Challenging Behavior - Essay Example

? Challenging Behavior Challenging behavior can be defined as culturally abnormal behavior of such force, regularity or extent that the wellbeing of the individual or others is expected to be in somber jeopardy, alternately, it can also be considered as behavior that is likely to acutely curtail use of, or result in the person being denied access to, ordinary community facilities (Emerson and Einfeld, 2010.p.8). Emerson and Einfeld (2010) point out that challenging behavior is a social construct. Whether a behavior is defined as challenging in a given context depends on certain factors such as social rules defining appropriate behavior, a person’s capacity to provide a reasonable explanation for their conduct, and capacity within the setting to manage any social disruption caused by the person’s behavior. Indeed, there are numerous variations when it comes to challenging behavior. In light of this fact, this study will choose to look at challenging behavior from the context of school going children. This differentiation is definitely made in recognition of the fact that challenging behavior affects adults as well; however, for the benefit of being specific the study focuses and discusses challenging behavior based on a definite group. Behavior in social settings is, at least in part, governed by implicit and explicit rules and expectations regarding what constitute appropriate conduct, the more formal the setting, the more explicit the rules. Indeed, context is essential in giving meaning to any behavior. Behavior can only be defined as challenging in particular contexts (Dodd, 2004.p.194). As an example, loud shouting is likely to be tolerated or condoned in a restaurant, a kitchen or a football pitch. Similar behavior would certainly be considered inappropriate during a corporate meeting or a church service. Beyond context, the appropriateness of particular behaviors is also determined by cultural beliefs and general role expectation. These few examples point to the variability of challenging behavior a fact that stresses the how far the issue permeates in society (Rogers, 2009.p.31). However, to restrict our study and determine which kind of challenging behavior will be looked the study utilizes two factors. The first is that a significant minority of people with intellectual disabilities show challenging behavior and secondly such behaviors are often associated with a range of negative personal and social consequences. (Leaman, 2009.p.11). The most immediate results of this type of behavior is that it may significantly impair health and/or quality of life of the person themselves, those who care for them and those who live or work with them. Self-injurious behaviors can result in damage to the person’s health through secondary infections, malformation of the sites of repeated injury through the development of calcified haematomas, loss of sight or hearing, additional neurological impairments and even death (Dodd, 2004.p.194). Similarly, serious aggression may result in significant injury to others as well as to the person themselves as a result of the defensive or restraining action of others (Emerson & Einfeld, 2010.p.10). However, the consequences of challenging behaviors go beyond their immediate physical impact. Indeed, the combined responses of the public, care staff and service agencies to people who show challenging behaviors may prove significantly more detrimental to their quality of life that the immediate physical consequences of the challenging behaviors themselves (Rogers, 2009.p.31). These social responses may include abuse, inappropriate treatment, social exclusion, deprivation and systematic regret. The gravity of these consequences associated with challenging behavior brings in an immediate need to understand what exactly leads to this type of behavior. At least, understanding the root cause avails a platform through which challenging behavior can be addressed. Avoiding and arresting situations that inform challenging behaviors would be a sure way of avoiding costs, harm and inconveniences resulting from actual handling of these behaviors (Leaman, 2009.p.13). In consideration of this fact, the next part seeks to examine and understand factors leading to challenging behaviors. The first of probable causes are biological causes. An organic brain injury may be considered a causative factor of challenging behavior. People who have severe or profound disabilities are those with the most diverse organic brain dysfunction, which lends supports to biological cause theory. Another biological factor linked with challenging behaviors is epilepsy. Statistics indicate that only 0.5% of the world’s population have epilepsy, as many as 75% of those suffering from the condition have reported cases of challenging behavior (Rogers, 2009.p.31). Challenging behavior is associated with pre-and post-seizures, and temporal lobe seizures in particular. Leading up to and after seizures many individuals display various types of challenging behaviors, ranging from extreme altered activities to severe aggression over which they have little or no control (Gates & Atherton, 2008.p.370). Psychological causes, there are a number of psychological theories on the causation of challenging behaviors. Some of the psychological perspectives that may offer possible explanations to why challenging behaviors occur include; psychoanalytical theories, behavioral theories, and cognitive theories. Psychoanalytical approaches, derived from a Freudian perspective, to causes of aggression suggest that people are motivated by a search for satisfaction and avoidance of distress, and that aggression, being innate to everyone, will result if the search for satisfaction fails. However, this psychological theory fails to explain harm to oneself a factor associated with challenging behavior. The second theory is behavioral theories representative of theories that have the greatest empirical support in causation of challenging behavior (Gates & Atherton, 2008.p.372). The approaches are based on operant learning theory, which suggests that behaviors that are reinforced following their presentation will be repeated, whereas behaviors that do not receive reinforcement will become extinct. Thus it follows that if challenging behaviors are rewarded in any way, even covertly, that behavior may be learned, and if the rewarding stimuli are repeated regularly, or even irregularly, the challenging behavior may be maintained (Gates & Atherton, 2008.p.372). The last theoretical consideration involves a look at cognitive theories; cognitive approaches also provide a rationale in the development of challenging behaviors. A cognitive approach suggests that challenging behaviors such as aggression are learned by information processing which involves observation, reinforcement, personal experience, cue recognition, perception and problem-solving (Emerson & Einfeld, 2010.p.14). The theory holds that in early life the individual develops behaviors to solve problems that are rehearsed and coded, and some of these maybe challenging. At a future date, the individual may retrieve the coded behavior when he or she encounters the same or a similar situation. The other major cause is environmental influences, this largely pertains the environment within which an individual lives. Restrictive or overcrowded living areas can have a detrimental effect, which may lead to various challenging behaviors. When people move out of adverse living accommodation, the problems that they previously displayed often decrease. The impact of living in an institution is suggested as the cause of many of the challenging behaviors that people living there display (Imray, 2007.p.13). The other cause are social factors, sociological perspectives can enlighten our understanding of the causation and persistence of challenging behaviors. Among social factors that have been implicated are the following; labeling theory and stigma. Labeling theory developed by Becker in 1963 suggests that behavior in itself is not deviant; rather it is the interaction between the people who display the behavior and other people who respond to it that make it deviant (Gates & Atherton, 2008.p.373). This can be applied to people with challenging behaviors. They become labeled as deviant by others, and thus the label persists. Once this occurs, individuals take up the role that the society expects of them. Such a perspective means that by the process of social interaction challenging behaviors, and those who display such behaviors, become socially established phenomena (Leaman, 2009.p.14). The other important social aspect is stigma. People who demonstrate different behavior from the norm or from others are stigmatized as they are considered to have flawed personal characteristics. This may be because they look different and in the case of people who challenge because they behave different from what is considered the ‘norm’. This in turn leads to the person being labeled as different and more importantly people relate to them as different, typically in a negative way by holding prejudiced attitudes. Ultimately the stigmatized person is discriminated against. People with challenging behavior are often stigmatized within their community and wider society (Gates & Atherton, 2008.p.373). Another major cause of challenging behavior is abuse, being subjected to abuse of any type-physical, sexual or emotional-is detrimental and such experiences will leave deep, usually life-long emotional scars. It has been suggested that a disproportionate number of people associated with challenging behavior have been exposed to violence or sexual abuse (Imray, 2007.p.13). There is also general acceptance that individuals who have experienced abuse are more liable in later life to sexually abuse others (a form of challenging behavior). Often when growing up, absolute trust is placed in the caregiver. If this trust is destroyed by an abusing care-giver, then it is not surprising that the individual who experiences this and has no one to turn to, or who cannot communicate what has happened, should develop emotional and behavioral problems (Gates & Atherton, 2008.p.375). Lastly, difficult parenting is also associated with challenging behavior. Being a parent surrounded by an unfriendly environment and draining social circumstances makes upbringing extremely difficult and, although unintentionally, some parents may sustain their child’s challenging behavior. This may come from poor knowledge of the principles, by which behaviors are learnt and sustained, or parents and caregivers not being skilled in the techniques of managing challenging behaviors. Another reason that may lead to parents inadvertently reinforcing their child’s behavioral difficulties is overprotection. Although parents are well meaning, when they overprotect their child this can lead to severe behavioral difficulties in later life (Imray, 2007.p.13). For example, if a parent always gives in to the demands of their child who indulges in various challenging behaviors, the children may find that when they attend school or within their local community these behaviors are not accepted. This causes distress to the child and they may respond through aggression towards those who unlike their parents fail to award or recognize the acquired behavior (Gates & Atherton, 2008.p.375). Current approaches to dealing with challenging behavior Several approaches have been adopted in dealing with challenging behavior, however, not all as effective mainly due to their focus and application. Most traditional approaches to challenging behavior focused on reactive strategies rather than developing a proactive approach. For example, most traditional methodologies focused on some form of punishment, a reactive strategy that follows after a particular behavior has occurred (Lane, 2011.p.52). Punishment may take the form of aversive stimuli or the removal of a desired object or activity. In traditional approaches, the majority of effort is focused on consequences, what happens after the behavior. Little effort is made to look at what happens before the behavior, the antecedents that serve as the triggers to the behavior (Dodd, .p.194). As expected, these methods were not as effective and largely depended on the severity of the behavior. Their failures prompted a change to put into consideration the severity of the behavior under consideration as well as the character and specific condition of the individual. In the following part of this study, greater focus is drawn on contemporary and arguable effective ways and approaches of dealing with challenging behavior. Beyond discussing the approaches the study will also consider their likelihood/chances of success. The three approaches to be discussed are; behavior improvement programs, rights and responsibilities, and every child matters. Behavior improvement programs Behavior improvement programs are initiatives at the macro level, as noted, challenging behaviors pose a threat to the individual and to the society. Parents and teachers (micro level) are expected to take appropriate measures to ensure that challenging behaviors are curbed, however; this is not always possible and as a result proper conduct has to be regulated from the top (London Borough of Bexley, 2012). Behavior improvement programs are an example of such attempts to enforce policies that enforce proper behavior and discourage as well as provide a means of addressing challenging behaviors. In essence, behavior improvement program aims to raise standards of behavior, heighten attendance and minimize exclusion also as to allow children and young people a chance to achieve their potential. At the moment, Behavior Improvement Program (BIP) is one of the fundamental elements by the government aimed at improving behavior and attendance in schools and is a central to raising standards. It is also fashioned at helping address street crime (London Borough of Bexley, 2012). To ensure the program’s success, implementation has been left groups of schools largely part of the Bexley Education Improvement Partnership. The idea behind school’s inclusion is to avail holistic support to all schools as well as provide support for particular groups of pupils, those mostly targeted by the program are school going children who are considered to be at risk or those who have demonstrated considerable levels of challenging behavior (Lane, 2011.p.74). In overall, the government’s strategy through the program is to record lower cases of challenging behavior and improve attendance. The program’s main targets are; bring down low-level behavior challenges, minimize existent case of extreme behavior and bullying, lessen the number of fixed term and permanent exclusions, provide long lasting solutions for individuals who have been excluded as well as avail support for their eventual reintegration, bring down the number of unauthorized absence, cultivate the students and parents understanding of variant behaviors and lastly close the gap of variant behaviors exhibited by different groups of pupils (London Borough of Bexley, 2012). By focusing on these aspects, the schools as well as families are expected to record a decline in the number of children with reported cases of challenging behavior. Through the program, thorough understanding of disruptive behavior is cultivated and this heightens the chances of timely interventions which helps avoid cases of exclusion and in no uncertain terms improves both individual and societal safety (Beer et al 2008.p.144). Perhaps the most critical aspect of the program is the fact that it allows for prompt action and objective follow up which was not provided or facilitated by rational or reactive approaches mentioned earlier. The success of this program largely lies in the fact that it recognizes the psychological, social, and biological causes of challenging behavior and provides a means of collectively (as a society) addressing the problem. Every child matters Every Child Matters is an initiative by the U.K. government in pursuance of their mandate to improve the situation of children across the entire nation, beyond the children the initiative would also help in strengthening families (Department of Education, 2004). To do this, the initiative’s immediate goals include raising the quality, accessibility and consistency of services so as to accord every child and young individual a chance to achieve their dreams and attain their full potential and provide particular help to those facing specific obstacles (Lane, 2011.p.64). Every Child Matter’s is founded on the aims and objectives of The Children Act 2004 which also provides the framework to guide the program going forward. The program identifies that for any meaningful impact to be made there is need for restructuring of all local change programs so that they can be oriented around children’s needs as well as those of young people (Power-deFur & Orelove, 1997.p.141). The program is motivated by a need to identify issues such as challenging behaviors, as well as a host of other concerns, facing young people early enough to avoid dealing with consequences and difficulties which has been the norm for a long time (Department of Education, 2004). Identifying these concerns at an early stage presents a prime opportunity through which all stakeholders can prevent things from going wrong. To have the desired effect the program reaches out to local leaders who are expected to work jointly with local communities to effectuate the enumerated goals. Reaching out to local leaders is considered important as they are impacted with the necessary knowledge required for detection, and subsequent handling of issues affecting children and young people (Beer et al 2008.p.144). In essence, the program not only deals with challenging behaviors but all other issues specific to children. Anti-social behavior orders on conviction (ASBOs) Since introduction the scope and range of ASBO sanctions has grown. Following the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act ASBOs were initially only available via magistrates’ court sitting in a civil capacity. Such orders are now referred to as stand-alone ASBOs as they are the sole purpose of the hearing. A big chance came with the 2002 Police Reform Act (s.65), which saw the introduction of the interim stand alone ASBO. The 2002 Police Reform Act also expanded the scope of ASBOs to include ‘order in county court proceedings’ and ‘orders on conviction in criminal proceedings’ (Millie, 2009.p.111). The orders on conviction represented more of a departure as they shifted focus to the anti-social consequences of an individual’s criminal behavior. In overall these have come to be referred to as ‘criminal ASBOs’. Besides ASBOs, there are interim ASBOs the latter are given in an attempt to immediately address the recipients’ alleged misbehavior (Crown Prosecution Service, 2013). But in the hurry for prevention and prohibition, the order is given only on the evidence of the ‘relevant authority’ (Millie, 2009.p.111). Basically, ASBOs are orders to safeguard the society from dangerous behavior that poses actual risk and is likely to cause alarm or distress. An order comprises of an actual requirement that bars the individual from participating in certain activities or accessing certain areas. This type of legislation is very much in line with the traditional forms/approaches of reacting to challenging behavior. This is because they are fashioned to react to an individual’s perceived threat to society. The greatest concern with this approach is that it may not inform prevention or detection as action is at times based on actual occurrence a factor that already endangers the individual or those around them (Lane, 2011.p.64). All the same, it is hoped that by establishing consequences of challenging behavior it can actually discourage or bar individuals from engaging in associated behavior. In conclusion, challenging behavior represent a threat to both the individual and to the society. As discussed in this study, it is particularly a major concern for teachers and parents handling children associated with these behaviors. However, the study has sought to understand the causes of challenging behaviors and discussed some of the modern approaches to addressing the problem. It is clear that the existent framework and policies can help arrest the cases but much more effort can be made especially with the existent knowledge on causes. Bibliography Beer, M. D., Pereira, S. M., & Paton, C. (2008). Psychiatric intensive care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crown Prosecution Service. (2013). Anti-Social Behaviour Orders on Conviction (ASBOs). Retrieved May 3, 2013, from Crown Prosecution Service: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/anti_social_behaviour_guidance/#an01 Department of Education. (2004). Every Child Matters: Change for Children. Retrieved May 3, 2013, from Department of Education: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/DfES/1081/2004 Dodd, S. (2004). Understanding Autism. Marrickville, N.S.W: Elsevier Australia. Emerson, E., & Einfeld, S. L. (2010). Challenging behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gates, B., & Atherton, H. (2007). Learning disabilities: Toward inclusion. Edinburgh: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone. Imray, P. (2007). Turning the Tables on Challenging Behaviour: A Practitioner's Perspective to Transforming Challenging Behaviours in Children, Young People Ans Adults With Sld, Pmld Or Asd. New York: Routledge. Lane, K. L. (2011). Managing challenging behaviors in schools: Research-based strategies that work. New York: Guilford Press. Leaman, L. (2009). Managing very challenging behaviour. New York: Continuum International Pub. Group. London Borough of Bexley. (2012). Behaviour Improvement Programme (BIP) . Retrieved May 3, 2013, from London Borough of Bexley: http://www.bexley.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4293 Millie, A. (2009). Anti-social behaviour. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Power-deFur, L. A., & Orelove, F. P. (1997). Inclusive education: Practical implementation of the least restrictive environment. Gaithersburg, Md: Aspen Publishers. Rogers, B. (2009). How to Manage Children's Challenging Behaviour. London: SAGE. Read More