ugh the TEACCH program, only 7% were institutionalized. A significantly lessened amount compared to rates of 39-74% in the 1960’s. However, government policies about the institutionalization of disabled individuals also started to change in the 1960’s. This leaves the question of whether this decrease in institutionalization was due to the treatment or the government policies (Gresham et al. 1999). A more recent study (Ozonoff & Cathcart, 1998) tested the effectiveness of a home-based TEACCH program. In this program the children in the experimental and control groups were matched rather than randomized as in the YAP. And there was no supervision of the program in the home to guarantee that the correct procedures were being used. These studies show that the TEACCH program may be effective in improving the symptoms of autism, but, as with most research, cannot tell us with complete accuracy (Gresham et al., 1999).The final program I am going to discuss, LEAP (Learning Experiences: an Alternative Program), is a less well known model. This program began in 1982 as a federally funded program serving young children as well as typical children ages 3 to 5 and was one of the first early intervention programs that focused on inclusion (Gresham et al., 1999).There are five key features of LEAP that are laid out by Strain and Hoyson. These are as follows: First, it is an individualized program. As in TEACCH individual objectives and strategies for treatment are planned for each child. Second, LEAP relies heavily on data. Data is collected in several areas including IEP objectives, social interactions, and classroom conduct. This data is then used to make decisions on whether teaching strategies should be maintaining, changing, or discontinuing strategies. Third, there is a focus on generalization. The IEPs used in LEAP are written to promote learning in all settings. Fourth, child participation is widely encouraged. Ch...
