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

Abstract

This review examines each state’s educational legislation and policies on restraint and seclusion in relationship to their alignment with the U.S. Department of Education’s (U.S. DOE) Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document. Although the Resource Document is not a federal mandate, it provides the U.S. DOE’s recommendations for policy and legislation to reduce the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and create safe learning environments for all students. State educational legislation and policies on restraint and seclusion were coded and compared with the U.S. DOE Resource Document’s 15 guiding principles. Results were variable and found that some states’ policies adhered more to the guiding principles than their legislation. In addition, some states recognize the document in their legislation and policy. A summary of the descriptive data and current state statuses are reported.

Keywords

policy positive behavioral supports law/legal issues

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 (Persi & Pasquali, 1999; Ryan et al., 2009). In the past, restrictive practices were widely used with students with disabilities (Ryan, Peterson, & Rozalski, 2007; Villani, Parsons, Church, & Beetar, 2012) and young children (Ryan et al., 2007). Past research (Persi & Pasquali, 1999; Ryan & Peterson, 2004) and reports (The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. [COPAA], 2009; GAO, 2009) reveal that many students have been victims to the use of restraint, seclusion, and/or other aversive techniques in schools, despite increased implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SW-PBIS).

Historically, limited guidance was provided to states with regard to restraint and seclusion of students. Presently, there are no existing federal mandates surrounding restraint and seclusion. In March 2010, The Keeping All Kids Safe Act (H.R. 4247, 111th Cong.) passed in the House of Representatives. The purpose of the Act was to provide federal minimum standards to protect all students against restraint and/or seclusion. The Act was not passed in the Senate, but was referred to a senate committee in December of 2011. Since that time, Senator Tom Harkin, the chairman of the senate education committee, prompted an investigation on restraint and seclusion practices, looking into facts and circumstances surrounding 10 different lawsuits on the issue (Majority Committee Staff Report, 2014). In February 2014, Harkin announced a new bill would be introduced to the Senate based on the findings from the committee’s investigation. The new bill titled The Keeping All Students Safe Act (S. 2036, 113th Cong.) would parallel the House bill passed in 2010, with an emphasis placed on SW-PBIS.

In 2009, Ryan et al. reviewed state policy and guidelines on restraint and seclusion and found that 19 states did not have policy or guidance in place. More recently (i.e., through spring of 2011), Freeman and Sugai (2013) examined changes to state policy and legislation on seclusion and restraint as a way to identify recommended practices. After reviewing policy and legislation in all 50 states (including Washington, D.C.), Freeman and Sugai found that 30 states had updated and/or added legislation or policy statements on restraint and seclusion since a review conducted in 2010 by the United States Department of Education (U.S. DOE; 2010). Freeman and Sugai also identified themes related to prevention, intervention, and data-reporting procedures within state policy documents. The authors found that 33 states had legislation or regulation on restraint and seclusion, and 15 states had technical assistance or guidance documents. Three states were found to have neither legislation nor policies related to restraint and seclusion. Although the report by Freeman and Sugai (2013) found positive trends in states’ progress toward addressing federal concerns expressed in 2009, there is still a lack of comprehensive restraint and seclusion legislation in the United States.

In the absence of federal legislation specific to restraint and seclusion, states often look for guidance about how to address specific areas of need. In response, the U.S. DOE released the Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document (2012; www.ed.gov/policy/restraintseclusion), a policy document for states to use when developing or revising their policies and/or legislation related to restraint and seclusion. The document defines and describes 15 research-based, guiding principles intended to (a) reduce the use of restraint and seclusion practices in school settings and (b) support schools’ ability to create safe learning environments. Although the Resource Document is not a federal mandate for individual states to abide by, states are strongly encouraged to incorporate the 15 principles in their policies and/or legislation to ensure best practices are implemented and proactive and preventive approaches are considered prior to the use of restraint or seclusion.

It is hypothesized that the use of the Resource Document could improve states’ systematization of data collection and analysis on restraint and seclusion to better inform practice. In addition, if each state at least adopted some of the principles (e.g., staff training, policies reviewed regularly), it is hypothesized that more educators would be aware of the research-based procedures and approaches that lead to reduced restraint and seclusion incidents. Often, only individuals who work with the most aggressive students are provided the proper training needed; however, challenging behavior does not occur in isolation. Even with SW-PBIS being implemented more frequently in schools nationwide, special education and related service providers are typically more experienced in functional behavioral assessment (FBA), function-based intervention planning, and crisis prevention procedures that are in place to appropriately address student challenging behavior. If more states considered including the guiding principles from the Resource Document into policy and legislation, then a more universal and inclusive audience may be exposed to best practices for preventing restraint and seclusion.

The purpose of this review is not to judge or critique states, but rather to identify states’ current alignment of restraint and seclusion legislation and policy to the 15 guiding principles in the Resource Document. This type of review could potentially inform states where changes could be made to better align with the federal guidance and best practices. More specifically, the following research questions are addressed:

Research Question 1: Since the availability of the Resource Document, how many states have legislation and policies available? In addition, how many states reference the Resource Document within their legislation and policy?

Research Question 2: To what extent (i.e., alignment, partial alignment, no alignment) do state legislation on restraint or seclusion adhere to each of the 15 guiding principles?

Research Question 3: To what extent (i.e., alignment, partial alignment, no alignment) do state policies and guidance on restraint or seclusion adhere to each of the 15 guiding principles?

Research Question 4: How many states address each of the 15 guiding principles across both legislation and policy?

Method

Sample Collection

The web links available within the Resource Document (U.S. DOE, 2012) on each state’s statutes and regulations (i.e., legislation) and policies and guidance (i.e., policy) on restraint and seclusion were used as a starting point for the current review. Each web link was entered into a search engine to determine whether it was still active. To confirm the most recent legislation and policies were included in the current review, additional searches were made to both state legislative and state educational agency (SEA) websites. Web links to newer legislation or policy that were different than the Resource Document were retained and used in the current review (see Figure 1 for state status update). Prior to any coding, the web links to the most recent documents on legislation and policy were saved alphabetically in two Excel data bases for each state and Washington, D.C. The U.S. territories were not considered in this review. One Excel database organized each state’s legislation, whereas another organized each state’s policies. All the searches were conducted during the late summer of 2013. To describe the difference between the two types of documents coded for each state (i.e., legislation and policy), definitions of each are provided. In addition, it is suggested that Freeman and Sugai’s definition of key terms should be referred to as a reference point for this report.

Figure 1.

States’ current status of legislation and policy.

Definitions of Legislation and Policy and Search Procedures of Sample

As noted previously, the purpose of this report was to examine the alignment of states’ legislation and policy on restraint and seclusion to the 15 guiding principles from the U.S. DOE’s (2012) Resource Document. The present review differs from past analyses, because this report disaggregated and categorized the states’ documents into two distinct groups: (a) legislation and (b) policy.

Legislation was defined as the states’ adopted regulations or statutes on seclusion and restraint. These regulations and/or statues are typically written into educational titles, regulations, or codes. By visiting each state’s legislative or SEA webpages, a search within educational titles, regulations, and/or codes was conducted using restraint and seclusion as the initial keywords. If the search yielded no results, additional search terms commonly used to describe restraint and/or seclusion were used including (a) time-out, (b) isolated time-out, (c) aversive interventions, (d) emergency interventions, and (e) isolation.

Policy, for the purpose of this report, was defined as any written guidance to districts from the state level with regard to restraint and seclusion. Examples of policy used in this report include (a) technical assistance reports, (b) professional development materials, (c) correspondence letters from SEAs to districts identifying specific practices, and/or (d) webpages related to restraint/seclusion that shared beliefs and recommended practices derived from state legislation. Policy documents and guidance were practitioner focused and used language that was less regulatory in nature. Policy and guidance available from states tended to include (a) history on restraint and seclusion, (b) questions and answers about practical scenarios or legislation, (c) summaries of state legislation providing detail on best practices and procedures when using restraint and seclusion, (d) samples of encouraged language for districts to use when defining restraint and seclusion, and (e) samples of recommended practices for districts to follow.

When searching for policy documents on SEA websites, the terms restraint and seclusion were used as initial keywords. Similar to the legislation procedure, if a search yielded no results, the additional terms previously discussed were used. In addition, a search for any reference to the U.S. DOE’s Resource Document was also conducted. States that referenced the Resource Document, by either providing a link to the document or indicating where to find it within written guidance, were highlighted in the Excel database (see Research Question 1).

Resource Document Key Principles and Measurement Development

In addition to examining any updates to legislation or policy made by states since previous analyses, the present review was also conducted to examine states’ adherence to the 15 principles in both their legislation and policies. The 45-page document was read by both authors of this report, and a table summarizing the key themes of the guiding principles was developed to serve as the foundation for the review. Table 1 presents the finalized summary of the key themes used as the coding references to collect interrater reliability (IRR).

Table 1.

Summary of the 15 Recommended Principles.

Principle	Summary
1	Prevention using structured environments and nonaversive methods (e.g., School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports) and use of data.
2	Never use mechanical or chemical restraint. All medication must be administered by a licensed professional and physical restraints must not restrict movement.
3	Physical restraint (used by trained professionals as a form of protection/planned behavioral strategy and only until the seriousness of the situation has dissipated) must only be used when someone is a danger to himself or herself or others.
4	Policies related to restraint and seclusion should be for all children, not just students with disabilities.
5	Any behavioral interventions must be nonabusive and consistent with a child’s right to dignity. School-wide supports should be customized for the needs of the population.
6	Restraint and seclusion should never be used as punishment, coercion, retaliation, or convenience. Restraint and seclusion are not routine in nature and should not be used in response to minor or typical classroom issues.
7	Restraint and seclusion should never be used if a child’s ability to breathe is impaired, or the child is harmed. Less restrictive means to address behavior should be used first.
8	Multiple restraints need to be reviewed to determine (a) whether incidents are related to an individual child, staff member, or classroom; (b) whether an FBA/BIP are in place to teach and support student behavior; (c) the need to review an existing FBA/BIP or develop if not in place; and (d) the need for additional staff training.
9	Strategies, including FBA/BIP are in place to address the underlying cause or purpose of the behavior.
10	Regular and ongoing training for staff.
11	Visual monitoring of restraint and seclusion incidents using a checklist and recordkeeping.
12	Parents are informed of school/district policies in handbooks or other publications.
13	Parents are notified as soon as possible following a restraint or seclusion incident.
14	Policies are regularly reviewed and updated. Data need to be collected and analyzed based on subgroups (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, ability), settings, staff, etc.
15	Every restraint or seclusion incident is documented with information pertaining to specific data regarding each incident.

Note. FBA = functional behavioral assessment; BIP = behavior intervention plan.

Coding Procedures

Coding of states’ adherence to the 15 principles began after the most recent legislation and policy were identified and the 15 principles were operationalized according to the key themes. The present analysis separately coded state policies and legislation according to the presence, partial presence, or absence (described below) of the 15 principles. In addition, the authors of this review wanted to provide a more consistent report of the states’ legislation and policy by collecting IRR across 20% of the retrieved legislation and policy documents.

Three different codes were identified to compare the alignment of legislation and policies with the 15 principles. A “0” was used if the principle was absent; “1” was used if the principle was present; and “2” was used if the coder felt that only partial fulfillment of the specific principle was addressed. To receive a “2,” some of the wording and/or content may have been neglected from the states’ legislation and/or policy.

The initial round of coding was completed by the first author to examine each state’s legislation and policy in relationship to the presence, partial presence, or absence of each of the 15 principles. During this round of coding, the first author also reported any clarifications that would further operationalize the 15 principles summary (see Table 1), including why a state received a partial code.

Training

The first author initially coded states’ alignment to the 15 principles to establish an understanding of how well policy and legislation reflected best practice. After discussing with the second author, it was agreed that this type of review could have additional implications for the field, and the second author was trained in the codes (e.g., present, partial, absent). From that point, the two authors discussed the Resource Document, and the difference between legislation and policy was operationalized, as previously noted. Next, the 15 guiding principles were operationalized according to the summary found in Table 1. After the authors agreed about the operationalization and coding procedures, one state was randomly identified. The second author then coded the legislation and policy using the operationalized definitions of the15 principles (see Table 1). After scoring was complete, the number of agreements were added and divided by the total number of agreements and disagreements resulting in a 73% agreement for legislation (i.e., 11 of 15) and a 60% agreement for policy (i.e., nine of 15).

Once scores were calculated, the two authors met to further operationalize the 15 guiding principles and discuss the disagreements across legislation and policy. The disagreements during the first round of training were recorded for Principles 7, 8, 11, and 12 for legislation, and disagreements for Principles 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 for policy. Each disagreement fell between the partially aligned and aligned codes. These disagreements were discussed to better operationalize the principles. It was further noted that the disagreements were the result of taking the language within the summary too literally. For example, Principle 11 was changed to the use of a checklist “and/or” recordkeeping. The reason this change was needed was because “or” can mean one or the other; whereas “and” means that both are needed. With the original summary written with an “and,” one reviewer said partial, while the other said present. Reviewing the Resource Document confirmed that “and/or” was appropriate to use. This type of mistake was common during the training phase, especially because three codes were being used; however, it was hypothesized that using three codes would provide a more accurate representation of the states’ legislation and policy. In this case, the additional language added to the summaries ensured both authors were consistent with the partial versus present category.

Because a total of 67% agreement (i.e., 20 of 30) was recorded during the first round of training, the authors decided to randomly assign another state using the procedure described above. Another state was randomly selected and coded by the second author. After coding the second, randomly identified state, a 93% agreement for policy was found. There was one disagreement on Principle 14; the first author had scored as partial and the second author scored as present. The sole disagreement for Principle 14 was operationalized further (e.g., “examine data on subgroups, settings, and staff”) to avoid additional discrepancies. In addition, the first author had indicated that the state did not have legislation available. The second author conducted a search on the SEA site and confirmed the state’s lack of legislation. Although a 93% agreement was found, the authors conducted an additional training session. A state with both legislation and policy was randomly selected. For the identified state, both legislation and policy documents were coded by the second author and compared with the first author’s codes. An 87% agreement was found for legislation and 100% agreement was found for policy. The two disagreements from legislation were agreed upon after a brief meeting. The disagreements reflected the broad nature of the wording found in the legislation document. It was further noted that the disagreements identified during the previous training sessions (e.g., Principles 8, 11, 12, and 14) were then agreed upon by both authors after reviewing the last state.

Results

The results of this review are organized based on the proposed research questions: (a) the availability of each state’s legislation- and policy-related restraint or seclusion, in addition, the number of states that referenced the Resource Document; (b) the extent to which state legislation and policy on restraint or seclusion align with each of the 15 guiding principles from the U.S. DOE’s Resource Document; and (c) identification of the number of states that address each of the 15 guiding principles across both legislation and policy documents (e.g., if a state meets an individual guideline in legislation, do they also meet the same guideline for policy?).

IRR

To ensure the accuracy of the first authors’ codes used to answer the research questions, IRR data were collected. Upon completion of the coding training, it was decided that the 15 principles were operationalized extensively to begin IRR across all 50 states’ (and D.C.) legislation and policy in relation to the 15 guidelines. Twenty percent (i.e., 10) of the states were randomly selected (excluding the states used for training) for the second author to blind-review. The states of MA, OR, OH, MI, KS, LA, NY, UT, NM, and AK were randomly selected to complete IRR for legislation, and the states of ND, DE, RI, OR, ID, LA, NC, WV, PA, and D.C. were randomly selected for policy. IRR was calculated by taking the total number of agreements and dividing by the total number of possible agreements and multiplying by 100. An IRR agreement across the three codes (i.e., “0,” “1,” and “2”) was 94% for legislation (i.e., 99 of 105) and 87% for policy (i.e., 118 of 135). It should be noted that three of the states randomly selected for legislation did not have posted statutes. The second author also did an electronic search and confirmed the first author’s findings that the three states did not have legislation on restraint and/or seclusion. As a result, these three states were not included in the IRR for legislation to control for inflation of scores and possible researcher bias (e.g., there was agreement on 45 of 45, which would have resulted in a 96% agreement). In addition, one state was not included in the IRR (i.e., ID) for policy because the original document the first author coded was unavailable online when the second author completed IRR.

Research Question 1: The Availability of States’ Legislation and Policy

During the time of this report, it was found that 38 states had legislation and 45 states had policy related to seclusion and restraint available (see Figure 1). In addition to these findings, the authors found that (a) 16 states referenced the Resource Document, (b) 14 states had legislation only pertaining to students with disabilities, (c) 10 states did not have legislation but had policy, (d) two states did not have policies but had legislation, (e) four states made changes to legislation and eight states made changes to policy since the release of the 2012 Resource Document, and (f) four states did not have legislation and policy available (see Figure 1).

Research Questions 2 and 3: Alignment of 15 Principles With Each State’s Legislation and Policy

The present alignment of each of the 15 principles to legislation ranged from three to 32 states, with Principle 3 (i.e., physical restraint—unless danger to self or others) being addressed the most by states, and Principle 14 (i.e., policies reviewed regularly and updated) addressed the least. The present alignment of each principle to policy ranged from four to 38 states, again with Principle 3 being addressed the most and Principle 14 being addressed the least. The frequency of alignment of states’ legislation and policy across the three codes (i.e., present, absent, partial) to the 15 principles is located in Table 2.

Table 2.

Frequency of States’ Adherence to Principles Within Legislation and Policy.

Guiding Principle	Legislation	Policy
Principle 1
Met	17	32
Partially met	11	8
Did not meet	23	11
Principle 2
Met	18	25
Partially met	9	13
Did not meet	24	13
Principle 3
Met	32	38
Partially met	3	3
Did not meet	16	10
Principle 4
Met	23	32
Partially met	4	0
Did not meet	24	19
Principle 5
Met	22	35
Partially met	6	3
Did not meet	23	13
Principle 6
Met	22	30
Partially met	0	2
Did not meet	29	19
Principle 7
Met	25	34
Partially met	1	1
Did not meet	25	16
Principle 8
Met	10	24
Partially met	3	5
Did not meet	38	22
Principle 9
Met	13	28
Partially met	3	5
Did not meet	35	18
Principle 10
Met	6	21
Partially met	25	20
Did not meet	20	10
Principle 11
Met	27	29
Partially met	2	4
Did not meet	22	18
Principle 12
Met	17	18
Partially met	2	1
Did not meet	32	32
Principle 13
Met	27	37
Partially met	3	3
Did not meet	21	11
Principle 14
Met	3	4
Partially met	21	25
Did not meet	27	22
Principle 15
Met	29	39
Partially met	2	2
Did not meet	20	10

Note. Based on a total of 50 States and the District of Columbia (n = 51).

Research Question 4: States With Both Legislation and Policy Across Principles

Each database was compared to examine the states that had both legislation and policy across the 15 principles. For example, if the state’s alignment was present for Principle 1 on legislation, was it also present on policy? The results are provided in Table 3. It was found that Principle 14 was not addressed by states across both legislation and policy. In contrast, it was found that Principle 3 was addressed by the most states (i.e., 25) across both legislation and policy.

Table 3.

States With Both Policy and Legislation in Place (Met) Across Principles.

Guiding Principle	Number of states	State identifiers
Principle 1	14	CA, CO, CT, DC, ID, IL, KY, MN, MO, NH, OH, OR, RI, VT
Principle 2	12	AL, CO, CT, GA, KY, ME, MA, OH, OR, RI, VT, WI
Principle 3	25	AL, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WI, WY
Principle 4	18	AL, CO, DC, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, ME, MA, MO, NH, OH, OR, RI, WI, WY
Principle 5	18	CA, CO, CT, ID, IL, KY, MA, MN, MO, NH, NY, NC, OH, OR, RI, TX, VT, WY
Principle 6	18	AL, CO, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MT, NH, OH, OR, PA, RI, VT
Principle 7	18	AL, CO, CT, FL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, MO, NH, OH, OR, PA, RI, VT, WI
Principle 8	9	FL, IL, KS, ME, MN, NV, NH, PA, VT
Principle 9	10	CA, CO, ME, MN, MT, NV, NH, NY, PA, VT
Principle 10	4	CO, KY, MA, WY
Principle 11	17	CT, DC, IN, IA, KS, ME, MA, MN, MO, MT, NV, NY, OH, OR, RI, VT, WI
Principle 12	7	AL, IA, NC, OR, RI, VT, WY
Principle 13	22	AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NC, OH, OR, RI, VT, WI, WY
Principle 14	0
Principle 15	23	CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MN, MO, NV, NH, NY, NC, OH, OR, RI, VT, WI, WY

Note. Based on a total of 50 states and the District of Columbia (n = 51).

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to continue to investigate the evolving descriptive findings (Freeman & Sugai, 2013; Ryan et al., 2009) with regard to restraint and seclusion. The most recent findings from spring of 2011 (reported by Freeman & Sugai, 2013) found (a) positive changes to state policy and legislation, (b) common themes with regard to prevention (e.g., aversive procedures decreased), (c) procedural preventive measures (e.g., crisis prevention) increased, and (d) increased evidence of parental involvement and staff debriefing. Freeman and Sugai provided an excellent review and identified important themes, many of which were included in the U.S. DOE’s Resource Document.

Overall, this review found that states are continuing to update and develop legislation and policy on restraint and seclusion. In fact, this review found that an additional four states made legislative changes since Freeman and Sugai’s investigation. In addition, eight states updated their policy. The changes may suggest state-level understanding of the need to reduce restraint/seclusion practices in schools.

Although the Resource Document is not currently a federal mandate, 16 states have referenced the U.S. DOE’s document on their websites, within correspondence letters to school districts, in technical assistance or professional development materials, or in their policy guidance. The references to the Resource Document suggest the impact of federal guidance on state-level policy. Also, it was found that many state’s current legislation and policy documents are somewhat aligned to the 15 guiding principles. Although improvements have been noted, there is a need for continued dissemination of the guiding principles to support the continued reduction of restraint/seclusion practices in schools.

Limitations of the descriptive findings and the summaries of this report should be considered. First, only the availability of each state’s legislation and policy via the Internet were considered for this report. As noted, the Resource Document provided the authors a starting point to locate state documents. It should be made aware that the results of this report may not reflect state’s efforts and availability of documents, nor was it the author’s intent to report the lack of documents across each state. In the future, contacting state agencies may increase the interpretation and generalization of the results. Second, although the authors went through several rounds of training to operationalize the 15 principles (see Table 1), and randomly selected states for IRR, it was difficult to get 100% agreement. This limitation may be due to (a) the difficulty to find agreement across three codes, (b) the differences in format across all of the states’ documents and definitions, and/or (c) human error.

Finally, this report’s primary focus investigated the alignment of states’ legislation and policy to the 15 principles in the Resource Document. It should be noted that these principles are novel, and it is likely that states have not had sufficient time to update policy and legislation. Also, the Resource Document is not a federal mandate, so interpretation of the results of this report should not be used to make inferences or be used to reflect individual state’s progress or lack of progress toward updating or developing restraint and seclusion legislation and policy.

Recommendations

Presently, federal guidance on restraint and seclusion, as provided through the Resource Document, supports the recommendations made by Freeman and Sugai (2013), especially in relationship to state-level data reporting, use of preventive approaches, and identifying clear limitations for the use of restraint and seclusion. The Resource Document provides initial guidance from the federal level on guiding principles states should consider when developing policy and legislation on restraint and seclusion in the schools. As a result, the current report should only be viewed as a preliminary indication of state’s alignment between policy/legislation and federal guidance. The present review confirms the results from previous reports (Freeman & Sugai, 2013; Ryan et al., 2009) that states are more frequently developing policy and legislation on restraint and seclusion, though there remains high variability across states. As a result, recommendations for states to consider when creating or revising policy and legislation related to restraint and seclusion in the schools are suggested.

Consider aligning policy and legislation with the 15 principles

Previously, no federal guidance on restraint and seclusion was offered. Now, with the release of the Resource Document, states have a reference point to assist in developing or revising policies and legislation on restraint and seclusion. The Resource Document provides an overview of each of the principles and offers specific examples that could be considered in policy and legislation development or revision. States may want to consider developing task forces that include a variety of stakeholders from legislative circuits, school boards, and practitioners to promote consistency across legislation and policy. The overview of each principle provided through the Resource Document may be considered when developing or revising more broad legislation on the topic of restraint and seclusion, while specific examples could be embedded into policies.

Develop comprehensive policy and legislation

Now that federal guidance has been provided, states may want to review the depth of their legislation and policy on restraint and seclusion. Although states may have existing mandates or guidance available that relate to specific principles (e.g., SW-PBIS, FBA, and positive behavioral supports within individualized education plans), by not including the principles directly in restraint/seclusion legislation and policy, changes in practice may not be evidenced. States may want to consider revising their restraint/seclusion policy and legislation to incorporate, or more explicitly connect, existing mandates or guidance aligned to the guiding principles. Ensuring that restraint/seclusion policy and legislation embed the guiding principles may increase schools’ use of preventive approaches and reduce restraint/seclusion practices. The development of comprehensive policy and legislation to support all students may also help to minimize the use of restraint and seclusion in the schools.

Conclusion

The present investigation examined states’ legislation and policy in relationship to the guiding principles as a way to identify whether states are incorporating best practices, including preventive and proactive approaches, in their restraint/seclusion legislation and policy. Thirty-eight states have existing legislation and 45 have policy on restraint and seclusion, with improvement noted over time. Now that federal guidance is available, states may want to revisit their existing policies and legislation on restraint and seclusion and consider alignment with the guiding principles. The U.S. DOE’s release of the Resource Document provides the first evidence of federal guidance with regard to restraint and seclusion. Although the Resource Document is not a federal mandate, it is the most current federal guidance to date on restraint and/or seclusion, and is presently the best source of guidance for states to consider for reducing the use of restraint/seclusion and for promoting safe learning environments.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (2009). Unsafe in the schoolhouse: Abuse of children with disabilities. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.copaa.org/resource/collection/662B1866-952D-41FA-B7F3-D3CF68639918/UnsafeCOPAAMay_27_2009.pdf

Freeman

Sugai

(2013). Recent changes in state policies and legislation regarding restraint and seclusion. Exceptional Children, 79, 427–438.

Keeping All Kids Safe Act, H.R. 4247, 111th Cong. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr4247rfs/pdf/BILLS-111hr4247rfs.pdf

Keeping All Students Safe Act, S. 2036, 113th Cong. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BILLS-113s2036is

Majority Committee Staff Report. (2014). Dangerous use of seclusion and restraints in schools remains widespread and difficult to remedy: A review of ten cases. Retrieved from http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Seclusion%20and%20Restraints%20Final%20Report.pdf

Persi

Pasquali

(1999). The use of seclusions and physical restraints: Just how consistent are we? Child & Youth Care Forum, 28, 87–103.

Ryan

J. B.

Peterson

R. L.

(2004). Physical restraint in school. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 154–168.

Ryan

J. B.

Peterson

R. L.

Rozalski

(2007). State policies concerning the use of seclusion timeout in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 215–239.

Ryan

J. B.

Robbins

Peterson

R. L.

Rozalski

(2009). Review of state policies concerning the use of physical restraint procedures in schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 487–504.

10.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2009). Seclusions and restraints: Selected cases of death and abuse at public and private schools and treatment centers. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/122526.pdf

11.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Summary of seclusion and restraint statutes, regulations, policies and guidance, by state and territory: Information as reported to the regional comprehensive centers and gathered from other sources. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/summary-by-state.pdf

12.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Restraint and seclusion: Resource document. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/restraints-and-seclusion-resources.pdf

13.

Villani

V. S.

Parsons

A. E.

Church

R. P.

Beetar

J. T.

(2012). A descriptive study of the use of restraint and seclusion in a special education school. Child Youth Care Forum, 41, 295–309.