Contingency contracting

1. Introduction

Version followed: the applied-behaviour-analysis account of contingency contracting (task / reward / task record, after Heward and colleagues in Cooper, Heron & Heward's Applied Behavior Analysis and Dardig & Heward's family contracting books), combined with Stuart's (1971) reciprocal family contract (privileges, responsibilities, sanctions, bonuses, monitoring) and the patient-practitioner variant reviewed by Janz, Becker & Hartman (1984). There is no single founder, manual or certifying body; contracting is a technique or package used on its own or inside larger programmes (contingency management, parent training, school behaviour plans, behavioural couple therapy). [source: Eagle & Niileksela 2008; Stuart 1971; Janz et al. 1984 abstract]

A contingency (behaviour) contract is a written, negotiated agreement that states which behaviour a person will perform, to what standard and by when, and what reward (and sometimes what sanction) follows, who delivers it, and how completion is recorded. Change is assumed to happen through operant reinforcement plus rule-governed behaviour: the written rule bridges the delay between behaviour and reward, the negotiation makes the reward meaningful and the terms acceptable, and the record gives both sides regular feedback. In family and couple use, Stuart frames the contract as a scheduled exchange of positive reinforcement between people whose interactions have become coercive. [source: Stuart 1971 pp. 1–5; CHH chapter content via course notes] It is a technique, not a free-standing therapy: the guidance below gives the procedures its authors describe and marks clinical extensions [synthesis].

2. Framework

No source gives a fixed session count; the phases below are assembled from the procedural lists in the sources, and the session estimates are [synthesis].

Phase A. Suitability and assessment (usually 1 session). Goal: decide whether a contract fits. Check the nature of the change wanted, the person's verbal and conceptual skills (can they follow an if-then rule and tolerate delay?), the relationship with the person who will control the reward, and the resources available for rewards and monitoring. Confirm the target behaviour is already in the person's repertoire and mostly occurs under the right conditions; contracting motivates performance, it does not teach a missing skill. Contracts work best for behaviours that leave a permanent product (finished homework, a tidied room) or happen in front of the person delivering the reward. Move on when a target, a reward controller and a monitoring route exist. [source: CHH guidelines via Brainscape course notes; IIRP handout for age guidance]

Phase B. Negotiation and drafting (1–2 sessions, can be one longer session). Goal: a written contract all parties helped write and accept. Identify tasks and rewards collaboratively, write the task clause (who, what, when, how well) and reward clause (who, what, when, how much), design the task record, add sanctions and bonuses if using Stuart's family format, set a start date, contract length and review date, sign and post it. Move on when every party can restate the terms and has signed freely. [source: Eagle & Niileksela 2008; Stuart 1971 pp. 5–7; Dardig & Heward via ASAT review]

Phase C. Implementation and monitoring (typically 1–4 weeks per contract term). Goal: the contract runs exactly as written. The task record is completed daily or per occurrence; rewards are delivered as specified, ideally immediately and paired with praise. Clinician contact: brief check-in at each therapy session or by phone between sessions [synthesis]. Move on at the scheduled review date, or earlier if the record shows repeated failure. [source: Udel guidance; Eagle & Niileksela 2008]

Phase D. Review and renegotiation (recurring, at each scheduled review). Goal: adjust terms to the data. If performance is consistently met, raise the criterion or lengthen the interval; if not, diagnose why (Section 5) and rewrite. Sources recommend renegotiating after a set period even when the contract is working. [source: Eagle & Niileksela 2008; IIRP handout; Stuart 1971 pp. 8–10]

Phase E. Fading, maintenance and transfer (several weeks). Goal: the behaviour continues on natural and social reinforcement or on a self-contract. Gradually raise criteria, thin the reward schedule, shift from tangible to activity and social rewards, then hand monitoring and reward delivery to the person (self-contract). End when the behaviour has been stable through at least one thinning step [synthesis on the end criterion]. Withdraw contingencies gradually, never abruptly. [source: Udel guidance; IIRP handout; CHH self-contract definition via course notes]

Formats. Child with parent or teacher (most common); adolescent with parents (Stuart); classroom, one student or several (Homme); adult self-contract; patient with practitioner or carer (health adherence); couple (behavioural couple therapy). Sources describe contracts as verbal or written, but the behaviour-analytic literature treats the written form as standard. [source: Cochrane review definition; Eagle & Niileksela 2008]

3. Guiding principles

From Stuart's family contracting assumptions [source: Stuart 1971 pp. 2–5]

Reinforcement is a privilege, not a right. In practice, the contract may make valued privileges depend on doing agreed tasks; basic needs and affection are never put in the contract [synthesis on the exclusion].
Reciprocity. Each party gives something of value for what it receives; check that the exchange feels fair to both sides.
Maximise positive exchange. The value of the agreement depends on the range, rate and size of reinforcement it provides; bargain for more giving on both sides, not just for more control.
Clear rules create freedom. People choose better when the consequences are known in advance, so spell out every term.
Free negotiation. Coerced agreements tend to break down; no one signs under pressure.

From the behaviour-analytic procedures [source: Eagle & Niileksela 2008 summarising Heward and Martin & Pear; Udel guidance; IIRP handout]

Equal input. Every party, including the child, contributes to the terms; you facilitate, you do not dictate.
Clarity. Anyone reading the contract could say whether it was met.
Observable, recordable target. Write behaviour that can be seen or counted, not attitudes ("respect", "effort").
Rewards the person actually values. A reward fails if the person does not experience it as positive, so the person chooses from options.
Decide data collection up front. Name how, when and by whom completion is recorded before starting.
Fairness. The size of the reward matches the effort of the task.
Honesty. Every party must intend to, and be able to, keep their side; do not write a reward the parent cannot or will not deliver.
Everyone follows the rules, including the reward controller.
Public display. Post the contract where it acts as a reminder (with the person's consent, and never in a way that shames them [synthesis]).
Evaluate with data and renegotiate after a set period even if it is working.
Positive framing. Write what the person will do, not what they must stop; reframe complaints into specific tasks. [source: Dardig & Heward via ASAT review]
Start within reach. Early criteria should be met easily so the person succeeds from the first day; avoid too many targets, multi-step tasks or high criteria at first. [source: IIRP handout; Udel guidance]
Reward small steps, immediately and often at first, then thin. [source: Udel guidance]
Developmental fit. Contracts rely on rule-following and delay of gratification; one school handout states children under about 6 are unlikely to benefit, and younger or highly impulsive children may need a token system first. [source: IIRP handout, secondary] [uncertain: age cut-off is not from a primary source]
Fade gradually and systematically. [source: Udel guidance]

Homme's classroom rules [uncertain: Homme, Csanyi, Gonzales & Rechs (1969) is widely credited with a list of about ten contracting rules; this is a paraphrase from secondary recollection, not a verified list]. Commonly attributed items: pay off immediately; reward small approximations in early contracts; reward frequently in small amounts; reward accomplishment rather than mere obedience; reward after, not before, the performance; keep the contract fair, clear, honest and positive; use contracting systematically. Practical meaning: these overlap almost entirely with the verified principles above, so follow those.

Clinician stance [synthesis]: a neutral, curious negotiator who protects the less powerful party (usually the child or adolescent), keeps the tone hopeful, treats failures as information about the contract rather than about the person's character, and keeps the contract inside a broader case formulation.

4. Intervention inventory

Interventions 1–12 build and run a standard contract; 13–20 are variants and extensions. Example language is illustrative throughout, not quoted from any manual.

4.1 Suitability screen

Purpose / when: first session, before proposing a contract. Guards against contracting for a skill deficit or with an unreliable reward controller. [source: CHH guidelines via course notes]
Steps: (1) Ask what change is wanted and whether the person can already do it under some conditions ("Has there been a day when this went well?"). (2) Gauge rule-following: can the person repeat back a simple if-then statement and wait a day for a reward? (3) Map the relationship with the would-be reward controller; high hostility suggests building the relationship or treating the conflict first [synthesis]. (4) List resources: money, time, privileges actually in the controller's gift, who can see the behaviour. (5) Prefer targets with a permanent product or that occur in front of the controller. (6) If the skill is missing, teach it first (instruction, modelling, practice) and contract later.
Example language (illustrative): "Before we write anything down, I want to check this is something you can already do when things line up, and that the reward is something your dad can really give every time."
Watch for: a target the person cannot yet perform (contract will fail and breed resentment); a controller who is ambivalent or punitive; very young or highly impulsive children who may need a token system first. [source: IIRP handout]

4.2 Target selection and operational definition

Purpose / when: Phase B. Turns complaints into one or two observable, recordable tasks. [source: Eagle & Niileksela 2008; Dardig & Heward via ASAT review]
Steps: (1) Collect complaints ("messy", "rude", "lazy"). (2) For each, ask "What would I see or hear instead?" (3) Write it as a positive action with a measurable standard: "Clothes in hamper and bed made by 7:45 on school days". (4) Pick one, at most two, targets for the first contract. (5) Check: could a stranger reading the record decide yes or no?
Example language (illustrative): "'Stop being so messy' is hard to win. What would the room look like on a good day, specifically, at what time?"
Watch for: vague words (respect, try harder, attitude); targets defined only as stopping something; stacking several tasks into one item.

4.3 Collaborative list-making for tasks and rewards

Purpose / when: Phase B, especially with families. Generates options so that terms come from both sides and the child has real input. [source: Dardig & Heward course page and ASAT review: a collaborative list-making procedure and a family meeting; the course description refers to three lists] [uncertain: the exact content of the three lists is not given in the sources. A common description in ABA teaching is one list of tasks the child already does well, one of tasks the parent wants done or done better, and one of things the child enjoys; treat this as an approximation]
Steps: (1) Hold a short family meeting where everyone can speak. (2) Each person writes or dictates lists independently first (to stop the parent dominating). (3) Read lists aloud; begin by acknowledging what the child already does well. (4) Circle a candidate task the child is willing to try and a set of rewards the child values and the parent can afford. (5) Keep unused items as a pool for later contracts.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's each make our lists on our own first, then compare. Start with what's already going right."
Watch for: parent rewriting the child's reward list; the child choosing rewards the parent cannot deliver (address honestly now, not later).

4.4 Reward identification and specification

Purpose / when: Phase B; repeated at every renegotiation. A reward works only if the person experiences it as positive. [source: Udel guidance; Eagle & Niileksela 2008]
Steps: (1) Draw from the person's own list; include activities and privileges, not just items. Prefer rewards at no or low cost (Udel). (2) For each, specify who delivers, what exactly, when, how much ("20 extra minutes of screen time that evening, given by mum"). (3) Match size to effort (fairness). (4) Plan for immediacy: deliver as soon as completion is verified, or at one fixed daily time in a classroom. (5) Offer a menu so the person can choose and avoid satiation. (6) In Stuart's format, rewards are privileges such as free time with friends, spending money or use of the family car. [source: Stuart 1971 pp. 5–6]
Example language (illustrative): "Which of these would really be worth working for this week? How much of it feels fair for what we are asking?"
Watch for: rewards that lose appeal (rotate them); rewards that create new conflict (e.g., a privilege the other parent opposes); rewards given before the task.

4.5 Writing the task clause

Purpose / when: Phase B. Removes ambiguity about what earns the reward. [source: CHH components via course notes]
Steps: Write four elements: who performs the task; what the task is; when it must be done (deadline or time window, days of the week); how well it must be done (the standard, which sources call the most important part; list exceptions such as illness). Keep wording at the person's reading level; use pictures for non-readers (see 4.18).
Example language (illustrative): "So: Sam, homework for all subjects, finished and in the bag by 8 pm Monday to Thursday, with each worksheet complete. Anything we need to add for days with football?"
Watch for: missing "how well" (the commonest source of argument); deadlines the person does not control.

4.6 Writing the reward clause

Purpose / when: Phase B. [source: CHH components via course notes]
Steps: Write four elements: who judges completion and delivers the reward; what the reward is; when it is given; how much. Add a contract start date, end or review date, and what happens if the reward controller fails to deliver (a make-good clause) [synthesis on the make-good clause].
Example language (illustrative): "Dad checks at 8 pm. If it's done to standard, you get the 30 minutes of gaming straight after, and Dad writes it on the chart."
Watch for: vague "if you're good" rewards; delayed-only rewards for children (add a small daily reward plus a weekly one).

4.7 Task record

Purpose / when: built into the contract document; used daily. Gives feedback, cues reward delivery and creates a set occasion to review. [source: CHH components via course notes; Udel guidance]
Steps: (1) Add a grid with days across and the task down, or a tally box per occurrence. (2) Decide who marks it (the controller initials, or the person marks and the controller verifies). (3) Add a column for whether the reward was delivered, so the controller's side is also recorded. (4) Bring it to each session.
Example language (illustrative): "Every evening one tick if it's done, and Dad initials the reward box once you've had your time."
Watch for: records filled in retrospectively; missing reward-delivery entries (often the first sign the controller is slipping).

4.8 Sanctions clause (Stuart family format)

Purpose / when: optional, mainly with adolescents and families where a responsibility (e.g., curfew) must be backed by a consequence. [source: Stuart 1971 pp. 6–7]
Steps: (1) Specify a mild, pre-agreed consequence for a missed responsibility, e.g., making up lost time the next day (Stuart's "linear" penalty); Stuart also describes a steeper penalty for repeated violations. (2) Keep sanctions proportionate; Stuart warns that overly severe penalties remove the adolescent's reason to return home. (3) School and classroom versions use mild consequences such as loss of a privilege. [source: Udel guidance]
Example language (illustrative): "If you're 30 minutes late tonight, tomorrow's curfew is 30 minutes earlier. That's the whole consequence; no lectures on top."
Watch for: sanctions creeping upward outside the contract; sanctions outnumbering rewards (keep the contract positive). The clinician should keep the sanctions minimal and in proportion [synthesis].

4.9 Bonus clause (Stuart family format)

Purpose / when: adds an extra privilege for sustained, near-perfect compliance, which counters families' tendency to notice only failures. [source: Stuart 1971 p. 6]
Steps: Define a streak or weekly criterion and an extra privilege (e.g., a later curfew one weekend night after a full week of meeting terms).
Example language (illustrative): "And if all seven days are ticked, Saturday's curfew goes to 11."
Watch for: a bonus criterion so strict it is never reached; re-set it so it is achievable.

4.10 Reciprocal monitoring form

Purpose / when: Stuart's family format: each person records whether they fulfilled their own responsibilities, including giving the other person's privileges. It cues each party to reinforce the others. [source: Stuart 1971 p. 7]
Steps: (1) One sheet with columns for each person's obligations. (2) Each person ticks their own items daily. (3) Review together weekly, praising each side's ticks before discussing gaps.
Example language (illustrative): "This sheet is for everyone, including Mum and Dad. Your side is the curfew, their side is the car on Fridays."
Watch for: parents not filling in their side (signals the contract is experienced as one-way).

4.11 Signing, seal and posting

Purpose / when: end of Phase B. Marks commitment; the posted copy is a daily reminder. Dardig & Heward list an "official seal" and signatures as contract components alongside task, reward and task record. [source: Behavior University course page; Eagle & Niileksela 2008; Udel guidance]
Steps: (1) Read the whole contract aloud; ask each party to restate their part in their own words. (2) Ask explicitly whether anyone feels pressured; if so, renegotiate. (3) All parties sign and date; a child can add a sticker or stamp as the seal. (4) Everyone gets a copy; one is posted where the task happens (fridge, desk), with the person's agreement. (5) Note the review date on it.
Example language (illustrative): "Can you tell me in your own words what you're agreeing to, and what your mum is agreeing to? Is there anything you're signing just to get out of here?"
Watch for: reluctant or silent signers; a teenager who wants it kept private (respect that and post it privately).

4.12 Coaching the reward controller

Purpose / when: before and during Phase C. Most contracts fail on delivery, not design [synthesis]. Sources stress immediate delivery, pairing rewards with praise and explaining why the reward was earned. [source: Udel guidance; Eagle & Niileksela 2008 on all parties following the rules]
Steps: (1) Rehearse in session: the parent checks the task against the standard, gives the reward at once, names the behaviour ("You had everything in the bag by 8—that's your 30 minutes"). (2) Rehearse a non-completion: neutral statement, no lecture, no partial reward unless written in, reminder that tomorrow is a fresh chance. (3) Agree that the controller does not add extra conditions on the day. (4) Ask the controller to record delivery on the task record.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's practise both versions: the night it's done and the night it isn't. On the 'isn't' night, one calm sentence and then move on."
Watch for: withholding earned rewards because of unrelated misbehaviour; giving rewards without completion to avoid conflict; nagging, which the contract is meant to replace.

4.13 Home–school link (teacher-signed card)

Purpose / when: when the target behaviour happens at school but rewards are at home. Stuart monitored school attendance and performance with a teacher-signed daily or weekly card; Miller & Kelley had the teacher check homework each morning before the reward was given. [source: Stuart 1971 p. 6; Miller & Kelley 1994 summary]
Steps: (1) Agree with the teacher on one to three yes/no items. (2) Card goes to school daily; teacher marks and initials. (3) Card comes home; parent delivers the home reward according to the contract. (4) Missing card counts as not met (agree this in advance) [synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Would you be willing to tick two boxes at the end of each day, and initial them? It takes under a minute."
Watch for: lost or forged cards; teacher burden (keep items few).

4.14 Goal setting combined with a contract

Purpose / when: for homework and academic accuracy in school-age children. In Miller & Kelley (1994) the child set a nightly accuracy goal, signed a short contract tying the goal to a reward, chose the reward, and received it the next day only if the teacher's check confirmed the goal was met. [source: Miller & Kelley 1994 summary] [uncertain: details of goal limits and parent training]
Steps: (1) Each evening the child writes a goal for that night's work (e.g., number of problems correct). (2) Parent helps the child keep it realistic. (3) Child signs a brief contract linking the goal to a chosen reward. (4) Next day's check decides delivery.
Example language (illustrative): "What's your goal for tonight's maths sheet? Is that a stretch or a sure thing? Let's aim for in between."
Watch for: goals set too low to be meaningful or too high to reach; shift to the child setting goals with less help over time.

4.15 Data review and renegotiation

Purpose / when: at every scheduled review (Phase D) and whenever the record shows failure. Sources treat renegotiation as part of the method, including after success. [source: Eagle & Niileksela 2008; Udel guidance; Stuart 1971 pp. 8–10]
Steps: (1) Look at the record together; start with what went well. (2) If met most days, discuss stepping up (4.16). (3) If not met, ask what got in the way, then test each part of the contract: task too hard or vague? reward not wanted or too delayed? delivery inconsistent? (4) Rewrite one element at a time; re-sign. (5) In Stuart's case example, after early violations the therapist wrote a considerably more permissive contract, while avoiding any framing that would reward the violations themselves.
Example language (illustrative): "The chart tells us the contract asked too much, not that you didn't care. What part should we change first?"
Watch for: blame; renegotiations that only ever add demands.

4.16 Stepping up criteria (shaping)

Purpose / when: once the current criterion is met consistently. [source: IIRP handout; Udel guidance on small approximations]
Steps: Change only one variable at a time: raise the standard (more problems, longer duration), lengthen the interval before reward (daily to every two days to weekly), or increase the delay to reward. Agree the change at a review, not mid-week.
Example language (illustrative): "Three weeks of ticks. Ready to try for the reward every two days instead of every day?"
Watch for: performance dropping after a step (step back down).

4.17 Fading and maintenance

Purpose / when: Phase E. Prevents relapse when the contract ends. [source: Udel guidance; IIRP handout]
Steps: (1) Thin the schedule gradually. (2) Shift rewards from tangibles to activities, privileges and praise. (3) Hand monitoring to the person (self-recording, controller spot-checks). (4) Move to a self-contract (4.19) or a written routine without rewards. (5) Plan a review a few weeks after the contract ends [synthesis]. (6) Start a new contract for a new target if needed; sources describe successive contracts across a school year.
Example language (illustrative): "You've got this one. How about you keep the chart yourself this month and we check it together on Sundays?"
Watch for: abrupt withdrawal; reinstate a lighter contract if performance falls.

4.18 Picture contracts for non-readers

Purpose / when: young children or people with limited literacy or intellectual disability. Dardig & Heward include picture contracts that show the if-then relationship and represent time visually. [source: ASAT review of Let's Make a Contract]
Steps: (1) Draw or photograph the task and the reward, linked by an arrow or "first–then" layout. (2) Show time with a clock face or day icons. (3) Use a tick or sticker per completion. (4) Review the picture aloud each day.
Example language (illustrative): "First teeth, then story."
Watch for: confirm comprehension by asking the person to point to what comes first and what they get.

4.19 Self-contract

Purpose / when: adults and older adolescents; the transfer step after an external contract. The person chooses the task and reward, monitors completion and delivers the reward to themselves. [source: CHH definition via course notes; Dardig & Heward include a self-contract story, per ASAT review]
Steps: (1) Write the task and reward clauses as in 4.5 and 4.6. (2) Choose a reward the person will genuinely withhold if the task is not done. (3) Add a witness or co-signer for accountability (often the therapist) [synthesis]. (4) Self-record daily; review in session.
Example language (illustrative): "What would you be willing to put off until the writing hour is done? Who would you tell?"
Watch for: "short-circuiting" (taking the reward anyway); add an external checker or make rewards harder to access early.

4.20 Patient–practitioner adherence contract

Purpose / when: to support adherence to treatment, prevention or health-promotion activities. The Cochrane review defines these as verbal or written agreements a patient makes with themselves, a practitioner or a carer, committing to specified care behaviours; Janz et al. (1984) describe essential elements and critical steps for health contracting. [source: Cochrane CD004808 abstract; Janz et al. 1984 abstract] [uncertain: the full text of Janz et al. is not drawn on, so their specific element list is not reproduced]
Steps [synthesis, following the general components above]: (1) Agree one specific adherence behaviour (e.g., attending appointments, completing a home-practice task, taking prescribed medication as directed by the prescriber). (2) Agree how it will be verified (attendance register, practice log, pharmacy refill record). (3) Agree a reward within the patient's or service's means. (4) Set duration and review. (5) Sign, give a copy, review at each appointment.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's write down the one thing you're committing to between now and next month, how we'll both know it happened, and what you'll get when it does."
Watch for: power imbalance (the patient must be free to decline without losing care); never make access to necessary treatment the sanction [synthesis]. For eating, weight or exercise goals, contract for behaviours (e.g., attending sessions, keeping a log) rather than numerical outcome targets.

4.21 Classroom contract

Purpose / when: a teacher and one student (or several) contract for an academic or classroom-conduct target; the classroom origin of the method is credited to Homme et al. (1969). [source: Udel guidance; Eagle & Niileksela 2008] [uncertain: Homme's book]
Steps: (1) Negotiate with the student; involve counsellor, support or specialist teachers and parents as needed. (2) Choose an easily identified, important target. (3) Choose rewards with the student's input, preferably at no cost to the teacher. (4) Define how much, how often and by whom; reward small approximations at first. (5) Specify mild consequences if used. (6) Set an individual timeline. (7) Signatures and copies for all, parents included where appropriate. (8) Keep a checklist in the student's folder where points are recorded and initialled. (9) Deliver rewards immediately, or at one set time daily for whole-class use; pair with praise and say why the reward was earned. (10) Review data and renegotiate; withdraw gradually once stable.
Example language (illustrative): "Each lesson you start the task within two minutes, I'll initial your sheet. Eight initials by Friday and you choose the Friday activity."
Watch for: contracts dropped mid-term; keep them consistent across the year and start new ones as old ones end. [source: Udel guidance]

4.22 Couple contracts (behavioural couple therapy)

Purpose / when: couples whose exchanges have become coercive; extends Stuart's reciprocity principle. [uncertain: the couple-contract variants below are described in the behavioural marital therapy literature (e.g., Weiss, Hops & Patterson 1973; Jacobson & Margolin 1979), which is not drawn on; details are from secondary knowledge]
Steps: (1) Each partner names specific positive behaviours they would like more of. (2) Choose a format. In a quid pro quo contract, each partner's change is linked to the other's ("if you do X, I'll do Y"), which is simple but collapses when one partner waits for the other to go first. In a good-faith (parallel) contract, each partner's change earns an independent reward, so one partner's lapse does not cancel the other's commitment. (3) Write, sign, record, review as above.
Example language (illustrative): "Rather than 'I'll do mine if you do yours', let's link each of your changes to something separate, so one bad day doesn't sink both."
Watch for: contracts used as ammunition; scorekeeping. Later behavioural couple therapy moved toward less formal exchange methods; check current integrative approaches before relying on contracts alone [uncertain].

4.23 Deposit (refundable stake) contract

Purpose / when: adult self-management and health behaviour: the person lodges money or valued items with the clinician and earns them back for meeting terms. [uncertain: described in the health-contracting literature reviewed by Janz et al.; no primary source is drawn on]
Steps [synthesis]: (1) The person sets the deposit at an amount they can afford to lose. (2) Specify behaviour-based criteria (attendance, completed logs), never outcome targets the person cannot fully control. (3) Agree in writing what happens to unearned portions (returned at the end, donated, etc.) and get informed consent. (4) Return portions promptly when earned.
Example language (illustrative): "You decide the amount; it should matter to you but never cause hardship."
Watch for: financial hardship; ethical and service-policy limits on clinicians holding client money (check your setting before using).

5. Handling problems

Sources address only some of these. Each item is tagged.

Early, repeated violations. Stuart's case showed sneaking out and non-compliance within three weeks. He renegotiated a far more permissive contract with a new monitoring sheet, took care not to frame added privileges as a reward for violating, and addressed the out-of-home influence separately. Response: treat early failure as a design fault; lower demands, restore achievable success, then build back. [source: Stuart 1971 pp. 8–10]
Parents insist on punitive or over-controlling terms. Stuart's parents wanted a very strict curfew and could not be talked out of it at first; the contract had to be loosened after it failed. Response: show the reciprocity principle (both sides must gain), predict the risk of failure out loud, offer a short trial with a review date, and document the agreed fallback. [source: Stuart 1971; response partly synthesis]
Reward not motivating or satiated. Check that the person still values it; offer a menu, rotate rewards, revisit the list. [source: Udel guidance; IIRP handout]
Task too hard or skill missing. Check repertoire; break into smaller steps or teach the skill first, then contract. [source: CHH guidelines via course notes; IIRP handout]
Reward controller inconsistent (forgets, withholds earned rewards for unrelated reasons, gives rewards without completion). Check the reward-delivery column; rehearse delivery (4.12); simplify the reward; if one caregiver repeatedly undermines it, bring them into the negotiation or choose a different controller. [synthesis, building on the "all parties follow the rules" principle]
Child or adolescent refuses to contract. Keep communication open without pressure; let them see a contract made with a sibling; invite them to propose the reward first. [source: Dardig & Heward via ASAT review; last suggestion synthesis]
"Why reward what they should do anyway?" Dardig & Heward answer this in their FAQ (their answer is not reproduced here). Response [synthesis]: the reward is temporary scaffolding while a habit forms; adults also work for pay and recognition; the plan includes fading.
Gaming and short-circuiting (claiming completion, taking self-rewards anyway). Tighten verification (permanent products, teacher-signed card, controller initials); for self-contracts, add an external checker. [synthesis, consistent with CHH preference for permanent products]
Sanctions escalating. Review the ratio of rewards to sanctions; return to Stuart's warning that excessive penalties remove the incentive to comply. [source: Stuart 1971 p. 6]
Behaviour outside the controller's reach (peers, places the family cannot monitor). Stuart needed external measures beyond the contract; in ordinary practice, involve school or other agencies through proper channels, and accept that the contract covers only what can be observed. [source: Stuart 1971; response partly synthesis]
Contract alone not enough. Stuart concluded the contract should be combined with parent training, tutoring, vocational guidance or practical help where needed. Response: place the contract inside a full formulation; add parent management training, academic support or family therapy as indicated. [source: Stuart 1971 p. 11]
Rupture or the contract becoming a battleground. Signs: arguments over wording each night, the contract waved as a threat. Response [synthesis]: pause the contract, repair the alliance (acknowledge frustration, check that you have not sided with the more powerful party), reduce the contract to one easily met item, and revisit the family's goals.
Overwhelm. Too many targets or a long document. Response: one target, one reward, one-line record; IIRP and Udel guidance both warn against multiple targets and high initial criteria. [source: IIRP handout; Udel guidance]
Non-adherence to monitoring. Make the record faster (yes/no ticks), place it where the task happens, attach it to an existing routine, review it at the start of every session so it matters. [synthesis]
Coercion and consent concerns. Contracts should be freely negotiated; never use one where the person cannot refuse without serious loss (e.g., access to care, housing, basic needs). In institutional or court-linked settings, separate the voluntary contract from mandated conditions in writing. [source: Stuart 1971 on free negotiation; application synthesis]
Do not confuse with "no-suicide" or "no-harm" contracts. These are not contingency contracts and are not recommended as a safety intervention; use standard risk assessment and collaborative safety planning (e.g., the Stanley–Brown Safety Planning Intervention), including lethal-means counselling about safe storage and removal. Never make rewards or sanctions contingent on disclosure of self-harm, which can discourage disclosure. [synthesis based on current risk-assessment practice; not from the contracting sources]
Young children or severe impulsivity. If the delay is too long, switch to an immediate token or first-then system and return to contracting later. [source: IIRP handout]
Cultural and family-value fit. Some families object to "paying" children or to written agreements in family life. Explore their values, use privileges or shared activities rather than money, and allow a verbal format if written feels alienating. [synthesis]
After success, behaviour lapses when the contract ends. Reinstate a lighter contract, then fade more slowly; move to self-contracting. [source: Udel guidance on gradual withdrawal; reinstatement synthesis]

Sources

Sources

Further reading (not drawn on unless listed above)

Homme, L., Csanyi, A. P., Gonzales, M. A., & Rechs, J. R. (1969). How to Use Contingency Contracting in the Classroom. Research Press. [uncertain]
Stuart, R. B. (1971). Behavioral contracting within the families of delinquents. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2, 1–11.
Janz, N. K., Becker, M. H., & Hartman, P. E. (1984). Contingency contracting to enhance patient compliance: A review. Patient Education and Counseling, 5(4), 165–178.
Miller, D. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1994). The use of goal setting and contingency contracting for improving children's homework performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 73–84. [uncertain]
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson. Contracting chapter. [not drawn on directly; content via secondary notes]
Dardig, J. C., & Heward, W. L. Let's Make a Contract: A Positive Way to Change Your Child's Behavior. [publication year uncertain]
Dardig, J. C., & Heward, W. L. (1976). Sign Here: A Contracting Book for Children and Their Parents. [uncertain]
Weiss, R. L., Hops, H., & Patterson, G. R. (1973). A framework for conceptualizing marital conflict. In Hamerlynck et al. (Eds.), Behavior Change. [uncertain]
Jacobson, N. S., & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital Therapy: Strategies Based on Social Learning and Behavior Exchange Principles. Brunner/Mazel. [uncertain]
Fleischman, M. J., Horne, A. M., & Arthur, J. L. (1983). Troubled Families: A Treatment Program. Research Press.
Stanley, B., & Brown, G. K. (2012). Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19, 256–264. [cited for the alternative to no-suicide contracts]

← Previous · II-035Time-out Next · II-037 →Shaping