Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T22:31:57.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behavioural Treatment of Challenging Behaviour: A Cost-benefit Analysis of a Service Delivery Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2014

Alan Hudson ,
Roland Jauernig ,
Patrick Wilken  and
Gary Radler
Alan Hudson*
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Roland Jauernig
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Patrick Wilken
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Gary Radler
Affiliation:
Department of Health and Community Services, Victoria
*
Department of Psychology and Intellectual Disability Studies, RMIT, Bundoora VIC 3083, Australia
Get access

Abstract

In 1990 a number of regionally based Behaviour Intervention Support Teams (BISTs) were established in Victoria to assist agencies providing support to persons with an intellectual disability who exhibited challenging behaviour. A primary function of the BISTs was to conduct intensive interventions for clients with severe challenging behaviours. A cost-benefit analysis of these interventions was carried out. It was found that the existence of a severe challenging behaviour resulted in an additional cost to the service system of an average $40,510 per annum. In contrast, the cost of a single intensive intervention conducted by a BIST was $5,725. Allowing for the fact that not all intensive interventions were successful, it was still concluded that the interventions conducted by the BISTs were cost efficient. Methodological difficulties associated with the cost-benefit analysis are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 216 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Heal, L.W., McCaughrin, W.B., & Tines, J.J. (1989). Methodological nuances and pitfalls of benefit-cost analysis: A critique. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 210–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M., & Wehman, P. (1983). Cost-benefit analysis of placing moderately and severely handicapped individuals into competitive employment. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8, 30–39.Google Scholar
Hudson, A.M., Jauernig, R., & Wilken, P. (1994, 12). Evaluation of the Behaviour Intervention Support Team Program: Summative report. Melbourne: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Disability Program Evaluation Unit.Google Scholar
Hudson, A.M., Wilken, P., Jauernig, R., & Radler, G. (1995). Regionally based teams for the treatment of challenging behaviour: A three-year outcome study. Behaviour Change, 12, 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D.R., Bruininks, R.H., Thurlow, M., & McGrew, K. (1988). Using benefit-cost analysis in special education. Exceptional Children, 55, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, D.R., Johnson, D.R., Bruininks, R.H., Kallsen, L.A., & Guillery, R.P. (1992). Is supported employment cost-effective in Minnesota? Journal of Disability Studies, 3, 67–91.Google Scholar
Schalock, R.L., & Thornton, C.V. (1988). Program evaluation: A field guide for administrators. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar