Supporting Immigrant Families in Special Education: Insights and Collaborative Strategies for School-Based ABA Practitioners

Abstract

Immigrant families of neurodivergent children face unique challenges when receiving special education services in the United States (U.S.). As a result, practitioners who provide services based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) in school settings should learn how to collaborate with and support immigrant families to improve their child’s educational and behavioral outcomes. The purpose of the present paper was to provide a preliminary framework for school-based ABA practitioners to support immigrant families of neurodivergent children within the school setting. First, we discussed the barriers that immigrant families of neurodivergent children face in accessing special education services in the U.S., based on a review of qualitative studies. Second, we introduced an adapted version of Epstein (2010) collaborative framework to provide a supportive framework for school-based ABA practitioners working with immigrant families of neurodivergent children. Finally, we provided recommendations, along with a call to action for school-based ABA practitioners and ABA organizations, to improve the quality of life of immigrant families of neurodivergent children.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40617-025-01041-4.

Immigrant families of neurodivergent children face many barriers in navigating the special education system in the United States (U.S.; Yan et al., 2017). For instance, many immigrant caregivers are not adequately informed about educational practices, their child’s progress, or the available services. Immigrant caregivers’ expectations regarding their child’s education may sometimes differ from those of their child’s teachers in the U.S., where teachers often have limited insight into the family’s cultural values (Yan et al., 2017; also see Hasnain et al., 2020 regarding the underrepresentation and lack of data for immigrant students and their families). Thus, when practitioners1 of applied behavior analysis (ABA) become part of the educational team in U.S. schools, we should be prepared to support immigrant families of neurodivergent children and decrease the barriers the families might encounter. It is ethically incumbent upon ABA practitioners to expand our knowledge about different cultures and diverse family experiences in the U.S. school system (Behavior Analyst Certification Board®; BACB, 2020).

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2023), in Fall 2020, approximately 10.3% (around 5.0 million) of students in the U.S. public school system, from kindergarten to grade 12, were classified as emergent bilingual/multilingual2, which may suggest that many of these students come from immigrant families. Additionally, in 2020, 16.1% (approximately 805,000) of emergent bilingual/multilingual students in the U.S. public school system also had a disability (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). It is not only difficult for these students to adapt and perform well in the U.S. school system (e.g., Gándara & Rumberger, 2009), but their families may encounter difficulties in obtaining the appropriate special education-related support for their children and themselves (Su et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2017). Considering the above data, it is likely that school-based ABA practitioners could serve emergent neurodivergent bilingual/multilingual students and their families, especially as Individual Education Plan (IEP) team members (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004). IDEA mandates an IEP for all students who qualify for special education services. An IEP is a legally binding document that details a student’s educational program, including information such as the student’s educational needs, measurable annual goals, objectives, and the type of services provided (Lo, 2008). An IEP team comprises the student’s caregivers or legal guardians, special education teachers, general education teachers, and related service providers, such as ABA practitioners (Lo, 2008). In the case of neurodivergent emergent bilingual/multilingual students, English-Language-Learner (ELL) and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) teachers might also be a part of the IEP team with whom ABA practitioners should also collaborate. ABA practitioners might also encounter students through the 504 plan, governed by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The 504 plan outlines the accommodations that students who have disabilities need in order to follow the general curriculum (Schultz, 2022).

Although ABA’s formal integration in the school setting dates back to 1997 with the incorporation of functional behavior assessments (FBAs) in the IDEA Amendments, ABA has not been entirely accepted in the school setting (Layden, 2023). As of January 2024, 4.85% of Registered Behavior Technicians®, 6.16% of Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts®, 12.16% of Board Certified Behavior Analysts® (BCBA®) and Board Certified Behavior Analysts-Doctoral® (BCBA-D®) report “education” as their primary area of professional emphasis (BACB, 2024). ABA practitioners continue to have a limited presence in school settings, making their collaboration with other professionals (Brodhead et al., 2018; Kelly & Tincani, 2013) and their ability to support families of different cultures, including immigrant families, difficult in these environments (e.g., see Rosales et al., 2021 for the lack of awareness of ABA service in the school setting for Latino families of autistic children).

For the past several years, there has been an increasing interest in integrating cultural aspects into ABA interventions (e.g., Arango & Lustig, 2023; Brodhead, 2019; Miller et al., 2019). Several papers discussed the role of culture while working with families from different cultural backgrounds (e.g., Baires et al., 2023; Castro‑Hostetler et al., 2023; Čolić et al., 2022; Dennison et al., 2019; Rosales et al., 2021). Despite this trend, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no discussion in the ABA field on how school-based ABA practitioners can support immigrant families of neurodivergent children in the school setting.

One way to support immigrant families of neurodivergent children is by encouraging their involvement in their children’s education. Caregiver involvement is mandated in the Every Student Success Act (ESSA, 2015) and the IDEA (2004). Caregiver involvement, as detailed in the ESSA, includes meaningful two-way communication between the caregivers and school staff, holding meetings such as parent–teacher conferences, annual meetings, and regular day-to-day meetings, developing schoolwide programs for caregiver involvement, providing frequent reports on children’s progress and the curriculum, encouraging caregivers to participate and volunteer in their children’s classrooms, and making positive use of extracurricular time. The ESSA supports caregivers in achieving such engagement by providing assistance in understanding curricula, assessments, and progress, offering materials and training to help caregivers work with their children, and providing training for teachers and staff on the importance of caregiver involvement (Liao et al., 2021; Whitford & Addis, 2017).

Epstein’s Framework

As the U.S. educational system has recognized the importance of caregiver involvement in their children’s education (ESSA, 2015), many researchers and practitioners have developed various collaborative frameworks. In the U.S. education field, Epstein’s collaborative framework (2010) has been one of the most widely implemented and influential frameworks for promoting successful partnerships between a school, a family, and a community (SFC). Epstein’s (2010) framework lists six types of caregiver involvement that lead to more successful collaborative practices between SFC. Type 1 involvement as parenting recommends the school to support families to establish a home environment conducive to learning. Parenting facilitates the caregiver’s understanding of the educational aspects of child development (a child as a student; e.g., what educational goals are expected for a given grade), school systems, family support systems (e.g., health, nutrition), caregiver educational advancement (e.g., GED, college), and also includes learning about family culture and values (Epstein, 2010). In essence, schools assist caregivers in establishing their child as a student and creating a home environment conducive to learning while respecting and integrating family cultural values. Type 2 involvement as communicating recommends frequent exchanges of information between schools and caregivers about curriculum and students’ progress. Communicating, as used in this article, means to “design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communications about school programs and their children’s progress” (Epstein, 2010, p. 395). Type 3 involvement as volunteering recommends the school’s encouragement for caregivers to participate in school activities. Type 4 involvement as learning at home recommends the school’s support for caregivers to help their children with homework and other curriculum-related activities at home. Type 5 involvement as decision-making recommends the school to invite caregivers to be involved in school management and to make various decisions. Type 6 involvement as collaborating with the community recommends the school to find and incorporate community resources to strengthen partnerships between schools, families, and students.

While Epstein’s framework was not originally developed to promote partnerships with immigrant families, scholars have applied this framework to discuss how to support culturally and linguistically diverse communities (Paik et al., 2019). For example, Paik et al. (2019) highlighted several factors crucial for successful SFC partnerships, including a welcoming environment, understanding the family’s culture, fostering reciprocal partnerships, and advocating for immigrant families. Others have applied Epstein’s framework to explore caregiver involvement in the IEP (Razalli et al., 2015) as well as internationally, including studies conducted in Kenya (Kimu & Steyn, 2013) and South Africa (Lemmer, 2007). While Epstein’s framework has been proven effective (Epstein, 2010), to the best of the knowledge of the authors of this article, it has not yet been tailored to address collaborations between immigrant families of neurodivergent children, schools, and school-based ABA practitioners. Thus, this framework can offer a valuable guide that could be adapted and integrated into school-based ABA practices to benefit immigrant families of neurodivergent children in the school.

Purpose of the Paper

The inspiration for this paper arose from our direct experience supporting immigrant families of neurodivergent children, where we witnessed many challenges these families face in the U.S. school system. Two authors, having immigrated to the U.S. as adults, struggled to navigate the U.S. school system, similar to other immigrant families. Moreover, one of the authors has personally experienced many culturally specific considerations around receiving IEPs and 504 accommodations throughout schooling. The persistent thought throughout our practice has been, “How difficult it must be for immigrant families of neurodivergent children to navigate the school system when we, as professionals, still encounter numerous questions.” This realization has been particularly pronounced in our practice when offering support to immigrant families of neurodivergent children in various states, each with its own laws and policies. Thus, with this paper, we aimed to initiate a discussion on providing adequate support to immigrant families of neurodivergent children within the U.S. school system.

To provide adequate support to immigrant families, school-based ABA practitioners need to acknowledge and address the difficulties and barriers these families face in navigating the U.S. educational system. Thus, we began with a broad synthesis of the qualitative studies that explored the experiences of immigrant families of neurodivergent children in the special education system in the U.S., especially the barriers that school-based ABA practitioners should be aware of when providing service (see Table 1 for study summaries). To offer actionable steps for addressing these experiences, we presented recommendations on how school-based ABA practitioners could support immigrant families of neurodivergent children in the school setting by adapting Epstein’s framework.

Table 1.

Participants, data collection method, study’s aim, and main findings for studies included in the review

Study	Participants	Data collection method	Study aim	Main findings related to the barriers
Cho and Gannotti (2005)	Twenty Korean American mothers of neurodivergent children	Two interviews with each mother were conducted in Korean at the mothers’ homes	Exploring Korean American mothers’ perspectives on (a) service providers’ expertise, behavior, and attitudes, (b) the influence of cultural values and communication styles on interactions with service providers, and (c) the need for translation	Mothers reported that educators marginalized them, they were dissatisfied with the outcomes of the IEP meetings, and they believed that limited English proficiency and a lack of knowledge about available services contributed to the difficulties in obtaining services for their children
Choe et al. (2024)	Seven Korean mothers of neurodivergent children	Focus group interviews were conducted in Korean	Exploring (a) how mothers advocated for special education services and (b) what assistance they required to navigate through special education services in the U.S.	Mothers reported a lack of information about the special education system in the U.S. and felt they were treated unfairly by school personnel due to their immigrant status
Gregoire and Cramer (2015)	Ten Haitian parents of neurodivergent children	Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted in parents’ homes and schools, with most parents choosing the Haitian-Creole language to communicate	Exploring parents’ perceptions of (a) the special education their children are receiving, (b) their role in the education of their neurodivergent children, (c) how their perceptions of their child’s disability influence their involvement with the school, and (d) the supports and barriers they perceive in their children’s education	Parents reported that limited English proficiency and parental time constraints hampered communication with school personnel. Some parents did not believe they had a say in the decision-making process
Harry (1992)	Twelve Puerto Rican-American families of neurodivergent children	Face-to-face unstructured interviews, student record reviews, and participant observations were conducted over a seven-month period. Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, or a mix of both languages in the participants’ homes	Exploring (a) parental interaction with special education personnel and (b) the supports and barriers that affect parental involvement in their children’s education	Parents felt they had no say in the decision-making process and did not trust the school system, but due to cultural upbringing, they did not confront the teachers’ recommendations. They reported receiving an excessive number of documents in English filled with jargon from the school, which impeded their understanding of the information. They did not understand what an IEP was, and nobody explained it to them
Jegatheesan (2009)	Twenty-three Asian American mothers (China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, India, and Vietnam) of neurodivergent children	Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted, with interviews in English for eight mothers and in their native language for 15 mothers	Exploring mothers’ perceptions regarding their interactions with healthcare and special education professionals	Mothers reported communication difficulties due to jargon and complex information. Receiving documents in English prevented them from understanding much of the information, and they were dissatisfied with the interpreter's service. Some mothers did not know what an IEP was. Additionally, cultural upbringing or shame about not speaking English fluently led some mothers to avoid confronting professionals' opinions or asking questions. They also experienced a lack of compassion from the professionals
Kibria and Becerra (2021)	Thirty immigrant mothers of children with intellectual disabilities participated in the study. The mothers were from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean region, and Latin America	Face-to-face and Skype semi-structured interviews, as well as participant observations, were conducted. Interviews were conducted in the native language of 19 mothers	Exploring mothers’ experiences of (a) raising a neurodivergent child, (b) accessing available support, and (c) negotiating services for their children	The mothers felt they were victims of racial discrimination and marginalized because they were immigrants. Despite this, many spoke about being strong advocates for their children
Larios and Zetlin (2022)	Eight Latino families whose children accessed special education services	Interviews (pre- and post-IEP) and observations during IEP meetings	Proving assistance to practitioners in understanding the cultural resources that families may use when navigating IEP meetings	Parents were dissatisfied with the interpreter’s service, were not informed about what an IEP was, and had limited knowledge about it
Lee and Park (2016)	Seven Korean mothers of children with neurodivergent children	Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted in Korean	Exploring (a) the challenges of raising a neurodivergent child and (b) caregivers’ experiences with school personnel in the U.S.	Mothers reported that a lack of English proficiency impeded their involvement in the meetings. They explained that nobody had explained the U.S. special education system to them.
Lee et al. (2022)	Six Korean parents of autistic children	Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted in Korean at the parents’ home; participant observation, review of the educational documents	Exploring (a) parental positioning in special education in the U.S. and (b) barriers for their child accessing adapted or general physical education	Parents believed they had to be advocates for their children, but due to their limited knowledge of the U.S. special education system and their limited English proficiency, they felt they were merely listeners at the meetings
Lo (2008)	Five Chinese parents of neurodivergent children	Observations during IEP meetings and face-to-face interviews were conducted over two years. Interviews were conducted in Cantonese	Exploring (a) the level of caregiver participation in IEP meetings and (b) parental experiences during the IEP meetings	Parents were dissatisfied with the IEP meeting outcomes and reported that professionals did not value their feedback and that language barriers prevented them from actively participating in the meetings
Miller-Gairy and Saul Mofya (2015)	Eight Somali mothers of children with autism	Two focus groups, participant observation, and face-to-face interviews were conducted. Interviews were held in mothers’ homes or while the researcher accompanied them to service provider visits	Exploring the role of cultural beliefs in mothers’ experiences with service providers in the U.S.	Mothers developed mistrust towards school personnel as their opinions were not acknowledged during the meetings
Montoya et al. (2022)	Nine Latino mothers of neurodivergent children	Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Spanish through video conference via Zoom	Exploring parental perceptions and experiences in the IEP process	Parents shared that nobody explained to them what the special education system is, what an IEP is, and what services are available for their children. Parents reported that school personnel used too much jargon during the IEP meetings, and some felt mistreated because of their immigrant status. Some parents were embarrassed and intimidated to speak in English as they feared how they would be treated due to their accent
Park (2024)	Seventeen parents of neurodivergent children (10 were Spanish dominant and seven were Cantonese dominant)	Face-to-face interviews with interpreters present were conducted, along with participant observation	Exploring how parents perceived their role in the special education system	Parents reported not sharing their opinions because they believed teachers are experts, but some of them shared that they advocate for their children
Park and Turnbull (2001)	Eight Korean parents of neurodivergent children	Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted in Korean	Exploring caregivers’ experiences with special education services in the U.S.	Parents reported receiving an excessive number of brochures and documents in English from the school, which impeded their understanding of the information. They also felt that teachers might be uncomfortable with classroom visits. Due to their cultural values, some caregivers refrained from asking questions or expressing differing opinions and were dissatisfied with the interpreter’s services
Salas (2004)	Ten Mexican-American mothers whose children accessed special education services	A series of interviews in Spanish and participant observations	Exploring mothers’ experiences with IEP meetings	Mothers shared that their voices were not heard, they were discriminated against, and they couldn’t actively participate in the IEP meetings
Zetlin et al. (1996)	Five Latin-American mothers of neurodivergent children	Face-to-face semi-structured interviews conducted in Spanish in the mothers’ home	Exploring caregivers’ experiences with the special education system in the U.S.	Mothers did not receive sufficient information about their children’s level of functioning and expressed mistrust toward teachers

Note. All studies were conducted in the U.S.

Experiences of Immigrant Families of Neurodivergent Children in the School Setting

In the reviewed studies (Table 1), we focused on the barriers to (a) accessing special educational services for neurodivergent children and (b) caregiver involvement. We excluded responses that concentrated on other educational aspects, such as personal relationships between caregivers and teachers, unless explicitly stated that they contributed to the identified barriers. Moreover, we included discussion papers that addressed immigrant families in special education, where appropriate, to provide context for the research findings. Lastly, we shared caregivers’ perspectives on their involvement as explored in qualitative studies. Thus, in the following section, we aim to provide an overview of the struggles and challenges faced by immigrant families of neurodivergent children in the U.S. school setting.

Barriers to Accessing Educational Services

Qualitative studies involving immigrant families of neurodivergent children have highlighted significant barriers to accessing special education services for their children (e.g., Gregoire & Cramer, 2015; Harry, 1992; Lai & Ishiyama, 2004; Lee et al., 2022; Park & Turnbull, 2001). While many caregivers who are born in the U.S. reported that they are not fully aware of available special education services for their children and educational settings (Phillips, 2008), in the case of immigrant families, this is even more profound due in large part, to the language and cultural differences (Plata-Potter & de Guzman, 2012; Turney & Kao, 2009). As systemic support is limited, such as lack of qualified staff (e.g., special education teachers who speak the family’s native language or are trained to support immigrant students and their families), caregivers often have insufficient knowledge3 about the U.S. educational system in general, available services related to special education, and child and family rights (e.g., Choe et al., 2024; Gregoire & Cramer, 2015; Harry, 1992; Lee et al., 2022; Montoya et al., 2022; Salas, 2004).

First, some authors noted that immigrant families of neurodivergent children might have insufficient knowledge and understanding of the educational system in the U.S. (Choe et al., 2024; Delgado Gaitan, 2012; Lee et al., 2022; Montoya et al., 2022). This lack of knowledge might overwhelm these families (Fox et al., 2017; Montoya et al., 2022) and pose a barrier to accessing necessary services (Lee et al., 2022; Montoya et al., 2022). For instance, some countries’ educational systems do not offer the same related services, such as occupational therapy, or school professionals might have different titles (see Florian & Becirevic, 2011). Moreover, the educational systems in the home countries of immigrant families may operate differently, with distinct legal and cultural systems (Antony-Newman, 2019; Crossley & Watson, 2003). A Korean mother reported that, as she had never completed her education in the U.S., she could not understand what different types of special education classrooms look like (Lee & Park, 2016). Another Korean mother did not know what documents she needed to bring to the meetings, as nobody explained that to her (Lee et al., 2022). Furthermore, some Puerto Rican caregivers were unfamiliar with the concept of a self-contained classroom or that their children were placed in such classrooms (Harry, 1992; note that this may also apply to U.S.-born parents of neurodivergent children), whereas Latino mothers shared they did not understand what special education services are (Montoya et al., 2022). Research has repeatedly shown that many Latino and Asian families were unaware of the purpose of IEP meetings, the nature of the IEP document, and their rights to express their opinions and thoughts regarding their children’s educational plans because there was no such service in their countries of origin (Harry, 1992; Jegatheesan, 2009; Larios & Zetlin, 2022; Lee et al., 2022; Lo, 2008; Montoya et al., 2022; Wolfe & Durán, 2013; Zetlin et al., 1996). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that without an understanding of how U.S. special education functions, including the roles and types of service providers, families may not know how, whom, or what to ask for regarding their children’s education, services, and support (Gregoire & Cramer, 2015; Harry, 1992; Jegatheesan, 2009; Lee et al., 2022; Lo, 2008; Salas, 2004; Wolfe & Durán, 2013; Zetlin et al., 1996).

Second, many immigrant families were not able to access school-related services for their children as they did not have access to information regarding the laws and services to which their children were entitled, even though they were willing to learn the U.S. system (Harry, 1992; Montoya et al., 2022; Zetlin et al., 1996; Salas, 2004). Harry (1992) and Salas (2004) pointed out that this was mainly due to a lack of resources in the family’s native language, poor support from the school staff, and a lack of professionals who are fluent in the family’s native language to explain the U.S. educational system and rights. Zetlin et al. (1996) reported that a Latina mother was given an English copy of the IEP despite not being fluent in English, and she was unaware that she could request a Spanish version. Others reported that some families did not know that they had the right to a professional interpreter (Jegatheesan, 2009; Lee & Park, 2016; Larios & Zetlin, 2022), and some believed that their decisions regarding their neurodivergent children would have been different if they always had a interpreter during the meetings (Kibria & Becerra, 2021). Research also found that schools used a janitor (Jegatheesan, 2009), a worker in the cafeteria (Kibria & Becerra, 2021), and family friends (Larios & Zetlin, 2022) as an interpreter, and many interpreters were unfamiliar with educational policies, did not speak caregivers’ native language well, or had limited English proficiency, resulting in the misinterpretation of critical details needed to promote an understanding of the child’s rights for additional services in school (Choe et al., 2024; Jegatheesan, 2009; Kibria & Becerra, 2021; Larios & Zetlin, 2022; Lee & Park, 2016; Lo, 2008). This misinterpretation caused caregivers to feel helpless, upset, excluded from the child’s educational decisions, and left with many unanswered questions (Jegatheesan, 2009; Lo, 2008).

On the basis of our professional experiences, we have observed how the lack of interpreters and clearly defined professional roles affected services for students. In one case, a family used a term from their culture to describe a type of medical professional they desired for their child’s support. Extensive discussion was required with the family to understand their intended meaning and identify the closest corresponding professional in the U.S. context before appropriate referrals could be made.

In summary, immigrant families of neurodivergent children in the U.S. encountered many challenges navigating the educational system due to their unique situations. The shortage of resources in native languages, coupled with inadequate support and a lack of bilingual professionals, hampered families’ access to services for their children.

Caregiver Involvement

Despite being shown that the involvement of caregivers in many aspects of the school functioning is important for the academic achievements of their children of any background (Antony-Newman, 2019; Lasky & Karge, 2011), immigrant caregivers face barriers to involvement in their child’s education in the school setting, compared to the native-born White caregivers (Turney & Kao, 2009). When it comes to ethnic groups, Turney and Kao (2009) found that Asian foreign-born caregivers reported more barriers to getting involved in their child’s education than Latino and Black foreign-born caregivers. Several factors affect the caregivers’ involvement of immigrant families in their child’s education in the U.S. school setting, including, but not limited to (a) differences in cultural values, (b) language barriers, and (c) length of stay in a new country (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Harry, 1992; Jegatheesan, 2009; Kibria & Becerra, 2021; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Rossetti et al., 2021; Salas, 2004). We will discuss these points in detail next.

Differences in Cultural Values as Barriers to Caregiver Involvement

It is a harmful misconception that caregivers with less involvement are less concerned about or invested in their child’s education as their cultural background might dictate their level of participation (Lai & Ishiyama, 2004). Research showed that many immigrant caregivers of neurodivergent children felt they did not have a place in the educational system to address their concerns due to their cultural upbringing, such as perceiving school personnel as authority (Jegatheesan, 2009; Kibria & Becerra, 2021; Lee & Park, 2016; Lee et al., 2022; Park, 2024; Park & Turnbull, 2001). Many Puerto Rican, Chinese, and Korean caregivers reported feeling uncomfortable asking questions to school personnel, sharing their views, or discussing their family matters (Harry, 1992; Jegatheesan, 2009; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001). Additionally, some families felt hesitant to provide input regarding the services for their children with teachers as they felt reluctant to speak up given their limited knowledge and language, as well as their fear of teachers mistreating their children when their opinions contradicted (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Kibria & Becerra, 2021; Lee et al., 2022; Montoya et al., 2022; Salas, 2004). In the cases of Puerto Rican families, their expression of disagreement with the recommendations made by school professionals took the form of disengaging from involvement with the school, such as avoiding meetings or not signing documents (Harry, 1992). Sadly, even when immigrant caregivers shared their concerns and thoughts about their children’s needs, the school personnel often did not value or consider their opinions (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Lo, 2008; Kibria & Becerra, 2021; Miller-Gairy & Saul Mofya, 2015; Rossetti et al., 2021, Salas, 2004).

In some cases, families might hesitate sharing their opinions due to different cultural beliefs about child rearing (Earner, 2007), as illustrated by an example from the healthcare system (Bogenschutz, 2014). A Hmong mother, belonging to an indigenous group in East and Southeast Asia, shared that a doctor reported her to child protective services because she opposed surgery for her child with a disability (in Hmong culture, cutting skin is prohibited; Bogenschutz, 2014). This incident resulted in the family avoiding healthcare professionals altogether. It is conceivable that a similar situation could occur in a school setting, where the family’s fear of child protective services, stemming from differences in child-rearing practices (Earner, 2007), could lead to limited involvement.

Language Barriers to Caregiver Involvement

Turney and Kao (2009) found that greater language proficiency positively correlated with greater immigrant caregivers’ involvement in the school setting. Consistent with this finding, research involving immigrant families of neurodivergent children has consistently shown that lack of English language proficiency acts as a barrier to caregiver involvement (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Choe et al., 2024; Harry, 1992; Lee & Park, 2016; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Salas, 2004). For example, Korean-American and Chinese caregivers reported that, due to their lack of English proficiency, they were not always included in discussions regarding their children’s academic and social needs during meetings (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Lo, 2008). As mentioned earlier, the lack of professional interpreters further deepened this gap (Jegatheesan, 2009; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Rossetti et al., 2021). Owing to this, IEP goals did not always include these families’ cultural values and expectations (Salas, 2004).

Limited caregiver involvement also stemmed from the staff’s failure to provide important information adequately. In the study exploring Puerto Rican families’ experiences with the U.S. special education system, Harry (1992) found that caregivers did not know about changes in their child’s school placement as the school informed them about this only in a letter written in English. Caregivers also reported receiving an overwhelming number of letters from the school, written in English and with technical jargon that was challenging to understand (Harry, 1992; Jegatheesan, 2009; Park & Turnbull, 2001; Salas, 2004).

Length of Stay in a New Country

Another important factor to consider is the length of time a family has been in the U.S., as stress levels can vary depending on their level of acculturation (Bekteshi & Kang, 2020). Caregivers who have recently moved to the U.S. are most likely under greater stress as the process of acculturation is still at its initial stage; they might be searching for employment, working on their immigration status, looking for a permanent place to stay, etc. (Caplan, 2007), which can prevent them from getting involved in school and their child’s education. Some families do not have a legally recognized status (i.e., they are undocumented), which can add an additional layer of stress and result in reduced involvement in school-based activities (Carreón et al., 2005), to avoid potentially negative interactions with federal officers (Luelmo et al., 2022).

Caregivers’ Perspective on Caregiver Involvement

As mentioned earlier, U.S. laws mandate schools to facilitate caregiver involvement in their child’s education (ESSA, 2015; IDEA, 2004). Given that this is a two-way interaction between caregivers and schools, it is important to understand the experiences of immigrant caregivers of neurodivergent children regarding their involvement in the school setting. Although there is limited research on this topic, the reviewed studies characterized caregivers’ involvement by visiting classrooms (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Kibria & Becerra, 2021; Zetlin et al., 1996), attending workshops (Buren et al., 2022; Zetlin et al., 1996), participating in various school social events (Buren et al., 2022), and joining parent support groups (Buren et al., 2022; Zetlin et al., 1996) offered by the school.

Some caregivers communicated daily with teachers about their children’s behaviors both at school and home, sharing effective behavioral strategies (Buren et al., 2022). Many caregivers emphasized their roles as advocates for their children, especially during IEP meetings (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Choe et al., 2024; Kibria & Becerra, 2021; Montoya et al., 2022; Park, 2024). Some expressed a desire for more workshops and social opportunities to learn about services and how to support their children (Choe et al., 2024; Kibria & Becerra, 2021), and for the school to extend support to their homes (Gregoire & Cramer, 2015). Only one study reported that several caregivers were involved in decision-making regarding their children’s education (Buren et al., 2022). Caregivers noted that their level of involvement depended on how welcomed they felt by the school (Buren et al., 2022). For some, time constraints due to working multiple jobs limited their involvement (Gregoire & Cramer, 2015).

In summary, we have reviewed the barriers immigrant families of neurodivergent children face in navigating the U.S. educational system. We identified two main barriers (a) access to special educational services for neurodivergent children and (b) caregiver involvement in the school setting. School-based ABA practitioners must be aware of these factors when working with immigrant families and their neurodivergent children. Below, we provide recommendations for how school-based ABA practitioners can support immigrant families of neurodivergent children in the school setting.

Recommendations for Successful Partnership with Immigrant Families of Neurodivergent Children

To support immigrant families and their neurodivergent children, we aim to develop a systematic approach to support school-based ABA practitioners who have contact with families, using the Epstein framework (see Table 2 for a summary). It is important to note that while we aim to provide comprehensive recommendations for supporting immigrant families of neurodivergent children receiving special education services in the U.S. school system, not all recommendations will be applicable to every school-based ABA practitioner due to their variety of roles and responsibilities in school settings (Layden et al., 2024). For instance, some school-based ABA practitioners might work in a consultative role and have no direct contact with families, while others might work directly with students and their families (Layden et al., 2024). Additionally, some school-based ABA practitioners might have greater autonomy in delivering services and interacting with families, while others might have a more limited scope of responsibilities. Furthermore, ABA practitioners might work in public, charter, or private schools. Each of these factors will dictate what school-based ABA practitioners are allowed to do in their role when it comes to interactions with immigrant families and, consequently, which recommendations from this paper will be appropriate for them. Regardless, as long as ABA practitioners are part of the educational team that supports neurodivergent emergent bilingual/multilingual students and their families, it is our ethical responsibility to implement strategies that will increase the effectiveness of services and respect the consumer’s autonomy (BACB, 2020). Therefore, we hope that school-based ABA practitioners will apply the adapted Epstein framework at a level and with a degree of comprehensiveness appropriate to their roles and responsibilities. Moreover, some recommendations are not intended to be implemented solely by ABA practitioners. Instead, school-based ABA practitioners need to collaborate with the entire IEP team to bring these recommendations to life.

Table 2.

The adapted Epstein model for school-based ABA practitioners supporting immigrant families

Types of caregiver involvement	Considerations for immigrant families of neurodivergent children	ABA practitioner role – behaviors to implement/foster
Parenting ABA practitioners support families to establish their children as students	• Cultural values and goals around (a) education, (b) academic goals, and (c) the child’s role in the family • Family culture • Family home environment and interpersonal dynamics • Student’s behavior under acculturation stress	• Build rapport with families • Assess and understand values and how they relate to goals/education • Assess and understand family culture • Help families set up their children as students by incorporating cultural values • Help families understand the American culture • Provide compassionate ABA services • Assess student’s behavior in relation to the cultural understanding (e.g., FBA) • Collaborate with insurance-based ABA practitioners
Communicating Regular exchange of information between ABA practitioners and caregivers about curriculum and students’ progress	• Family’s understanding of the educational system in the U.S. • Family preferences for communication modes • Family understanding of ABA • Family language • Role of interpreters/mediators	• Create a communication plan (frequency and type of communication - audio, visual, pictorial, translation, communication book, emails, phone meetings, etc.) • Incorporate open-door policy • Frequently inform caregivers about the child’s progress • Inform caregivers about ABA and the role of ABA practitioners in child’s education • Create ABA videos in the family’s native language • Use jargon-free language • Learn several basic words in the family’s native language • Modify speech pace and sentence structure during communication if the family has a lack of English proficiency • Collaborate with the interpreters and intercultural mediators
Volunteering ABA practitioners encourage caregivers to participate in school activities	• Family availability • Cultural factors and beliefs about school volunteering • Length of stay in the U.S.	• Assess caregivers’ readiness to volunteer • Obtain information about various volunteer opportunities at school • Support caregivers to access volunteering opportunities based on their level of comfort • Work together with special education teachers and plan for classroom volunteering opportunities for caregivers
Learning at home ABA practitioners support caregivers in helping their children with homework and other curriculum-related activities at home	• Caregivers’ comfortability with carrying out ABA plans at the home • Caregivers’ understanding of ABA procedures and materials • Caregivers’ involvement in interventions • Assessment of the family’s living arrangement and each member’s role in the family	• Provide caregiver training • Develop written or visual instructions on how to support the child at home in the family’s native language • Teach caregivers how to look through the curriculum and how to read the progress • Provide training skills that are used in school and at home (Behavioral Skill Training) • Seek feedback from caregivers on the effectiveness of ABA interventions carried out at home • Collaborate with insurance-based ABA practitioners
Decision-making Involve caregivers in school management and decision-making processes	• A welcoming IEP environment • Caregivers’ understanding of their role as a decision maker for their child’s education in the U.S. system • Family members’ roles in public • Cultural factors and beliefs about participation in organizations/committees • Caregivers’ view of therapists and education staff as authority	• Obtain consent and/or assent • Assure families they have the right to say anything related to their child’s education • Find out who is responsible for making decisions in public in the family’s culture • Find out who is in charge of child-rearing in the family’s culture • Assess caregivers’ perception of services/interventions • Incorporate caregivers’ input in the assessment and interventions • Individualize approach and interventions to the family/student
Collaborating with the community Find and incorporate community resources to improve the immigrant families’ quality of life	• Available resources in the school and in the community (caregiver support groups, disabilities support groups, local cultural center, and other community events) • Financial aid and services available • Caregivers’ perspectives on support groups and openness to participate in community activities	• Fostering connection with community resources • Facilitate opportunities for caregiver-to-caregiver contact • Communicate with outside service providers such as insurance-based ABA practitioners, speech therapists, doctors, and tutors. • Reach out to local support groups and events

Note: The above table details the collaborative model proposed in this paper for actions for immigrant family stakeholders and ABA practitioners in the school setting

Type 1 Involvement: Parenting

Epstein (2010) places Parenting as the first type of involvement. The main aspect of Parenting is for ABA practitioners to support families in understanding their child as a student and to establish a home environment conducive to learning. To apply Epstein’s recommendations for immigrant families, school-based ABA practitioners must first understand the families’ cultures of origin. We break down this section into three subsections: Understanding the families, student behavior and mental health, and creating a conducive home environment for learning.

Understanding the Families

Epstein (2010) suggested that educational staff need to understand families’ backgrounds, values, and cultures, as well as what dreams they have for their children. Above all, educational staff should respect families’ strengths and efforts in supporting their children (Epstein, 2010). Values may reflect immigrant families’ perspectives on their (a) child’s education (e.g., the family’s expectation of school function, their expectation of their child’s academic advancement, teachers’ instructional approaches that caregivers prefer), (b) child’s skill acquisition goals (e.g., the skills caregivers want their child to learn), and (c) parenting objectives (e.g., what skills caregivers want to learn; Epstein, 2010). These values and expectations could differ from those of the U.S. majority culture (Jegatheesan, 2009). Thus, school-based ABA practitioners should actively seek to understand the immigrant families’ values when they serve the children of these families.

School-based ABA practitioners, as members of the educational team, can assess the families’ values during the meetings (e.g., IEP and FBA) or an ongoing service provision. To assess families’ options and values regarding their child’s education, we could ask questions such as “What is important to your family when it comes to your child’s education?” “Are there any family traditions or teaching methods you think should be part of the plan to help your child learn different skills?” School-based ABA practitioners could also assess which skills families value and prioritize, as these might differ from the ones the practitioners typically work on. For example, Castro-Hostetler et al. (2023) found that Latino caregivers valued daily living skills goals. School-based ABA practitioners could use questions such as, “In your culture, are particular skills highly valued for a child’s development? I want to ensure that the skills we teach your child align with your family values. For example, I can help your child make more friends at school, improve his communication skills with his friends, teach him to wash his hands, or help him to stop hitting. These are just some examples of how I can support your child. I would love to hear what is important to you for your child to learn.” Sample questions related to parenting objectives could be: “What would you like to learn to help your child do better? For example, do you want to learn how to help them with their homework, improve their communication skills or manage their behavior at home?” Learning about families’ values through these questions can help build rapport with them, an essential step at the start of any ABA service, such as conducting an FBA or skill assessment. For suggestions on how ABA practitioners can build rapport with immigrant families and better understand their values, see Baires et al. (2023), Dennison et al. (2019), Pearson et al. (2019), and Taylor et al. (2019). If school-based ABA practitioners have limited contact with families or a limited role during IEP meetings, we could encourage the IEP team to understand families’ values better and collect such information prior to having the meetings.

Cultural norms may dictate what behaviors are considered professional and highly significant. Castro‑Hostetler et al. (2023), for instance, found that Latino families indicated “trust, respect, open communication, personal cultural practices, and family” as important values that ABA practitioners should be aware of (Castro‑Hostetler et al., 2023, p. 217). To earn trust and respect from Latino caregivers means following promises, sharing information, and being available when they need to communicate (Adams & Christenson, 1998; Young et al., 2015). This can include showing up on time for scheduled meetings, following up to ensure they understood discussions and decisions, sending a monthly report on a child’s progress if agreed upon, and responding to texts or emails promptly. While it might be unreasonable to expect that school-based ABA practitioners fulfill 100% of the above behaviors due to various factors, if we are unable to follow through, we should inform the families and provide a clear timeline of when we can do so. In addition, school-based ABA practitioners could demonstrate respect by incorporating caregivers’ feedback, preferences, and values into the goal and treatment development. For families of other cultures, different factors may hold significance. For example, South Asian Muslim immigrant caregivers of autistic children believed that an autistic child is a gift, and they felt hurt when U.S. professionals focused on weaknesses rather than appreciating “who the child is” when developing an intervention plan (Jegatheesan et al., 2010, p. 103). In such cases, school-based ABA practitioners need to understand each immigrant family’s perspective on their child’s characteristics and might need to shift our approach and leverage the child’s strengths and interests to enhance the student’s skills.

Another efficient way to engage in culturally responsive practice is to use the Culturally Informed Functional Assessment Interview (CIFA) as part of the school’s FBA (Tanaka-Matsumi et al., 1996). CIFA consists of eight steps designed to understand a family’s culture and encourage ABA practitioners to reflect on our own cultural backgrounds and beliefs (Baires et al., 2023; Beaulieu & Jimenez-Gomez, 2022; Čolić et al., 2022; Fong et al., 2016; Kirby et al., 2022; Mathur & Rodriguez, 2022). For instance, school-based ABA practitioners would assess cultural identity, acculturation, and caregivers’ perceptions of complex behavior (e.g., verbal aggression), which are likely “influenced by cultural context” (Tanaka-Matsumi et al., 1996, p. 220).

School-based ABA practitioners should also assess caregivers’ opinions about the appropriateness of reinforcers, such as physical touch (Brodhead et al., 2014). Moreover, some families, such as Asian Americans, might view “tangible reinforcement as frivolous,” which would prompt school-based ABA practitioners to explain the reason why tangible reinforcers are important for the intervention’s effectiveness (Blair et al., 2020, p. 76).

School-based ABA practitioners should be aware that not all families from the same culture will have the same preferences and should always be open to listening and incorporating each family’s perspectives. Additionally, school-based ABA practitioners should be careful not to homogenize groups of people with significant diversity and should avoid making assumptions about the values of families based solely on their membership in an ethnic group. For instance, while families from Peru and Costa Rica may both be considered Latino, they have vastly different experiences and cultures. Collaboration with families should always be compassionate (Taylor et al., 2019) and sincere in learning about their cultural backgrounds and values (sincerity was a trait that Latino and Asian families particularly valued among educators; Jegatheesan, 2009; Zetlin et al., 1996). It is important to demonstrate cultural humility (Wright, 2019) by letting families know we are still learning about their cultures. Sincere and honest communication is the key to creating a sense of trust. However, in some instances, our perspectives may introduce bias toward our clients and their families. For example, a parent from one culture felt their child was in good care when one of the authors provided detailed information about ABA services and hours at the first meeting. In contrast, a parent from another culture interpreted the same discussions about service hours as “business-like” and lacking genuine concern for their child. While this is just one example, it illustrates that although similarities may exist, the interlocking and dynamic nature of cultural communications differs, requiring ABA practitioners to navigate these issues with sensitivity and care.

Student Behavior and Mental Health

A related issue concerning understanding families’ cultures is immigrant students’ behavior and mental health. Immigrant students undergo an acculturation process, learning the settings and contingencies of their new environment, which can be stressful as they navigate new settings and cultural norms (Lilla et al., 2021). McIntyre et al. (2011) discussed educators’ lack of knowledge about how cultural and immigration factors might impact students’ success at school and assessment outcomes. For instance, they provided a case where a student’s lack of English fluency caused stress, which caused the student to engage in behaviors such as refusal to participate, object destruction, and inappropriate language use. During these times of confusion and distress, educators, including ABA practitioners, might perceive the students’ behavior as “problematic” and initiate the IEP and FBA processes when, in reality, it is the environment that is not conducive to the student’s success, and these behaviors may be their attempts to advocate for a different learning approach (Migliarini & Stinson, 2021). This mismatch might lead to an underestimation of their academic performance, resulting in the implementation of support that does not adequately reflect their true abilities or needs (Acosta et al., 2020). For example, on the basis of our own experiences, one school sent a neurodivergent immigrant student to an ESL class due to a misattribution of this child’s speech delay to second language difficulties. Students’ self-esteem also suffers from such inappropriate recommendations, which might lead to depression (McIntyre et al., 2011).

Thus, school-based ABA practitioners need to be aware that, though IDEA dictates that every student has a right to an FBA to address behavior that interferes with the learning environment (IDEA, 2004), the current practice of FBA may not be sensitive to factors such as acculturation stress and cultural differences, resulting in inappropriate service recommendations (McIntyre et al., 2011). In some cases, emergent bilingual or multilingual students require support in addition to, or other than, special education or ABA. They might benefit more from ELL/ESL services, which address multilingual aspects of the student’s ability instead of learning disabilities, or school psychologists who can address mental health issues. ELL/ESL teachers often support students beyond the classroom by helping them navigate school environments and assisting their families in understanding the U.S. educational system or accessing resources (Haneda & Alexander, 2015).

Lastly, effective communication with immigrant families about their children’s behavioral and psychological challenges is critical, as cultural interpretations of these issues vary widely (Tanaka-Matsumi et al., 1996). Tanaka-Matsumi recommended asking families what their children’s behavior might mean to them (or to their cultural norm) and what they think the cause of it might be before the IEP team and school-based ABA practitioners conclude that the student’s behavior is atypical and if it requires FBA. It is important to note that in some cultures, neurodiversity might be seen and understood differently. For example, autism is not recognized in the Somali community (there is no word for autism, and mothers shared that they’ve never seen autistic child in Somalia), and therefore, many caregivers felt that their children did not need any intervention (Miller-Gairy & Saul Mofya, 2015). To prevent mistreatment of immigrant students, including improper classroom placements, assessments, and support teams, it is essential for school-based ABA practitioners to be aware of these students’ situations, cultural backgrounds, and family environments as part of understanding immigrant families’ culture.

Creating a Conducive Home Environment for Learning

The last part of Type 1 involvement is concerned with arranging contingencies at home that would encourage the caregivers to view their children as learners (Epstein, 2010). As previously discussed, understanding the family’s attitude toward their child’s education is crucial for conceptualizing the child as a student (Epstein, 2010). Some immigrant communities might not primarily view their children as students within their home environment, or they might not have available time to set up learning opportunities due to other obligations, such as multiple jobs (see also Gregoire & Cramer, 2015). Some families, such as Latino families, might live in multigenerational homes (Baires et al., 2023; Castro‑Hostetler et al., 2023), where grandparents often take care of the children. Therefore, school-based ABA practitioners, along with the educational team, might need to communicate American values regarding homework and how a child is seen as a student, even at home, to immigrant families (Epstein, 2010). School-based ABA practitioners should assess whether and to what extent families agree with this value and support families at their preferred level. Here are some sample questions that school-based ABA practitioners could use: “In American culture, people believe their children should study outside the school. I’m new to your culture and would like to learn what you think. Do you think your child should study at home as well?” “Do parents help their children learn at home in your culture?” “Do you think it would be helpful for you to learn ABA techniques that we use at school to support your child at home?”

Moreover, if immigrant families express a preference to see their child as a student at home, school-based ABA practitioners could assess the families’ home environment via caregiver interviews during the IEP or FBA process (see Nicolson et al., 2020 for recommendations and sample questions to assess the home environment). This assessment could involve gathering information about how many family members are involved in childrearing, who are primarily responsible for implementing behavioral interventions, what obstacles may arise during the implementation of the plan, and how the caregivers can set up the environment to decrease complex behaviors (e.g., physical aggression) and increase desired ones, among other factors. Drawing from our own experience, adapting the Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) for an immigrant family with multiple caregivers in one household required a tailored approach. The student’s ABA team systematically broke down the BIP into smaller components, prioritizing the most socially significant parts based on the involvement of family members. The team then conducted trials to test each component individually and evaluate its effectiveness in the home environment. Starting with the most time-efficient and socially significant components, the team established a foundation of successful interventions. Gradually expanding the program based on these initial successes, the team tailored the interventions to fit the family’s unique needs and circumstances.

Of note, as school-based ABA practitioners may be limited to communicating on this topic with caregivers, this could potentially be achieved through collaboration with an insurance-based ABA practitioner if a student receives insurance-based ABA services. For example, ABA practitioners could work together to identify environmental arrangements needed to prepare the children as students at home.

Type 2 Involvement: Communicating

When applied to immigrant caregivers of neurodivergent children, Type 2 involvement, Communicating is of particular importance, as many families have reported facing communication difficulties with the school (e.g., Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Harry, 1992; Lai & Ishiyama, 2004; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001). Communicating could be observed as consisting of two aspects: exchange of information (i.e., caregivers receiving necessary information about a child’s progress, student’s programs, etc.) and language (i.e., caregivers receiving information in a language of their choice; Epstein, 2010).

Exchange of Information

Epstein (2010) discussed how teachers could inform the caregivers about the student’s progress at school, programs, performance, school policies, school activities, and events by various means of communication such as conferences, work folders, report cards, memos, phone calls, and newsletters. School-based ABA practitioners should also take numerous actions to increase the caregivers’ knowledge and awareness of students’ progress in relation to ABA services. This is especially true when, for example, Korean caregivers reported having difficulty obtaining information about their child’s progress and school life, particularly when the child had not developed language skills for self-reporting (Park & Turnbull, 2001). Latina mothers shared that frequent communication with special education teachers about what is happening at school was integral for their involvement in their child’s education (Buren et al., 2022). Thus, school-based ABA practitioners should inform caregivers about their child’s progress in school (e.g., bi-weekly) and reflect on the skills the child is learning and how these skills can be supported at home. Updates can be sent through diverse means of communication, such as formal in-person meetings, emails, communication books, informal meetings (e.g., after school when caregivers come to pick up their child; Harry, 1992; Lai & Ishiyama, 2004), phone meetings, video conferencing meetings, and more (Buren et al., 2022; Epstein, 2010). School-based ABA practitioners can also create a template on the child’s progress and goals that caregivers can easily engage with and understand, such as flowcharts, infographics, or visual presentations such as photos with simple explanatory sentences.

Some schools also utilize various online platforms where both teachers and caregivers can post students’ work and assignments, although this requires access to the Internet, which might be limited for some families (Delgado Gaitan, 2012). Another practice to increase Communicating is implementing an open-door policy (Buren et al., 2022). Designating a specific day or time of day when school-based ABA practitioners are available for caregivers at the school can significantly increase communication with immigrant caregivers, particularly regarding the goals that will be pursued at home. If being physically present in an office at the school is not feasible, school-based ABA practitioners could offer an alternative by being available for phone calls or online at a later time. School-based ABA practitioners should ask caregivers which communication methods work best and determine a timeframe that the family can realistically manage. It should not be assumed that families have the time to engage in all these activities concurrently. Lastly, school-based ABA practitioners might need to use an appropriate interpreter if needed (Epstein, 2010).

Epstein (2010) also suggested that schools inform families about available programs and services offered by the school. Ensuring that immigrant caregivers are informed about available services is crucial, as many have emphasized that knowledge is key to obtaining adequate support for their children in the school setting (e.g., Kibria & Becerra, 2021). When it comes to the content of the information being exchanged, Castro‑Hostetler et al. (2023) found that Latino families had minimal knowledge about ABA when they started receiving services. Thus, school-based ABA practitioners should exchange information with families about ABA, the role of ABA in their child’s IEP, and the role of ABA practitioners in school during the IEP or FBA meetings. This could also involve offering a workshop (Epstein, 2010) specifically focused on ABA within the school context, as previous research showed that immigrant caregivers understood IEP and a special education program after attending related workshops (Zetlin et al., 1996). Helton and Alber-Morgan (2018) have developed a helpful guide on how teachers can inform caregivers about ABA (e.g., how to provide an explanation of ABA, how it is implemented in the school, how to provide information about a BIP and commonly used ABA strategies, etc.). School-based ABA practitioners can share these steps with the school team or adapt them and utilize this guide when working with immigrant families in school settings. We should also clarify what benefits ABA can offer in addition to the traditional approaches that some families might prefer (Miller-Gairy & Saul Mofya, 2015). If families are well-informed about available services, they can make informed decisions about which services are most appropriate for their child.

Language

Another aspect of Communicating involves language itself. Initially, school-based ABA practitioners, along with other team members, should assess each family’s language needs and determine the language in which they would prefer their child to receive educational services (Al-Hassan & Gardner III, 2002; Epstein, 2010). School-based ABA practitioners can accomplish this simply by asking the families about their preferences (Dennison et al., 2019) or by obtaining this information from the other team members. Some immigrant families prefer their children to receive instructions in their native language, especially if the native language has been dominant at home (Salas, 2004; Zetlin et al., 1996; Yu, 2013). This approach not only creates an opportunity for caregivers to assist their children with homework and assignments but also enhances the effectiveness of behavioral intervention, which is likely to be greater when conducted in the child’s native language (Kingsdorf, 2014). In reality, this is a difficult task not only for school-based ABA practitioners but also for teachers and the child’s classmates, as they need to be proficient in the immigrant child’s native language, especially when it is a rare language. Here, we consider alternative options.

School-based ABA practitioners could make an effort to learn several basic words in the family’s native language (i.e., hello, thank you) and use them with the family members. However, this should be done with caution and should not replace the need for and effort to find a qualified interpreter, and should not be used as the sole means to communicate important findings and updates related to their ABA service provision with the student’s families. If a school or an ABA agency has bilingual/multilingual staff, they could create a video about what ABA is in the family’s native language; such a video could be reused and shared among colleagues who work with immigrant families of the same origin. They could also create various ABA-related videos (e.g., video modeling) in the family’s native language, which other English-speaking staff members could use when working with the student. Lim et al. (2021) addressed the language barrier between Spanish-speaking caregivers of autistic children and English-speaking trainers by creating Spanish-language videos. English-speaking trainers used these videos as part of a video-prompting intervention to teach caregivers instructional skills on how to teach their children to dress independently.

Written documents such as an IEP, FBA, and BIP might be too difficult for caregivers to understand because of the technical language and lack of familiarity with the jargon (Jegatheesan, 2009; Lasky & Karge, 2011). Therefore, it is advisable to use jargon-free language or, at the very least, provide explanations for any jargon used in the document (see Appendices A and B for a sample of simplified language to explain what FBA is and ideas on how school-based ABA practitioners can approach the FBA and BIP processes). School-based ABA practitioners should also offer assistance to caregivers in filling out necessary documents such as consent or assessment forms (e.g., Questions about Behavioral Function; Matson & Vollmer, 1995). Additionally, using terms that enhance the social acceptability of ABA is preferable (Becirevic et al., 2016; Critchfield et al., 2017; McMahon et al., 2021). School-based ABA practitioners should also utilize freely available assessment tools already translated into different languages if they match the family’s language, such as the Spanish version of the Functional Assessment Screening Tool (Instrumento de Cribado para Análisis Funcional; Iwata et al., 2020) or the multiple language versions of the Open-Ended Interview Form (Practical Functional Assessment, n.d.). Of note, it will also be prudent to ensure that school-based ABA practitioners, as a part of the IEP team, actively seek a qualified intepreter to ensure all information is correct while filling out the forms together.

When using English as a primary means to communicate with immigrant families who are not fully proficient in English, school-based ABA practitioners can follow the recommendations of other service providers, including speech-language pathologists, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, specialized educators, and psychologists (Brassart et al., 2017). They recommend to (a) simplify grammatical structures and vocabulary, (b) slow down the speech rate, (c) repeat information multiple times, and (d) check for understanding (i.e., observe how caregivers react when information is provided, ask questions to check for understanding; Brassart et al., 2017).

School-based ABA practitioners could also develop a specific code system for communication, as one Korean family did with their child’s teachers (Park & Turnbull, 2001). When a mother sought to monitor her child’s daily habits, the child’s teacher used a simple coding system. A circle denoted days with high activity, an X for days with no activity, and a triangle for moderate activity (Park & Turnbull, 2001). Similarly, school-based ABA practitioners could develop a coding system that teachers or RBTs could use to indicate whether a child engaged in certain behaviors, depending on their goals. This code system could also be developed to track how well a child performed a certain behavior (e.g., independently or with prompting).

When it comes to formal meetings, such as IEP meetings, the presence of a professional interpreter is mandated by the law, unless the family declines this service (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Dowdy et al. (2021) proposed a set of guidelines for how ABA practitioners could work collaboratively with the interpreters: (a) unpack jargon (ABA practitioners should check for understanding and explain any less familiar words to the interpreters), (b) speak in simplified sentences, (c) plan for longer meetings and allow more time to translate (immigrant families valued when the professionals gave an interpreter enough time to translate messages so that the families could understand services better, Bogenschutz, 2014), (d) communicate directly with clients and not just to the interpreter, (e) be prepared to repeat or clarify your words, (f) consider the positioning at the table during the meeting (ABA practitioners should position themselves close to students/caregivers in order to establish good contact), and (g) understand the role of the interpreter (p. 55–56). Moreover, school-based ABA practitioners and interpreters could meet before and after the interpretation session to touch base (Dowdy et al., 2021).

In addition, the intercultural mediator or an advocate who is fluent in the family’s language and whom the family trusts could be present during IEP meetings (Park & Turnbull, 2001). In an educational context, an intercultural mediator is a professional responsible for facilitating communication between immigrant families and schools (Catarci, 2016). Haneda and Alexander (2015) noted that, in some cases, ESL teachers serve as advocates. The role of an intercultural mediator is to promote and enhance the social inclusion of immigrant families (Catarci, 2016). Compared to interpreters, intercultural mediators usually share the same cultural background as immigrant families, providing them with a deeper understanding of the family’s rights in the school setting and knowledge of and experience with the U.S. educational system (Park & Turnbull, 2001). Immigrant families of neurodivergent children have reported that intercultural mediators played a crucial role during meetings (Park & Turnbull, 2001). While there are no specific guidelines on how ABA practitioners should work with intercultural mediators, a similar set of recommendations proposed by Dowdy et al. (2021), as mentioned earlier, could be adopted. Also, it is a good idea that school-based ABA practitioners learn from the intercultural mediator about their cultural beliefs and considerations that should be taken into account when meeting with families for the first time.

Type 3 Involvement: Volunteering

Epstein (2010) suggested that active involvement in school would make the caregivers more comfortable in the school setting, familiarize themselves with the roles of teachers and school personnel, and gain a better understanding of their child’s academic programs, thus recommending Volunteering as a part of caregiver involvement. Epstein (2010) further recommended that educational staff ensure volunteer opportunities (e.g., field trips, classroom parties and events, and clean-up activities) for caregivers with various talents to facilitate their involvement in school. As part of the school-based team, ABA practitioners could engage in these collaborative activities with other school staff. In our practice, we saw the benefit of caregivers taking on roles such as school cafeteria volunteers during lunch/recess time or volunteering on field trips to observe their neurodivergent children interacting with other students. Such opportunities not only allow caregivers to observe their children in the school setting but also encourage interactions with teachers and other service providers, contributing to team building (see also Carter, 2003, for a similar benefit).

Some cautions to recommend this to immigrant families of neurodivergent children are the following. First, some immigrant caregivers might not be readily available to volunteer due to multiple factors. They may have fewer financial resources compared to American-born caregivers, lack an extended family support system to care for other family members, feel uncomfortable being among English-speaking caregivers or school staff, and endure greater stress due to their recent arrival in the U.S. (Gregoire & Cramer, 2015; Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011; Lee et al., 2022). In addition, some families, such as Asian caregivers, might feel ashamed of disclosing that their child has a disability, even to their family members (Jegatheesan, 2009), and consequently, they may avoid participating in volunteering activities if such opportunities are related to special education. School-based ABA practitioners should be mindful of these challenges and, together with the school team, provide support by creating a more inclusive environment in school with opportunities for interaction.

Type 4 Involvement: Learning at Home

For Learning at home, Epstein (2010) recommended that teachers provide families with ideas and information about how to help their children at home with homework (homework extends beyond individual tasks and includes interactive activities shared with others at home or in the community, bridging schoolwork with real-life experiences) and curriculum-related activities in order to promote success at school. Caregivers of neurodivergent children particularly valued this type of support (e.g., Castro‑Hostetler et al., 2023; DuBay et al., 2018; Lee & Park, 2016). For instance, the mother in Lee and Park’s (2016) study valued the knowledge and guidance of the therapists from the school who instructed her in implementing specific behavior management techniques within the home environment. However, some Latino caregivers reported receiving minimum ABA training despite wanting the training (Castro‑Hostetler et al., 2023). Similarly, in DuBay et al.’s (2018) study, Latino caregivers said that they were not included in the interventions carried out in the school, although they expressed a desire to be involved in interventions.

Although it is not currently clear how common it is for school-based ABA practitioners to provide training for student’s family members (what constitutes ABA service in a school setting varies widely across districts; Layden et al., 2024), school-based ABA practitioners could provide caregivers with individualized written or visual instructions (e.g., an infographic or flowchart) on how to support a child throughout the day (outside of school) in the family’s native language, whether it be a BIP or educational goals. For example, if a team is working on teaching a child to mand for attention, school-based ABA practitioners could develop an infographic showing step-by-step how caregivers can implement this at home or in the community. The infographic should be accompanied by behavioral skills training (if applicable) or video modeling and should never be handed out alone. During caregiver training, school-based ABA practitioners should model behavioral strategies for the caregivers, explaining why these strategies are implemented, and how they can do the same at home. Explaining why we use various procedures is crucial for families to make informed decisions and be willing to carry out interventions outside the school. Epstein (2010) also recommended that staff encourage families to set up a scheduled time for interactive homework, which school-based ABA practitioners can also suggest to families.

Moreover, as we discussed above, school-based ABA practitioners can always collaborate with insurance-based ABA practitioners to facilitate education in immigrant families’ households, which is a strength of our field. Additionally, caregiver input regarding the effectiveness of strategies at home and any observed changes in behavior is crucial for a student’s overall success at school (Buren et al., 2022; Dennison et al., 2019; DuBay et al., 2018). Successful generalization of skills and stimulus control between school and home environments is essential for the effectiveness of ABA interventions.

Type 5 Involvement: Decision-Making

For Decision-making, Epstein (2010) recommended involving caregivers in the decision-making process concerning school-wide policies and preparing caregivers to become advocates for their children to receive services. This involvement can take various forms, such as parent–teacher associations/organizations, different types of committees, advocacy groups, or district-level councils. Epstein (2010) also noted that caregivers of all backgrounds, ethnicities, and cultures should be included in these groups. For Korean caregivers, it was important to have a say in individualizing programs to meet the needs of their children (Park & Turnbull, 2001). While it may not always be easy for immigrant caregivers to participate in some of these activities due to barriers they face, such as language, culture, and time constraints discussed above (e.g., Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Jegatheesan, 2009; Harry, 1992; Lai & Ishiyama, 2004; Lo, 2008; Park & Turnbull, 2001), there are significant benefits to being part of the decision-making process. This includes increasing caregivers’ awareness of their and their children’s rights and facilitating their understanding of the U.S. educational system. School-based ABA practitioners, along with other school team members, could familiarize themselves with these organizations and disseminate information to immigrant families.

For families of children who receive special education services, the most common place of decision-making in the school setting is the IEP meeting. Although we have discussed several instances of what school-based ABA practitioners could do for immigrant families during IEP meetings, this section will focus on how school-based ABA practitioners can support caregivers in the decision-making aspect. During the IEP meetings, as well as other meetings (e.g., meetings related to the FBA or BIP), in addition to obtaining required consents/assents, school-based ABA practitioners could prepare immigrant caregivers to become advocates for their children (Epstein, 2010). For example, we could encourage and model for caregivers how to actively seek information about the progress regarding their children’s needs and goals (Buren et al., 2022; Castro‑Hostetler et al., 2023; Cho & Gannotti, 2005). Another way to build advocacy skills in immigrant families (Epstein, 2010) is that school-based ABA practitioners, along with other team members, explain to caregivers the significance of their role in the educational system and assure families that sharing their opinions will not affect the access to or the quality of care their child has been receiving. Asian mothers shared that they want professionals to encourage their participation by asking reassuring questions such as, “Are you okay with this?” and “It’s okay to say what you think, we are not going to cut you off” to ease their worries (Jegatheesan, 2009, p. 132). An example statement of assurance could be something like, “In American culture, parents are the main ones who decide their children’s educational career, and we, teachers/ABA practitioners, are here to assist your child’s journey. So, your opinion is very important to us, and we would love to know what you think about this intervention procedure.” It is important that school-based ABA practitioners, along with other school team members, ensure that immigrant families have sufficient information to be comfortable participating in any decision-making regarding their child’s education and behavioral goals.

When it comes to decision-making, school-based ABA practitioners could assess how people from different cultures make decisions regarding their children’s educational goals (Delgado Gaitan, 2012; Dennison et al., 2019; Fong et al., 2016; Harry, 1992; Jegatheesan, 2009). According to one Muslim mother, in their communities, men typically make decisions outside the house, such as in a formal meeting, and husbands are expected to seek information and ask questions in public (King et al., 2011). If school-based ABA practitioners could obtain this information from the family (e.g., by sending a quick survey prior to the meeting asking about their preferences for interviewees or inquiring about this when they meet the family), they should refrain from pressing Muslim mothers to speak up when the mothers do not independently respond to the questions at the meeting. Practitioners should also ensure to invite their husbands to the meeting. Contrary to this, Somali mothers shared that they are the sole individuals involved in their children’s education and decision-making (Miller-Gairy & Saul Mofya, 2015). However, in their culture, women are expected to have limited communication with males in public, which also may prevent them from talking to male staff in school (Miller-Gairy & Saul Mofya, 2015). In that case, to adequately support Somali mothers of neurodivergent children, the school-based ABA practitioner should be ideally female, whom the mothers feel comfortable talking to.

With all the caution on the ABA practitioners’ side, we should acknowledge that not every family will become an advocate and feel comfortable making decisions on various aspects of the IEP, including FBA and BIP. For instance, some Asian mothers reported that they did not ask for more services because they feared that teachers would perceive such requests as “overstepping kindness” (Jegatheesan, 2009, p. 131). Others did not want to participate in the decision-making because they believed they did not know what their neurodivergent children needed in education and felt embarrassed when teachers asked open-ended questions (Jegatheesan, 2009, p. 131). Therefore, when asking for their input directly, school-based ABA practitioners need to recognize that families may not express their opinions, especially if there is no strong rapport, if they do not feel safe, if they do not fully understand their child’s disability and complex behavior (e.g., aggressive behavior), and what services their child needs. This has been reported among some Asian and Mexican-American caregivers (Cho & Gannotti, 2005; Jegatheesan, 2009; Salas, 2004). In such cases, school-based ABA practitioners should be sensitive to the family’s preferences, provide additional information to help families enhance their advocacy (Epstein, 2010), and continue building rapport, as discussed earlier. We also experienced that some immigrant families were uncomfortable sharing their opinions and ideas at the IEP meeting in our own practice. We helped these families invite familiar individuals to the IEP meeting to support the families in the decision-making process, such as an insurance-based ABA practitioner, a disability rights advocate whom they had met several times outside school, and a member of a parent support group who had a better rapport with the family. Even having a familiar interpreter was helpful, as these interpreters usually work across settings, such as a hospital.

Type 6 Involvement: Collaborating with the Community

Collaborating with the Community includes school staff finding resources from the community to “strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development” (Epstein, 2010, p. 395). Involving families from various ethnic and cultural groups can help decentralize the power structure within schools and make them more culturally responsive (Yull et al., 2014). However, immigrant families often experience isolation from other families and their community (Delgado Gaitan, 2012), although they highly value support from the community (Kibria & Becerra, 2021; Su et al., 2021).

While communication is a fundamental aspect of Epstein’s framework, collaborating with the community represents a distinctly different type of family involvement. Whereas Type 2 involvement, Communicating primarily focuses on information exchange within the school context; collaboration with the community seeks to extend support beyond institutional boundaries. This approach aims to create broader support networks that help immigrant families of neurodivergent children overcome social isolation, navigate complex new environments, and access resources that can meaningfully support their child’s development and family’s social integration.

To promote this type of caregiver involvement, school-based ABA practitioners should collaborate with school personnel and advocate for more community opportunities for immigrant families (Epstein, 2010). We could share information about nonprofit organizations such as Special Olympics, after-school clubs, libraries, advocacy groups, local cultural organizations, and local businesses that support neurodivergent individuals and their families (Epstein, 2010). Epstein (2010) also noted that school personnel can make “referrals of children and families to the needed services” (p. 258). If the student does not receive insurance-based ABA services but the family expresses their desire for it, school-based ABA practitioners could support the family in this search.

One community resource available in a school setting is caregiver-to-caregiver contact (Epstein, 2010). Many families learned about the U.S. system through informal networking, such as interactions with other families (DuBay et al., 2018; King et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2022; Lee & Park, 2016; Zechella & Raval, 2016). For instance, 34% of Latino caregivers reported learning about ABA services through community resources (Castro‑Hostetler et al., 2023). School-based ABA practitioners, together with other members of the school team, can facilitate opportunities for caregiver-to-caregiver contact through various support groups, parent organizations, school meetings, and more (Brown et al., 2020; Lasky & Karge, 2011). School-related volunteering, as discussed in Type 3 involvement, and school-wide decision-making events, as discussed in Type 5 involvement, can also be places to meet other parents in similar situations. Despite many benefits of caregiver-to-caregiver contact (DuBay et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2022), some caregivers did not perceive family support groups favorably, as they did not feel comfortable sharing their experiences with strangers or listening to their problems (Papoudi et al., 2021). Thus, when working with immigrant families, school-based ABA practitioners could provide information about support groups (e.g., their contact information, locations, and times of the meetings) but should not insist that families join these groups.

In order to access community resources, school-based ABA practitioners can participate in various local support groups and parent organizations supported by the schools (see Lee & Park, 2016, for a description of their involvement in a parent support group established by special education professionals). For instance, some of us became involved with a local parent group for neurodivergent children, while one author initiated a small ethnic group on social media for families to share information about community resources in their native language. However, school-based ABA practitioners should participate in community events organized by the school, as schools typically discourage contact with students and their families outside the school setting due to privacy and ethical considerations, unless the event is school-sponsored. Moreover, school-based ABA practitioners should be cautious of multiple relationships and avoid developing personal relationships with families during community events (BACB, 2020). The boundary between professionals and clients is also a part of American culture that might not be easily understood by immigrant families of different cultures and may require explanations (e.g., Witts et al., 2020). Therefore, school-based ABA professionals should explain to families that they can only develop professional relationships during these events (BACB, 2020) and that they are there to support families in accessing resources. Collaboration between the school, family, and community is essential for improving the quality of life for the neurodivergent students and their families, especially because immigrant families of neurodivergent children are still in the process of acculturation and may be prone to developing stigma if the collaboration fails (Alsharaydeh et al., 2019).

Practical Challenges: Potential Implementation Barriers

We strongly believe that school-based ABA practitioners, as a part of the IEP team, provide all necessary support to immigrant families and their neurodivergent children in the school setting, as well as advocate for them when needed. However, we are well aware of the obstacles we face in reality. School and district policies may discourage school-based ABA practitioners’ active involvement in implementing these recommendations, as the school might define roles and duties narrowly (Layden et al., 2024; Max & Lambright, 2022). Max and Lambright (2022) highlighted in their qualitative study involving ten BCBAs that interactions with caregivers were limited to the FBA interview process, which is commonly observed in our own practice as well. This suggests that in many school districts, school-based ABA practitioners’ interactions with caregivers primarily occur during formal meetings such as IEP meetings and assessments. In such cases, many of the suggested strategies may not be feasible to convey on our own. Schools may not recognize the role of school-based ABA practitioners in supporting families to participate in volunteering opportunities or community events, as ABA practitioners can be perceived as “outside service providers.” The schools might not be supportive of holding an open-door policy or frequent communication with the families. In these cases, we can encourage other IEP team members to engage in these recommendations (Epstein, 2010).

Moreover, the level of support provided by school-based ABA practitioners (i.e., student, school, or district level) and whether we provide direct or consultative services (Layden et al., 2024) impact our interaction with immigrant families. Recent data from Layden et al. (2024) showed that 33.7% of behavior analysts provided professional development for caregivers, many of whom worked in a consultative role. Although these data represent one southeastern state with a strong presence of ABA in the school setting, we could expect a similar trend across the U.S. in the future.

In some cases, immigrant families of neurodivergent children might have different opinions about what constitutes involvement compared to the school-based ABA practitioner’s opinion, which will also delineate what recommendations can be implemented. This is an important stance that school-based ABA practitioners should be aware of, ensuring we respect the family’s opinions and support them at the level the family prefers.

Lastly, school-based ABA practitioners often face time constraints on our availability to support immigrant families outside the school setting (Layden et al., 2024). Given the many obstacles that school-based ABA practitioners face, it is reasonable to assume that not all of these recommendations can be carried out by one ABA practitioner with every student and their family. However, as the ABA field is expanding rapidly (BACB, 2024), it is important for each of us to invest in collective and team efforts. By beginning to implement some of these recommendations and taking a step-by-step approach, we can better support immigrant families of neurodivergent children as well as increase awareness of the existence of immigrant families in our community.

Call for Advocacy

Various clinical and educational service fields outside of behavior analysis have been advocating for immigrant families directly in their ethical guidelines, research publications, and books for many years, including social work (Dunman & Snoubar, 2017), school counseling (Goh et al., 2007), special education (Arzubiaga et al., 2009), and speech and language pathology (Guiberson & Atkins, 2012), among others already embedded in school settings. The ABA community has only recently begun its advocacy for immigrant families and their neurodivergent children (e.g., Baires et al., 2023; Castro‑Hostetler et al., 2023; Rosales et al., 2021; see also Conners and Capell’s 2020, book, Multiculturalism and Diversity in Applied Behavior Analysis), and, with the present paper, we made another step in this advocacy.

While the primary focus of ABA in school settings often centers on direct intervention and support for students, it is equally imperative for each school-based ABA practitioner to advocate for immigrant families, thereby fostering a more inclusive and welcoming environment. It is essential to recognize that we are part of a larger interdisciplinary team that includes general and special education teachers, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, social workers, ELL/ESL teachers, and school administrators. Collaborating with these professionals provides an opportunity to advocate for immigrant families by, for example, highlighting cultural values that may influence their level of involvement or acceptance of intervention recommendations or building community resources, among other factors.

Given that school administrators may not have a full understanding of the scope of ABA and the roles of ABA practitioners (Max & Lambright, 2022), there is an opportunity to enhance advocacy efforts by sharing with administrators about the contributions ABA practitioners can make in a much broader area of SFC (Layden et al., 2024). School-based ABA practitioners can emphasize the importance of direct contact between BCBAs and immigrant families to enhance rapport, improve the families’ understanding of ABA procedures, and promote supportive and inclusive school environments. Additionally, school-based ABA practitioners can advocate for additional hours to accommodate the needs of immigrant families, which may include caregiver interviews, caregiver training, direct communication opportunities, and office hours, among other services.

In addition to our individual advocacy efforts in schools, we should also undertake advocacy at the organizational level, involving professional bodies such as the Association for Behavior Analysis International and the Association of Professional Behavior Analysts as well as local chapters. These organizations could host special panels or focus interest groups during conferences to discuss topics related to supporting immigrant families of neurodivergent children, including immigrant ABA practitioners. Media can also play a role by promoting seminar topics on supporting immigrant families of neurodivergent children. An example of effective advocacy can be seen in the Behaviour Speak Podcast, where Ben Reiman organizes free CEU events targeting specific minority groups. For instance, during Black History Month, free CEUs are offered for podcasts featuring Black ABA practitioners, and during National Hispanic/Latino/a/e/x Heritage Month, free CEUs are provided for podcasts featuring Latino ABA practitioners.

We should also advocate in higher education by emphasizing cultural responsiveness and family collaboration (Mathur & Rodriguez, 2022). For example, in the field of education, Hands (2005) suggested that universities should provide students with preservice coursework focusing on philosophies and approaches to collaborating with families and communities. According to Jegatheesan (2009), professionals who have an understanding of how culture is important and are aware of the challenges faced by immigrants and refugees are less likely to form hasty, negative opinions or judgments. Instead, they are more likely to exhibit caring and sensitive attitudes. Therefore, in ABA coursework, we should embed educational content focused on building partnerships with families of neurodivergent individuals, including immigrant families, while emphasizing the provision of necessary support. Moreover, as supervisors of prospective BCBAs, we can integrate culturally responsive practices into our supervision (Mathur & Rodriguez, 2022). We can train our trainees on how to support immigrant families, strategies for building rapport with them, and the importance of advocating for these families.

We acknowledge that implementing these advocacy initiatives will require time and effort, but we believe that by gradually building a more inclusive ABA community, we can make significant progress. The field of ABA has evolved and diversified in many areas, and this evolution provides us with a strong foundation to continue advocating for immigrant families and their neurodivergent children. By applying the knowledge and experiences gained from our work with immigrant families, we can contribute to the ongoing growth and development of the ABA field.

Summary and Closing Remarks

In this paper, we have adapted Epstein’s framework (2010) to provide guidelines on how school-based ABA practitioners can collaboratively work with immigrant families of neurodivergent children as members of their child’s school team. Specifically, we have provided recommendations for each type of involvement specified in Epstein’s framework (Table 2). Within each type of involvement, we have also discussed various situations where many immigrant families face difficulties and how to approach them. We hope this adapted Epstein framework for school-based ABA practitioners who work with immigrant families of neurodivergent children is a good starting point to initiate a conversation on both the experiences of immigrant families in the school setting in the U.S. and how school-based ABA practitioners can effectively support their children’s educational journey.

Lastly, as there are countless cultures and families, school-based ABA practitioners likely need to adopt an infinite number of approaches, recognizing that there is not a single pathway that will be effective for all families. This task is by no means easy. It speaks to the versatility of the ABA field and the unique skill set of ABA practitioners. We commend all of our colleagues who have taken on this incredible journey to support neurodivergent children and their immigrant families, and we are proud to be a part of this compassionate community.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Marija Čolić and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors do not have any competing interest to disclose.