Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Risks and costs of a treatment litigation: Focus on the family

  • 26 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

Decision-making in special educational settings is always based on an implicit process of assessing risks, costs, and benefits of proposed alternative program options. We urge decision-makers to make the process explicit. The hidden costs of IEP decisions are discussed in the context of the question of using aversive procedures to treat severe destructive behavior. Some agency decisions result in significant cost transfer to or generation of risks and costs for families. The experiences of one family involved in a due process proceeding with a school system are examined for evidence of burdensome psychological, social and financial consequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Favell, J. E., Azrin, N. H., Baumeister, A. A., Carr, E. G., Dorsey, M. F., Forehand, R., Foxx, R. M., Lovaas, I. O., Rincover, A., Risley, T. R., Romanczyk, R. G., Russo, D. C., Schroeder, S. R., & Solnick, J. V. (1982). The treatment of self-injurious behavior.Behavior Therapy, 17, 529–554.

  2. Linscheid, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Ricketts, R. W., Williams, D. E., & Griffin, J. C. (1990). Clinical evaluation of the self-injurious behavior inhibiting system.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 53–78.

  3. McGonigel, M. J., Kaufmann, R. K., & Johnson, B. H. (Eds.) (1991).Guidelines and recommended practices for the individualized family service plan. Washington, DC: National of Children's Health (ACCH).

  4. Meinhold, P. M., Landau, R. J., & Mulick, J. A. (1991), August).Diverse policy responses in public special education system SIBIS litigations. Paper presented at the 99th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

  5. Meinhold, P., & Mulick, J. A. (1990a). Counter-habilitative contingencies in institutions for mentally retarded people: Ecological and regulatory influences.Mental Retardation, 28, 67–73.

  6. Meinhold, P. M., & Mulick, J. A. (1990b). Risks, choices, and behavioral treatment:Behavioral Residential Treatment, 5, 29–44.

  7. Meinhold, P., & Mulick, J. A. (1992). Social policy and science in the treatment of severe behavior disorders: Defining and securing a healthy relationship.Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 585–603.

  8. Morgan, R. L., Striefel, S., Baer, R., & Percival, G. (1991). Regulating behavioral procedures for individuals with handicaps: Review of state department standards.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 63–85.

  9. Vyse, S. A., & Mulick, J. A. (1988). Ecobehavioral assessment of a special education classroom: Teacher-student behavioral covariation.Journal of the Multihandicapped Person, 1, 201–216.

  10. Vyse, S. A., & Mulick, J. A. (1990). A correlational approach to ecobehavioral assessment. In S. R. Schroeder (Ed.),Ecobehavioral analysis and developmental disabilities: The twenty-first century (pp. 64–81). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to James A. Mulick Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meinhold, P.M., Mulick, J.A. & Teodoro, J.M. Risks and costs of a treatment litigation: Focus on the family. J Child Fam Stud 3, 389–401 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02233998

Download citation

Key Words

  • decision analysis
  • cost
  • IEP
  • due process
  • destructive behavior