COMPASS originated from the need for a training framework for community-based service providers, such as teachers, adult residential providers, vocational rehabilitation counselors, and other service personnel, to understand the unique learning challenges, preferences, and strengths of each individual with autism. In 1992, in our first attempt to create a model, we adapted the Minnesota Competence Enhancement Program, which was called the Autism Competency Enhancement framework. In 1996, this model was used as the basis for the Autism Technical Assistance Manual for Kentucky Schools (Ruble and Dalrymple 1996) that was used to train teachers throughout the state of Kentucky. The training was specialized for students with ASD and was adapted and used for a variety of purposes, including educational planning purposes, addressing behavioral problems, and facilitating transitions. Later in 1998 the model served as the consultation framework for TRIAD at Vanderbilt University in the state of Tennessee and was renamed the Collaborative Model for Promoting Competence and Success of Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorder (COMPASS).

Over the years, the necessity for a comprehensive model has not changed. The model was based on the practical realities of a need for better understanding of autism by those who have the most frequent interactions with individuals as well as a need for enhanced quality of life outcomes measured by participation in work, school, social interactions, in recreational and leisure activities. This is a reality that continues today. In the early 90s, a push for services provided locally and within natural environments led to the demand for knowledgeable community-based service providers of ASD in Indiana, where we were developing and testing COMPASS, as well as throughout the US. Today, we have a lot more knowledge about evidence-based practices, but still require a comprehensive, implementation strategy for improving educational outcomes that takes into account the cultural, psychosocial, developmental and neurobiological needs and resources of the individual considered within an ecological framework in the selection, modification and individualization of EBPs.

A training framework in ASD that explicitly calls for the individualization of teaching and therapeutic strategies is clearly needed, and indeed is mandated, because of the federal requirements for an Individual Education Program for all students with disabilities. This individualization is particularly challenging in ASD given the extreme heterogeneity of the disorder. 8, for example, Fig. 2.2 shows the diverse range in clinical presentation of persons with ASD. About 70 % of individuals have some degree of intellectual impairment, ranging from mild to severe or profound (Fombonne 2005) Social interactions also vary and individuals typically fall within one of three categories—aloof, passive, and active-but-odd (Wing 2005). Individuals, who appear aloof, may have little interest in interaction with others. Those who are passive demonstrate an interest in interaction, but do not initiate and instead respond. The last group, active-but-odd, characterize individuals who do initiate, but in unusual ways. For verbal communication, about 20 % of individuals never develop spoken speech (Lord et al. 2004), and others may be quite verbal, but have limited reciprocal communication abilities. Gross and fine motor skills also vary from person to person. Some individuals may have well-coordinated fine motor and excellent gross motor skills, while other individuals may struggle with practical tools such as using eating utensils, buttoning shirts, or using a pencil (Rogers et al. 2005). Lastly, sensory processing skills are also quite variable (Behrmann and Minshew 2015). Some individuals may tolerate noises and other environmental sensitivities well and other individuals may become quite upset and unable to function in certain environments.

Following the prior early development work described above in Indiana, the framework was expanded from a training model for community-service providers to a framework for outpatient services for children and youth with ASD in Tennessee and Kentucky. Dismayed by the lack of available information on research supported interventions delivered in outpatient medical settings, the authors applied the COMPASS framework for each of the clinical services provided, which included early childhood, behavior management, social skills, and program planning. It was clear that an informational and process approach was needed because services were often limited by insurance and time. Given the limited number of sessions approved by insurance as well as the 60-min time limit, an approach that enhanced parental involvement and the decision-making of treatment goals and intervention plans was crucial. If we could demonstrate the clinical decision-making that goes into goal selection and intervention planning, then perhaps parents and caregivers would be better informed to make their own decisions and share information with other service providers outside the clinical outpatient setting. Thus, the process approach implied by COMPASS, and adapted from The Mental Health Model (Caplan et al. 1994), was thought to help empower the primary resource of children—their families. Those caregivers that were part of the clinical-decision making were thought to be better informed and equipped to make decisions and evaluate outcomes for facilitating their children’s development.

As noted above, COMPASS has been used in a variety of contexts and settings, however, we believe that the underlying tenet of informed clinical-decision making is helpful not only in medical settings but also in educational settings. In fact, COMPASS has primarily been used and tested within the public school setting. The focus on educational settings is a result of the high numbers of students with autism being identified and included in schools and communities, and the corresponding need for professionals and support personnel who are strongly grounded in knowledge and experience of autism. Consultation as an intervention has the potential to facilitate the training and support needed by teachers and staff. Because consultation tends to have a multiplier effect, i.e., a single consultant can impact a great number of teachers and students, the use of consultants who can guide others in designing and monitoring programs has the potential to improve the long-term functional outcomes of many individuals with autism.