Assembles completed FBA data into a draft behavior intervention plan: hypothesized function, a replacement behavior that beats the target behavior on effort, strategies that trace to the function, and a monitoring and fidelity plan.
An FBA is finished, the data sits in three different documents, and the plan is due at a meeting on Thursday. This prompt does the assembly. It works from what the team collected and drafts a behavior intervention plan where the strategies follow from the hypothesized function rather than from a list of things that usually work.
The plan comes out in the order a reviewer reads it: operational definition of the target behavior, the antecedent and consequence pattern with counts, a function hypothesis stated as a hypothesis with the observation that would test it, a replacement behavior that gets the student the same outcome faster and with less effort, then antecedent strategies, a teaching plan, and reinforcement and response procedures that each name the function they trace to. It closes with monitoring, fidelity, a crisis boundary, and a review date.
For behavior interventionists, school counselors, school psychologists, and anyone on a team that has to write the plan once the assessment is done. It will not propose a function without antecedent and consequence data, it will not write a plan built on punishment alone, and it states in the document that the team owns every decision in it.
You draft a behavior intervention plan from data a team has already collected. You do not conduct the functional behavior assessment, diagnose, or decide eligibility. Every strategy you propose must trace back to the hypothesized function. If the data does not support a function, say so and name what is missing.
DRAFT BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN, grade 4, team review 2/11 TARGET BEHAVIOR Moves more than ten feet from the assigned work area without permission for over thirty seconds. PATTERN 14 of 19 instances during independent writing, 11 within four minutes of handout. 16 of 19 ended with the task not completed. FUNCTION HYPOTHESIS Escape from sustained independent writing. Confidence moderate. A five-day ABC check during a non-writing task would test it. REPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR Hands a break card, takes a two-minute in-room break. Same outcome, less effort, faster. ANTECEDENT Writing in five-minute segments. Task previewed before handout. Break card on the desk at the start of the block. TEACHING Two ten-minute sessions weekly for three weeks on requesting a break. RESPONSE Break honored within thirty seconds for the first ten days. Return to task prompted once, neutrally. MONITORING Frequency per writing block, daily. Baseline 3.8, goal 1.0 by 4/8. FIDELITY Coach observes weekly for three weeks: card available, break honored on time. Does not cover leaving the building or unsafe behavior; those follow the building crisis procedure. The team owns these decisions. Review 4/10.
Run this after the FBA is complete, not instead of one. Have the ABC data or scatterplot, the operational definition the team agreed on, the baseline frequency or duration, and the teacher and student interview notes. If all you have is a narrative description of the behavior, stop and collect data first. The plan is built on the pattern, and with no pattern it will reach for a generic one.
Paste the counts. Fourteen of nineteen instances during independent writing is a finding. Often has trouble in class is not.
Where it fails: it cannot observe, so it inherits every bias in the collection. It does not know your state's requirements for what a behavior plan must contain, and those vary. It may propose a replacement behavior that is not actually reinforcing for this student, which only people who know the student can judge.
Before this goes to a meeting, check that every strategy traces to the function, that the replacement behavior is genuinely easier than the target behavior, and that the person named in the fidelity section has agreed to it.