Positive
Behavioral Interventions & Supports Newsletter
Contents
Laying
the Foundation for Positive Behavior Support through Person-Centered Planning
Legal Information
Laying
the Foundation for Positive Behavior Support through Person-Centered Planning
Don Kincaid & Glen Dunlap
One of the principal features of positive behavior support
(PBS) for individual students with serious problem behavior is a commitment
to a collaborative team approach. This feature of PBS is especially important
for those students whose behavior problems have been occurring for some time,
are evident in multiple settings, and present substantial obstacles to the
student’s opportunities for learning, friendships, and quality of life. These
are the students who require individualized planning and intervention, and
for whom effective supports are apt to require more intensive and comprehensive
attention.
A truly collaborative team approach can be difficult to achieve because it
requires commitment and it contrasts sharply with the types of team meetings
that most parents, students and professionals have typically experienced.
Still, the establishment of a unified, collaborative approach to a student’s
support can be the difference between being effective or ineffective and,
in our experience, the commitment is well worth it. The general term that
describes the pathway to effective team processes has come to be known as
person-centered planning.
Person-centered planning differs significantly in form and philosophy from
traditional planning processes. In person-centered planning, the team consists
of individuals that have a stake in the success of the student. The team may
include friends, family, community members, caring professionals and, whenever
possible, the student with problem behavior. This group is brought together
to collaborate in a series of activities that allow the participants to come
to a common understanding of the student’s history, current life experiences,
and goals for the future. These activities are frequently guided by a skilled
facilitator using graphic recordings (words and pictures on large sheets of
paper) of the process.
Types of Processes
There is not one person-centered planning process that is more effective than
other approaches, but rather an array of different approaches that can be
adapted to meet the needs of the family, student, and team. The following
table identifies several typical person-centered planning processes:
Name |
Reference |
Description |
Personal
Profiling |
O'Brien, Mount
& O'Brien, 1990 |
Team identifies critical themes in a person's life in the areas of
people,places, health, history, etc. in coming to a common understanding
of the person.
|
Personal
Futures
Planning |
Mount, 1987; Mount & Zwernick, 1988 |
Team uses the themes identified in the personal profile to develop
a plan for the person's future that typically addresses home, school/work,
community, choices, and relationships. |
Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope
(PATH) |
Pearpoint, O'Brien, & Forest, 1996 |
Team may address long -and-short-term planning for the person and
can clearly identify the dreams and desires of the person. |
Making Action Plans (MAP) |
Vandercook, York, & Forest, 1989 |
Team follows an established framework that addresses who the person
is and his or her history, "dreams", "nightmares",
strengths, gifts, and talents. |
Essential Lifestyle Planning |
Smull, 1997 |
Team supports the individual to express his or her choices or preferences
that are considered "non-negotiables", "strong preferences",
and "highly desireable" and to develop an action plan. |
If you would like to view a PowerPoint presentation that has samples of several
of these person-centered planning approaches, click
here. In addition to a sample PATH and MAP processes,
the person centered planning approach used by projects at the University of
South Florida, including the Florida Positive Behavior Support Project, is
included in this presentation. This process adapts several of these person-centered
planning approaches into a model that can be completed in about 2-3 hours
with a planning team.
Person-centered Planning’s Values Base
Although person-centered planning processes differ in form
and emphasis, all share a common values base that makes them “person-centered.”
First, there is a commitment to listening to the student and the family to
identify the big and small choices and preferences they have for their everyday
lives. Second, there is a commitment to the student being present and participating
in the community, gaining and maintaining satisfying relationships, and developing
personal competencies and skills. Finally, there is a belief that the student,
family, and team can accomplish significant goals and outcomes that are consistent
with these values.
These values allow person-centered planning teams to operate from a strength-based
perspective rather than from a deficit and punishment perspective that sees
the problem as residing in the student. A person-centered planning approach
sees the dreams, skills, and strengths of the student and team as the necessary
foundation for understanding that problem behavior is simply a sign of a problem
life and environment. A comprehensive understanding of a student’s life might
actually produce the awareness that problem behavior is not at all unexpected
given the challenges and context of the person’s environment. In fact, the
team may come to wonder why serious problem behavior isn’t even more serious!
How PCP Leads to an Effective PBS Process
Although not initially considered a behavior support strategy,
person-centered planning processes became a part of positive behavior support
approaches over a decade ago because researchers and practitioners began to
realize that person-centered planning approaches could establish and enhance
a positive behavior support approach (Kincaid, 1996). Since then, person-centered
planning has had a profound impact on how positive behavior support approaches
are delivered in homes, schools, and communities (Kincaid & Fox, 2001).
Person-centered planning has led to a more effective delivery of comprehensive
positive behavior support in the following ways:
Collaborative teaming. Most, if not all, requests for positive behavior
support for students with problem behavior originate from situations where
other approaches have failed. Frequently, those teams are neither “person-centered”
nor a “team.” Perhaps they have been operating in a crisis mode, are “burned
out”, or are unable to focus on anything positive about the behavior of the
person. Team members may blame each other and the student for their inability
to address problem behaviors. Often statements like “If ____ (student, parent,
teacher, psychologist, etc.) would just ____, we wouldn’t be here now” are
overheard.
Any traditional attempt to intervene with the problem behavior, or even to
initiate a functional behavior assessment, is likely to fail because the team
is likely to be unreceptive to change. Although not a panacea, person-centered
planning provides the process and philosophy to gradually, and in some cases
dramatically, change the context in which the team functions. Often, within
a few short hours, a team can begin the process of embracing the positive,
respecting the student and each other, and getting motivated for change. Ask
any experienced facilitator of person-centered planning processes and they
can provide you with numerous examples of apparently miraculous attitude and
behavioral change from team members that have resulted in a commitment to
a collaborative team. With this collaborative team in place, a positive behavior
support process has a foundation on which to grow.
An inclusive process. Traditional behavior management approaches
have frequently neglected to include the student with the problem behavior
and his or her parents in the development of a support plan. The student and
the family have sometimes been seen as extraneous to the development of a
technically precise behavior plan. In addition, the people who know the person
best (teacher, assistant, friends, etc.) have often been excluded because
their roles have not been valued or defined in the context of developing a
support plan.
Person-centered planning seeks to include and involve individuals in the decisions
that impact their lives. This includes the student with problem behaviors,
as well as family members, school personnel, friends, and community members.
Such an approach is built on a profound respect for the knowledge, commitment,
and skills of all those individuals. This respect results in a commitment
to listen to differing views, to building consensus, and to include each member
of the team in the positive behavior support process.
Quality of life outcomes. Positive behavior support emphasizes outcomes
that extend well beyond simple or discrete behavior change (Carr et al., 1999).
The development of friendships, functional communication, independent living
in the community, academic success, and inclusive education settings are just
a few of the broad quality of life outcomes for students that may be targeted
in addition to decreases in problem behaviors. There are also significant
outcomes for families (community participation, reduced stress, etc.) and
for professionals (satisfaction, recognition, rewarding collaborations with
families and other professionals, etc.) that can be achieved as a result of
a comprehensive positive behavior support process.
Each of these quality of life outcomes is likely to be identified in an effective
person-centered planning approach. Supporting the team to envision a positive
future for the student and to set short-term and long-term goals will often
direct the team to consider a set of broader quality of life outcomes as indicative
of a successful team process. Without developing and frequently revisiting
the person-centered plan, the positive behavior support team often faces a
conflict with systems contingencies that want a “quick fix” for serious behavioral
and lifestyle issues, thus lessening the overall impact of positive behavior
support to provide lasting and substantial change in the life of the student.
Context variables. Researchers and practitioners have long known that
the tools and interventions of positive behavior support alone cannot guarantee
successful outcomes for a child, family and system (Albin, Lucyshyn, Horner,
& Flannery, 1996). Much of the success of positive behavior support is
built on an understanding of how to effectively imbed an empirically-valid
technology within the context of the student’s life. In other words, it is
not enough to know what to do and multiple ways to do it. It is as important
to know as much about the person, their environment and their support systems
as possible so that what you do fits their life.
Person-centered planning can identify many critical context variables that
might impact the development and implementation of a positive behavior support
plan. In fact, information gleaned from a person-centered plan may identify
whether there is even a need for ongoing behavioral support. If people are
living in places they don’t want to live and doing things that they don’t
want to do, it is unlikely that a positive behavior support plan will have
a lasting impact on their quality of life. Perhaps substantial lifestyle changes
such as a new school, a new curriculum, or an inclusive setting may be more
critical than a behavior support plan for the student’s success. Although
such situations do occasionally present themselves in a person-centered planning
process, it is far more likely that a positive behavior support plan will
still need to be developed, but will be more effective because of the specific
student, family, systems, and environmental information gathered through the
process.
Sustainability. The previous four outcomes of person-centered planning
lay a foundation that can make the initial positive behavior support effort
more effective. However, they also enhance the ability of behavior support
plan to produce sustainable outcomes. As the student continues to grow and
develop and as their environment continues to change (positively or negatively),
the behavior support plan will also need to be adapted. These adaptations
will often require the team to revise or revisit the existing person-centered
plan or to even consider whether a new plan or a different planning process
might be necessary for the student. Sustaining quality of life improvements
and pursuing new goals will often require changes in multiple aspects of the
positive behavior support process including the person-centered plan.
We hope that this short introduction to person-centered planning has clarified
the significant impact such processes can have on the successful outcomes
of positive behavior support approaches. We also hope that parents and professionals
will advocate for positive behavior support approaches that are built on a
process of person-centered planning.
Contact the authors:
Don Kincaid email
Glen Dunlap email
References
Albin, R. W., Lucyshyn, J. M., Horner, R. H. & Flannery, K.B. (1996).
Contextual fit for
behavior support plans. In L. K. Koegel, R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.),
Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behaviors
in the community (pp. 81-92). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishers.
Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marguis, J. G., McLaughlin, D.
M., McAtee,
M.L., Smith, C. E., Ryan, K. A., Ruef, M.B., & Doolabh, A. (1999). Positive
behavior support for people with developmental disabilities: A research synthesis.
Washington, DC: American Association for Mental Retardation.
Kincaid, D. & Fox, L. (2002). Person-centered planning and positive behavior
support.
In S. Holburn & Vietze, P. (Eds.), Research and practice in person-centered
planning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 29-50.
Kincaid, D. (1996). Person Centered Planning. In L. K. Koegel, R. L. Koegel,
& G.
Dunlap (Eds.), Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult
behaviors in the community (pp. 439-465). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishers.
Mount, B. (1987). Person futures planning: Finding directions for change
(Doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia). Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Information
Service.
Mount, B. & Zwernick, K. (1988). It’s never too early, it’s never too
late: An overview
on personal futures planning. St. Paul, MN: Governor’s Council on Developmental
Disabilities.
O’Brien, J., Mount, B., & O’Brien, C. (1990). The personal profile.
Lithonia, GA:
Responsive Systems Associates.
Pearpoint, J., O’Brien, J., & Forest, M. (1996). Planning alternative
tomorrows with hope: A
workbook for planning possible and positive futures. Toronto, Ontario:
Inclusion Press.
Smull, M. (1997). A blueprint for essential lifestyle planning. Napa,
CA: Allen, Shea &
Associates.
Vandercook, T., York, J., & Forest, M. (1989). The McGill Action Planning
System
(MAPS): A strategy for building the vision. Journal of The Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 205-215.