There is a particular kind of language that glows.It speaks of belonging.Of choice.Of self-determination.Of neurodivergent affirmation.And if you read the websites of many organisations, you will find all of it.
They describe themselves as:
• “neurodivergent-affirming”
• “trauma-informed”
• “values-driven”
• focused on “agency”, “choice”, and “belonging”
On the surface, it reads like a manifesto aligned with everything the disability community has been calling for. GRANN is guilty of this. We are not guilty of the following. Beneath that language sits a familiar architecture. The structure underneath the story of many of these organisations and providers is often registered NDIS providers delivering a wide suite of supports, including:• Support Coordination• Therapeutic supports• Functional Capacity Assessments• Specialist Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) And this pattern is by design. Because it gets approved by NDIS frameworks. Because PBS is not a neutral add-on. It is part of a broader behavioural intervention framework, historically derived from applied behaviour analysis (ABA), even where rebranded, softened, or reframed.
PBS is often presented as:
• “person-centred”
• “understanding behaviour”
• “reducing behaviours of concern”
But structurally, it still relies on:
• functional behaviour assessment
• behaviour modification strategies
• skill-building to replace behaviours
• reinforcement systems
In other words: the logic of behaviourism remains intact, even when the language evolves. The language shift: from compliance to “empowerment”. These organisations describe PBS as: “unlocking your potential… strategies tailored just for you… positive change and personal growth”
This is where things become slippery. Because this framing does two things at once:1. It softens behavioural intervention. There is no mention of “compliance”, “extinction”, or “behaviour reduction”2. It reframes intervention as empowerment. Behaviour change becomes “growth”. Behaviour management becomes “support”. This is not accidental. This is the modern evolution of behavioural services. The industry has learned that the language of control does not sell. So it now speaks the language of rights, identity, and affirmation. Neuro-affirming… or neuro-affirming-adjacent?
These organisations position themselves as:
• “neurodivergent-affirming”
• focused on “self-determination”
• committed to “psychologically safe spaces”
These are not small claims. They are philosophical commitments.
But here is the tension: You cannot simultaneously centre neuro-affirming practice and operate within a model designed to modify behaviour toward normative expectations… without contradiction. Because neuro-affirming practice asks:
• Why does this behaviour exist?
• What is the environment doing?
• What does the person need?
Behavioural models ask:
• What is the function of this behaviour?
• What replaces it?
• How do we shape it?
These are not the same questions. They lead to different worlds.
And there is a business model problem. These organisations are often not just a service. They are a multi-stream NDIS business model:
• assessment
• intervention
• capacity building
• behaviour support
• training and professional development
This creates a quiet but important dynamic: The same system that - identifies need, defines deficit, delivers intervention, measures progress - is also the system that sustains the business.
This is not unique to one or two organisations. It is how the NDIS service economy is structured. But it raises a question that cannot be ignored: When behaviour is the product, who benefits from its persistence?
“Behaviour specialists” and the authority to define carries weight, and so does the title wears. It signals:
• expertise
• authority
• legitimacy in interpreting behaviour
But from a neuro-affirming lens, we need to ask: Who gets to define what counts as a “behaviour of concern”? And according to whose norms? Because historically, behaviour support systems have:
• pathologised autistic communication
• medicalised distress
• prioritised compliance over autonomy
Even when intentions shift, the power structure often remains unchanged. And the quiet contradiction at the centre says: “It’s your journey, your way” via “Specialised Positive Behaviour Support”
These two ideas sit side by side. But they are not naturally aligned. Because:
• self-determination means the person defines the path
• behaviour support often means the system defines acceptable outcomes
The tension is not about intent. It is about structure. What this reflects more broadly. Again, this is not just about one organisation or provider. It is a microcosm of a much larger shift: The behavioural sector is not disappearing. It is rebranding. It now speaks:
• neurodiversity
• trauma-informed care
• lived experience
• inclusion
While still operating within frameworks that:
• categorise behaviour
• intervene on behaviour
• measure behavioural change
The result is a kind of conceptual overlap that looks like alignment…but often isn’t. So where does that leave us?
There are things these organisations and providers do well. But they do not erase the core question: Can a system built on behaviour modification truly be neuro-affirming… or does it simply learn to speak the language of affirmation?
GRANN is not interested in surface-level alignment. We are interested in:
• whether autonomy is genuinely protected
• whether distress is understood, not managed
• whether supports adapt to people, not the other way around
• whether behaviour is listened to, not reshaped
Because the risk is not always in what is said. It is in what remains structurally unchanged while the language evolves.
If a service calls itself neuro-affirming, the question is not: What words are used? It is: What happens when someone says “no”? What happens when they can’t comply? What happens when the behaviour doesn’t change? That is where the philosophy reveals itself. And that is where we will always look.
In Solidarity, Always.