attempts to establish a relationship or instruct appropriate behavior. (CuspEmergence.com has written elsewhere about praise here).

6. For a client who has been affected by neglect, and involved with law enforcement, suspensions and challenging behavior:

A potentially contraindicated procedure is least to most punishment.

Notes: Implementing punitive procedures (or procedures that educators assume to be aversive and are using to control behavior) in a “least-to-most” order is dangerous, especially after the interactions mentioned here. Any time punishment is implemented in a LTM order, we risk these outcomes: conditioning the aversive stimuli becoming more reinforcing, and more familiar; worsening the client’s behavior as they need to contact more and more of the supposedly aversive stimulus; pairing the people administering the punishment with aversive control, making it more likely the client will (to speak loosely) act out more and more for their high-quality attention; etc. (CuspEmergence.com has written about the potential pipeline from special education to prison here, in an article referencing some of these concerns and containing behavior analytic references.)

7. For a client with symptoms or diagnosis of trauma-related disorders or needs:

A potentially contraindicated thing to do is recommending or implementing applied behavior analysis without any mental health or trauma-focused treatment or input.

Notes: Behavior analysis (at least the kind I provide and teach about) is not a trauma treatment. We are also not a source of diagnosis for trauma. Instead, I work in a complementary way with a team and/or family that is interested in learning about risks related to trauma history, and how these risks affect the person’s behavior, needs, and supports. There are therapies that can provide trauma-focused treatment and aid a person to heal after experiencing difficult circumstances; a person may need these in addition to, or before, receiving behavior analysis to aid them in developing a safe, expanded behavioral repertoire. If someone trusts you with their trauma history, please be careful and supportive.

In closing, for a client with a specific conditioning history, the contraindicated procedure would likely involve aversive conditions and potentially medical or biological variables. Always consider items 3.02 and 4.08 from our Professional and Ethical Code, and discuss whether they apply to your case:

3.02 Medical Consultation. Behavior analysts recommend seeking a medical consultation if there is any reasonable possibility that a referred behavior is influenced by medical or biological variables.

4.08 (d): Behavior analysts ensure that aversive procedures are accompanied by an increased level of training, supervision, and oversight. Behavior analysts must evaluate the effectiveness of aversive procedures in a timely manner and modify the behavior-change program if it is ineffective. Behavior analysts always include a plan to discontinue the use of aversive procedures when no longer needed.”

Connecting Behavior Analysis, Aging, Trauma, and Supervision

18 Monday Nov 2019

Posted by in adults, BACB CEU, Behavior Analysis, boundaries of competence, CEU, collaboration, Community, continuing education, Cusp Emergence University, dementia, ethics, mental health, supervision, teaching behavior analysis, TIBA, trauma, trauma-informed behavior analysis

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Behavior Analysis, Aging, Trauma, and Supervision (or BATS, in honor of Dr. Janet Ellis).

This is the 18th article in a series on Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis by Dr. Camille Kolu, BCBA-D. It includes something new that we have been asked about: Companion notes for students and supervisees working through this information with the support of their supervisor.

I heard Jon Baker give a great talk on advances in behavioral treatment of gerontology the other day at COABA. It made me think of my students at the University of Colorado Denver and our supervisees. (There was also a fantastic talk on supervision and feedback by the incomparable Ellie Kazemi, whose book on supervision is out now). When they ask about clients other than autism who have benefited from applied behavior analysis, my supervisees are usually excited to read stories in which ABA changed the lives of people with dementia, brain injury, medical needs, and more. For example, an article from Baker (2006) Continue reading →

Seeing Snakes and Spiders

27 Friday Sep 2019

Posted by in BACB CEU, Behavior Analysis, boundaries of competence, CEU, children, collaboration, Community, continuing education, Cusp Emergence University, CuspEmergenceUniversity, edtiba, EDTIBA10, Education, Education and Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis, ethics, mental health, resources, sale, teaching behavior analysis, teaching ethics, TIBA, trauma, trauma-informed behavior analysis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

This is the 17th article in a series on Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis by Dr. Teresa Camille Kolu, Ph.D., BCBA-D.

spider

What did you do when you saw this picture? Chances are you experienced some additional events beyond just “seeing it”. Did you jump? Experience an increase in your breathing rate? Use some choice verbal behavior? Avert your eyes? (And are you prepared to read on? Fair warning… there’s a snake coming up).

Seeing with fresh eyes

I noticed a couple of things about our culture, and fear responses, this past week.

My young daughter’s love for flap books—the kind where you pull back a piece of paper to reveal something—knows no bounds. So she was instantly drawn to a tattered old library copy (apparently she shares this love with lots of peers) of “Buzz Buzz, Baby”- with poorly rendered babies exploring “bugs”. Around the third page the baby pulls back a web flap to unveil, in the book’s words, “EEK! The itsy bitsy spider!”

Whenever I read the book to her I leave out the “Eek!”.

I think she can come up with that on her own, if she happens to, although chances are she’ll get it from me in a non-mindful moment. (In the 1980’s Cook and Mineka did a classic study in which infant monkeys “acquired” a persistent fear of snakes by watching their scared mothers encounter a snake).

Now that we’ve moved out to the country, we encounter our own “Itsy” (and many for whom that name is woefully inadequate) all the time. (I do recommend this thing called the BugZooka… it does work really well, if you like catch-and-release). Itsy and I go way back, and not necessarily in a good way, although I always appreciate her beauty. But I still want to be warned before you text me her picture, dad.

This summer, one tenacious spider (pictured, top) built a web, over and over, in a windy area outside the kitchen, where we see it numerous times daily. The first few (ok, few hundred) times I nearly jumped out of my skin. When I remembered in time, I was very careful to breathe and compose myself before walking to the sink with my daughter, where I’d point out the spider cheerfully and sing (with all the hand movements) the requisite song. Before long she was signing the song herself. Next I noticed myself no longer jumping when I saw the spider.

THEN… one windy morning Itsy was gone. Gone!

I didn’t breathe a sigh of relief.

I was surprised and curious to feel a strange emotion… like MISSING. I missed her! Was she alright? Would she come back? (She was. She did).

With painful awareness that this is temporary, I often marvel that my daughter’s eyes are not only young… they are unconditioned. They don’t have a lot of pairings with events like scary movies about this deep primate fear, being bitten, or seeing spiders while a parent jumps and screams. They are fresh, curious, hopeful eyes.

Yesterday we chanced upon something rather larger than even the biggest spider. It was this old girl… fat and long, with ring upon ring adorning her useful brown rattle. Depending on my readers, maybe you’ll be happy that instead of grabbing a hoe, I called a guy I read about in my new community’s online forum… apparently this guy LOVES snakes. “ANY snake’s worth my time”, he told me as he jumped in his truck. 35 minutes later he had driven up to our homestead, hooked it and taken it. Now it’s in a quite different rattlesnake heaven than the kind I had sort of planned to send it… blissing out in a protected wilderness area up near Fort Collins, I’m told.

rattler

As he removed our snake into a large vented box and curiously counted the rings (while remarking on how huge it was), the guy’s face was composed; he exuded a strange calm excitement. Normally, the fear response to snakes and spiders is part of our biology. Evolutionary biology has several theories why it’s present even in infancy, and why it might have behooved our ancestral mothers to experience more arousal and get out of there to protect their young in the presence of these critters. I can’t help but wonder what this guy’s history is like. Why does he love something that most of us are scared of?

Kids with traumatic histories

If you’re an educator going back to school, many of your kids are coming in with an avoidance response, or a “get out of there!” escape response, ready to go. Some of them will use these responses in the most annoying ways, dropping all their work on the floor or crawling under desks when you announce the quiz. But some of them have a special background you can’t see. For some, they will use these “fear responses” when they encounter “triggers” that you and I do not think of as scary.

Why is that?

Well, the things that were there when they experienced really bad situations are now “paired”, living together in their past, the same way I smelled an old lady yesterday wearing my own granny’s soap and got emotional thinking about my dear departed loved ones. Or the same way you hear a certain song from your high school dance and think about that year, or that person, or that kiss.

And that’s not all. Psychology explains in anxiety journals why, if you’re a person with an intense “fear” or phobia of spiders, not only do you spot them more quickly and tend to see them where your peers might see other things, like mushrooms or flowers faster in the SAME PICTURE—but to you, they also appear BIGGER.

What can we do about it?

How can we help students show up for their education and get all the learning opportunities they can… even when the school, teachers, and peers accidentally give them “fear related” stimuli all day long? (While psychology explains partly WHY these pairings happen, behavior analysis does too, especially if you read some relational frame theory, learn about respondent conditioning, and take a long-term functional analytic approach. Behavior analysis also goes a long way in helping the helpers undo some of the damage, teaching kids to approach adults and “unpair” adult attention from it’s previously bad parts: if I’m a student who has been through neglect abuse, my teacher coming over to me to praise my “good behavior” might not be a welcome stimulus at first… and my teacher’s praise, as well-intentioned as it may be, might not work).

Cusp Emergence University has been hard at work getting the new online training course ready for educators, and behavior analysts who work in education. We hope to help you to start answering these questions for yourself and your students and teams. On Monday, September 30, our course “Education and Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis” opens to a 7 day sale (use the code EDTIBA10 for 10 percent off this CEU opportunity). We’re providing BCBA’s and BCBA-D’s with 3.5 continuing education credits, and 3 of those are in ethics.

coupon

Sign up now!

“Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis” is redundant. Here’s why I use it anyway.

03 Monday Jun 2019

Posted by in adults, Behavior Analysis, boundaries of competence, children, collaboration, Community, contextual fear conditioning, Education, ethics, extinction, renewal effect, TIBA, trauma, trauma-informed behavior analysis, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

“Trauma-informed behavior analysis”: Redundant term or useful phrase?

This is the 16th article in a series on Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis by Dr. Teresa Camille Kolu, Ph.D., BCBA-D.

Trauma-informed behavior analysis, abbreviated TIBA, is a phrase I’ve been using for a few years now to describe what I do to people outside behavior analysis. I do this because it helps them to understand how I apply the science, and not to suggest that “regular” behavior analysis should not address trauma. From those behavior analysts who have not been to my trainings, I often hear the question “Isn’t it redundant to describe behavior analysis as trauma-informed?” I would argue that the short answer to this question is “yes”. However, this article describes why the more important and longer answer is “yes—and it’s still useful”.

About this outline: As one of our current projects at Cusp Emergence, Dr. Camille Kolu is aggregating several years of data (including feedback from existing BCBAs, educators, foster parents, and social workers) in writing a set of articles on the topic of applying the science of behavior analysis to behavior change after a person has experienced significant trauma. This topic comes up frequently on behavior analytic forums. Please note that this brief outline does not describe the SAFE-T model (by which we advocate appropriate supervision, functional assessment, risk documentation, and environmental modification and training) or solutions to all the challenges it raises. Check out the other blogs on this topic, email us if you’d like to provide comments and questions, or see cuspemergenceuniversity.com for CEU and training opportunities.

Background: How is “trauma-informed behavior analysis” redundant?

I. The ethical practice of behavior analysis already requires it.

  1. We individualize (see BACB Compliance Code item 4.03)
  2. We should practice within our expertise (1.02)
    1. People whose lives are changed by major traumatic histories are changed in ways that distinguish them and their needs for specific supports, much like people who engage in serious self injury or have eating disorders are distinguished as a sub population who can benefit by specific expertise and training. We accept clients only if we are appropriately trained (2.01)
  3. We are already tasked with taking history into account, including analyzing functional relationships (3.01) and referring to consultation for medical needs as appropriate (3.02)
  4. We should refer and collaborate when needed (2.03a and 2.03b)

II. The application of behavior analysis already covers it (see Baer, Wolf and Risley 1968, 1987)

  1. Appropriate ABA tackles behavior of meaningful social significance, which it (behavior that is related to historical traumatic or aversive events) certainly is
  2. Appropriate ABA is conceptually systematic, and treatment of behavior after trauma may be conducted within the conceptual basis of behavior science
  3. We already have interventions that can be applicable and effective with this population (see our resources page for a partial reference list) including treatments for post traumatic stress disorder, using acceptance and commitment therapy principles from behavior analysis, and schedule related procedures including NCR for challenging behaviors; or see Fahmie, Iwata and Mead 2016; Iwata, Petscher, Rey and Bailey 2009; Richman, Barnard-Brak, Bosch and Abby, 2015)

III. The underlying science of behavior analysis and work on learning and behavior already describes phenomena related to behavior after trauma (see literature on reinstatement, contextual conditioning, respondent behavior, extinction in multiple contexts, etc)

  1. Laboratory work on extinction challenges from a respondent conditioning perspective can help us understand some of the unique challenges people face after experiencing trauma (see Bouton 2004)
  2. In basic research, “renewal” (return of behavior that was previously extinguished, after exposure to a conditioned stimulus- see Bouton and Bolles 1979; Harris 2000) is stronger with respondent behavior than operant behavior (Crombag and Shaham 2002)
  3. But younger behavior analysts may not have been trained to adequately appreciate respondent conditioning’s effects on behavior, and to teach others how to work with behaviors that are not operant. They may over-rely on using consequences to change behaviors, leading to criticism that “this stuff doesn’t work with my client impacted by trauma”. (Respondent conditioning is an item on both the 4th and 5th edition task lists, although respondent-operant interactions (see 4th edition, item FK-16) has been removed).

The current state: How is the phrase “trauma-informed behavior analysis” still useful (even needed) if it’s technically redundant?

I. I believe it’s helpful to both practitioners and client base.

  1. For practitioners: widespread practicing out of expertise incurs huge risks to clients, agencies, individuals and communities.
    1. Many people assume that the application of behavior analytic principles to trauma affected populations requires no nuances, and have harmed others
    2. There are not widely available risk assessments and tools to help those of us in this subarea document and collaborate as effectively as we need to
    3. There is not a collective understanding of how the collaboration can work, and many behavior analysts proceed unethically (although unintentionally)
  1. For clients: People needing the service are thwarted by bad (or just uninformed) press about ABA or and many think that ABA would be ineffective, harmful, or contradictory to their trauma-informed colleagues’ practice. This phrase gives me a way of introducing my services and assuring the recipients that I
    1. will, and do, consider their history of trauma as something that informs everything I will do for them
    2. will still be practicing behavior analysis, but from this specifically informed perspective
    3. honor both their specific background and their individual needs, using my own training and expertise in behavior analysis informed by additional experiences with social workers, those in the foster family community and others

II.  This phrase also gives me a way in, to talk to groups who haven’t had good experiences with behavior analysis

  1. including professional educators, school psychologists and therapists who have attempted collaborations that failed because clients’ trauma was overlooked or the practices were ineffective
  2. and including foster and adoptive families for whom the practice of “everyday ABA” included go-to strategies that were not (or at least not at first) helpful to their clients
  3. or people who haven’t had ANY experiences with behavior analysis (in my practice this includes people from these groups):
    1. Lawyers and courts
    2. Court appointed special advocates
    3. Social workers
    4. Trauma therapists
    5. Foster families and adoption agencies

Dreaming of the future

My goals include that one day in the near future,

  1. Treating behavior after trauma is a specialty in which behavior analysts can readily obtain experience from several field experts, similar to how they gather expertise specifically in treating behaviors such as severe self-harm, pica, or disordered eating, or behaviors in people with autism or genetic differences, or those in pediatric or geriatric populations.
  2. For recipients of behavior analysis, it will be simple and easy to find several options for treatment for behavior after trauma, from people with appropriate understanding, training and supervision, that can help them and collaborate effectively with other members of their team
  3. There are multiple funding streams to readily serve the population (examples: foster care, social workers, etc)
  4. And “everyday behavior analysis” is no longer viewed as contradictory to the support that would benefit people with historical experiences described as traumatic

Takeaway: I agree that saying behavior analysis should be “trauma-informed” can be redundant, since the basic science is rigorous enough to describe why our behavior is changed after and challenged by trauma. But I use it because it helps communicate what I do to people who have a specific history, and to help other behavior analysts understand how to establish an ethical approach to the intense documentation, risk mitigation, collaboration, and assessment that is required while using existing behavior analytic procedures to support those affected.

What’s your take? Send me a note or share a resource any time.

See or add to our growing reference list related to behavioral treatment of trauma.

Beauty and the Bug: Trauma and individuals who are differently abled

29 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by in adults, Autism, BACB CEU, Behavior Analysis, boundaries of competence, CEU, collaboration, Community, continuing education, mental health, Rett's, trauma, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Beauty and the Bug (in which we briefly explore trauma and non-neurotypical people, ask how to raise tender-hearted children, and see a bug portrait in pointillism)

This is the 15th article in a series on Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis by Dr. Teresa Camille Kolu, Ph.D., BCBA-D.

How do we teach others to tend the needs of those who cannot express them (or for that matter, appreciate the lesson of loss, the tenderness of pain, the beauty in brokenness)? And how common is trauma in individuals with serious developmental disabilities? Many of us have not considered the relevance, let alone the prevalence. Is this because we can’t see it, don’t hear about it, or think that it is out of our scope to address? These questions occurred to me this week as I thought about a participant from a recent training I provided, who asked if the model of trauma-informed behavior analysis (about which I’ve been writing here) applied to individuals with intellectual differences (it does!). Even to us professionals in the field of behavior analysis, the complexity of and subtlety of trauma and behavior remains elusive.

This week my family lost a wonderful man. He and his wife tended to the needs of others (often before their own). Also this week, my reason for taking a work break turned three months old, and Imagine! (a nonprofit agency in my area) had its annual celebration. As I mulled over these questions about trauma and differences and on raising good people, a therapist friend posted Imagine’s video of one of their clients. I realized I had not blogged before specifically about treating challenging behavior in someone who is differently abled. I need to do that, lest one more reader think that this approach (trauma informed behavior analysis) is mainly useful for “vocal” clients, or those who can easily articulate their pain and past. Today, Shelly and her zany personality inspired me to do this.

Individuals with developmental and intellectual differences express or show their history and needs in different ways, and sometimes caregivers overlook the contributions and signs of trauma, neglect or even ongoing abuse. When we (especially behavior analysts) overlook these, we are not addressing the real reasons for challenging behavior, and we might miss the importance of connecting the person with critical mental health resources, or of offering a chance to heal past wounds. We know about functional communication training. But do we fully address subtle needs to communicate pain—both emotional and physical? And when someone lives in an environment or is exposed repeatedly to a situation or person that is aversive (even abusive!) do we teach them to effectively advocate for removal and communicate their discomfort, or do we merely try to reduce the “challenging behavior” that often accompanies the terrible situation? Do we recognize the signs of abuse in individuals who have few skills to communicate?

Too many times, I took a case where team members requested decreases in “challenging behaviors” in someone with diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer, or Spina Bifida, before the team had recognized that the main thing challenging about the behavior was that it was going on because the individual had NO dignified way out. A conversation with a peer last week revealed that without training in these issues, a behavior therapist or even the entire team might treat “suicidal ideation” as a “behavior to be decreased” rather than a serious problem to be solved. (Even when this “behavior” is partly a habit the person has learned to use as a tool to produce needed attention from others, a whole behavior analysis of the situation would consider the risks and possible outcomes of addressing it in different ways, and document and address the related needs to understand and address why this was happening.)

As Shelly and her team alluded to in the video, the very state of not being able to communicate one’s needs and preferences can be traumatic in itself, and can lead one to develop desperate behaviors that just get called “behaviors for reduction” in the individualized behavior plans of thousands of clients. Today there are no more excuses for not helping someone access and master a communication system that works for them. To be sure, not everyone has access to a Smart Home residence decked out with all the tools we saw on the video- but have you seen the article on an accessible app developed by the brother of a man with autism in Turkey (so that he could communicate needs  and gain leisure skills using only his smartphone)?

Tragically, many of my clients went through abuse and neglect and need someone to write careful and informed behavior plans that teach them skills they did not have at the time, like articulating emotional and physical pain, advocating for their needs, and requesting to be removed from a serious adverse situation. Just as important, these clients need an informed analyst who designs ways that these skills will persist when the client moves environments, as I found when a former client kept being exposed to new team after new team that didn’t read the plan and failed to recognize the communicative intent of the behaviors, and the medical component to the “challenges” the team demanded to be decreased. This calls for TIBA or trauma informed behavior analysis (if the team is not already using it).

So it’s not enough for our clients to learn these skills one time. The people who make up the audience, the environment, must respond enough to maintain them. If I ask for help and you respond no, why would I ask again? Remember the lessons of the family whose school team actually discouraged them from using “saying no” as a goal for their adolescent girl with autism, arguing that they didn’t have the resources to deal with her protesting all day long. Actually, the opposite is more likely to be true—that when our “no” is respected (listened to the first time), its use will be more limited to situations in which the person really “needs” it.

So back to my original questions. How do we raise little ones who are likely to grow up to appreciate and shape the voice of the voiceless, who honor the needs of people in ugly situations, who see the beauty in what others view as broken or beyond repair? How do we insure people will have the internal resources to value what isn’t immediately perceived as “valuable” by the culture? Maybe it starts when they are little, in modeling ways we can accord dignity to the frail, the elderly, the dirty. We cultivate tenderness as we show them we appreciate the spiderweb (AND the spider), the weed and its flower, the worm (thanks, mom and dad, Nicolette Sowder of wilderchild, and my very first client who taught me that not being able to talk is not the same as not having anything to say- click here to learn about Rett Syndrome).

Thanks to mom and dad, I still notice bugs and their beauty. I thought this one was wonderful when I looked closely, so I spent even more time to study and draw him. I thought he became even more beautiful as I continued to look. Maybe you can see his beauty too.

edh

Colorado Potato Beetle by Camille Kolu (c) 2018

P.S. There is so much trauma in our schools today, whether you work with students who are “typically developing/ neurotypical” or those with intellectual, developmental and physical differences. Don’t miss the next course from Cusp Emergence University on trauma informed behavior analysis in the educational setting (complete with CEU’s including one for ethics).

Some references and resources

CuspEmergenceUniversity

Articles on prevalence of assault and ACES in individuals with developmental differences:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/2/87.short

http://www.cfp.ca/content/52/11/1410.short

https://www.acesconnection.com/fileSendAction/fcType/0/fcOid/399727599841302176/filePointer/399727599841302363/fodoid/399727599841302361/ACESandDevelopmentalDisabilitiesSteveMarcal.pdf

Read about Imagine! Smart Homes: https://imaginecolorado.org/services/imagine-smarthomes

Watch Shelly’s story: https://video.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.9040-2/51213666_2064787060269873_328394071330521088_n.mp4?_nc_cat=110&efg=eyJybHIiOjMxMSwicmxhIjoxMjA3LCJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&_nc_ht=video.fads1-1.fna&oh=79aed874369dc8f2ab3a3cc89efdd34c&oe=5C4F807E

Read about the man who developed an app for his brother: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-47001068/how-brotherly-love-led-to-an-app-to-help-thousands-of-autistic-children

https://imaginecolorado.org/

Get the full TIBA (trauma informed behavior analysis series): https://cuspemergence.com/tiba-series/

 

Spotlight on team role: CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates)

07 Friday Sep 2018

Posted by in Behavior Analysis, CASA, children, collaboration, Community, Court Appointed Special Advocate, Education, ethics, resources, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

This post is part of the series on Trauma-Informed Behavior Analysis by Dr. Camille Kolu, Ph.D., BCBA-D.

Why is this in the trauma-informed series? Behavior analysts have ethical responsibilities to disseminate information about our field (Compliance Code item 6.02), cooperate with others (2.03), individualize treatment based on the contextual variables involved in our clients’ cases (4.03), and identify, eliminate and communicate about the environmental constraints on the effectiveness of our treatment plans (4.07). All four of these ethical imperatives can be positively impacted by involving CASA! And these ethical areas are even more important when treating behavior of a person who has been through trauma, abuse or neglect.

Spotlight on team role: CASA, or Court Appointed Special Advocates

Cusp Emergence has had a busy summer! We’ve been continuing public speaking and training, spreading the word about trauma-informed behavior analysis to community partners. There are few things more rewarding than working on a case with a partner who asks us to come back and train their agency, providing continuing education for their team members. This is even more exciting when the provider is newer to behavior analysis. We love disseminating information about the field and hearing from the community!

This post is a shout-out spotlighting CASA. Never heard of them? These people form a compassionate army of people from all walks of life providing long-term relationships and supportive advocacy to local children whose lives involve the family court and foster care system. Some organizational positions are paid to keep the group running, but many are volunteers. The program is nationwide, and depending on the location and jurisdiction, a CASA may be a guardian ad litem or volunteer their time. Some are young professionals, others are retirees; they have in common a passion for children who have experienced inconsistency in caregiving, often including abuse and neglect. Court Appointed Special Advocates receive extensive training and may donate their time to attend visits with the child in the child’s group home, foster home, adoptive family home, residential facility, or hospital. I see them advocating at meetings, attending court dates to speak in the child’s best interest after gathering information; visiting at school; and attending trainings where I provide reviews of behavior assessments and plans. For some children removed due to abuse and neglect, a CASA may be the ONE familiar face present at family court, several foster homes, many schools, and holiday parties held in the hospital where the child was placed after using aggression and receiving a medication change. Caseworkers are familiar too, but may change more than the court appointed special advocates—many of whom follow a child for life.

Maybe you’re a BCBA reading this, thinking “How does this relate to my role?”

First, if you’ve got a client in foster care, you can ask the client’s caseworker if the person has a CASA. If so, you can offer to meet with them and learn more about their role and their history with the person. (I have never had a CASA refuse to meet with me, although this is on their own time—more commonly they are excited to learn about behavior supports, and often advocating to get me on their other cases after they learn more about behavior analysis).

I also train all my client’s CASAs in the functional behavior assessment results and behavior plan. Why?

  • On their visits they may see challenging behavior and want to know the best, and most supportive, way to respond or prevent challenges.
  • They may conduct unannounced visits in the child’s home or school, and these may be followed by increases in challenging behavior that the team finds confusing. It is helpful to educate the entire team, CASA included, on the changes in behavior that may occur after the child is visited by an unannounced person associated with previous family visits, even if the child typically enjoys visits with the CASA.
  • Since the CASA is by definition an advocate, they can be very helpful in sharing information with the court or team that help them to put behavior services in place. In some areas, services can be more difficult to fund if a child has severe behavior needs but not a diagnosis like autism that makes it easy to get insurance on board. In these cases, the county or court may step in and require or help fund some behavioral treatment that is instrumental in helping the foster family understand and manage the child’s behaviors.

Thank you so much, to Becca and Mara at CASA of Adams and Broomfield Counties! It was fantastic to see so many of your team last month.

Want to learn more?

Check out the national CASA movement:

http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5301295/k.BE9A/Home.htm

Are you local to the Cusp Emergence community around Adams County, Colorado? Check out the Adams County CASA page (and be sure to attend their free informational event on October 18!)

https://casa17th.org/

Read about CASA in the news, with stories about topics like how to become a CASA…

https://www.caller.com/videos/news/2018/07/12/how-become-court-appointed-special-advocate/35522163/

or read from the perspective of a judge whose decisions are informed by their work:

http://www.sj-r.com/x1374045505/Court-Appointed-Special-Advocate-program-history

Find the Behavior Analysis Certification Board Compliance Code here:

https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/170706-compliance-code-english.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Too risky to document risks?

17 Tuesday Jul 2018

Posted by in adults, Behavior Analysis, behavior cusp, Behavioral Cusp, boundaries of competence, collaboration, Community, Education, ethics, resources, risk analysis, risk assessment, risk versus benefit analysis, supervision, teaching behavior analysis, teaching ethics, trauma, trauma-informed behavior analysis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This post is part of a series on trauma-informed behavior analysis by Dr. Camille Kolu, Ph.D., BCBA-D.

When treating behavior concerns after trauma, we may find that clients exhibit risks to themselves, risks to their community, and risks to caregivers that should be documented. Why have behavior analysts sometimes turned a blind eye to documenting these risks? Read on to discover some common reasons I found in the field, and ways we can address them. 

When it’s too risky to even consider the risks

Our field has adopted a Compliance Code which mentions the need to document risks. As an instructor for courses in a BACB-approved course behavior analysis course sequence, I use a textbook that provides sample templates for documenting and analyzing risks. And as a practitioner, I have found that my analysis or assessment of risk is almost always helpful to a case (as in some situations I’ll describe below), not to mention that it’s quick and simple it is to do.

Despite these facts, most behavior analysts I encounter do not analyze risks in any sort of written format. The behavior analysts around me range from BCBA-Ds to RBTs, and many have expertise and long careers. Why are we averse to documenting risks?

I have been researching the answer to this question for several years, and often the answer is “because I don’t have a good risk assessment”. So I made some and piloted them with different agencies, working through the problems of how to identify, define, document and mitigate the risks related to the populations with whom I work most closely. But at a recent training opportunity I received a different kind of answer, and I think it’s too important to keep to myself.

Some of the BCBA’s I talked to at that event were not documenting risks, they acknowledged, because it was just too risky.

At first it seemed counterintuitive. If I was providing a new document that made it easy to document several options, and the potential risks and benefits of each, wasn’t that inherently reducing the risk? No, it turns out. To many of us, highlighting a risk necessarily imposes some degree of liability.

We’ve faced this challenge before. In pointing out a problem we may become partially responsible for solving it, as some educators have learned the hard way when their schools are upset with them for discussing the observations of a student’s difficulties outside of the official process. This responsibility may carry a financial burden or create an unsolvable problem in a resource-poor area. And some pediatricians I know have mentioned the frustrating dilemma of being given a new depression screen for teens or moms, only to have nowhere to go with the results.

A new ethical responsibility is only as useful as your agency’s process to fulfill that responsibility, and procedures to support the people implementing the new responsibilities.

And in the discussion with the BCBA’s that day about risk documentation, I learned something really interesting. The specific language I used made a huge difference in their willingness of adopting a new procedure.

When I called it a “risk assessment”, BCBA’s were unwilling to adopt my new “assessment”, even if it was backed up by the compliance code and plenty of evidence and anecdotes how it has supported my work.

But when I called it a “risk versus benefit analysis”, they were willing to try.

The difference?

“Risk assessment” is a loaded term that carries legal weight in many contexts.

On the contrary, the other term (“risk versus benefit analysis”) is something that I use daily, and that is simply a process of documenting and analyzing the several different options available, together with their respective potential risks and benefits. It’s called for by the Compliance Code (and discussed by Bailey and Burch in their Ethics text).

According to the Compliance Code, “a risk-benefit analysis is a deliberate evaluation of the potential risks (e.g., limitations, side effects, costs) and benefits (e.g., treatment outcomes, efficiency, savings) associated with a given intervention. A risk-benefit analysis should conclude with a course of action associated with greater benefits than risks.”

The Compliance Code mentions risks in several places. In 2.04b, we are to consider risks of performing conflicting roles (e.g., when we are clarifying third party involvement in services). In 2.09c we are asked to use a risk-benefit analysis as part of our process in deciding between different treatments. And in 4.05, we are asked to work with stakeholders to present the potential risks versus benefits of which procedures we plan to use to implement program objectives. 7.02 asks us to consider risks involved, when there may have been an ethical or legal violation by a peer. And of course, we consider the potential risks and benefits when doing research (9.02).

The Task List does not mention “risk” by name, but alludes to the process when requiring that we are required to be able to state and plan for the possible unwanted effects of reinforcement (C-01), punishment (C-02), or extinction (C-03), as well as behavioral contrast (E-07). Similarly, the Code makes it clear that we are to identify potential for harm with using reinforcement (4.10) and identify obstacles to implementing recommended treatment (4.07).

In my practice, the most efficient way to meet all these objectives and more, is to complete a risk-benefit analysis. I love to include sections on mitigating the risks I do identify, so that the team can make an informed decision about what resources, training, information or support they will need to implement the least risky option.

And a final benefit I’ve heard many stakeholders mention during this process (and typically I do the analysis as an open discussion in which they are involved and brainstorming), is usually stated like this: “I didn’t think we had any other options, but when we approached this with a goal to identify alternatives and the risks and benefits of each, we uncovered several more”.

The risk versus benefit analysis is something I document, add to a treatment plan or employee or client file or IEP, or simply something I share with the team in writing and in person to solidify systems support for my next move. Recently, the following situations were ameliorated by using a transparent risk versus benefit analysis. Outcomes included increasing appropriate funding; securing appropriate medications; identifying appropriate caregivers; funding appropriate training; and improving client satisfaction.

-what kind of residential facility would be most appropriate to move a client to

-whether to discharge a client now or later

-whether to use a cheaper program with fewer resources or a costly one with many

-whether to put a client in a foster home in a potentially risky but supportive situation

-whether to delay an assessment to have an operation

-under what conditions should we discontinue a client who violates our informal no-show policy

-what caregiver to select from several available

-how to appropriately include police contact in a plan in a way that reduced long term risks

-what medication to decrease and when

-whether to put a student in a restrictive school with more behavior support, or a less restrictive placement with more social interaction options

As you can see by the last two, sometimes these decisions are not cut and dry. They depend on the team and family input, and one family may weigh a given outcome more heavily than another.  Everyone has a history. To do these analyses in a compassionate and open way is important, and sometimes we don’t agree. To involve high level stakeholders and funders is critical as well.

What are the risks of doing a risk-benefit analysis? Perhaps you’ll highlight more risks than you thought were there; perhaps you’ll have to take some responsibility for the outcome of your recommendations. But what are the risks of avoiding this important process? If you are certified, your responsibility as a behavior analyst “is to all parties affected by behavior-analytic services” (e.g., 2.02). So are there risks of not documenting risks? Sure. You could cause harm or be negligent if there is a known risk you didn’t plan for or discuss with the team. Just like there are risks, there are benefits too. Doing a good risk versus benefit analysis is certainly a helpful cusp for supervisors and behavior analysis leaders to acquire! Many times we have uncovered risks that can be totally avoided next time if we were to act now to change or solidify policies, or use preventative measures in the future. A risk-benefit analysis can be a wonderful contribution to discussing lessons learned.

There are more options to be uncovered. Go out there and find and document them!

Want a resource? Check out the 3rd edition of the Bailey and Burch text Ethics for Behavior Analysts (2016), read more on Cusp Emergence , or check out a risk versus benefit tool (I like to do this on a whiteboard with my teams).

Convinced? Have a question? Drop us an email. And thanks for reading about this important topic. We’d love to see how YOU document and discuss risks!