Understanding Behavior and Context, Part Two (Read Part One Here)

In intensive services, problematic behavior usually triggers immediate response. When we see things like missed appointments, substance use, aggression, shutdown, noncompliance with court orders, or failure to follow through on agreed-upon steps, we assume we understand what is happening. Under pressure, the reflex inside many systems is to interpret these behaviors as motivation failures:

• They’re not trying.
• They don’t care.
• They’re avoiding.
• They’re resistant.

These interpretations are understandable. They often emerge in high-risk cases where consequences are serious and timelines are short. But those actions frequently signal something different: guiding (or directing) has moved ahead of understanding.

When behavior is framed primarily as defiance, systems escalate control. When behavior is treated as information, systems improve accuracy. That distinction is not philosophical. It directly affects outcomes.

A Structural Reframe

In MiiWrap, we hold a clear stance: behavior is not automatically defiance. It is information about context, risk calculation, relational dynamics, and perceived stability. This does not mean behavior is harmless. It does not eliminate accountability. It does not suggest that unsafe behavior should be tolerated. It means that before we can effectively influence behavior, we must understand what it is accomplishing.

Every behavior persists because it serves a function. If we attempt to eliminate the behavior without addressing the function, we create instability. And instability inside already fragile systems tends to escalate risk rather than reduce it.

A Second Scenario

Consider a mother involved with child welfare who continues to allow contact between her children and a partner with a documented history of violence. The service plan is explicit: no contact.

The team documents noncompliance. On paper, the behavior is clear-cut. But what is happening in her lived reality?

She depends on this partner for housing. Without him, she and her children may be homeless. He provides transportation. He contributes financially. He also exerts emotional pressure and control. Cutting him off does not simply remove risk. It introduces immediate destabilization.

From the outside, the behavior looks like defiance. From within her context, it is a risk calculation.

If the system responds solely with escalating consequences, we increase fear and compress her options further. If instead we interpret the behavior as information, planning shifts:

• We might prioritize housing stabilization before demanding complete separation.
• We might increase protective supports before raising compliance thresholds.
• We might adjust pacing so that safety planning accounts for dependency realities.

Behavior becomes interpretable rather than oppositional.

For leaders, this matters. When agencies default to compliance framing, they create predictable cycles of escalation. When agencies train staff to interpret behavior contextually, interventions become more precise, and more durable.

Empathy as Operational Accuracy

In MiiWrap, empathy is not a strategy for gaining cooperation. It is an operational necessity for accurate assessment. Without empathy, behavior is flattened into categories. With empathy, it becomes data.

Consider a young adult in recovery who relapses after three months of sobriety. A surface interpretation might be, “He gave up.” A contextual interpretation might reveal that sobriety distanced him from his primary social network. He felt isolated. He had no replacement community. Loneliness intensified. The relapse reduced that isolation immediately.

Understanding this does not excuse the relapse. It clarifies the next intervention target. Without clarity, plans focus on willpower and compliance. With clarity, plans address belonging, pro-social connection, and environmental risk. That distinction determines whether recovery stabilizes or cycles.

For agency leaders, this is about system design. If staff are trained and supervised primarily around compliance monitoring, they will interpret behavior accordingly. If they are trained to analyze behavioral function within context, their interventions become more strategic.

Intensive services do not improve by tightening control. They improve by improving interpretation.

In the next piece, we’ll examine why even accurate interpretation is not enough, because motivation, confidence, and ambivalence complicate movement in ways many systems underestimate.