Behavior Intervention Plan Design
A defensible BIP is function-based: it names the target behavior, the hypothesized function (attention, escape, access to tangibles, automatic/sensory), and the replacement behavior that produces the same reinforcer more efficiently. If the plan does not match the function, it usually fails regardless of how well it is written.
Build the plan in layers. Antecedent strategies (environmental rearrangement, priming, choice, visual schedules, demand modification) reduce the MO. Teaching strategies (prompting, fading, shaping, chaining, modeling) build the replacement skill. Consequence strategies arrange reinforcement and extinction. Know the reinforcement schedules: DRA reinforces an alternative behavior; DRI reinforces a behavior incompatible with the target; DRO delivers reinforcement for the absence of the target during an interval; DRL reduces rate; NCR provides noncontingent access. Trap: DRO does not teach a skill and can be undermined if the target behavior still contacts reinforcement.
Extinction should be paired with reinforcement of a replacement; extinction alone invites bursts and is contraindicated for severe behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. Restrictive or punishment procedures require consent, least-restrictive justification, data, and oversight.
Plan for generalization and maintenance explicitly (train across settings, people, and stimuli; thin schedules; program natural contingencies). Rule of thumb: every BIP needs a measurable goal, a data collection plan, a criterion for mastery, and a review date. Worked example: a student escapes difficult tasks by crying → DRA teaches "break please," demands are briefly reduced, and crying no longer produces escape.