Restraints and Seclusion Resources

RestRaint and seclusion:
ResouRce document

u.s. department of education

This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-OSE-09-O-0058 with the
American Institutes for Research. Renee Bradley served as the contracting officer’s representative. This resource
document contains websites and resources created by a variety of organizations. These websites and resources are
provided for the user’s convenience. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product,
commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this report or on websites referred to in this report is intended
or should be inferred. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the
Department of Education and no official endorsement of them by the Department is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education
Arne Duncan
Secretary

May, 2012

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted.
While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education,
Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document, Washington, D.C., 2012.

This resource is available on the Department’s Web site at: www.ed.gov/policy/restraintseclusion

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print or compact disc.
For more information, contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.

All photos are from Getty Images.

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document ii

THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
WAShINgTON, DC 20202

May 15, 2012

As education leaders, our first responsibility must be to ensure that schools foster learning in a
safe and healthy environment for all our children, teachers, and staff. To support schools in
fulfilling that responsibility, the U.S. Department of Education has developed this document that
describes 15 principles for States, school districts, schools, parents, and other stakeholders to
consider when developing or revising policies and procedures on the use of restraint and
seclusion. These principles stress that every effort should be made to prevent the need for the
use of restraint and seclusion and that any behavioral intervention must be consistent with the
child’s rights to be treated with dignity and to be free from abuse. The principles make clear that
restraint or seclusion should never be used except in situations where a child’s behavior poses
imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others, and restraint and seclusion should be
avoided to the greatest extent possible without endangering the safety of students and staff. The
goal in presenting these principles is to help ensure that all schools and learning environments
are safe for all children and adults.

As many reports have documented, the use of restraint and seclusion can have very serious
consequences, including, most tragically, death. Furthermore, there continues to be no evidence
that using restraint or seclusion is effective in reducing the occurrence of the problem behaviors
that frequently precipitate the use of such techniques. Schools must do everything possible to
ensure all children can learn, develop, and participate in instructional programs that promote
high levels of academic achievement. To accomplish this, schools must make every effort to
structure safe environments and provide a behavioral framework, such as the use of positive
behavior interventions and supports, that applies to all children, all staff, and all places in the
school so that restraint and seclusion techniques are unnecessary.

I hope you find this document helpful in your efforts to provide a world-class education to
America’s children. Thank you for all you do to support our schools, families, and communities
and for your work on behalf of our nation’s children.

Arne Duncan

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document iii

Contents

Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document.......................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................. 4

Other Significant Federal Activity Regarding the Use
of Restraint and Seclusion in Schools........................................................ 6

U.S. government Accountability Office Report ........................................... 6

Congressional Hearings and Proposed Legislation....................................... 7

Congressional Research Service Report ....................................................... 8

Terms Used in This Document ................................................................... 9

The CRDC defines physical restraint as: .................................................... 10

The CRDC defines mechanical restraint as: ............................................... 10

The CRDC defines seclusion as:................................................................. 10

Fifteen Principles .......................................................................................11

Fifteen Principles ........................................................................................ 12

Federal Agency Efforts to Address Concerns......................................... 24

Department of Education Efforts ................................................................ 25

Letters from the Secretary........................................................................... 25

Review of State Policies and Procedures.................................................... 25

Office for Civil Rights ................................................................................ 25

Office of Special Education Programs........................................................ 26

Department of Health and Human Services Efforts ................................... 27

Children’s health Act.................................................................................. 27

SAMHSA.................................................................................................... 28

Attachment A............................................................................................. 29

Attachment B............................................................................................. 33

Federal Resources ....................................................................................... 34

Associated Resources.................................................................................. 36

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document iv

Restraint and Seclusion:
Resource Document 1

School should be a safe and healthy
environment in which America’s
children can learn, develop, and
participate in instructional programs
that promote high levels of academic
achievement.

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 1

The foundation of any discussion about the use of
restraint and seclusion is that every effort should be
made to structure environments and provide supports
so that restraint and seclusion are unnecessary. As
many reports have documented, the use of restraint
and seclusion can, in some cases, have very seri-
ous consequences, including, most tragically, death.
There is no evidence that using restraint or seclusion
is effective in reducing the occurrence of the prob-
lem behaviors that frequently precipitate the use of
such techniques.

Physical restraint or seclusion should not be used freedom of movement.2 In addition, schools should
except in situations where the child’s behavior poses never use a drug or medication to control behavior
imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or or restrict freedom of movement unless it is (1)
others and restraint and seclusion should be avoided prescribed by a licensed physician, or other qualified
to the greatest extent possible without endanger- health professional acting under the scope of the
ing the safety of students and staff. Schools should professional’s authority under State law; and (2)
never use mechanical restraints to restrict a child’s administered as prescribed by the licensed physician
or other qualified health professional acting under
the scope of the professional’s authority under State
1 The U.S. Department of Education issues this Resource law. Teachers, administrators, and staff understand
Document to provide guidance, and describe fifteen prin-
that students’ social behavior can affect their aca-
ciples that States, school districts, school staff, parents, and
other stakeholders may find helpful to consider when States, demic learning. In many high-performing schools
localities, and districts develop practices, policies, and effective academic instruction is combined with
procedures on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools.
effective behavior supports to maximize academic
Our goal in providing this information is to inform States
and school districts about how they can help to ensure that engagement and, thus, student achievement.
schools are safe learning environments for all students. As Students are more likely to achieve when they are
guidance, the extent to which States and school districts
(1) directly taught school and classroom routines
implement these principles in furtherance of that goal is a
matter for State and local school officials to decide using and social expectations that are predictable and
their professional judgment, especially in applying this contextually relevant; (2) acknowledged clearly
information to specific situations and circumstances. This
and consistently for their displays of positive
document does not set forth any new requirements, does not
create or confer any rights for or on any person or require academic and social behavior; and (3) treated by
specific actions by any State, locality, or school district.
2 As the definition on page six of this document makes clear,
We are interested in making this document as informative “mechanical restraint” as used in this document does not
and useful as possible. If you are interested in commenting include devices implemented by trained school personnel,
on this document, please e-mail your comments to Restraint. or utilized by a student that have been prescribed by an
Seclusion@ed.gov or write to us at the following address: appropriate medical or related services professional and are
US Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, PCP used for the specific and approved purposes for which such
Room 4160, Washington, DC 20202-2600. devices were designed.


others with respect. (Algozzine, R., Wang, C., and
Violette, C., 2011; McIntosh, K., Chard, D., Boland, Restraint or seclusion should
J., and horner, R., 2006). Building effective
behavioral supports in schools also involves several not be used as routine school
ongoing interrelated activities, including (1) invest- safety measures; that is, they
ing in the whole school rather than just students with
problem behavior; (2) focusing on preventing the
should not be implemented
development and occurrence of problem behavior; except in situations where
(3) reviewing behavioral data regularly to adapt a child’s behavior poses
school procedures to the needs of all students and
their families; and (4) providing additional academic
imminent danger of serious
and social behavioral supports for students who are physical harm to self or
not making expected progress (Sugai, g., horner, others and not as a routine
R., Algozzine, R., Barrett, S., Lewis, T., Anderson,
C., Bradley, R., Choi, J. h., Dunlap, g., Eber, L., strategy implemented to
george, h., Kincaid, D., McCart, A., Nelson, M., address instructional
Newcomer, L., Putnam, R., Riffel, L., Rovins, M.,
Sailor, W., Simonsen, B. (2010)).
problems or inappropriate
behavior (e.g., disrespect,
Positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS)
is a multi-tiered school-wide approach to establish-
noncompliance, insubordina
ing the social culture that is helpful for schools to tion, out of seat), as a means
achieve social and academic gains while minimizing of coercion or retaliation, or
problem behavior for all children. Over 17,000
schools across the country are implementing PBIS,
as a convenience.
which provides a framework for decision-making
that guides the implementation of evidence-based reductions in the behaviors that lead to office disci-
academic and behavioral practices throughout the plinary referrals, suspensions, and expulsions. While
entire school, frequently resulting in significant the successful implementation of PBIS typically
results in improved social and academic outcomes, it
will not eliminate all behavior incidents in a school
(Bradshaw, C., Mitchell, M., and Leaf, P. (2010);
Muscott, h., and Mann, E. (in press); Lassen, S.,
Steele, M., and Sailor, W. (2006)). however, PBIS is
an important preventive framework that can increase
the capacity of school staff to support all children,
including children with the most complex behavioral
needs, thus reducing the instances that require
intensive interventions.


Background

On July 31, 2009, Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan sent a letter to Chief State
School Officers stating that he was
deeply troubled about the current use
and effects of restraint and seclusion,
which were the subject of testimony
before the Education and Labor
Committee in the U.S. House of
Representatives’ hearing examining
the abusive and potentially deadly
application of restraint and seclusion
techniques in schools.


In his letter, Secretary Duncan encouraged each
State to review its current policies and guidelines on
the use of restraint and seclusion in schools to help
ensure that every student is safe and protected, and,
if appropriate, to develop or revise its policies and
guidelines. In addition, Secretary Duncan urged the
Chiefs to publicize these policies and guidelines so
that administrators, teachers, and parents understand
and consent to the limited circumstances under
which these techniques may be used; ensure that
parents are notified when these interventions
occur; provide the resources needed to successfully
implement the policies; and hold school districts
Additionally, in 2009, the Substance Abuse and
accountable for adhering to the guidelines. The letter
Mental health Services Administration (SAMhSA)
went on to highlight the use of PBIS as an important
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
preventive approach that can increase the capacity
Services (DhhS), asked the Department’s Office
of the school staff to support children with the
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to review
most complex behavioral needs, thus reducing the
a paper commissioned by SAMHSA (with the as-
instances that require intensive interventions.
sistance of an expert work group) addressing the
Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Education issue of restraint and seclusion in schools. Based on
(the Department) asked its regional Comprehensive Secretary Duncan’s letter to the Chief State School
Centers to collect each State’s statutes, regulations, Officers and the experiences of SAMhSA with
policies, and guidelines regarding the use of restraint reducing, and in some cases eliminating, the use
and seclusion, and posted that information on the of restraint and seclusion in mental health facilities,
Department’s Web site.3 Additionally, the Depart- the Department determined that it would be ben-
ment’s Office for Civil Rights revised the Civil eficial to all children if information and technical
Rights Data Collection beginning with school year assistance were provided to State departments of
2009-2010 to require reporting of the total number education, local school districts, and preschool,
of students subjected to restraint or seclusion disag- elementary, and secondary schools regarding limit-
gregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English profi- ing the use of restraint and seclusion to situations
ciency status, and disability, and to collect the total involving imminent danger of serious physical harm
number of times that restraint or seclusion occurred.4 to children or others.5

3 A revised version of that information is included in this
document as Attachment A.
5 More detail about these efforts is included later in this
4 These data are available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov. document.


The purpose of this Resource Document is to pres- and refined the principles. The Department and the
ent and describe 15 principles for State, district, and Department of Health and Human Services urge
school staff; parents; and other stakeholders to con- States, local districts, and schools to adopt policies
sider when States, localities, and districts develop that consider these 15 principles as the framework
policies and procedures, which should be in writing for the development and implementation of policies
on the use of restraint and seclusion. The principles and procedures related to restraint and seclusion to
are based on the nine principles that Secretary of help ensure that any use of restraint or seclusion in
Education Arne Duncan articulated in a 2009 letter schools does not occur, except when there is a threat
to Chairman Christopher Dodd, Chairman george of imminent danger of serious physical harm to the
Miller, and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers student or others, and occurs in a manner that pro-
in response to proposed legislation on restraint and tects the safety of all children and adults at a school.
seclusion. In his letter, the Secretary affirmed the The goal in presenting these principles is to help
Department’s position that restraint and seclusion ensure that all schools and all learning environments
should not be used except when necessary to protect are safe for all children and adults. This Resource
a child or others from imminent danger of serious Document discusses the context within which
physical harm. Since the Secretary issued his 2009 these principles were developed, lists the principles,
letter, the Department, working with the Department and highlights the current state of practice and
of health and human Services, further developed implementation considerations for each principle.
Additionally, this document provides a synopsis
of ongoing efforts by Federal agencies to address
In cases where a student

national concerns about using restraint and seclusion
in schools. Two attachments at the end of this docu-
has a history of dangerous

ment provide information about State policies on the
behavior for which restraint

use of restraint and seclusion in our nation’s public
or seclusion was considered

schools and an annotated resource guide on the use
of restraint and seclusion in schools.
or used, a school should

have a plan for: (1) teaching

OthER SignifiCant fEDERal
and supporting more

aCtivity REgaRDing thE USE
appropriate behavior; and

Of REStRaint anD SEClUSiOn
in SChOOlS
(2) determining positive
methods to prevent behavioral U.S. government accountability
Office Report
escalations that have
The U.S. house of Representatives’ Committee on
previously resulted in the Education and Labor requested the U.S. Government
use of restraint or seclusion. Accountability Office (gAO) to review the avail-
able evidence on the use of restraint and seclusion


that resulted in death and abuse at public and private GAO reported that there were no reliable national
schools and treatment centers. The GAO reviewed data on when and how often restraint and seclusion
applicable Federal and State laws, interviewed are being used in schools, or on the extent of abuse
knowledgeable State officials and recognized resulting from the use of these practices in educa-
experts, and examined available evidence of abuse tional settings nationally. however, the gAO identi-
allegations from parents, advocacy organizations, fied several hundred cases of alleged abuse, includ-
and the media for the period between 1990 and ing deaths that were related to the use of restraint or
2009. These evidence reviews also involved the seclusion of children in public and private schools.
examination of selected closed cases, including Finally, the gAO provided detailed documentation
police and autopsy reports and school policies on of the abuse of restraint or seclusion in a sample of
restraint or seclusion related to these cases. 10 closed cases that resulted in criminal convictions,
findings of civil or administrative liability, or a large
The gAO report, titled Examining the Abusive and financial settlement. The gAO further observed that
Deadly Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Schools problems with untrained or poorly trained staff were
(issued May 19, 2009), included three sets of find- often related to many instances of alleged abuse.
ings. First, the gAO found that there were no current
Federal regulations, but a wide variety of divergent Congressional hearings and Proposed
State regulations, governing the use of restraint and legislation
seclusion in public and private schools. Second, the
The GAO report was presented to the U.S. House of
Representatives’ Committee on Education and Labor
at a hearing on restraint and seclusion on May 19,
2009. Testimony at this and other hearings, together
with related work by the Committee, led to the
drafting of proposed Federal legislation on the use
of restraint and seclusion in schools.

The 111th Congress considered legislation on the
use of restraint and seclusion in schools. The House
bill (h.R. 4247) was titled Keeping All Students Safe
Act, and two Senate bills were introduced, Prevent-
ing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools
Act (S. 2860) and Keeping All Students Safe Act (S.
3895). In April, 2011, h.R. 4247 was reintroduced
in the 112th Congress as h.R. 1381. And in Decem-
ber, 2011, S. 2020, Keeping All Students Safe Act,
was introduced in the 112th Congress. The shared
purposes of these bills were to (1) limit the use of re-
straint and seclusion in schools to cases where there


First, the GAO found that

there were no current

Federal regulations, but

a wide variety of diver

gent State regulations,

governing the use of

restraint and seclusion

in public and private

Congressional Research Service Report
In October, 2010, the Congressional Research
schools.

Service issued a report to Congress titled The
Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Public Schools:
is imminent danger of physical injury to the student The Legal Issues. The report focused on the legal
or others at school; (2) provide criteria and steps issues regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in
for the proper use of restraint or seclusion; and (3) schools, including their use with children covered
promote the use of positive reinforcement and other, by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
less restrictive behavioral interventions (IDEA) and with children not covered by IDEA. The
in school. These measures also would have autho- report addressed (1) definitions (Civil Rights Data
rized support to States and localities in adopting Collection definitions); (2) constitutional issues;
more stringent oversight of the use of restraint and (3) IDEA judicial decisions related to seclusion and
seclusion in schools, and would have established restraint; (4) State laws and policies; and (5) Federal
requirements for collecting data on the use of these legislation.
practices in schools. Both the House and Senate
bills were introduced and debated by their respective
chambers in the 111th Congress, but only the
House bill had passed when the Congressional
session ended in December 2010. Therefore, no
legislation related to restraint and seclusion in
schools was enacted by the 111th Congress, nor
has action on such legislation been taken, to date,
in the 112th Congress.


terms Used in
this Document

The Department’s Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) began collecting data on the
use of restraint and seclusion in schools
as part of the Department’s 2009-2010
Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and
defined key terms related to restraint and
seclusion.


References in this document to “restraint” encom- the CRDC defines seclusion as:
pass the terms “physical restraint” and “mechanical ■■
The involuntary confinement of a student alone
restraint” as defined in the CRDC. References to in a room or area from which the student is
“seclusion” encompass “seclusion” as defined in the physically prevented from leaving. It does not
CRDC. According to the gAO report, each of these include a timeout, which is a behavior man-
types of restraint is currently being used in schools. agement technique that is part of an approved
program, involves the monitored separation
the CRDC defines physical restraint as: of the student in a non-locked setting, and is
implemented for the purpose of calming.
■■
A personal restriction that immobilizes or
reduces the ability of a student to move his or A copy of the 2009-2010 CRDC and the OCR
her torso, arms, legs, or head freely. The term definitions of restraint and seclusion can be found
physical restraint does not include a physical
at the following Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/
escort. Physical escort means a temporary
about/offices/list/ocr/whatsnew.html. Restraint and
touching or holding of the hand, wrist, arm,
shoulder, or back for the purpose of inducing seclusion data are available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov.6
a student who is acting out to walk to a safe
location.

the CRDC defines mechanical restraint as:
■■
The use of any device or equipment to restrict a
student’s freedom of movement. This term does
not include devices implemented by trained
school personnel, or utilized by a student that
have been prescribed by an appropriate medical
or related services professional and are used for
the specific and approved purposes for which
such devices were designed, such as:
■■
Adaptive devices or mechanical supports
used to achieve proper body position,
balance, or alignment to allow greater
freedom of mobility than would be
possible without the use of such devices
or mechanical supports;
■■
Vehicle safety restraints when used as
intended during the transport of a student
in a moving vehicle;
6 As these terms are used in this document, “restraint” does
■■ Restraints for medical immobilization; or not include behavioral interventions used as a response to
■■ Orthopedically prescribed devices that calm and comfort (e.g., proximity control, verbal soothing)
an upset student and “seclusion” does not include classroom
permit a student to participate in activities
timeouts, supervised in-school detentions, or out-of-school
without risk of harm. suspensions.


fifteen Principles 7

The Department, in collaboration with
SAMHSA, has identified 15 principles
that we believe States, local school
districts, preschool, elementary, and
secondary schools, parents, and other
stakeholders should consider as the
framework for when States, localities,
and districts develop and implement
policies and procedures, which should
be in writing related to restraint and
seclusion to ensure that any use of
restraint or seclusion in schools does
not occur, except when there is a threat
of imminent danger of serious physical
harm to the student or others, and
occurs in a manner that protects the
safety of all children and adults at school.


The Department recognizes that States, localities,
and districts may choose to exceed the framework
set by the 15 principles by providing additional
Every effort should
protections from restraint and seclusion. be made to prevent
fiftEEn PRinCiPlES the need for the use
1. Every effort should be made to prevent the

of restraint and for
need for the use of restraint and for the use of

seclusion.

the use of seclusion.
2. Schools should never use mechanical restraints

to restrict a child’s freedom of movement, and 6. Restraint or seclusion should never be used

schools should never use a drug or medication as punishment or discipline (e.g., placing in

to control behavior or restrict freedom of seclusion for out-of-seat behavior), as a means

movement (except as authorized by a licensed of coercion or retaliation, or as a convenience.

physician or other qualified health professional). 7. Restraint or seclusion should never be used in

3. Physical restraint or seclusion should not be
a manner that restricts a child’s breathing or
used except in situations where the child’s harms the child.
behavior poses imminent danger of serious 8. The use of restraint or seclusion, particularly

physical harm to self or others and other when there is repeated use for an individual

interventions are ineffective and should be child, multiple uses within the same classroom,
discontinued as soon as imminent danger or multiple uses by the same individual, should
of serious physical harm to self or others trigger a review and, if appropriate, revision
has dissipated. of strategies currently in place to address
4. Policies restricting the use of restraint and
dangerous behavior;8 if positive behavioral
seclusion should apply to all children, not just strategies are not in place, staff should
children with disabilities. consider developing them.

5. Any behavioral intervention must be consistent
9. Behavioral strategies to address dangerous

with the child’s rights to be treated with dignity behavior that results in the use of restraint or

and to be free from abuse. seclusion should address the underlying cause

or purpose of the dangerous behavior.

10. Teachers and other personnel should be trained
regularly on the appropriate use of effective
alternatives to physical restraint and seclusion,
7 This Resource Document addresses the restraint or seclu- such as positive behavioral interventions and
sion of any student regardless of whether the student has a
supports and, only for cases involving imminent
disability. Federal laws, including the IDEA, the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and Section 504 danger of serious physical harm, on the safe use
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, must be fol- of physical restraint and seclusion.
lowed in any instance in which a student with a disability is
restrained or secluded, or where such action is contemplated. 8 As used in this document, the phrase “dangerous behavior”
This Resource Document does not, however, address the refers to behavior that poses imminent danger of serious
legal requirements contained in those laws. physical harm to self or others.


11. Every instance in which restraint or seclusion is Following is additional information about each of
used should be carefully and continuously and the 15 principles.
visually monitored to ensure the appropriateness
of its use and safety of the child, other children, 1. Every effort should be made to prevent the

teachers, and other personnel. need for the use of restraint and for the use
of seclusion.
12. Parents should be informed of the policies on
restraint and seclusion at their child’s school or All children should be educated in safe, re-
other educational setting, as well as applicable spectful, and non-restrictive environments
Federal, State, or local laws. where they can receive the instruction and
13. Parents should be notified as soon as possible other supports they need to learn and achieve
following each instance in which restraint or at high levels. Environments can be structured
seclusion is used with their child. to greatly reduce, and in many cases eliminate,
14. Policies regarding the use of restraint and the need to use restraint or seclusion. SAMHSA
seclusion should be reviewed regularly and notes in its Issue Brief #1: Promoting Alterna-
updated as appropriate. tives to the Use of Seclusion and Restraint, that
15. Policies regarding the use of restraint and seclu- with leadership and policy and programmatic
sion should provide that each incident involving change, the use of seclusion and restraint can be
the use of restraint or seclusion should be docu- prevented and in some facilities has been elimi-
mented in writing and provide for the collection nated. One primary method is to structure the
of specific data that would enable teachers, environment using a non-aversive effective be-
staff, and other personnel to understand and havioral system such as PBIS. Effective positive
implement the preceding principles.
behavioral systems are comprehensive, in that
they are comprised of a framework or approach
for assisting school personnel in adopting and
organizing evidence-based behavioral interven-
tions into an integrated continuum that enhances
academic and social behavioral outcomes for
all students. The PBIS prevention-oriented
framework or approach applies to all students,
all staff, and all settings. When integrated with
effective academic instruction, such systems
can help provide the supports children need to
become actively engaged in their own learn-
ing and academic success. Schools success-
fully implementing comprehensive behavioral
systems create school-wide environments that
reinforce appropriate behaviors while reduc-
ing instances of dangerous behaviors that may
lead to the need to use restraint or seclusion. In


schools implementing comprehensive behav-
ioral systems, trained school staff use preventive
assessments to identify where, under what con-
Schools should never
ditions, with whom, and why specific inappro- use mechanical restraints
priate behavior may occur, as well as implement
de-escalation techniques to defuse potentially to restrict a child’s free
violent dangerous behavior. Preventive assess-
ments should include (1) a review of existing
dom of movement, and
records; (2) interviews with parents, family schools should never
members, and students; and (3) examination of
previous and existing behavioral intervention use a drug or medica
plans. Using these data from such assessments tion to control behavior
helps schools identify the conditions when
inappropriate behavior is likely to occur and the or restrict freedom of
factors that lead to the occurrence of these be-
haviors; and develop and implement preventive
movement (except as
behavioral interventions that teach appropriate authorized by a licensed
behavior and modify the environmental factors
that escalate the inappropriate behavior. The use physician or other quali
of comprehensive behavioral systems signifi-
cantly decreases the likelihood that restraint or
fied health professional).
seclusion would be used, supports the attain-
ment of more appropriate behavior, and, when professional acting under the scope of the
implemented as described, can help to improve professional’s authority under State law; and
academic achievement and behavior. (2) administered as prescribed by the licensed
physician or other qualified health professional
2. Schools should never use mechanical

acting under the scope of the professional’s
restraints to restrict a child’s freedom of
authority under State law.
movement, and schools should never use a
drug or medication to control behavior or 3. Physical restraint or seclusion should not be

restrict freedom of movement (except as used except in situations where the child’s
authorized by a licensed physician or other behavior poses imminent danger of serious
qualified health professional). physical harm to self or others and other
interventions are ineffective and should be
Schools should never use mechanical restraints
discontinued as soon as imminent danger of
to restrict a child’s freedom of movement. In serious physical harm to self or others has
addition, schools should never use a drug or dissipated.
medication to control behavior or restrict free-
Physical restraint or seclusion should be
dom of movement unless it is (1) prescribed by
reserved for situations or conditions where
a licensed physician, or other qualified health


there is imminent danger of serious physical
harm to the child, other children, or school or
program staff. These procedures should not
be used except to protect the child and others
from serious harm and to defuse imminently
dangerous situations in the classroom or other
non-classroom school settings (e.g., hallways,
cafeteria, playground, sports field), and only
should be used by trained personnel. Physical
restraint or seclusion should not be used as a
response to inappropriate behavior (e.g., disre-
spect, noncompliance, insubordination, out of
seat) that does not pose imminent danger of se-
in the school, all staff who work directly or
rious physical harm to self or others, nor should
indirectly with children, and across all settings
a child be restrained and secluded simultane-
under the responsibility of the school.
ously as this could endanger the child. In ad-
dition, planned behavioral strategies should be 5. Any behavioral intervention must be consis-

in place and used to: (1) de-escalate potentially tent with the child’s rights to be treated with
violent dangerous behavior; (2) identify and dignity and to be free from abuse.
support competing positive behavior to replace
dangerous behavior; and (3) support appropri- Every child deserves to be treated with dignity,
ate behavior in class and throughout the school, be free from abuse, and treated as a unique
especially if a student has a history of escalating individual with individual needs, strengths, and
dangerous behavior. circumstances (e.g., age, developmental level,
medical needs). The use of any technique that is
4. Policies restricting the use of restraint and

abusive is illegal and should be reported to the
seclusion should apply to all children, not
appropriate authorities. Schools should con-
just children with disabilities.
sider implementing an evidence-based school-
Behavior that results in the rare use of restraint wide system or framework of positive behav-
or seclusion -- that posing imminent danger of ioral interventions and supports. Key elements
serious physical harm to self or others -- is not of a school-wide system or framework include
limited to children with disabilities, children (1) universal screening to identify children at
with a particular disability, or specific groups risk for behavioral problems; (2) use of a con-
of children (e.g., gender, race, national origin, tinuum of increasingly intensive behavioral and
limited English proficiency, etc.) without dis- academic interventions for children identified
abilities. Thus, to the extent that State and local as being at risk; (3) an emphasis on teaching
policies address the use of restraint or seclusion, and acknowledging school-wide and individual
those policies, including assessment and pre- expected behaviors and social skills; and (4)
vention strategies, should apply to all children systems to monitor the responsiveness of


individual children to behavioral and academic
interventions. Increases in children’s academic
achievement and reductions in the frequency
of disciplinary incidents can be realized when
school-wide frameworks are implemented
as designed and are customized to match the
needs, resources, context, and culture of
students and staff.

6. Restraint or seclusion should never be used

as punishment or discipline (e.g., placing
in restraint for out-of-seat behavior), as a
means of coercion, or retaliation, or as a
convenience. school rules; (2) noncompliance with staff di-
rections; (3) the use of inappropriate language;
Restraint or seclusion should not be used as (4) to “punish” a child for inappropriate behav-
routine school safety measures; that is, they ior; or (5) staff to have an uninterrupted time
should not be implemented except in situations together to discuss school issues.
where a child’s behavior poses imminent danger
of serious physical harm to self or others and 7. Restraint or seclusion should never be used

not as a routine strategy implemented to address in a manner that restricts a child’s breathing
instructional problems or inappropriate behavior or harms the child.
(e.g., disrespect, noncompliance, insubordina-
Prone (i.e., lying face down) restraints or other
tion, out of seat), as a means of coercion or
restraints that restrict breathing should never be
retaliation, or as a convenience. Restraint or
used because they can cause serious injury or
seclusion should only be used for limited peri-
death. Breathing can also be restricted if loose
ods of time and should cease immediately when
clothing becomes entangled or tightened or if
the imminent danger of serious physical harm to
the child’s face is covered by a staff member’s
self or others has dissipated. Restraint or seclu-
body part (e.g., hand, arm, or torso) or through
sion should not be used (1) as a form of punish-
pressure to the abdomen or chest. Any restraint
ment or discipline (e.g., for out-of-seat behav-
or seclusion technique should be consistent with
ior); (2) as a means to coerce, retaliate, or as a
known medical or other special needs of a child.
convenience for staff; (3) as a planned behavior-
School districts should be cognizant that certain
al intervention in response to behavior that does
restraint and seclusion techniques are more re-
not pose imminent danger of serious physical
strictive than others, and use the least restrictive
harm to self or others; or (4) in a manner that
technique necessary to end the threat of immi-
endangers the child. For example, it would be
nent danger of serious physical harm. A child’s
inappropriate to use restraint or seclusion for
ability to communicate (including for those
(1) failure to follow expected classroom or
children who use only sign language or other


forms of manual communication or assistive techniques, so that appropriate behavior is more
technology) also should not be restricted unless likely to occur and inappropriate and dangerous
less restrictive techniques would not prevent behavior is less likely to occur.
imminent danger of serious physical harm to
the student or others. In all circumstances, When restraint or seclusion is repeatedly used
the use of restraint or seclusion should never with a child, used multiple times within the
harm a child. same classroom, or used multiple times by the
same individual, a review of the student’s BIP
8. The use of restraint or seclusion, particu-
should occur, the prescribed behavioral strate-
larly when there is repeated use for an indi- gies should be modified, if needed; and staff
vidual child, multiple uses within the same training and skills should be re-evaluated. The
classroom, or multiple uses by the same need for the review is based on the individual
individual, should trigger a review and, if needs of the child and the determination should
appropriate, a revision of behavioral strate- include input from the family; a review could be
gies currently in place to address dangerous necessitated by a single application of restraint
behavior; if positive behavioral strategies or seclusion. This review may entail conduct-
are not in place, staff should consider devel- ing another FBA to refine the BIP or examining
oping them. the implementation of the current plan. If the
student has a history of dangerous behavior and
In cases where a student has a history of dan- has been subjected to restraint or seclusion, a
gerous behavior for which restraint or seclu- review and plan should be conducted prior to
sion was considered or used, a school should the student entering any program, classroom, or
have a plan for (1) teaching and supporting school. In all cases the reviews should consider
more appropriate behavior; and (2) determining not only the effectiveness of the plan, but also
positive methods to prevent behavioral escala- the capability of school staff to carry out the
tions that have previously resulted in the use of plan. Furthermore, if restraint or seclusion was
restraint or seclusion. Trained personnel should used with a child who does not have an FBA
develop this plan in concert with parents and and BIP, an FBA should be conducted and, if
relevant professionals by using practices such as needed, a BIP developed and implemented that
functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and incorporates positive behavioral strategies for
behavioral intervention plans (BIPs). An FBA is that child, including teaching positive behav-
used to analyze environmental factors, including iors. The long-term goal of FBAs and BIPs is to
any history of trauma (e.g., physical abuse), that develop and implement preventive behavioral
contribute to a child’s inappropriate (e.g., disre- interventions, including increasing appropriate
spect, noncompliance, insubordination, out-of- positive behaviors, that reduce the likelihood
seat) behaviors. FBA data are used to develop that restraint or seclusion will be used with a
positive behavioral strategies that emphasize child in the future.
redesigning environmental conditions, which
may include changes in staff approaches and


9. Behavioral strategies to address dangerous
behavior; (3) adding antecedents that
behavior that results in the use of restraint maintain appropriate behavior; (4) removing
or seclusion should address the underlying consequences that maintain or escalate
cause or purpose of the dangerous behavior. dangerous behaviors; (5) adding consequences
that maintain appropriate behavior; and (6)
Behavioral strategies, particularly when imple- teaching alternative appropriate behaviors,
mented as part of a school-wide program of including self regulation techniques, to replace
positive behavioral supports, can be used to the dangerous behaviors.
address the underlying causes of dangerous
behavior and reduce the likelihood that restraint 10. Teachers and other personnel should be
or seclusion will need to be used. Behavior does trained regularly on the appropriate use of
not occur in a vacuum but is associated with effective alternatives to physical restraint
conditions, events, requirements, and character- and seclusion, such as positive behavioral
istics of a given situation or setting. An FBA can interventions and supports and, only for
identify the combination of antecedent factors cases involving imminent danger of serious
(factors that immediately precede behavior) physical harm, on the safe use of physical
restraint and seclusion.

Positive behavioral strategies should be in place
in schools and training in physical restraint
and seclusion should first emphasize that every
effort should be made to use positive behav-
ioral strategies to prevent the need for the use
of restraint and seclusion. School personnel
working directly with children should know the
school’s policies and procedures for the safe
use of physical restraint and seclusion, includ-
ing both proper uses (e.g., as safety measures
to address imminent danger of physical harm)
and consequences (factors that immediately and improper uses (e.g., as punishment or to
follow behavior) that are associated with the manage behavior) of these procedures. In addi-
occurrence of inappropriate behavior. Infor- tion, school personnel should be trained in how
mation collected through direct observations, to safely implement procedures for physical
interviews, and record reviews help to identify restraint and seclusion and only trained person-
the function of the dangerous behavior and nel should employ these interventions; as well
guide the development of BIPs. A complete BIP as how to collect and analyze individual child
should describe strategies for (1) addressing data to determine the effectiveness of these pro-
the characteristics of the setting and events; cedures in increasing appropriate behavior and
(2) removing antecedents that trigger dangerous decreasing inappropriate behavior. These data


should inform the need for additional
training, staff support, or policy change, Behavioral strategies, particu
particularly when data indicate repeated use
of these interventions by staff. larly when implemented as
part of a school-wide program
School personnel also should receive training
on the school’s policies and procedures for the of positive behavioral sup
timely reporting and documentation of all in- ports, can be used to address
stances in which restraint or seclusion are used.
At a minimum, training on the use of physical
the underlying causes of
restraint and seclusion and effective alternatives dangerous behavior and
should be provided at the beginning and middle reduce the likelihood that
of each school year. however, such training
should be conducted more often if there are en-
restraint or seclusion will
rolled students with a history or high incidence need to be used.
of dangerous behavior who may be subjected
to physical restraint or seclusion procedures. In
addition, school administrators should evaluate Use and prevention training should be accom-
whether staff who engage in multiple uses of panied by regular supervised practice. Like
restraint or seclusion need additional training. quarterly fire drills, all staff members should be
All school personnel should receive comprehen- expected to regularly and frequently review and
sive training on school-wide programs of posi- practice approaches to prevent the conditions
tive behavioral supports and other strategies, that result in the use of restraint or seclusion
including de-escalation techniques, for prevent- and in the use of specific and planned physical
ing dangerous behavior that leads to the use of restraint or seclusion procedures. A team
restraint or seclusion. Training for principals of trained personnel should monitor practice
and other school administrators should cover sessions to check for adherence to and
how to develop, implement, and evaluate the ef- documentation of planned procedures.
fectiveness of school-wide behavioral programs.
11. Every instance in which restraint or
Training for teachers, paraprofessionals, and
seclusion is used should be carefully and
other personnel who work directly with children
continuously and visually monitored to
should be ongoing and include refreshers on
ensure the appropriateness of its use and the
positive behavior management strategies, proper
safety of the child, other children, teachers,
use of positive reinforcement, the continuum
and other personnel.
of alternative behavioral interventions, crisis
prevention, de-escalation strategies, and the safe If restraint or seclusion is used, the child
use of physical restraint and seclusion. should be continuously and visually observed
and monitored while he or she is restrained or
placed in seclusion. Only school personnel who


have received the required training on the use to injure him- or herself or others. School staff
of restraint and seclusion should be engaged in should either be inside the area or outside by a
observing and monitoring these children. Moni- window or another adjacent location where staff
toring should include a procedural checklist and can continuously observe the child and confirm
recordkeeping procedures. School staff engaged that the child is not engaging in self-injurious
in monitoring should be knowledgeable re- behavior. When a child is in seclusion, trained
garding (1) restraint and seclusion procedures school staff should constantly watch the child.
and effective alternatives; (2) emergency and Such observation and monitoring is critical in
crisis procedures; (3) strategies to guide and determining when the imminent danger of seri-
prompt staff members engaged in restraint or ous physical harm to self or others has dissipat-
seclusion procedures; and (4) procedures and ed so that the restraint or seclusion can be im-
processes for working as a team to implement, mediately discontinued. Proper observation and
monitor, and debrief uses of restraint or seclu- monitoring and written documentation of the
sion. Monitoring staff should receive training use of restraint or seclusion helps to ensure the
to ensure that the use of physical restraint or continued safety of the child being restrained or
seclusion does not harm the child or others, and secluded as well as the safety of other children
that procedures are implemented as planned. and school personnel.
For example, those observing the application of
a restraint should confirm that the restraint does 12. Parents should be informed of the policies
not cause harm to the child, such as restricting on restraint and seclusion at their child’s
the child’s breathing. Continuous monitoring of school or other educational setting, as well
restraint includes, for example: (1) continuous as applicable Federal, State or local laws.
assessment of staff and student status, includ-
All parents should receive, at least annually,
ing potential physical injuries; (2) termination
written information about the policies and
of restraint or seclusion when imminent danger
procedures for restraint and seclusion issued by
of serious physical harm to self or others has
the State, district, or school. This information
dissipated; (3) evaluation of how procedures
should be included, for example, in the district’s
are being implemented; and (4) consideration
or school’s handbook of policies and proce-
of opportunities for redirection and defusing the
dures or other appropriate and widely distrib-
dangerous behavior. In developing procedures,
uted school publications. Schools, districts, and
States, districts, and schools should consider
States are encouraged to involve parents when
having school health personnel promptly assess
developing policies and procedures on restraint
the child after the imposition of restraints or
and seclusion. These written descriptions
seclusion.
should include the following: (1) a statement
Trained school staff should also inspect and that mechanical restraint should not be used,
prepare the seclusion area before a child is that schools should never use a drug or medica-
placed in seclusion. For example, the area tion to control behavior or restrict freedom of
should be free of any objects a child could use movement (except as authorized by a licensed


and family members should be notified
immediately. In addition, preventive strategies
In addition, preventive to reduce the likelihood that restraint or seclu-
strategies to reduce the sion will need to be used with a child should be
established, documented, and communicated
likelihood that restraint to the child’s parents. Parents also should be
or seclusion will need encouraged to work with schools and districts
to ensure planned behavioral strategies are in
to be used with a child place and used to (1) de-escalate potentially
violent dangerous behavior; (2) identify and
should be established, support competing positive behavior to replace
documented, and dangerous behavior; and (3) support appropri-
ate behavior in class and throughout the school,
communicated to the especially if a student has a history of escalating
dangerous behavior.
child’s parents.
13. Parents should be notified as soon as possible
physician or other qualified health professional), following each instance in which restraint or
and physical restraint and seclusion should not seclusion is used with their child.
be used except in situations where the child’s
Parents should be informed about the school’s
behavior poses an imminent danger of serious
procedures for promptly notifying parents and
physical harm to self or others and should be
documenting each time that restraint or seclu-
discontinued as soon as the imminent danger of
sion is used with their child. The meaning of
serious physical harm to self or others has dissi-
“as soon as possible” notification should be
pated; (2) definitions of restraint and seclusion;
determined by the State, district, or school and
(3) information on the procedures for determin-
included in the information on restraint and
ing when restraint or seclusion can and cannot
seclusion that is provided to parents. Document-
be properly used in school settings; (4) infor-
ing that parents have been notified as soon as
mation on the procedural safeguards that are in
possible, ideally on the same school day, when
place to protect the rights of children and their
restraint or seclusion has been used ensures that
parents; (5) a description of the alignment of a
parents are fully informed about their child’s
district’s and school’s policies and procedures
behavior and the school’s response and helps
with applicable State or local laws or regula-
parents participate as informed team members
tions; (6) procedures for notifying parents when
who can work with their child’s teachers
restraint or seclusion has been used with their
and other school staff to determine whether
child; and (7) procedures for notifying parents
the behavioral supports at school and at home,
about any changes to policies and procedures
including prevention and de-escalation
on restraint or seclusion. If policy or procedural
strategies, are effective.
changes are made during the school year staff


14. Policies regarding the use of restraint and
seclusion should be reviewed regularly and
updated as appropriate.

States, districts, and schools should not only
establish and publish policies and procedures
on the use of restraint and seclusion, but also
should periodically review and update them as
appropriate. This review should be conducted
by a team (that includes parents) with expertise
related to PBIS, and educating and supporting
students with dangerous behaviors in schools
and community settings. The review should 15. Policies regarding the use of restraint and
consider and examine (1) available data on seclusion should provide that each incident
the use of these practices and their outcomes involving the use of restraint or seclusion
(i.e., the review should examine the frequency should be documented in writing and provide
of the use of restraint and the use of seclusion for the collection of specific data that would
across individual children, groups of children enable teachers, staff, and other personnel
(e.g., gender, race, national origin, disability to understand and implement the preceding
status and type of disability, limited English principles.
proficiency, etc.)), settings, individual staff,
Each incident of the use of restraint and of the
and programs and consider whether policies for
use of seclusion should be properly documented
restraint and seclusion are being applied con-
for the main purposes of preventing future need
sistently; (2) the accuracy and consistency with
for the use of restraint or seclusion and creat-
which restraint and seclusion data are being
ing a record for consideration when developing
collected, as well as the extent to which these
a plan to address the student’s needs and staff
data are being used to plan behavioral interven-
training needs. For example, a school should
tions and staff training; (3) whether procedures
maintain a written log of incidents when re-
for using these practices are being implemented
straint or seclusion is used. Appropriate school
with fidelity; (4) whether procedures continue
staff should prepare a written log entry describ-
to protect children and adults; and (5) whether
ing each incident, including details of the child’s
existing policies and procedures for restraint
dangerous behavior, why this behavior posed
and seclusion remain properly aligned with
an imminent danger of serious physical harm
applicable State and local laws. The school
to self or others, possible factors contributing
should maintain records of its review of restraint
to the dangerous behavior, the effectiveness
and seclusion data and any resulting decisions
of restraint or seclusion in de-escalating the
or actions regarding the use of restraint and
situation and staff response to such behavior.
seclusion.
Best practices and existing State policies and


procedures indicate that documentation of each of restraint and seclusion incidents across indi-
use of restraint or seclusion frequently includes vidual children, groups of children (e.g., gender,
(1) start and end times of the restraint or seclu- race, national origin, disability status and type
sion; (2) location of the incident; (3) persons of disability, limited English proficiency, etc.),
involved in the restraint or seclusion; (4) the settings, individual staff, and programs, as well
time and date the parents were notified; (5) pos- as the number and proportion of children who
sible events that triggered the behavior that led were restrained or placed in seclusion since
to the restraint or seclusion; (6) prevention, re- the last meeting and for the year to date. Such
direction, or pre-correction strategies that were
used during the incident; (7) a description of the
restraint or seclusion strategies that were used
during the incident; (8) a description of any
States, districts, and
injuries or physical damage that occurred during schools should not only
the incident; (9) how the child was monitored
during and after the incident; (10) the debriefing establish and publish
that occurred with staff following the incident;
(11) the extent to which staff adhered to the
policies and procedures
procedural implementation guidelines (if estab- on the use of restraint
lished by the State, district, or school); and (12)
follow-up that will occur to review or develop and seclusion, but also
the student’s BIP. should periodically review
For individual children, these data should be and update them as
periodically reviewed to determine whether
(1) there are strategies in place to address the appropriate.
dangerous behavior at issue; (2) the strategies
in place are effective in increasing appropriate
behaviors; and (3) new strategies need to be reviews should be used to determine whether
developed, or current strategies need to be state, district, and school policies are being
revised or changed to prevent reoccurrences properly followed, whether procedures are
of the dangerous behavior(s). being implemented as intended, and whether
the school staff should receive additional train-
Data on the frequency of use of restraint and
ing on the proper use of restraint and seclusion
seclusion for all children should be periodi-
or PBIS. States, districts, and schools should
cally reviewed at school leadership meetings,
consider making these data public, ensuring that
grade-level meetings, and other meetings of
personally identifiable information is protected.
school staff. Data to be reviewed at these meet-
ings should include information, consistent with
privacy laws, about the frequency and duration


federal agency
Efforts to address
Concerns
To date, Federal efforts to address
concerns about the use of restraint
and seclusion in schools have included
the following four interrelated policy
initiatives: (1) articulating principles to
emphasize that physical restraint and
seclusion should not be used except to
protect a child or others from imminent
danger of serious physical harm; (2)
developing a dear colleague letter and
this Resource Document that will be
used to provide States, districts, and
schools with information related to the
proper and improper use of restraint
and seclusion; (3) collecting, analyzing,
and publishing restraint and seclusion
incident data from every State; and
(4) publishing State regulations, policies,
and guidance on the use of restraint
and seclusion.


A summary of these Federal efforts is Review of State Policies and Procedures
presented below.
The Department’s Regional Comprehensive Techni-
cal Assistance Centers collected information on the
DEPaRtmEnt Of EDUCatiOn policies and procedures on restraint and seclusion
EffORtS in each of the 50 States, eight territories, Bureau of
Indian Education, and District of Columbia. These
letters from the Secretary data were summarized and presented in a public re-
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan issued two port released in February 2010 and updated through
letters articulating the Department’s position on the a review of State Web sites in August 2011.
use of restraint and seclusion.

The first letter was sent to Chief State School Offi-
cers on July 31, 2009 urging each State to review its
The first letter was sent to
current policies and guidelines on the use of restraint Chief State School Officers
and seclusion in schools, and, if appropriate, to on July 31, 2009 urging each
develop or revise them to ensure the safety of
students. The letter highlighted a school-wide system State to review its current
of PBIS as an important preventive approach that policies and guidelines on the
can increase the capacity of school staff to support
use of restraint and seclusion
children with complex behavioral needs, thus reduc-
ing the instances that require the use of restraint in schools, and, if appropriate,
and seclusion. The letter also explained that the to develop or revise them to
Department would be contacting each State to
discuss the State’s plans to ensure the proper use
ensure the safety of students.
of restraint and seclusion to protect the safety of
children and others at school.
Office for Civil Rights
On December 8, 2009, the Secretary sent a letter to
Chairman Dodd, Chairman Miller, and Representa- The Department’s OCR enforces certain civil rights
tive McMorris Rodgers. This letter expressed the laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
Department’s appreciation of Congressional efforts race, color, national origin, sex, and disability by
to limit the use of restraint and seclusion. The let- recipients of Federal financial assistance from the
ter also articulated a list of nine principles that the Department and certain public entities. In September
Secretary believed would be useful for Congress to 2009, OCR announced in the Federal Register that
consider in the context of any legislation on restraint it would include, for the first time, questions on
and seclusion. Additionally, the letter informed restraint and seclusion in the Civil Rights Data
Congress that the Department was reviewing Collection (CRDC). The CRDC now collects
information about each State’s laws, regulations, school- and district-level information about students
policies, and guidance on restraint and seclusion. in public schools that includes (1) the number of


students by race/ethnicity, sex, Limited English Pro- reward of problem behavior; (4) establish and apply
ficiency (LEP) status, and disability status subjected consistently a multi-tiered continuum of evidence-
to physical restraint; (2) the number of students by based behavioral practices that supports behavioral
race/ethnicity, sex, LEP status, and disability status success for all students, especially those students
subjected to mechanical restraint; (3) the number of with more complex behavior support challenges;
students by race/ethnicity, sex, LEP status, and dis- (5) collect and use data continuously to screen and
ability status subjected to seclusion; and (4) the total monitor progress of all students, make instructional
number of incidents of physical restraint, mechani- and behavioral decisions, and solve problems; and
cal restraint, and seclusion by disability status. The (6) invest in the organizational infrastructure and
data collection tables can be found at http://ocrdata. capacity to enable effective, efficient, and relevant
ed.gov/Downloads.aspx. The CRDC restraint and implementation of evidence-based practices. These
seclusion data are available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov. six core principles offer school administrators,
The data were released in two parts, in September teachers, and other school staff practical guidelines
2011 and March 2012. for implementing comprehensive behavioral systems
that help prevent the need to use restraint and seclu-
Office of Special Education Programs sion in school.
OSEP has a long history of investments in national
centers and projects that support school-wide behav-
ioral frameworks in schools. Notably, in 1997, OSEP
began funding the Technical Assistance Center on
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. The
ongoing work of this center has led to the develop-
ment and implementation of School-wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS).
Now widely used throughout the country, SWPBIS
is a framework for organizing evidence-based be-
havioral interventions into an integrated, multi-tiered
continuum that maximizes academic and behavioral
outcomes for all students.
A growing body of evaluation and experimental
SWPBIS is organized around six core principles:
research supports the following conclusions about
(1) invest first in the prevention of the social
the impact of SWPBIS implementation. Schools
behavior that impedes student academic and social
throughout the country are able to adopt and imple-
success in schools; (2) build a positive whole-
ment SWPBIS practices. When SWPBIS is imple-
school social culture by defining, teaching, and
mented as intended, schools experienced reductions
acknowledging clearly defined behavioral
in problem behaviors (e.g., behavior that results in
expectations for all students; (3) establish and
office referrals, suspensions). SWPBIS implementa-
apply consistently a continuum of consequences
tion enhances the impact of effective instruction on
for problem behavior that prevents the inadvertent


academic outcomes. When SWPBIS is implemented DEPaRtmEnt Of hEalth anD
as intended, students and staff members report hUman SERviCES EffORtS
improved school safety and organizational health.
Furthermore, SWPBIS is sustainable when initial Children’s health act
implementation is done as intended.
Although restraint and seclusion have been used in
mental health settings and other medical facilities
for many years, these practices have become more
controversial because of tragic outcomes such
as deaths and serious injuries. In 2000, Congress
passed the Children’s health Act, which required
DHHS to draft regulations under Title V of the
Public Health Service Act for the use of restraint
and seclusion in medical facilities and in residential
non-medical community-based facilities for
children and youth. The Act set minimum standards
for the use of restraint and seclusion, which stipulate
that (1) restraint and seclusion are crisis response
interventions and may not be used except to ensure
OSEP’s Technical Assistance Center on PBIS has immediate physical safety and only after less
assisted States and local districts with the imple- restrictive interventions have been found to be
mentation of SWPBIS in over 17,000 schools across ineffective; (2) restraint and seclusion may not be
the United States. Each of these schools has a team used for discipline or convenience; (3) mechanical
that has gone through, or is going through, formal restraints are prohibited; (4) restraint or seclusion
training on SWPBIS practices. Teams benefit from may be imposed only by individuals trained and
local coaching provided by district school psycholo- certified in their application; and (5) children being
gists, social workers, counselors, administrators, restrained or secluded must be continuously moni-
and special educators. States and districts have been tored during the procedure. The Children’s health
successful in implementing and sustaining SWPBIS Act also required DHHS to draft regulations for
by actively and formally developing State, local, and States to use in training individuals in facilities
school capacity for coordination, training, coach- covered under the Federal law.9
ing, and evaluation. This capacity building, in turn,
supports continual improvement, effective outcomes,
9 Regulations implementing Part H (Requirements Relating
and efficient and accurate implementation, and to the Rights of Residents of Certain Facilities) of Title V of
maximizes student academic and behavior outcomes the Public health Service (PhS) Act have been promulgated,
although regulations implementing Part I (Requirements
for all students. The center’s technical assistance
relating to the rights of Residents of Certain Non-Medical,
supports participating local districts and schools Community-Based Facilities for Children and Youth)
in identifying, adopting, and sustaining SWPBIS of Title V of the PHS Act have not yet been promulgated.
Moreover, regulations have not been issued regarding
effectively.
training of facility staff.


The Children’s health Act of 2000 (ChA) (Pub. L. SamhSa
106-310) amended title V of the PhS Act to add two
As part of SAMhSA’s continuing efforts to provide
new parts (Parts h and I) that established minimum
guidance on the Children’s health Act, in 2002, the
requirements for the protection and the promotion of
agency developed the Six Core Strategies10 model,
rights of residents of certain facilities to be free from
which defines specific interventions to prevent or
the improper use of seclusion or restraint. Consistent
reduce the use of restraint and seclusion in health-
with section 3207 of the Children’s health Act, the
care settings. This model curriculum includes the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
following six core components:
issued regulations setting forth patient rights to be
free of medically unnecessary restraint and seclusion ■■ Leadership toward organizational change
in several types of health care facilities and pro- ■■ The use of data to inform practice
grams, including: hospitals, in a final rule published
■■ Workforce Development: In-service training,
at 71 Fed. Reg. 71378 (Dec. 8, 2006) that also ap-
supervision, and mentoring
plies to critical access hospitals; hospices, in a final
rule published at 73 Fed. Reg. 32088 (June 5, 2008); ■■ Use of primary prevention tools
Medicaid managed care, in a final rule published at ■■ Supporting roles for persons served and
67 Fed. Reg. 40989 (June 14, 2002); programs of advocates in programs
all-inclusive care for the elderly (PACE), in a final ■■ Debriefing tools
rule published at 71 Fed. Reg. 71244 (Dec. 8, 2006);
While mainly used for training in healthcare settings,
and psychiatric residential treatment facilities for in-
these six components have been found to be ap-
dividuals under age 21, in an interim final rule pub-
plicable in school settings. Furthermore, the policy
lished at 66 Fed. Reg. 7148 (Jan. 22, 2001). CMS
concerns exemplified in these core components have
has also proposed regulations governing the use of
contributed to the Department’s interagency collabo-
restraint and seclusion in Community Mental Health
ration with SAMHSA to address the use of restraint
Centers, at 76 Fed. Reg. 35684 (June 17, 2011).
and seclusion in school settings across the country.

10 NASMhPD published the first training curriculum on
Six Core Strategies© to Reduce the Use of Seclusion and
Restraint in Inpatient Facilities in 2002. Since then, the
Six Core Strategies© have been formally evaluated, and the
evidence indicates they likely meet criteria for inclusion on
SAMhSA’s National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs
and Practices. http://www.grafton.org/Newsletter/art%20
lebel.pdf
LeBel, J; huckshorn, K.A.; Caldwell, B. (2010). Restraint
use in residential programs: Why are the best practices
ignored? Child Welfare 89(2), 169-187.


attachment a

Revised Summary of Restraint and
Seclusion Statutes, Regulations,
Policies and Guidance, by State:
Information as Reported to the
Regional Comprehensive Centers
and Gathered from Other Sources

This attachment is intended to be accessed through
the Internet. If this document is being printed, pages
30-32 will not contain URLs.


Statutes and Regulations Addressing Policies and Guidance Addressing
State or District
Restraint and Seclusion+ Restraint and Seclusionx

No state statute or regulations addressing
Alabama Please see State Web site for further information.
seclusion and restraint.
No policies or guidance addressing
Alaska Please see State Web site for further information.
Arizona Please see State Web site for further information.

Arkansas Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

California Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Colorado Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Connecticut Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Delaware Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Please see District Web site for further Please see District Web site for further
District of Columbia
information. information.

Florida Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Georgia Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Hawaii Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Idaho* Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Illinois Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Indiana Please see State Web site for further information.

Iowa Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Kansas Please see State Web site for further information.
Kentucky Please see State Web site for further information.
No policies or guidance addressing seclusion
Louisiana* Please see State Web site for further information.
and restraint.


State or District

Maine Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Maryland Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Massachusetts Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Michigan Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Minnesota Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Mississippi Please see State Web site for further information.
Missouri Please see State Web site for further information.
and restraint.

Montana Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Nebraska Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Nevada Please see State Web site for further information.
and restraint.

New Hampshire Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

New Jersey* Please see State Web site for further information.
New Mexico Please see State Web site for further information.

New York Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

North Carolina Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

North Dakota Please see State Web site for further information.
and restraint.
Ohio Please see State Web site for further information.
Oklahoma* Please see State Web site for further information.

Oregon Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.


State or District

Pennsylvania Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Rhode Island Please see State Web site for further information.
and restraint.
South Carolina Please see State Web site for further information.
No state statute or regulations addressing No policies or guidance addressing seclusion
South Dakota*
seclusion and restraint. and restraint.

Tennessee Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Texas Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Utah Please see State Web site for further information.
and restraint.

Vermont Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Virginia Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Washington Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

West Virginia Please see State Web site for further information.

Wisconsin Please see State Web site for further information. Please see State Web site for further information.

Wyoming* Please see State Web site for further information.
and restraint.

NOTE: In August 2009, the Regional Comprehensive Centers conducted research on each state’s laws, regulations,
guidance, and policies regarding the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and confirmed the information obtained with
the states. The information in this report was updated by researchers at the American Institutes for Research in May 2012
and was current as of this date.
+
Proposed or enacted laws and supporting regulations describing the implementation of the laws, originating from the
State legislature.
x
Statements or documents that set out the state views and expectations related to school district duties and responsibilities,
originating from the State executive office.
*
State restraint and seclusion statutes, regulations, policies, or guidance are still in development.


attachment B

Restraint and Seclusion: Resource
Document Resources with Annotations

This document contains links to Web sites and information
created and maintained by public and private organizations
other than the U.S. Department of Education. This information
is provided for the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department
of Education does not control or guarantee the accuracy, rel-
evance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information.
Some of this information is presented as examples of informa-
tion that may be relevant. Further, the inclusion of information
or addresses, or Web sites for particular items does not reflect
their importance, nor is it intended to endorse any views
expressed, or products or services offered.


Federal Resources Dodd, Chairman George Miller, and Representative
Cathy McMorris Rodgers to develop legislation to
Duncan, A. (2009, July 31). Letter from Education
limit the use of physical restraint and seclusion in
Secretary Arne Duncan to the Council of Chief
schools and other educational settings that receive
State School Officers (CCSSO). Retrieved
Federal funds, except when it is necessary to protect
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/
a child or others from imminent danger. He reports
secletter/090731.html
that the U.S. Department of Education has identified
In this letter to the CCSSO, Education Secretary a number of principles that may be useful for Con-
Arne Duncan responds to the testimony issued by gress to consider in the context of any legislation on
the Government Accountability Office on “Seclu- this issue. These principles are listed in the letter.
sions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and
The following legislation was introduced in the
Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment
111th and 112th Congresses, concerning limitations
Centers.” He encourages the CCSSO to develop or
on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and
review and, if appropriate, revise their State policies
other educational settings:
and guidelines to ensure that every student in every
school under their jurisdiction is safe and protected ■■ S. 2020, 112th Congress
from being unnecessarily or inappropriately re-
■■ H.R. 1381, 112th Congress
strained or secluded. He also urges them to publicize
these policies and guidelines so that administrators, ■■ S. 3895, 111th Congress
teachers, and parents understand and consent to the ■■ H.R. 4247, 111th Congress
limited circumstances under which these techniques ■■ S. 2860, 111th Congress
may be used; ensure that parents are notified when
these interventions do occur; provide the resources
needed to successfully implement the policies and Jones, N. L. & Feder, J. (2010). The use of seclusion
hold school districts accountable for adhering to and restraint in public schools: The legal issues.
the guidelines; and to have the revised policies and Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
guidance in place prior to the start of the 2009–2010 Retrieved from http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/
school year. R40522_20101014.pdf

This research report was prepared by the
Duncan, A. (2009, December 8). Letter from Congressional Research Service for the members
Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Chairman and committees of Congress. It was prepared
Christopher J. Dodd, Chairman George Miller, because of congressional interest in the use of
and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers. seclusion and restraint in schools, including
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/ passage of H.R. 4247 and the introduction of
guid/secletter/091211.html S. 2860, 111th Congress, first session. This report
focuses on the legal issues concerning the use of
In this letter, Education Secretary Arne Duncan seclusion and restraint in schools, including their
applauds the efforts of Chairman Christopher J. application both to children covered by the


Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) allegations from advocacy groups, parents, and the
and to those not covered by IDEA. It refers to media from the past two decades. The report found
reports that document instances of deaths and no Federal law restricting the use of seclusion and
injuries resulting from the use of seclusion or restraint, and found hundreds of cases of alleged
restraints in schools. This report notes that the abuse and death related to the use of these methods
IDEA requires a free appropriate public education on school children; examples are provided.
for children with disabilities, and an argument
could be made that some uses of seclusion and
U.S. Department of Education. (2010) Summary of
restraint would violate this requirement. The
seclusion and restraint statutes, regulations, policies
passage of S. 2860 in the Senate would establish
and guidance, by State and territory: Information
minimum safety standards in schools to prevent
as reported to the regional Comprehensive Centers
and reduce the inappropriate use of restraint
and gathered from other sources. Washington, DC:
and seclusion.
Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/
seclusion/seclusion-state-summary.html
Kutz, G. D. (2009). Seclusions and restraints:
Selected cases of death and abuse at public This summary documents the results of the Depart-
and private schools and treatment centers. ment of Education’s 2009 request that the States
(GAO-09-719T). Washington, DC: U.S. report on their laws, regulations, guidance, and
Government Accountability Office, Forensic policies regarding the use of seclusion and restraints
Audits and Special Investigations. Retrieved in schools. The document includes the descriptive
from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09719t.pdf information as verified by each State and territory,
and a summary of this information.
This report addresses the recent testimony of the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) before the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Congressional Committee on Education and Labor
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
regarding allegations of death and abuse at residen-
Administration Jan Lebel (2011) The business
tial programs for troubled teens. It cites other re-
case for preventing and reducing restraint and
ports that indicate that vulnerable children are being
seclusion use. Washington, DC: Retrieved
abused in other settings, through the use of restraint
from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content//
and seclusion in schools. This report provides an
SMA11-4632/SMA11-4632.pdf
overview of seclusion and restraint laws applicable
to children in public and private schools, discusses This document asserts that restraint and seclusion
whether allegations of student death and abuse are violent, expensive, largely preventable, adverse
from the use of these methods are widespread, and events. The document also makes a number of
examines the facts and circumstances surrounding claims, including the following: (1) the rationale for
cases in which a student died or suffered abuse as the use of restraint and seclusion is inconsistently
a result of being secluded or restrained. The report understood and contribute to a cycle of workplace
is a review of Federal and State laws and abuse violence that can reportedly claim as much as 23 to


50 percent of staff time, account for 50 percent of Department of Education is preparing to gather
staff injuries, increase the risk of injury to consum- more objective information, and asks the House
ers and staff by 60 percent, and increase the length to wait for these objective results. The AASA also
of stay, potentially setting recovery back at least describes the report recently released by the U.S.
6 months with each occurrence; (2) restraint and Department of Education, which confirms that 31
seclusion increases the daily cost of care and con- States already have policies in place to oversee the
tributes to significant workforce turnover reportedly use of seclusion and restraint and 15 more are in the
ranging from 18 to 62 percent, costing hundreds of process of adopting policies and protections. Given
thousands of dollars to several million; (3) restraint this substantial State action, AASA questions the
and seclusion procedures raise the risk profile to an need for Federal involvement on this issue. Finally,
organization and incur liability expenses that can ad- the letter protests the tone of H.R. 4247, which it
versely impact the viability of the service; (4) many describes as relentlessly negative toward teachers
hospitals and residential programs, serving differ- and administrators.
ent ages and populations, have successfully reduced
their use and redirected existing resources to support
The Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
additional staff training, implement prevention-ori-
(2009). Physical restraint and seclusion procedures
ented alternatives, and enhance the environment of
in school settings. Arlington, VA: Council for Excep-
care; and (5) significant savings result from reduced
tional Children. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/
staff turnover, hiring and replacement costs, sick
sites/default/files/CCBD%20Summary%20on%20
time, and liability-related costs.
Restraint%20and%20Seclusion%207-8-09.pdf

This document is a summary of policy recommenda-
Associated Resources
tions from two longer and more detailed documents
American Association of School Administrators. available from the Council for Children with Behav-
(2010, March 2). Letter to U.S. House of ioral Disorders (CCBD) regarding the use of physi-
Representatives. Retrieved from http://www.aasa. cal restraint and seclusion procedures in schools.
org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/ CCBD is the division of the Council for Exceptional
HR4247LetterMarch2010.pdf Children (CEC) committed to promoting and facili-
tating the education and general welfare of children
In this letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, and youth with emotional or behavioral disorders.
the American Association of School Administrators In this document, CCBD states that while restraint
(AASA) urges the House not to pass restraint and and seclusion can be effective when dealing with
seclusion measure H.R. 4247. The AASA states children with behavioral issues, they should not be
that the need to establish these particular Federal implemented except as a last resort when a child
regulations for seclusion and restraint has not been or others are in immediate danger. CCBD further
established by objective, carefully gathered and recommends that new legislation or regulations be
analyzed data, and that the voices of teachers and established to formally require that data on restraint
administrators have not been heard. The letter and seclusion be reported to outside agencies, such
notes that the Office for Civil Rights within the U.S. as State or provincial departments of education.


The document also notes that additional research is disagrees. The interview reports that the State
needed on the use of physical restraint and seclusion Senate is discussing legislation to restrict the use
with children or youth across all settings. of restraint and seclusion, but the department of
education is arguing that this legislation will go too
far and prevent teachers and administrators from
Dunlap, G., Ostryn, C., & Fox, L. (2011).
maintaining a safe classroom. The Senate intends to
Preventing the Use of Restraint and Seclusion with
require that all teachers and other personnel be re-
Young Children: “The Role of Effective, Positive
quired to receive training in PBIS to reduce the need
Practices”. Issue Brief. Technical Assistance
for seclusion and restraint, and claims that this will
Center on Social Emotional Intervention for
make schools safer and improve academic perfor-
Young Children. University of South Florida,
mance. The piece also notes concerns about the costs
13301 North Bruce B Downs Boulevard
to districts of implementing additional training, as
MHC2-1134, Tampa, FL 33612. Web site:
well as potential lawsuits.
http://www.challengingbehavior.org. Retrieved
from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno= Horner, R. & Sugai, G. (2009). Considerations for
ED526387 seclusion and restraint use in school-wide positive
behavior supports. Eugene, OR: OSEP Technical
The purpose of this document is to review what Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interven-
constitutes restraint and seclusion, what should tions and Support. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.
be done as an alternative, and discuss positive org/common/pbisresources/publications/Seclusion_
strategies that can be used to prevent behaviors Restraint_inBehaviorSupport.pdf
that could lead to considerations of these invasive
and potentially-dangerous practices. The PBIS Center defines seclusion and restraint as
safety procedures in which a student is isolated from
others (seclusion) or physically held (restraint) in
Hague, B. (2010, February 18). Stricter standards
response to serious problem behavior that places the
sought for use of seclusion and restraint by
student or others at risk of injury or harm. This doc-
schools. (Recording). Wisconsin Radio Network.
ument expresses concern regarding these procedures
Retrieved from http://www.wrn.com/2010/02/
being prone to misapplication and abuse, potentially
stricter-standards-sought-for-use-of-seclusion-
placing students at equal or more risk than their
and-restraint-by-schools/
problem behavior. The specific concerns are listed
This interview discusses a Wisconsin State and recommendations are made to promote effec-
capitol hearing on how best to deal with students tive policies. School-wide positive behavior support
with special needs who become disruptive. The (SWPBS) is one of the major recommendations,
organization, Disability Rights Wisconsin, claims defined as a systems approach to establishing the
that the State’s department of education is not whole-school social culture and intensive individual
doing enough to curtail excessive use of restraint behavior supports needed for schools to achieve so-
and seclusion; the State department of education cial and academic gains while minimizing problem


behavior for all students. SWPBS emphasizes four Morrison, L. & Moore, C. (2007). Restraint and
integrated elements: socially valued and measurable seclusion in California schools: A failing grade.
outcomes, empirically validated and practical prac- Oakland, CA: Protection & Advocacy, Inc. (PAI).
tices, systems that efficiently and effectively support Retrieved from http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/
implementation of these practices, and continuous pubs/702301.htm
collection and use of data for decision-making.
These elements are described in detail along with PAI conducted an in-depth investigation into alle-
supporting research. gations of abusive restraint and seclusion practices
involving seven students in five public schools and
one non-public school in California. The investiga-
The Legal Center for People with Disabilities tions revealed both the failure of school personnel
and Older People. (2007). Public report of an to comply with existing regulations and the inabil-
investigation into the improper use of restraint ity of current law to sufficiently regulate the use of
and/or seclusion of students with disabilities at these dangerous practices. PAI released this report to
Will Rogers elementary school. Denver, CO: reinforce compliance with current regulatory re-
Author. Retrieved from http://66.147.244.209/ quirements and to challenge schools and the educa-
~tashorg/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ tion system to bring standards regarding behavioral
The-Legal-Center_PA-Investigation.pdf restraint and seclusion of students into line with cur-
rent practices in all other settings. The report notes
The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and
that there are strict guidelines limiting the use of
Older People (the Legal Center) is the Protection
restraint and seclusion to extreme situations where
and Advocacy System for Colorado. This report
there is an imminent risk of serious physical harm
presents the results of the investigation conducted by
to an individual and only for the duration and to the
the Legal Center into the circumstances surrounding
extent necessary to protect the individual.
the use of seclusion and restraint of five elementary
school students. The Legal Center received com-
plaints that students with a range of emotional, men- National Association of State Mental Health
tal health, and developmental disabilities were sub- Program Directors (NASMHPD): Huckshorn, K.
jected to improper use of restraint and seclusion by (2005). Six core strategies to reduce the use
school staff at Will Rogers Elementary School. The of seclusion and restraint planning tool.
information produced in the course of this investiga- Retrieved from http://www.hogg.utexas.edu/
tion supports the conclusion that the five students uploads/documents/SR_Plan_Template.pdf
were repeatedly subjected to improper restraint and
seclusion in violation of the Colorado Department This planning tool guides the design of a seclusion
of Education restraint/seclusion rules. Based on this, and restraint reduction plan that incorporates the use
the Legal Center recommends a number of actions of a prevention approach, includes six core strategies
be taken by District 11 and staff at Will Rogers to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint described
Elementary school. in the NASMHPD curriculum, and ascribes to the
principles of continuous quality improvement. It


may also be used as a monitoring tool to supervise Not Supposed to Hurt: Update on Progress in 2009,
implementation of a reduction plan and identify at http://ndrn.org/images/Documents/Resources/
problems, issues barriers and successes. Publications/Reports/School-is-Not-Supposed-to-
Hurt-NDRN.pdf

National Disability Rights Network. (2009, January). National Disability Rights Network, School Is Not
School is not supposed to hurt: Investigative Supposed to Hurt: The U.S. Department of Education
report on abusive restraint and seclusion in schools. Must Do More to Protect School Children from
Retrieved from http://www.napas.org/images/ Restraint and Seclusion, March 2012, at http://ndrn.
Documents/Resources/Publications/Reports/ org/images/Documents/Resources/Publications/
SR-Report2009.pdf (Updated in 2010) Reports/School_is_Not_Supposed_to_Hurt_3_v7.pdf

This report is divided into two sections. The first
identifies the problems attributed to restraint or Samuels, C. A. (2009). Use of seclusion, restraints
seclusion. It includes a “Chronicle of Harm” detail- on students at issue: Watchdog agency prepar-
ing treatment of children of all ages and in every ing report on practices. Education Week, 28(29),
corner of the nation – urban, suburban, and rural, 6. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/
in wealthy and poor school districts, as well as in articles/2009/04/17/29restrain.h28.html
private schools. It outlines the problems associated
with the use of restraint or seclusion, and details the This article reports that many States lack policies re-
proven risks to children associated with the use of lated to seclusion or restraint in schools, and that the
these aversive techniques. Contributing factors are Federal government does not require record-keeping
identified, such as the lack of appropriate training on the practices. The article details the efforts of
for teachers and other school personnel in the advocacy groups for people with disabilities to keep
use of positive behavioral supports that address the issue of restraint and seclusion as a priority for
children’s behavioral and other issues in a humane the Federal government and the national media.
and effective way. Organizations are trying to get Federal economic
stimulus funds as a source of money to pay for the
The second section of this report proposes solutions professional development that they say would foster
to the use of restraint or seclusion by highlighting a positive school environment. Advocates believe
the best practices in education and the use of posi- that such training for educators would prevent
tive behavioral supports. Included is a catalogue of problems from escalating to the point that secluding
advocacy activities that have been undertaken by students or physically restraining them is needed.
P&As to protect children with disabilities. These Advocates, as well as educational organizations,
activities range from educating parents, students, agree that more training is necessary to reduce the
and school personnel, to investigating and litigating use of restraint and seclusion in school. The article
when abuses occur, to working for strong State and presents a discussion by several organizations’
federal laws to protect these vulnerable children. representatives on ways to provide this training.
An update to this report and follow-up letter are
available at: National Disability Rights Network,


Shank, C., Greenberg, J., & Lebens, M. (2011). Keep Southern Tier Independence Center, Disabled Abuse
school safe for everyone: A report on the restraint Coalition. (2009). Abuse and neglect of children
and seclusion of children with disabilities in Oregon with disabilities in New York non-residential public
schools. Portland, OR: Disability Rights Oregon is schools. Binghamton, NY: Author. Retrieved from
the Protection & Advocacy System for Oregon. http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/
Retrieved from http://www.disabilityrightsoregon. Restraint_and_Seclusions/NDRN_Children_with_
org/results/DRO-Keep%20School%20Safe%20 Disabilities_2009.pdf
for%20Everyone%20Report.pdf
This document responds to reports by families and
The Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) gathered advocates indicating a pattern of discriminatory
information from parents and schools about the use treatment toward children with disabilities who are
of physical restraint and seclusion in Oregon and neglected or abused in non-residential public schools
provided policy recommendations on the use of in New York. The document notes that, under New
these practices in the State. The DRO report found York law, these schools are allowed to use physical
that the use of physical restraint and seclusion varied restraints, including straps, “take-downs,” and
considerably across Oregon school districts. For “time-out rooms,” for unlimited periods of time as
example, some Oregon districts had adopted punishment for minor infractions, including any
appropriate policies and were trying to follow them. behavior that may “disrupt the order of the school.”
Other districts, however, had not adopted any However, such restraints are often used by poorly
policies at all. Furthermore, many Oregon districts trained staff, and the potential for serious injury is
were found to have policies that were inconsistent high. The document states that experts in special
with their own administrative rules. This report education universally agree that restraints should not
also details stories of Oregon children who were be used except as emergency measures for children
restrained and secluded and had experienced who are immediately and seriously dangerous to
psychological and physical injuries resulting from themselves or others, and that use of restraints under
the use of these practices at school. In addition, the those circumstances should trigger an immediate
report provides a list of policy recommendations comprehensive response to investigate antecedents
on physical restraint and seclusion. The report to the problem behavior and develop proactive
notes that its recommended policies are generally plans to address it. Thus, the STIC argues that New
consistent with policies contained in Federal legis- York State needs to enact stringent legislation to
lation. The DRO concludes that its recommended regulate the use of physical restraint, provide train-
policies will provide enforceable minimum safety ing requirements for public non-residential school
standards, provide administrative review and aides that are strictly enforced, and empower State
independent oversight, and help make Oregon’s and local police and child-protective authorities to
schools safe for all students and staff. immediately accept and promptly investigate all
complaints of abuse and neglect and to file criminal
charges when warranted.


The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student
achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by
fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov

Restraints and Seclusion Resources

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Restraints and Seclusion Resources (20)

More from Allison Wohl (17)

Recently uploaded (20)

Restraints and Seclusion Resources