To monitor and reassess an ABA property destruction support plan, track Dev's exposure, attempts, completed events, verified damage, hazards, possible injuries, communication access, messages, partner response, support integrity, emergency actions, downtime, repair, restrictions, participation, and person-family-worker experience by context. Preserve raw counts and missing records. Zero observed damage may reflect durable materials, lower exposure, hidden damage, or measurement loss.

Lock Dev's exposure cohort

Define material-use periods, tasks, transitions, unstructured access, repair activities, or other opportunities and the conditions needed for an interpretable record.

Preserve event and damage states

Report attempts, completed actions, episodes, object targets, material change, loss of function, hazards, possible injury, emergency response, and maintenance failure separately.

Measure support delivery

Track communication, partner response, environmental supports, material access, teaching, reinforcement, maintenance, emergency information, and deviations against the current plan version.

Include burden and access

Ask Dev and family about communication, creativity, choice, privacy, belongings, participation, fear, repair, and fit. Track worker burden, downtime, and costs without using them as a proxy for client benefit.

Use explicit reassessment rules

Reopen when health, setting, material, schedule, communication, consequence, damage, hazard, staffing, maintenance, person priorities, or intervention effects change.

Build Dev's property-destruction support monitoring register

Create one versioned record for the home, school, and community team. Include Dev's object actions, targets, ordinary uses, exposure, material-change and hazard states, person report, health and emergency routes, communication and AAC, context, assessment evidence, environmental and workplace controls, treatment components, repair or restitution, role authority, integrity, restrictions, raw outcomes, missingness, downtime, unwanted effects, experience, bounded decision, and reassessment trigger. Store urgent information for authorized rapid access and other sensitive data with role limits. Use event data linked to exposure, material, ordinary use, setting, communication, support version, action state, damage, hazard, injury route, downtime, repair, cost source, restriction, participation, experience, and review.

Validate Dev's evidence

Reproduce 40 periods, six support gaps, four outcome gaps, 30 interpretable, five event periods, eight episodes, three damage outcomes, 26/30 integrity, two hazards, one closure, two restrictions, and four repairs.

Connect Dev's evidence to an action

The team repairs four support gaps, reviews unavailable records, routes two hazards, and examines the room closure and restrictions. Clinical assessment reopens for unexplained change.

Work through Dev's example

Dev has 40 planned material-use periods. Six lack support-delivery evidence and four lack verified outcome data, leaving 30 interpretable periods. Events occur in five periods, with eight episodes and three verified-damage outcomes. Plan integrity is 26 of 30; two hazards, one room closure, two restrictions, and four communication repairs receive separate review. Preserve every planned and eligible unit, object action, target, material state, communication, partner response, hazard and emergency route, support version, downtime, repair, restriction, invalid record, correction, and outcome. This fictional example demonstrates one workflow control. It supplies no diagnosis, intent finding, function proof, facilities clearance, legal or debt conclusion, treatment effect, reimbursement result, or safety guarantee for Dev.

Address Dev's main interpretation risk

Reporting three damage outcomes alone would hide attempts, episodes, hazards, downtime, restrictions, integrity gaps, and ten unavailable records. Pooling settings can conceal a material-specific change. Review exposure, ordinary object use, action, target, material condition, maintenance, hazard, health, communication, antecedent, consequence, setting, support delivery, repair, restrictions, person priorities, missingness, and design strength separately. A clean room, compliance, blocked attempt, zero visible damage, low cost, or staff confidence cannot establish wellbeing, assent, safety, function, or effectiveness.

Set Dev's clinical and safety scope

Dev's property-destruction support monitoring register uses the CASP public summary for high-level ABA behavioral-health-treatment scope for autistic people. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client involvement, consent and assent when applicable, medical needs, assessment, intervention, risk, data, documentation, confidentiality, and evaluation for covered people. The BACB outline is examination content. These sources create no emergency, facilities, repair, insurance, debt, employment, or legal authority.

Use multidisciplinary assessment for Dev

Dev's plan uses the UK NICE NG11 recommendations to organize questions about communication, physical and mental health, medication, trauma and life history, environment, direct observation, quality of life, functional assessment, proactive support, risk, and review. NICE applies to people with learning disabilities whose behavior challenges. It is useful context rather than U.S. authority or a property-destruction protocol.

Keep functional-analysis evidence bounded for Dev

Dev's assessment scope reflects a 40-year functional-analysis review reporting 1,333 outcomes from 326 studies published from June 2012 through May 2022. The literature spans many topographies, participants, settings, designs, and outcomes. It supports a broad assessment technology rather than a required property-destruction test. The selected method still needs a useful question, safe conditions, assent, qualified oversight, stop criteria, and a conclusion limited to sampled contexts.

Scope caregiver implementation for Dev

Dev's family role draws cautiously from a systematic review of 36 caregiver-implemented functional-analysis studies. The review covered children and varied challenging behavior, including property destruction, but only 12 studies reported procedural-fidelity data and study-level bias concerns remained. Caregiver involvement can add context and transfer while preserving voluntary participation, training, supervision, safety, role limits, and alternatives to caregiver-led experimental analysis.

Read communication-treatment evidence narrowly for Dev

Dev's communication questions use a summary of home-based FA and FCT projects involving 103 children age six or younger with developmental delays and destructive behavior; 57 displayed property destruction, often alongside other topographies. Eighty-four completed treatment, and the paper reports a mean 90% reduction for pooled destructive behavior across projects. The historical, bundled data do not provide a property-destruction-specific effect, universal FCT form, or expected result for Dev.

Coordinate hazards, AAC, and emergencies for Dev

Dev's site-recovery decisions use OSHA's walk-around guidance as general workplace context: inspect areas, review earlier incidents and near misses, talk with workers, identify blocked exits, exposed wires, poorly maintained equipment and property damage, and route complex hazards to qualified help. It is guidance rather than an ABA plan or universal facility rule. ASHA says AAC users should always have device or tool access. For danger or a medical emergency in the United States, SAMHSA directs people to 911 or the nearest emergency room.

Choose Dev's next bounded action

Review after hazard, injury, emergency action, new object use, new damage, communication loss, restriction, room closure, cost escalation, setting change, or person-family-worker concern. Record the qualified owner, source, effective date, plan version, emergency and hazard route, communication and access arrangement, facilities or property route, authority, implementation check, accessible explanation, complaint path, and reassessment trigger. Preserve earlier evidence when conditions change.

Close Dev's playbook

Review the property-destruction support monitoring register with Dev, the qualified behavior analyst, family or authorized decision-maker when applicable, direct team, facilities or property owner, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that emergency response, injury care, behavioral assessment, communication, workplace and facility safety, treatment, repair or restitution, and restriction review remain separate; every denominator is reproducible; AAC, basic needs, prescribed care, safe belongings, valid refusal, and emergency help remain protected; urgent hazards received action; affected people have appropriate follow-up; and conclusions stay bounded to sampled conditions. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

Related resources

Sources