Analysis of Restraint and Seclusion Legislation and Policy Across States: Adherence to Recommended Principles

Abstract

Restrictive practices including restraint and seclusion of students have led to injuries, and in some cases, death (Ryan, Robbins, Peterson, & Rozalski, 2009; United States Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2009). Restraint (i.e., physical restriction, including by devices or equipment, that causes immobilization or a reduction in ability to move torso, arms, legs, or head) and seclusion (i.e., involuntary, solitary confinement accompanied by physical prevention from leaving confinement) practices often are used with students who present challenging behaviors that place themselves or others at risk (

A Study of One State’s School District Physical Restraint and Seclusion Policies

“…On the contrary, a substantial number of districts had fewer than half of the DOE principles included. This is generally similar to the analysis of Marx and Baker (2017) regarding state legislation on this topic.…”

“…Only a small number of districts (n = 8; 9%) included this principle in their policies, and many districts allow these procedures to be used in circumstances that were not indicative of imminent danger (e.g., property damage, calming a student, or classroom disruption). Marx and Baker (2017) used a more general statement of DOE No. 3, which did not split the two components and, as a result, we do not know whether state statutes included this statement in their state legislation.…”

“…Butler (2019) indicated that, as of July 2019, 30 states had laws regulating restraint and seclusion for all children, and 39 states had laws addressing students with disabilities. According to a recent analysis by Marx and Baker (2017), policy and legislation by states varied in their adherence to the 15 principles set forth by the U.S. DOE, which they indicated continue to be the most helpful source of federal guidance for states attempting to improve policy and reduce the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. Their analysis indicated that state policies typically aligned more closely with the 15 principles compared with state legislation.…”

“…This is despite the federal and state governments' efforts over the past decade to promote policy development to improve the safe and appropriate use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools. Although there have been a few studies of state policies on these topics (e.g., Butler, 2019;Freeman & Sugai, 2013;Marx & Baker, 2017; Ryan 973213B HDXXX10.1177/0198742920973213Behavioral DisordersVan Acker et al…”

Policies Matter: Closing the Reporting and Transparency Gaps in the use of Restraint, Seclusion, and Time-Out Rooms in Schools

“…On the federal legislative front, the Keeping All Children Safe Act (2018), while not yet passed by congress, has the potential to provide comprehensive protections from the misuse of restraint and seclusion by outlining the rare conditions under which they may be used and by banning several procedures (e.g., mechanical restraints). The Act has provided a framework for the development of state regulations regarding the use of restraint and seclusion in schools (Marx & Baker, 2017). Reporting requirements and accountability are central features of the aforementioned resource document and federal legislation.…”