Functional Behaviour Assessment and Behaviour

A Functional Behaviour Assessment (FBA) is a systematic process for identifying why a student engages in challenging behaviour. A Behaviour Intervention Plan (BIP) is the documented response to that assessment: a structured, evidence-based plan that replaces the problem behaviour with a more appropriate one. Both tools are rooted in applied behaviour analysis, and both are grounded in a straightforward premise. All behaviour serves a function for the person engaging in it. If you understand the function, you can teach a replacement.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004, an FBA is legally required in specific circumstances, and school teams are expected to produce a BIP in response to the findings. But the legal requirement only scratches the surface of why these tools matter. For general education teachers, special education teachers, and school administrators, understanding FBA and BIP is increasingly central to effective classroom practice. Challenging behaviour is one of the most common reasons teachers report burnout. Yet most challenging behaviour is predictable, patterned, and responsive to function-based intervention.

‍

What Is a Functional Behaviour Assessment?

A Functional Behaviour Assessment is a structured process for determining the environmental conditions that predict and maintain a student's challenging behaviour. The word "functional" is key: the assessment asks what function the behaviour serves for the student, not what the behaviour looks like from the outside.

The practical foundation is the ABC model: antecedent, behaviour and consequence. The 2024 U.S. Department of Education guidance uses the same logic when it asks teams to collect information about what happens before the behaviour, what the learner does, and what happens afterwards. The Antecedent is the classroom context, task demand, social interaction, transition or sensory event immediately before the behaviour. The Behaviour is the specific action itself, defined precisely enough that two observers would agree whether it occurred. The Consequence is what happens immediately after, which may make the behaviour more or less likely to happen again.

Iwata and colleagues (1982) formalised the functional analysis methodology, demonstrating that the same topography of behaviour (for example, self-injury) could serve completely different functions in different students. This insight transformed the field. Two students who both disrupt a lesson may be doing so for entirely different reasons, and an intervention that works for one may be ineffective or even counterproductive for the other.

The four functions of behaviour, often summarised with the acronym EATS, are:

- Escape: The student engages in the behaviour to get away from a demand, activity, person, or setting they find aversive.

- Attention: The student engages in the behaviour to gain social attention, including reprimands, from teachers or peers.

- Tangibles: The student engages in the behaviour to access or maintain a preferred object, activity, or food.

Sensory or automatic reinforcement means the behaviour may produce internal sensory input or relief, rather than social attention. Current U.S. Department of Education FBA guidance describes function-based review as looking at antecedents, behaviour and consequences, including behaviour used to obtain or avoid stimulation and sensory experiences. Social consequences may still be relevant, but the team should test that assumption through data rather than relying on a placeholder citation.

In school settings, teams commonly consider escape, attention, access to tangibles and sensory or automatic reinforcement. Adults can accidentally strengthen a pattern when the consequence gives the learner exactly what the behaviour was seeking. When a student disrupts and is sent to the corridor, the escape function may be reinforced. When a teacher responds to every outburst with visible attention, the attention function may be reinforced. Function-based thinking asks: what is this student getting from this behaviour that they are not getting any other way?

‍

When Is an FBA Required Under IDEA 2004?

IDEA discipline regulations require the IEP team to conduct an FBA, when one has not already been completed, and implement a behavioural intervention plan when the manifestation determination finds that the conduct was a manifestation of the child's disability (34 CFR 300.530(f)). The regulation also requires services, and as appropriate an FBA and behavioural intervention services, when a child with a disability is removed from the current placement under the discipline procedures (34 CFR 300.530(d)). Treat this as a legal floor, not a reason to wait for crisis.

For IEP development and review, IDEA also requires the team to consider positive behavioural interventions and supports when behaviour impedes the child's learning or that of others (34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(i)). In practice, that consideration may lead to an FBA and BIP before exclusions accumulate.

OSERS and OESE's November 2024 guidance encourages schools to use FBAs proactively for behaviour that interferes with learning. The safer evidence-based message is therefore: do not wait for a disciplinary threshold if the team already has a persistent, patterned barrier to learning.

The connection to a student's Individualised Education Programme matters here. The IEP team is responsible for the FBA and BIP process. General education teachers, who are legally required members of the IEP team, are essential participants, not passive recipients of a plan developed without them.

‍

The Four Functions of Behaviour: A Comparison

Understanding the four functions in depth makes the difference between an FBA that produces meaningful intervention and one that generates paperwork. The table below compares each function with its typical triggers, examples in a secondary classroom, and the replacement behaviour direction a BIP should take.

Function	What the student is seeking	Common antecedents	Classroom example	Replacement behaviour direction
Escape / Avoidance	To get away from or delay an aversive task, demand, or person	Long or difficult written tasks; transitions; peer conflict; test conditions; unfamiliar activities	Student tears up a worksheet when asked to begin an independent writing task	Teach the student to request a break appropriately, ask for help, or signal task difficulty using a card system
Attention	To gain adult or peer attention, including negative attention	Teacher focussed on another student; low-engagement whole-class activities; peer ignoring	Student calls out repeatedly during direct instruction, escalating until the teacher responds	Teach the student to raise their hand, use a check-in signal, or request peer interaction through structured routines
Tangibles / Access	To obtain or maintain a preferred item, activity, or privilege	Transition away from preferred activity; removal of object; denial of request	Student becomes physically aggressive when a peer uses the computer they want	Teach the student to request access, wait using a visual timer, or negotiate turn-taking through appropriate language
Sensory / Automatic	To produce, increase, or reduce internal sensory stimulation	Understimulating or overstimulating environments; unstructured time; specific textures, sounds, or lighting	Student rocks rhythmically and hums during whole-class silent reading, unresponsive to proximity prompts	Identify whether the behaviour interferes with learning or safety, then provide alternative sensory input that meets the same need (fidget tools, movement breaks, noise-cancelling equipment)

‍

The FBA Process Step by Step

A practical school FBA usually moves through five connected tasks: referral and consent where required, indirect assessment, direct observation, hypothesis formation and hypothesis checking. The 2024 U.S. Department of Education guidance frames the same logic as collecting information about antecedents, behaviour and maintaining consequences, then using that information to select skill-building and support strategies.

‍

Stage 1: Referral and Consent

The process begins when a concern is formally raised, usually through an IEP team meeting or a referral from the classroom teacher. Parental consent is required before assessment begins. This stage also involves defining the target behaviour with precision. "He's challenging" is not a workable definition. "He shouts out words or phrases louder than conversation volume during teacher-directed instruction, averaging four to six times per 45-minute lesson" is. Operational definitions are the foundation of reliable data collection.

‍

Stage 2: Indirect Assessment

Indirect assessment gathers behaviour information without direct observation. Teachers, specialists, parents and learners may be interviewed using a structured format that asks what happens before the behaviour, what the learner does, and what happens afterwards. Treat interview evidence as a starting hypothesis that must be checked against direct observation and record review.

Record review is also part of indirect assessment. Cumulative records, previous IEPs, attendance data, medical information, and any prior behaviour documentation can reveal patterns that observation alone might miss. Setting events, conditions that make problem behaviour more likely without being the immediate trigger, are often uncovered at this stage. A student who is consistently more dysregulated on Mondays following an unsettled weekend, or during the lesson that follows a chaotic transition, is showing you a setting event.

‍

Stage 3: Direct Observation

Direct observation is the most important stage of the FBA. The assessor observes the student in the natural environment, recording the antecedents, behaviours, and consequences as they occur. Several tools support this.

ABC recording describes behaviour events in sequence. Scatter plots can map behaviour across days and settings, while interval and frequency recordings show how often behaviour happens. These tools give the team observable data instead of impressions, but the method should be proportionate to the decision being made and feasible for staff to maintain.

Use observation across the relevant settings and conditions before treating the hypothesis as reliable. A one-lesson snapshot can mistake subject, seating, noise level or peer context for the maintaining function. Scott and Cooper (2017) summarise the practical logic clearly: function matters, repeated observation matters, and the purpose of the FBA is an effective intervention.

‍

Stage 4: Hypothesis Formation

A useful hypothesis statement is concrete: "In the presence of X, the learner will exhibit Y, resulting in Z." It links antecedents, behaviour and consequences in one sentence, and it gives the team a statement they can test through observation and review.

Behaviour support plans use a simple learning principle: what happens after a behaviour can make that behaviour more or less likely to happen again. If the consequence reliably helps the learner escape, gain attention, access something or regulate sensory input, the behaviour may continue. The BIP therefore changes the environment and teaches a better response, rather than relying on punishment after the event.

For example: "When Ms. Rivera asks the class to begin independent written work, Marcus covers his worksheet with his arm and begins making loud siren noises, and as a result he is typically sent to the corridor or asked to complete a modified task, which removes the writing demand."

This hypothesis points directly at both the function (escape from written work) and the maintaining consequence (removal of the demand). It also identifies what the intervention must address: the written work itself, the student's capacity to manage it, and the way the team currently responds.

‍

Stage 5: Hypothesis Verification

The team checks the hypothesis before the BIP. This may involve structured observation to test predicted conditions. More complex cases might use functional analysis, as Iwata et al. (1982) created. Functional analysis is rigorous but needs expertise. School FBAs usually verify with observation and team data review.

‍

From FBA to BIP: How Assessment Drives Intervention

The Behaviour Intervention Plan is the direct product of the FBA. It is not a generic behaviour contract or a list of consequences. Every element of the BIP should trace back to the function identified in the assessment. Carr (1977) established the foundational principle: if behaviour is communication, the intervention must teach an alternative form of communication that serves the same function.

This principle, later extended into the Communication-Based Intervention model (Carr and Durand, 1985), has three practical implications for the BIP. First, the replacement behaviour must be functionally equivalent. It must get the student the same outcome (escape, attention, access, or sensory input) that the problem behaviour was getting. Second, the replacement behaviour must be more efficient than the problem behaviour. If it is harder, slower, or less reliable at producing the desired outcome, the student will revert to the problem behaviour. Third, the environment must be modified to make the problem behaviour less necessary and the replacement behaviour more successful.

For a student whose escape-motivated behaviour is triggered by long written tasks, a BIP that only punishes disruption misses the point entirely. The effective BIP modifies the task (chunked instructions, graphic organisers, choice of response format), teaches the student to request breaks or help appropriately, and responds to appropriate requests immediately and reliably. The challenging behaviour is no longer necessary because the replacement behaviour works.

‍

Writing an Effective BIP

A complete Behaviour Intervention Plan should translate the FBA hypothesis into teachable, observable support. Current official guidance and function-based intervention research point to the same core elements: define the behaviour, state the likely function, teach a replacement behaviour, adjust antecedents, reinforce the replacement response, plan calm responses to escalation, and monitor data over time.

Operationally Defined Target Behaviour. The exact behaviour that is being addressed, described in observable and measurable terms. Two staff members should be able to read the definition and agree whether the behaviour is occurring.

Function Statement. A summary of the FBA findings: the antecedent conditions, the maintaining function, and the consequence that currently reinforces the behaviour. This is the hypothesis statement in accessible language.

Replacement Behaviour. The specific behaviour the student will learn to use instead of the problem behaviour. It must serve the same function, be physically possible for the student, and be socially acceptable in the school setting.

Antecedent modifications are changes to routines that make the replacement behaviour easier and the problem behaviour less necessary. These are preventative strategies: chunk long tasks, pre-teach key vocabulary, use visual schedules for transitions, offer appropriate seating choices, or use first-then boards to clarify what happens next. The team should select modifications that match the assessed function, not a generic menu.

Teaching Strategies. The instructional methods the team will use to teach the replacement behaviour. This includes who will teach it, when, how often, and in what context. Scaffolding is often central to this phase: the student needs guided practice in using the replacement behaviour before being expected to use it independently under pressure.

Reinforcement Strategies. The plan must specify what reinforcement the student will receive for using the replacement behaviour, how quickly it will be delivered, and at what rate. The reinforcement must be more potent than whatever the problem behaviour was producing. For an escape-motivated student, this means that appropriate requests for breaks are honoured immediately and reliably.

Consequence Procedures. What staff will do when the problem behaviour occurs despite the other elements of the plan. These consequences should be calm, predictable, and designed not to reinforce the function. For attention-maintained behaviour, this means minimising social attention during the behaviour while increasing it at all other times.

Crisis Protocol. A clear plan for what staff should do if the behaviour escalates to a level that poses a safety risk. This section should specify who to contact, what physical space the student should move to, and what de-escalation approaches to use.

Data Collection Plan. How progress will be monitored, by whom, how frequently, and what the criteria for success look like. Without data, the team cannot know whether the BIP is working or whether it needs to be modified.

‍

The General Education Teacher's Role in FBA and BIP

General education teachers are not peripheral to this process. In many cases, they are the most important people in it. The classroom teacher typically provides the first and most detailed account of the antecedent conditions, the frequency of the behaviour, and the patterns that emerge across the school day. Their classroom is where most implementation will occur.

During the FBA, you will be asked to complete structured interview forms, provide lesson-by-lesson ABC data, and participate in team meetings. The quality of your observational data directly affects the quality of the hypothesis. A common mistake is to describe behaviour in inferential terms ("he's being defiant", "she doesn't care") rather than observable ones. Train yourself to describe what you see: "He placed his head on the desk, said nothing, and did not begin the task."

When the BIP is developed, you are responsible for implementing it consistently during your lessons. This is not optional: inconsistent implementation is the most common reason BIPs fail. If the plan specifies that appropriate break requests are honoured within thirty seconds, every staff member who works with that student must honour them within thirty seconds. A single inconsistency teaches the student that persistence pays off.

You also have a role in progress monitoring. Many BIPs include frequency counts or brief rating scales that classroom teachers complete at the end of each lesson or day. This data is what allows the team to make decisions: is the replacement behaviour being used more often? Is the problem behaviour decreasing? Does the plan need to be adjusted?

Consider a concrete example. A year nine student, Jordan, has an FBA that identifies escape from written work as the maintaining function. The BIP includes a task-modification protocol (Jordan receives written tasks in three clearly sequenced chunks rather than one long worksheet), a card system (Jordan can place a red card on the desk to signal "I need help" without interrupting the class), and a reinforcement schedule (Jordan earns five minutes of preferred reading time at the end of lessons where the problem behaviour does not occur).

As the class teacher, your role is to prepare the chunked tasks before each lesson, respond to the red card within a specified time (the BIP says two minutes), and record whether Jordan used the card and whether the problem behaviour occurred. You do not need to be a behaviour specialist. You need to understand why the plan is structured this way and implement it as written.

‍

Common Mistakes in FBA and BIP Implementation

The research literature on FBA and BIP implementation identifies several recurring failures. Understanding them helps you avoid them.

Treating behaviour as willful. The most persistent error in school-based behaviour management is interpreting challenging behaviour as a deliberate choice made by a student who knows better and refuses to comply. A function-based assessment starts from the observable pattern: what happens before, what the learner does, and what consequence follows. A student who disrupts every time written work is presented may have learned, through repeated experience, that disruption changes the task. The intervention must teach a better way to meet the need, not simply punish the expression of it.

Targeting the wrong behaviour. FBAs sometimes produce BIPs that address the topography of behaviour (what it looks like) rather than the function (what it achieves). A plan that addresses "shouting out" by teaching a student not to shout will not generalise to other forms of attention-seeking behaviour. The plan must address the function.

Inconsistent implementation. Function-based plans depend on consistent adult behaviour. A plan that is implemented by some staff but not others, or followed on some days but not others, teaches the student that escalation is the route to a more reliable outcome. The team should specify who does what, when reinforcement is delivered, and how fidelity will be checked.

Failing to train all staff. Every adult who interacts with the student during the school day needs to understand the BIP: the lunchroom supervisor, the teaching assistant, the cover teacher, the school counsellor. A behaviour plan that only the SPED teacher knows about is not a behaviour plan. It is documentation.

Ignoring setting events. A setting event is a condition that occurs earlier in the day or in the student's life and makes problem behaviour more likely without being the immediate trigger. Common setting events include sleep deprivation, a difficult morning routine, medication timing, a conflict that occurred before school, or a chaotic transition earlier in the day. The BIP should include strategies for responding when known setting events are present, such as a brief check-in with a trusted adult at the start of the day.

Punishments such as detentions may briefly suppress behaviour, but they do not teach learners what to do instead. If the behaviour is escape-maintained, a punitive response can also make the task feel more aversive. A stronger plan teaches and reinforces a functionally equivalent replacement response, such as requesting help, a brief break or a reduced first step.

Not updating the plan. A BIP that was written two years ago and has not been reviewed is almost certainly not addressing current antecedent conditions, staff configurations, or the student's developmental progress. IDEA requires annual review through the IEP process, but effective teams review BIPs more frequently when data suggests the plan is not working.

‍

FBA and BIP Within the MTSS Framework

The Multi-Tiered System of Supports framework situates FBA and BIP within a three-tier continuum of behaviour support. Understanding this connection helps teachers see the FBA not as a crisis response but as a routine part of a well-structured school.

Tier 1 gives all learners universal behaviour support. Schools teach clear expectations, use acknowledgement systems, keep routines predictable and proactively manage classrooms. The Center on PBIS describes PBIS as a tiered framework, but the exact proportion of learners needing additional support depends on context, implementation quality and the school's data.

Tier 2 provides targeted support for students who do not respond adequately to Tier 1. Interventions at this level are typically group-based, brief, and standardised: Check-In Check-Out (CICO), social skills groups, function-based group contingencies. Data from Tier 2 monitoring often informs a decision about whether to conduct an FBA. A student who has not responded to two Tier 2 interventions after six to eight weeks of consistent implementation is a strong candidate for individual FBA and BIP.

Tier 3 is where the individual FBA and BIP sit. By the time a student reaches Tier 3, the team has data from universal screening, Tier 1 and Tier 2 implementation, and monitoring over time. The FBA at Tier 3 is more thorough and the BIP more individualised than anything that occurs at earlier tiers. It is also embedded in the student's IEP if they have one.

The PBIS framework developed by Sugai, Horner and colleagues provides the school-wide structure within which FBA and BIP operate most effectively. The Center on PBIS describes PBIS as a tiered framework for behavioural, academic, social, emotional and mental-health support, and its evidence-base summary is a safer source for outcome claims than a broad unsourced promise. The FBA and BIP are the individualised supports at the top of that framework, not replacements for the universal systems beneath them.

‍

FBA, BIP and Students with ADHD or Autism

Functional behaviour assessments need particular care for learners with ADHD, autism or other neurodevelopmental differences. The FBA should not assume that a diagnosis explains the behaviour on its own. The team still needs to test what happens before the behaviour, what the learner does, what happens afterwards and whether sensory, cognitive, communication or environmental factors are maintaining the pattern.

Students with ADHD frequently present with behaviours that serve an escape function, not because they dislike the task, but because executive function demands make task initiation and sustained attention effortful. A student who disrupts during independent work may be escaping cognitive load rather than the subject matter itself. The BIP in this case must address the cognitive demands of the task, not just the behaviour.

Learners with autism may show behaviour that adults misread as attention-seeking or simple avoidance. Stimming and other sensory-regulation behaviours can be internally reinforcing or can help the learner manage overwhelming environments. An FBA should therefore consider acoustic, lighting, transition, predictability and communication factors before selecting an intervention, and should avoid plans that simply suppress harmless regulation.

For students with Section 504 accommodations, a formal FBA is not legally required. However, the principles of function-based assessment apply equally. Understanding why a student's behaviour is occurring is always more useful than simply managing the surface presentation.

‍

The Role of Self-Regulation and Working Memory in BIP Design

Effective BIP design requires attention to the underlying cognitive capacities that affect a student's ability to use replacement behaviours. A student who cannot inhibit an impulse, shift attention, or hold a rule in mind while under stress will struggle to use a replacement behaviour at the exact moment it is most needed.

Learners with limited working-memory capacity may need behaviour plans that reduce verbal load and make the replacement behaviour visible. Use short prompts, visual reminders, scripts and rehearsed routines. Ensure learners practise the simple replacement behaviour in low-stress situations before being expected to use it independently under pressure.

Self-regulation development, as described by Vygotsky's framework of internalising external supports, provides a useful model for BIP progression. Early in implementation, the student relies on external prompts: the red card on the desk, the teacher's proximity, the visual schedule. Over time, if the BIP is designed with development in mind, these external supports are gradually faded as the student internalises the replacement behaviour. A BIP that has no plan for fading supports is not preparing the student for greater independence.

‍

Progress Monitoring and BIP Review

Data collection turns a BIP into a real intervention. Progress monitoring should answer practical questions: is the replacement behaviour increasing, is the problem behaviour decreasing, are antecedent changes being implemented as written, and does the plan still match the learner's current context?

Frequency data, the count of how often a behaviour occurs per unit of time, is the simplest and most practical measure for classroom teachers to collect. A brief tally in a notebook or on a sticky note, transferred to a tracking sheet at the end of the lesson, is sufficient for most BIPs. Duration data records how long each episode lasts. Intensity ratings, using a three or five-point scale, can capture whether behaviour severity is changing even if frequency remains constant.

Formative assessment principles apply equally to behaviour data as to academic data. Data collected daily is more useful than data collected weekly. Graphic displays of trend lines allow teams to see whether the plan is working far more clearly than raw numbers. A team that reviews a graph showing twelve weeks of data is far better positioned to make intervention decisions than a team working from impressions and memory.

When data shows the BIP is not working, the team must examine implementation fidelity before concluding the plan is wrong. The first question is: is the plan being followed as written? Only then does the team ask whether the hypothesis, replacement behaviour, reinforcement schedule or antecedent supports need to change.

‍

What the Evidence Base Tells Us About FBA Effectiveness

Function-based intervention works well. Carr and Durand (1985) found learners requested attention appropriately and reduced problem behaviour. This was faster and more lasting than just managing consequences. Meta-analyses show function-based interventions work better than others for learners with difficult behaviour.

For further reading on this topic, explore our guide to Zones of Regulation.

For further reading on this topic, explore our guide to Conners Rating Scale.

Newcomer and Lewis (2004) found that converging FBA data could generate useful hypotheses and that interventions based on those hypotheses were more effective than topography-based alternatives in their school cases. Ingram, Lewis-Palmer and Sugai (2005) likewise found stronger results when intervention plans matched the assessed function. The practical message is proportionate: match the intervention to the assessed function, teach the replacement behaviour, and keep reviewing the data.

School-based FBAs need to be rigorous enough for the decision in front of the team, but they do not usually need to match the conditions of a clinical functional analysis. A well-conducted school FBA using interviews, records and structured observation can generate a useful hypothesis in most cases, provided the team keeps checking the plan against real data.

This is crucial for behaviour change. Teach the learner the new behaviour explicitly, with modelling, practice and immediate feedback. Do not just tell them what to do; show the behaviour, rehearse it in low-pressure moments, and reinforce it when the learner uses it in the target setting.

‍

Connecting FBA and BIP to Differentiated Practice

The FBA and BIP framework has direct implications for how teachers plan lessons for students with behaviour support needs. Differentiation of the task itself is frequently the most powerful antecedent modification available to the classroom teacher.

For escape-motivated students, the most effective antecedent modifications adjust the difficulty, length, and format of tasks to match the student's current capacity. This does not mean reducing expectations permanently. It means scaffolding the student into the expected level of challenge in a way that does not trigger escape behaviour before the student has a chance to succeed. Understanding child development theory provides useful context for calibrating these adjustments to the student's stage of development.

For learners seeking attention, planned connection can reduce the need to gain attention through disruption. Partner work, brief teacher check-ins, structured peer discussion and explicit help-seeking routines can give learners appropriate access to social interaction. The team should still monitor whether the strategy changes the target behaviour rather than assuming one antecedent modification will work for every learner.

The key insight is that many antecedent modifications in a BIP are simply good teaching practice. Chunking tasks, providing clear visual instructions, offering choice of response format, building in movement breaks, using pre-correction before transitions: these are strategies that benefit all students and are essential for students with behaviour support needs. The BIP formalises and prioritises these practices for a specific student, but they belong in every classroom.

‍

Try the ABC Data Matcher

This interactive tool helps teachers identify why a learner behaves a certain way. You will receive advice using evidence, including scripts and prevention strategies. (Kazdin, 2005; Carr & Durand, 1985) The tool processes everything in your browser. We collect no learner data.

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

‍

‍

Further Reading: Verified Sources on Functional Behaviour Assessment

‍

References

Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behaviour: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 800-816. View DOI record

Carr, E. G. and Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 111-126. View DOI record

Horner, R. H. (2000). Positive Behavior Supports. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15(2), 97-105. View DOI record

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act discipline procedures: services during removals and manifestation-determination duties. 34 CFR 300.530(d); 34 CFR 300.530(f).

Lane, K. L., Rogers, L. A., Parks, R. J., Weisenbach, J. L., Mau, A. C., Merwin, M. T. and Bergman, W. A. (2007). Function-Based Interventions for Students Who Are Nonresponsive to Primary and Secondary Prevention Efforts. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(3), 169-183. View DOI record

Newcomer, L. L. and Lewis, T. J. (2004). Functional Behavioral Assessment: An Investigation of Assessment Reliability and Effectiveness of Function-Based Interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12(3), 168-181. View DOI record

Scott, T. M. and Cooper, J. T. (2017). Functional Behavior Assessment and Function-Based Intervention Planning: Considering the Simple Logic of the Process. Beyond Behavior, 26(3), 101-104. View DOI record

U.S. Department of Education, OSERS and OESE (2024). Using Functional Behavioral Assessments to Create Supportive Learning Environments. View official guidance