Why Traditional Behaviour Management Programs Can Fail Without a Positive Systems Approach

Traditional behaviour management programs are often built on well-intentioned principles: identify the problematic behaviour, apply consequences, reward desired behaviour, and monitor progress. On paper, this looks structured and logical. In practice, especially when treating individuals with developmental disabilities, these programs can fall short if they are not done in the context of a systems approach. Why? Because disruptive behaviour doesn't emerge in a vacuum. And yet, traditional ABA models often treat it as if it does.

The problem isn't always the program itself. The issue is how narrowly these programs are applied. Without a systems-level view of behaviour—the kind outlined in our book Managing Disruptive Behaviours with a Positive Systems Approach—we miss the broader environmental, relational, and systemic variables that fuel or mitigate disruptive behaviours. Programs that fail to account for these factors are far more likely to collapse under the weight of complexity they were never designed to handle.

The Pitfalls of Traditional Behaviour Management Programs

Traditional approaches typically zero in on the individual and their behaviours. They look for antecedents and consequences but often ignore context. They assume consistency in the application of consequences but overlook environmental factors, trauma history, lack of consistency, staff turnover, caregiver stress, and unclear communication between team members. They depend on compliance from the individual but disregard the possibility that the environment itself might be non-functional, even toxic.

They rarely ask:

• Is the person being supported in a way that feels safe and empowering?

• Do the staff have the training, supervision, and emotional bandwidth to implement this program consistently?

• Are the individual's sensory needs, communication style, or trauma history taken into account?

• Is the larger system (school, home, care agency) working in alignment, or are there competing agendas?

A Positive Systems Approach asks all these questions—and more.

What is a Positive Systems Approach?

As outlined in our book and previous blog posts on drbobcarey.com, a Positive Systems Approach shifts the focus from "fixing" the individual to understanding the complex systems in which behaviour occurs. It emphasizes:

• Systemic alignment: Ensuring everyone around the individual (family, staff, educators, therapists) shares goals, language, and responsibilities.

• Proactive strategies: Identifying and anticipating triggers and modifying environments rather than always just reacting to crises.

• Relationship-based practice: Prioritizing trust, connection, and respect over control.

• Capacity-building: Supporting caregivers and staff so they can support the individual.

• Holistic thinking: Recognizing that behavioural challenges are deeply linked to communication, sensory processing, trauma, relationships, and emotional regulation.

Without this systems lens, even the best-intentioned behaviour plans are like trying to patch a leak without checking if the plumbing is rotten.

Case Study: Traditional Behaviour Management Program Failure

Background: Jason is a 19-year-old with a developmental disability and a history of aggressive behaviour. He lives in a group home and attends a day program. A traditional behaviour plan was put in place to reduce his physical aggression, which included:

• Tracking antecedents and consequences

• Implementing a token economy for good behaviour

• Applying time-out procedures following aggression

What Went Wrong:

• The plan assumed staff would apply consequences consistently, but high turnover meant each staff member had a different interpretation of when and how to apply those consequences.

• Jason had an unrecognized history of trauma that made time-outs feel like abandonment, and only resulted in escalating his behaviour.

• His communication device was often not charged or accessible, leading to frustration.

• Staff weren’t trained in trauma-informed care or sensory regulation.

• No family input was included, and the day program staff were unaware of the home strategies so that the program was not portable or implemented in different settings.

The result? Escalation. Jason's aggressive episodes increased. Staff burnout rose. The team blamed Jason for being "non-compliant" when the system itself was disjointed and reactive.  This resulted in Jason being admitted to the Psych unit of a local hospital where he was placed on a cocktail of strong psychotropic medications.  He experienced significant side effects to these meds, was often placed in restraint or time out in hospital and ended up staying for over a year before being discharged (without any proper discharge planning or a new approach). 

Same Case:  How Would This Look with a Positive Systems Approach

What Would Be Done Differently:

1. Systemic Collaboration: A team would be assembled including group home staff, day program staff, family members, and Jason himself (to the extent possible). Shared values and goals would be developed together.

2. Trauma-Informed Lens: Recognizing Jason's trauma history, strategies like time-outs would be replaced with co-regulation and safe spaces. Staff would be trained in relational approaches.

3. Environmental and Sensory Considerations: Jason's environment would be adapted to reduce sensory overload. His communication device would be treated as essential, like eyeglasses.

4. Proactive Planning: Rather than waiting for aggression, the team would identify early warning signs and intervene and re-direct before escalation.

5. Coping Skills:  Jason would be taught coping skills to deal with his emotional dysregulation (e.g. – deep breathing, Problem Solving Skills training, anger management strategies).

6. Positive Reinforcement:  The Contingency Management System (i.e. – Token Economy) would be designed in collaboration with Jason and provide him with a high density of positive reinforcement for using his coping skills and absence of aggression.

7. Staff Support and Supervision: Staff would be supported with on-site coaching from the clinical support team, emotional check-ins, and clear written protocols and data collection to reduce confusion and stress and provide ongoing evaluation of progress.

8. Consistent Communication: Home and day program staff would use the same language, detailed written protocols, visuals, and strategies so Jason experiences consistency. 

9. Crisis Management Aligned with Positive Systems Approach: When a crisis does occur, the response is rooted in maintaining dignity, safety, and connection. Staff would use low-arousal, non-confrontational techniques. Rather than isolating Jason, crisis moments would focus on reducing sensory and emotional overload through calming environments and trusted relationships. A debrief would follow, not only with Jason but with staff, to review what happened systemically and refine prevention plans. The team would prioritize learning from the event instead of punishing it.

10. Responsible Psychiatric Consultation and Medication Use: If behavioural concerns persist despite environmental and relational supports, a psychiatric consultation would be considered—not as a default, but as a carefully integrated component of the overall system plan. Any use of medication would be transparent, regularly reviewed, and aligned with behavioural and emotional goals. The psychiatrist would be part of the collaborative team, ensuring that medications support—not replace—other positive systems interventions. Side effects, interactions, and impact on quality of life would be closely monitored by all stakeholders.

11. Perseverance Over Defaulting to Emergency Services: Crucially, Jason's support agency would need to demonstrate perseverance and tolerance. Instead of defaulting to police intervention or hospitalization at the first sign of behavioural escalation, the team would commit to managing crises internally whenever safely possible. They would commit to ensuring that Jason was living in a suitable environment where his safety and that of his staff (and housemates) would be a priority.  This approach affirms Jason's dignity, builds his trust in his caregivers, and avoids the trauma and stigma often associated with emergency interventions. His supporting agency would commit to being able to provide emergency supplemental staffing during crisis periods to ease the strain on his core team.  Police or hospital involvement would be viewed as an absolute last resort, not a primary strategy. The agency’s ability to stay the course—even through difficult episodes—would be essential in achieving long-term stability and growth.

Outcome: Jason’s aggressive episodes decreased. Trust grew. Staff felt more confident and supported. Jason engaged more in his day program and began forming positive relationships with peers and staff.

Final Thoughts

Traditional behaviour management programs are not inherently flawed—but they are incomplete when used in isolation from important systemic factors.   Disruptive behaviours are often symptoms of deeper individual and systemic issues. A Positive Systems Approach doesn’t ignore behaviour; it contextualizes it. It looks beyond the individual and asks: What around this person needs to change?

Until we start asking that question, we’ll keep spinning our wheels. But when we do, we open the door to real, lasting change.

For more about applying a Positive Systems Approach in real-world settings, check out other articles on drbobcarey.com or pick up a copy of Managing Disruptive Behaviours with a Positive Systems Approach (Amazon).