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 Document1 

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 serious consequences, including, most tragically, death. 

There is 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. 

Physical restraint or seclusion should not be used 

except in situations where the 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. Schools should 

never use mechanical restraints to restrict a child’s 

1 The U.S. Department of Education issues this Resource 

Document to provide guidance, and describe fifteen principles that States, school districts, school staff, parents, and 

other stakeholders may find helpful to consider when States, 

localities, and districts develop practices, policies, and 

procedures on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. 

Our goal in providing this information is to inform States 

and school districts about how they can help to ensure that 

schools are safe learning environments for all students. As 

guidance, the extent to which States and school districts 

implement these principles in furtherance of that goal is a 

matter for State and local school officials to decide using 

their professional judgment, especially in applying this 

information to specific situations and circumstances. This 

document does not set forth any new requirements, does not 

create or confer any rights for or on any person or require 

specific actions by any State, locality, or school district. 

We are interested in making this document as informative 

and useful as possible. If you are interested in commenting 

on this document, please e-mail your comments to Restraint. 

Seclusion@ed.gov or write to us at the following address: 

US Department of Education, 550 12th Street SW, PCP 

Room 4160, Washington, DC 20202-2600. 

freedom of movement.2 In addition, schools should 

never use a drug or medication to control behavior 

or restrict freedom of movement unless it is (1) 

prescribed by a licensed physician, or other qualified 

health professional acting under the scope of the 

professional’s authority under State law; and (2) 

administered as prescribed by the licensed physician 

or other qualified health professional acting under 

the scope of the professional’s authority under State 

law. Teachers, administrators, and staff understand 

that students’ social behavior can affect their academic learning. In many high-performing schools 

effective academic instruction is combined with 

effective behavior supports to maximize academic 

engagement and, thus, student achievement. 

Students are more likely to achieve when they are 

(1) directly taught school and classroom routines 

and social expectations that are predictable and 

contextually relevant; (2) acknowledged clearly 

and consistently for their displays of positive 

academic and social behavior; and (3) treated by 

2 As the definition on page six of this document makes clear, 

“mechanical restraint” as used in this document 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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 2 
others with respect. (Algozzine, R., Wang, C., and 

Violette, C., 2011; McIntosh, K., Chard, D., Boland, 

J., and horner, R., 2006). Building effective 

behavioral supports in schools also involves several 

ongoing interrelated activities, including (1) investing in the whole school rather than just students with 

problem behavior; (2) focusing on preventing the 

development and occurrence of problem behavior; 

(3) reviewing behavioral data regularly to adapt 

school procedures to the needs of all students and 

their families; and (4) providing additional academic 

and social behavioral supports for students who are 

not making expected progress (Sugai, g., horner, 

R., Algozzine, R., Barrett, S., Lewis, T., Anderson, 

C., Bradley, R., Choi, J. h., Dunlap, g., Eber, L., 

george, h., Kincaid, D., McCart, A., Nelson, M., 

Newcomer, L., Putnam, R., Riffel, L., Rovins, M., 

Sailor, W., Simonsen, B. (2010)). 

Positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) 

is a multi-tiered school-wide approach to establishing the social culture that is helpful for schools to 

achieve social and academic gains while minimizing 

problem behavior for all children. Over 17,000 

schools across the country are implementing PBIS, 

which provides a framework for decision-making 

that guides the implementation of evidence-based 

academic and behavioral practices throughout the 

entire school, frequently resulting in significant 

Restraint or seclusion should 

not be used as routine school 

safety measures; that is, they 

should not be implemented 

except in situations where 

a child’s behavior poses 

imminent danger of serious 

physical harm to self or 

others and not as a routine 

strategy implemented to 

address instructional 

problems or inappropriate 

behavior (e.g., disrespect, 

noncompliance, insubordination, out of seat), as a means 

of coercion or retaliation, or 

as a convenience. 

reductions in the behaviors that lead to office disciplinary referrals, suspensions, and expulsions. While 

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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 3 
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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 4 
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 

accountable for adhering to the guidelines. The letter 

went on to highlight the use of PBIS as an important 

preventive approach that can increase the capacity 

of the school staff to support children with the 

most complex behavioral needs, thus reducing the 

instances that require intensive interventions. 

Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Education 

(the Department) asked its regional Comprehensive 

Centers to collect each State’s statutes, regulations, 

policies, and guidelines regarding the use of restraint 

and seclusion, and posted that information on the 

Department’s Web site.3 Additionally, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights revised the Civil 

Rights Data Collection beginning with school year 

2009-2010 to require reporting of the total number 

of students subjected to restraint or seclusion disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English proficiency status, and disability, and to collect the total 

number of times that restraint or seclusion occurred.4 

Additionally, in 2009, the Substance Abuse and 

Mental health Services Administration (SAMhSA) 

of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (DhhS), asked the Department’s Office 

of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to review 

a paper commissioned by SAMHSA (with the assistance of an expert work group) addressing the 

issue of restraint and seclusion in schools. Based on 

Secretary Duncan’s letter to the Chief State School 

Officers and the experiences of SAMhSA with 

reducing, and in some cases eliminating, the use 

of restraint and seclusion in mental health facilities, 

the Department determined that it would be beneficial to all children if information and technical 

assistance were provided to State departments of 

education, local school districts, and preschool, 

elementary, and secondary schools regarding limiting the use of restraint and seclusion to situations 

involving imminent danger of serious physical harm 

to children or others.5 

3 A revised version of that information is included in this 

document as Attachment A. 

4 These data are available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov. 

5 More detail about these efforts is included later in this 

document. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 5 
 

The purpose of this Resource Document is to present and describe 15 principles for State, district, and 

school staff; parents; and other stakeholders to consider when States, localities, and districts develop 

policies and procedures, which should be in writing 

on the use of restraint and seclusion. The principles 

are based on the nine principles that Secretary of 

Education Arne Duncan articulated in a 2009 letter 

to Chairman Christopher Dodd, Chairman george 

Miller, and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers 

in response to proposed legislation on restraint and 

seclusion. In his letter, the Secretary affirmed the 

Department’s position that restraint and seclusion 

should not be used except when necessary to protect 

a child or others from imminent danger of serious 

physical harm. Since the Secretary issued his 2009 

letter, the Department, working with the Department 

of health and human Services, further developed 

In cases where a student 
 


has a history of dangerous 
 


behavior for which restraint 
 


or seclusion was considered 
 


or used, a school should 


have a plan for: (1) teaching 
 


and supporting more 
 


appropriate behavior; and 
 


(2) determining positive 

methods to prevent behavioral 

escalations that have 

previously resulted in the 

use of restraint or seclusion. 

and refined the principles. The Department and the 

Department of Health and Human Services urge 

States, local districts, and schools to adopt policies 

that consider these 15 principles as the framework 

for the development and implementation of policies 

and procedures related to restraint and seclusion to 

help 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 a school. 

The goal in presenting these principles is to help 

ensure that all schools and all learning environments 

are safe for all children and adults. This Resource 

Document discusses the context within which 

these principles were developed, lists the principles, 

and highlights the current state of practice and 

implementation considerations for each principle. 

Additionally, this document provides a synopsis 

of ongoing efforts by Federal agencies to address 

national concerns about using restraint and seclusion 

in schools. Two attachments at the end of this document provide information about State policies on the 

use of restraint and seclusion in our nation’s public 

schools and an annotated resource guide on the use 

of restraint and seclusion in schools. 

OthER SignifiCant fEDERal 

aCtivity REgaRDing thE USE 

Of REStRaint anD SEClUSiOn 

in SChOOlS 

U.S. government accountability 

Office Report 

The U.S. house of Representatives’ Committee on 

Education and Labor requested the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (gAO) to review the available evidence on the use of restraint and seclusion 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 6 
that resulted in death and abuse at public and private 

schools and treatment centers. The GAO reviewed 

applicable Federal and State laws, interviewed 

knowledgeable State officials and recognized 

experts, and examined available evidence of abuse 

allegations from parents, advocacy organizations, 

and the media for the period between 1990 and 

2009. These evidence reviews also involved the 

examination of selected closed cases, including 

police and autopsy reports and school policies on 

restraint or seclusion related to these cases. 

The gAO report, titled Examining the Abusive and 

Deadly Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Schools 

(issued May 19, 2009), included three sets of findings. First, the gAO found that there were no current 

Federal regulations, but a wide variety of divergent 

State regulations, governing the use of restraint and 

seclusion in public and private schools. Second, the 

GAO reported that there were no reliable national 

data on when and how often restraint and seclusion 

are being used in schools, or on the extent of abuse 

resulting from the use of these practices in educational settings nationally. however, the gAO identified several hundred cases of alleged abuse, including deaths that were related to the use of restraint or 

seclusion of children in public and private schools. 

Finally, the gAO provided detailed documentation 

of the abuse of restraint or seclusion in a sample of 

10 closed cases that resulted in criminal convictions, 

findings of civil or administrative liability, or a large 

financial settlement. The gAO further observed that 

problems with untrained or poorly trained staff were 

often related to many instances of alleged abuse. 

Congressional hearings and Proposed 

legislation 

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, Preventing 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 December, 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 restraint and seclusion in schools to cases where there 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 7 
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 
 


schools.
 
 

is imminent danger of physical injury to the student 

or others at school; (2) provide criteria and steps 

for the proper use of restraint or seclusion; and (3) 

promote the use of positive reinforcement and other, 

less restrictive behavioral interventions 

in school. These measures also would have authorized support to States and localities in adopting 

more stringent oversight of the use of restraint and 

seclusion in schools, and would have established 

requirements for collecting data on the use of these 

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. 

Congressional Research Service Report 

In October, 2010, the Congressional Research 

Service issued a report to Congress titled The 

Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Public Schools: 

The Legal Issues. The report focused on the legal 

issues regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in 

schools, including their use with children covered 

by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA) and with children not covered by IDEA. The 

report addressed (1) definitions (Civil Rights Data 

Collection definitions); (2) constitutional issues; 

(3) IDEA judicial decisions related to seclusion and 

restraint; (4) State laws and policies; and (5) Federal 

legislation. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 8 
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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 9 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

References in this document to “restraint” encompass the terms “physical restraint” and “mechanical 

restraint” as defined in the CRDC. References to 

“seclusion” encompass “seclusion” as defined in the 

CRDC. According to the gAO report, each of these 

types of restraint is currently being used in schools. 

the CRDC defines physical restraint as: 

■■	 A personal restriction that immobilizes or 

reduces the ability of a student to move his or 

her torso, arms, legs, or head freely. The term 

physical restraint does not include a physical 

escort. Physical escort means a temporary 

touching or holding of the hand, wrist, arm, 

shoulder, or back for the purpose of inducing 

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; 

■■ Restraints for medical immobilization; or 

■■ Orthopedically prescribed devices that 

permit a student to participate in activities 

without risk of harm. 

the CRDC defines seclusion as: 

■■	 The involuntary confinement of a student alone 

in a room or area from which the student is 

physically prevented from leaving. It does not 

include a timeout, which is a behavior management technique that is part of an approved 

program, involves the monitored separation 

of the student in a non-locked setting, and is 

implemented for the purpose of calming. 

A copy of the 2009-2010 CRDC and the OCR 

definitions of restraint and seclusion can be found 

at the following Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/ 

about/offices/list/ocr/whatsnew.html. Restraint and 

seclusion data are available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov.6 

6 As these terms are used in this document, “restraint” does 

not include behavioral interventions used as a response to 

calm and comfort (e.g., proximity control, verbal soothing) 

an upset student and “seclusion” does not include classroom 

timeouts, supervised in-school detentions, or out-of-school 

suspensions. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 10 
fifteen Principles7 

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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 11 
The Department recognizes that States, localities, 

and districts may choose to exceed the framework 

set by the 15 principles by providing additional 

protections from restraint and seclusion. 

fiftEEn PRinCiPlES 

1.		 Every effort should be made to prevent the 

need for the use of restraint and for the use of 

seclusion.
 
 

2.		 Schools should never use mechanical restraints 

to restrict a child’s freedom of movement, and 

schools should never use a drug or medication 

to control behavior or restrict freedom of 

movement (except as authorized by a licensed 

physician or other qualified health professional).

3.	 Physical restraint or seclusion should not be 

used except in situations where the child’s 

behavior poses imminent danger of serious 

physical harm to self or others and other 

interventions are ineffective and should be 

discontinued as soon as imminent danger 

of serious physical harm to self or others 

has dissipated. 

4.	 Policies restricting the use of restraint and 

seclusion should apply to all children, not just 

children with disabilities. 

5.	 Any behavioral intervention must be consistent

with the child’s rights to be treated with dignity

and to be free from abuse. 

6.		 Restraint or seclusion should never be used 

as punishment or discipline (e.g., placing in 

seclusion for out-of-seat behavior), as a means 

of coercion or retaliation, or as a convenience.
	
	

7.	 Restraint or seclusion should never be used in 

a manner that restricts a child’s breathing or 

harms the child. 

8.	 The use of restraint or seclusion, particularly 

when there is repeated use for an individual 

child, multiple uses within the same classroom, 

or multiple uses by the same individual, should 

trigger a review and, if appropriate, revision 

of strategies currently in place to address 

dangerous behavior;8 if positive behavioral 

strategies are not in place, staff should 

consider developing them. 

9.	 Behavioral strategies to address dangerous 

behavior that results in the use of restraint or 

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, 

such as positive behavioral interventions and 

supports and, only for cases involving imminent 

danger of serious physical harm, on the safe use 

of physical restraint and seclusion. 

Every effort should 

be made to prevent 

the need for the use 

of restraint and for 

the use of seclusion. 

7 This Resource Document addresses the restraint or seclusion of any student regardless of whether the student has a 

disability. Federal laws, including the IDEA, the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, must be followed in any instance in which a student with a disability is 

restrained or secluded, or where such action is contemplated. 

This Resource Document does not, however, address the 

legal requirements contained in those laws. 

8 As used in this document, the phrase “dangerous behavior” 

refers to behavior that poses imminent danger of serious 

physical harm to self or others. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 12 
	 

11. Every instance in which restraint or seclusion is 

used should be carefully and continuously and 

visually monitored to ensure the appropriateness 

of its use and safety of the child, other children, 

teachers, and other personnel. 

12. Parents should be informed of the policies on 

restraint and seclusion at their child’s school or 

other educational setting, as well as applicable 

Federal, State, or local laws. 

13. Parents should be notified as soon as possible 

following each instance in which restraint or 

seclusion is used with their child. 

14. Policies regarding the use of restraint and 

seclusion should be reviewed regularly and 

updated as appropriate. 

15. Policies regarding the use of restraint and seclusion should provide that each incident involving 

the use of restraint or seclusion should be documented in writing and provide for the collection 

of specific data that would enable teachers, 

staff, and other personnel to understand and 

implement the preceding principles. 

Following is additional information about each of 

the 15 principles. 

1.	 Every effort should be made to prevent the 

need for the use of restraint and for the use 

of seclusion. 

All children should be educated in safe, respectful, and non-restrictive environments 

where they can receive the instruction and 

other supports they need to learn and achieve 

at high levels. Environments can be structured 

to greatly reduce, and in many cases eliminate, 

the need to use restraint or seclusion. SAMHSA 

notes in its Issue Brief #1: Promoting Alternatives to the Use of Seclusion and Restraint, that 

with leadership and policy and programmatic 

change, the use of seclusion and restraint can be 

prevented and in some facilities has been eliminated. One primary method is to structure the 

environment using a non-aversive effective behavioral system such as PBIS. Effective positive 

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 interventions 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 learning and academic success. Schools successfully implementing comprehensive behavioral 

systems create school-wide environments that 

reinforce appropriate behaviors while reducing instances of dangerous behaviors that may 

lead to the need to use restraint or seclusion. In 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 13 
		

		

schools implementing comprehensive behavioral systems, trained school staff use preventive 

assessments to identify where, under what conditions, with whom, and why specific inappropriate behavior may occur, as well as implement 

de-escalation techniques to defuse potentially 

violent dangerous behavior. Preventive assessments should include (1) a review of existing 

records; (2) interviews with parents, family 

members, and students; and (3) examination of 

previous and existing behavioral intervention 

plans. Using these data from such assessments 

helps schools identify the conditions when 

inappropriate behavior is likely to occur and the 

factors that lead to the occurrence of these behaviors; and develop and implement preventive 

behavioral interventions that teach appropriate 

behavior and modify the environmental factors 

that escalate the inappropriate behavior. The use 

of comprehensive behavioral systems significantly decreases the likelihood that restraint or 

seclusion would be used, supports the attainment of more appropriate behavior, and, when 

implemented as described, can help to improve 

academic achievement and behavior. 

Schools should never 

use mechanical restraints 

to restrict a child’s freedom of movement, and 

schools should never 

use a drug or medication to control behavior 

or restrict freedom of 

movement (except as 

authorized by a licensed 

physician or other qualified health professional). 

2.		 Schools should never use mechanical 

restraints to restrict a child’s freedom of 

movement, and schools should never use a 

drug or medication to control behavior or 

restrict freedom of movement (except as 

authorized by a licensed physician or other 

qualified health professional). 

Schools should never use mechanical restraints 

to restrict a child’s freedom of movement. In 

addition, schools should never use a drug or 

medication to control behavior or restrict freedom of movement unless it is (1) prescribed by 

a licensed physician, or other qualified health 

professional acting under the scope of the 

professional’s authority under State law; and 

(2) administered as prescribed by the licensed 

physician or other qualified health professional 

acting under the scope of the professional’s 

authority under State law. 

3.		 Physical restraint or seclusion should not be 

used except in situations where the child’s 

behavior poses imminent danger of serious 

physical harm to self or others and other 

interventions are ineffective and should be 

discontinued as soon as imminent danger of 

serious physical harm to self or others has 

dissipated. 

Physical restraint or seclusion should be 

reserved for situations or conditions where 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 14 
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., disrespect, noncompliance, insubordination, out of 

seat) that does not pose imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others, nor should 

a child be restrained and secluded simultaneously as this could endanger the child. In addition, planned behavioral strategies should be 

in place and used to: (1) de-escalate potentially 

violent dangerous behavior; (2) identify and 

support competing positive behavior to replace 

dangerous behavior; and (3) support appropriate behavior in class and throughout the school, 

especially if a student has a history of escalating 

dangerous behavior. 

4.		 Policies restricting the use of restraint and 

seclusion should apply to all children, not 

just children with disabilities. 

Behavior that results in the rare use of restraint 

or seclusion -- that posing imminent danger of 

serious physical harm to self or others -- is not 

limited to children with disabilities, children 

with a particular disability, or specific groups 

of children (e.g., gender, race, national origin, 

limited English proficiency, etc.) without disabilities. Thus, to the extent that State and local 

policies address the use of restraint or seclusion, 

those policies, including assessment and prevention strategies, should apply to all children 

in the school, all staff who work directly or 

indirectly with children, and across all settings 

under the responsibility of the school. 

5.		 Any behavioral intervention must be consistent with the child’s rights to be treated with 

dignity and to be free from abuse. 

Every child deserves to be treated with dignity, 

be free from abuse, and treated as a unique 

individual with individual needs, strengths, and 

circumstances (e.g., age, developmental level, 

medical needs). The use of any technique that is 

abusive is illegal and should be reported to the 

appropriate authorities. Schools should consider implementing an evidence-based schoolwide system or framework of positive behavioral interventions and supports. Key elements 

of a school-wide system or framework include 

(1) universal screening to identify children at 

risk for behavioral problems; (2) use of a continuum of increasingly intensive behavioral and 

academic interventions for children identified 

as being at risk; (3) an emphasis on teaching 

and acknowledging school-wide and individual 

expected behaviors and social skills; and (4) 

systems to monitor the responsiveness of 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 15 
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. 

Restraint or seclusion should not be used as 

routine school safety measures; that is, they 

should not be implemented except in situations 

where a child’s behavior poses imminent danger 

of serious physical harm to self or others and 

not as a routine strategy implemented to address 

instructional problems or inappropriate behavior 

(e.g., disrespect, noncompliance, insubordination, out of seat), as a means of coercion or 

retaliation, or as a convenience. Restraint or 

seclusion should only be used for limited periods of time and should cease immediately when 

the imminent danger of serious physical harm to 

self or others has dissipated. Restraint or seclusion should not be used (1) as a form of punishment or discipline (e.g., for out-of-seat behavior); (2) as a means to coerce, retaliate, or as a 

convenience for staff; (3) as a planned behavioral intervention in response to behavior that does 

not pose imminent danger of serious physical 

harm to self or others; or (4) in a manner that 

endangers the child. For example, it would be 

inappropriate to use restraint or seclusion for 

(1) failure to follow expected classroom or 

school rules; (2) noncompliance with staff directions; (3) the use of inappropriate language; 

(4) to “punish” a child for inappropriate behavior; or (5) staff to have an uninterrupted time 

together to discuss school issues. 

7.		 Restraint or seclusion should never be used 

in a manner that restricts a child’s breathing 

or harms the child. 

Prone (i.e., lying face down) restraints or other 

restraints that restrict breathing should never be 

used because they can cause serious injury or 

death. Breathing can also be restricted if loose 

clothing becomes entangled or tightened or if 

the child’s face is covered by a staff member’s 

body part (e.g., hand, arm, or torso) or through 

pressure to the abdomen or chest. Any restraint 

or seclusion technique should be consistent with 

known medical or other special needs of a child. 

School districts should be cognizant that certain 

restraint and seclusion techniques are more restrictive than others, and use the least restrictive 

technique necessary to end the threat of imminent danger of serious physical harm. A child’s 

ability to communicate (including for those 

children who use only sign language or other 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 16 
forms of manual communication or assistive 

technology) also should not be restricted unless 

less restrictive techniques would not prevent 

imminent danger of serious physical harm to 

the student or others. In all circumstances, 

the use of restraint or seclusion should never 

harm a child. 

8.		 The use of restraint or seclusion, particularly when there is repeated use for an individual child, multiple uses within the same 

classroom, or multiple uses by the same 

individual, should trigger a review and, if 

appropriate, a revision of behavioral strategies currently in place to address dangerous 

behavior; if positive behavioral strategies 

are not in place, staff should consider developing them. 

In cases where a student has a history of dangerous behavior for which restraint or seclusion was considered or used, a school should 

have a plan for (1) teaching and supporting 

more appropriate behavior; and (2) determining 

positive methods to prevent behavioral escalations that have previously resulted in the use of 

restraint or seclusion. Trained personnel should 

develop this plan in concert with parents and 

relevant professionals by using practices such as 

functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and 

behavioral intervention plans (BIPs). An FBA is 

used to analyze environmental factors, including 

any history of trauma (e.g., physical abuse), that 

contribute to a child’s inappropriate (e.g., disrespect, noncompliance, insubordination, out-ofseat) behaviors. FBA data are used to develop 

positive behavioral strategies that emphasize 

redesigning environmental conditions, which 

may include changes in staff approaches and 

techniques, so that appropriate behavior is more 

likely to occur and inappropriate and dangerous 

behavior is less likely to occur. 

When restraint or seclusion is repeatedly used 

with a child, used multiple times within the 

same classroom, or used multiple times by the 

same individual, a review of the student’s BIP 

should occur, the prescribed behavioral strategies should be modified, if needed; and staff 

training and skills should be re-evaluated. The 

need for the review is based on the individual 

needs of the child and the determination should 

include input from the family; a review could be 

necessitated by a single application of restraint 

or seclusion. This review may entail conducting another FBA to refine the BIP or examining 

the implementation of the current plan. If the 

student has a history of dangerous behavior and 

has been subjected to restraint or seclusion, a 

review and plan should be conducted prior to 

the student entering any program, classroom, or 

school. In all cases the reviews should consider 

not only the effectiveness of the plan, but also 

the capability of school staff to carry out the 

plan. Furthermore, if restraint or seclusion was 

used with a child who does not have an FBA 

and BIP, an FBA should be conducted and, if 

needed, a BIP developed and implemented that 

incorporates positive behavioral strategies for 

that child, including teaching positive behaviors. The long-term goal of FBAs and BIPs is to 

develop and implement preventive behavioral 

interventions, including increasing appropriate 

positive behaviors, that reduce the likelihood 

that restraint or seclusion will be used with a 

child in the future. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 17 
9.		 Behavioral strategies to address dangerous 

behavior that results in the use of restraint 

or seclusion should address the underlying 

cause or purpose of the dangerous behavior. 

Behavioral strategies, particularly when implemented as part of a school-wide program of 

positive behavioral supports, can be used to 

address the underlying causes of dangerous 

behavior and reduce the likelihood that restraint 

or seclusion will need to be used. Behavior does 

not occur in a vacuum but is associated with 

conditions, events, requirements, and characteristics of a given situation or setting. An FBA can 

identify the combination of antecedent factors 

(factors that immediately precede behavior) 

and consequences (factors that immediately 

follow behavior) that are associated with the 

occurrence of inappropriate behavior. Information collected through direct observations, 

interviews, and record reviews help to identify 

the function of the dangerous behavior and 

guide the development of BIPs. A complete BIP 

should describe strategies for (1) addressing 

the characteristics of the setting and events; 

(2) removing antecedents that trigger dangerous 

behavior; (3) adding antecedents that 

maintain appropriate behavior; (4) removing 

consequences that maintain or escalate 

dangerous behaviors; (5) adding consequences 

that maintain appropriate behavior; and (6) 

teaching alternative appropriate behaviors, 

including self regulation techniques, to replace 

the dangerous behaviors. 

10. Teachers and other personnel should be 

trained regularly on the appropriate use of 

effective alternatives to physical restraint 

and seclusion, such as positive behavioral 

interventions and supports and, only for 

cases involving imminent danger of serious 

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 behavioral 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, including both proper uses (e.g., as safety measures 

to address imminent danger of physical harm) 

and improper uses (e.g., as punishment or to 

manage behavior) of these procedures. In addition, school personnel should be trained in how 

to safely implement procedures for physical 

restraint and seclusion and only trained personnel should employ these interventions; as well 

as how to collect and analyze individual child 

data to determine the effectiveness of these procedures in increasing appropriate behavior and 

decreasing inappropriate behavior. These data 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 18 
 

should inform the need for additional 

training, staff support, or policy change, 

particularly when data indicate repeated use 

of these interventions by staff. 

School personnel also should receive training 

on the school’s policies and procedures for the 

timely reporting and documentation of all instances in which restraint or seclusion are used. 

At a minimum, training on the use of physical 

restraint and seclusion and effective alternatives 

should be provided at the beginning and middle 

of each school year. however, such training 

should be conducted more often if there are enrolled students with a history or high incidence 

of dangerous behavior who may be subjected 

to physical restraint or seclusion procedures. In 

addition, school administrators should evaluate 

whether staff who engage in multiple uses of 

restraint or seclusion need additional training. 

All school personnel should receive comprehensive training on school-wide programs of positive behavioral supports and other strategies, 

including de-escalation techniques, for preventing dangerous behavior that leads to the use of 

restraint or seclusion. Training for principals 

and other school administrators should cover 

how to develop, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of school-wide behavioral programs. 

Training for teachers, paraprofessionals, and 

other personnel who work directly with children 

should be ongoing and include refreshers on 

positive behavior management strategies, proper 

use of positive reinforcement, the continuum 

of alternative behavioral interventions, crisis 

prevention, de-escalation strategies, and the safe 

use of physical restraint and seclusion. 

Use and prevention training should be accompanied by regular supervised practice. Like 

quarterly fire drills, all staff members should be 

expected to regularly and frequently review and 

practice approaches to prevent the conditions 

that result in the use of restraint or seclusion 

and in the use of specific and planned physical 

restraint or seclusion procedures. A team 

of trained personnel should monitor practice 

sessions to check for adherence to and 

documentation of planned procedures. 

Behavioral strategies, particularly when implemented as 

part of a school-wide program 

of positive behavioral supports, can be used to address 

the underlying causes of 

dangerous behavior and 

reduce the likelihood that 

restraint or seclusion will 

need to be used. 

11. Every instance in which restraint or 

seclusion is used should be carefully and 

continuously and visually monitored to 

ensure the appropriateness of its use and the 

safety of the child, other children, teachers, 

and other personnel. 

If restraint or seclusion is used, the child 

should be continuously and visually observed 

and monitored while he or she is restrained or 

placed in seclusion. Only school personnel who 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 19
have received the required training on the use 

of restraint and seclusion should be engaged in 

observing and monitoring these children. Monitoring should include a procedural checklist and 

recordkeeping procedures. School staff engaged 

in monitoring should be knowledgeable regarding (1) restraint and seclusion procedures 

and effective alternatives; (2) emergency and 

crisis procedures; (3) strategies to guide and 

prompt staff members engaged in restraint or 

seclusion procedures; and (4) procedures and 

processes for working as a team to implement, 

monitor, and debrief uses of restraint or seclusion. Monitoring staff should receive training 

to ensure that the use of physical restraint or 

seclusion does not harm the child or others, and 

that procedures are implemented as planned. 

For example, those observing the application of 

a restraint should confirm that the restraint does 

not cause harm to the child, such as restricting 

the child’s breathing. Continuous monitoring of 

restraint includes, for example: (1) continuous 

assessment of staff and student status, including potential physical injuries; (2) termination 

of restraint or seclusion when imminent danger 

of serious physical harm to self or others has 

dissipated; (3) evaluation of how procedures 

are being implemented; and (4) consideration 

of opportunities for redirection and defusing the 

dangerous behavior. In developing procedures, 

States, districts, and schools should consider 

having school health personnel promptly assess 

the child after the imposition of restraints or 

seclusion. 

Trained school staff should also inspect and 

prepare the seclusion area before a child is 

placed in seclusion. For example, the area 

should be free of any objects a child could use 

to injure him- or herself or others. School staff 

should either be inside the area or outside by a 

window or another adjacent location where staff 

can continuously observe the child and confirm 

that the child is not engaging in self-injurious 

behavior. When a child is in seclusion, trained 

school staff should constantly watch the child. 

Such observation and monitoring is critical in 

determining when the imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others has dissipated so that the restraint or seclusion can be immediately discontinued. Proper observation and 

monitoring and written documentation of the 

use of restraint or seclusion helps to ensure the 

continued safety of the child being restrained or 

secluded as well as the safety of other children 

and school personnel. 

12. Parents should be informed of the policies 

on restraint and seclusion at their child’s 

school or other educational setting, as well 

as applicable Federal, State or local laws. 

All parents should receive, at least annually, 

written information about the policies and 

procedures for restraint and seclusion issued by 

the State, district, or school. This information 

should be included, for example, in the district’s 

or school’s handbook of policies and procedures or other appropriate and widely distributed school publications. Schools, districts, and 

States are encouraged to involve parents when 

developing policies and procedures on restraint 

and seclusion. These written descriptions 

should include the following: (1) a statement 

that mechanical restraint should not be used, 

that schools should never use a drug or medication to control behavior or restrict freedom of 

movement (except as authorized by a licensed 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 20 
In addition, preventive 

strategies to reduce the 

likelihood that restraint 

or seclusion will need 

to be used with a child 

should be established, 

documented, and 

communicated to the 

child’s parents. 

physician or other qualified health professional), 

and physical restraint and seclusion should not 

be used except in situations where the child’s 

behavior poses an imminent danger of serious 

physical harm to self or others and should be 

discontinued as soon as the imminent danger of 

serious physical harm to self or others has dissipated; (2) definitions of restraint and seclusion; 

(3) information on the procedures for determining when restraint or seclusion can and cannot 

be properly used in school settings; (4) information on the procedural safeguards that are in 

place to protect the rights of children and their 

parents; (5) a description of the alignment of a 

district’s and school’s policies and procedures 

with applicable State or local laws or regulations; (6) procedures for notifying parents when 

restraint or seclusion has been used with their 

child; and (7) procedures for notifying parents 

about any changes to policies and procedures 

on restraint or seclusion. If policy or procedural 

changes are made during the school year staff 

and family members should be notified 

immediately. In addition, preventive strategies 

to reduce the likelihood that restraint or seclusion will need to be used with a child should be 

established, documented, and communicated 

to the child’s parents. Parents also should be 

encouraged to work with schools and districts 

to ensure planned behavioral strategies are in 

place and used to (1) de-escalate potentially 

violent dangerous behavior; (2) identify and 

support competing positive behavior to replace 

dangerous behavior; and (3) support appropriate behavior in class and throughout the school, 

especially if a student has a history of escalating 

dangerous behavior. 

13. Parents should be notified as soon as possible 

following each instance in which restraint or 

seclusion is used with their child. 

Parents should be informed about the school’s 

procedures for promptly notifying parents and 

documenting each time that restraint or seclusion is used with their child. The meaning of 

“as soon as possible” notification should be 

determined by the State, district, or school and 

included in the information on restraint and 

seclusion that is provided to parents. Documenting that parents have been notified as soon as 

possible, ideally on the same school day, when 

restraint or seclusion has been used ensures that 

parents are fully informed about their child’s 

behavior and the school’s response and helps 

parents participate as informed team members 

who can work with their child’s teachers 

and other school staff to determine whether 

the behavioral supports at school and at home, 

including prevention and de-escalation 

strategies, are effective. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 21 
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 

consider and examine (1) available data on 

the use of these practices and their outcomes 

(i.e., the review should examine the frequency 

of the use of restraint and the use of seclusion 

across individual children, groups of children 

(e.g., gender, race, national origin, disability 

status and type of disability, limited English 

proficiency, etc.)), settings, individual staff, 

and programs and consider whether policies for 

restraint and seclusion are being applied consistently; (2) the accuracy and consistency with 

which restraint and seclusion data are being 

collected, as well as the extent to which these 

data are being used to plan behavioral interventions and staff training; (3) whether procedures 

for using these practices are being implemented 

with fidelity; (4) whether procedures continue 

to protect children and adults; and (5) whether 

existing policies and procedures for restraint 

and seclusion remain properly aligned with 

applicable State and local laws. The school 

should maintain records of its review of restraint 

and seclusion data and any resulting decisions 

or actions regarding the use of restraint and 

seclusion. 

15. Policies regarding the use of restraint and 

seclusion should provide that each incident 

involving the use of restraint or seclusion 

should be documented in writing and provide 

for the collection of specific data that would 

enable teachers, staff, and other personnel 

to understand and implement the preceding 

principles. 

Each incident of the use of restraint and of the 

use of seclusion should be properly documented 

for the main purposes of preventing future need 

for the use of restraint or seclusion and creating a record for consideration when developing 

a plan to address the student’s needs and staff 

training needs. For example, a school should 

maintain a written log of incidents when restraint or seclusion is used. Appropriate school 

staff should prepare a written log entry describing each incident, including details of the child’s 

dangerous behavior, why this behavior posed 

an imminent danger of serious physical harm 

to self or others, possible factors contributing 

to the dangerous behavior, the effectiveness 

of restraint or seclusion in de-escalating the 

situation and staff response to such behavior. 

Best practices and existing State policies and 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 22
procedures indicate that documentation of each 

use of restraint or seclusion frequently includes 

(1) start and end times of the restraint or seclusion; (2) location of the incident; (3) persons 

involved in the restraint or seclusion; (4) the 

time and date the parents were notified; (5) possible events that triggered the behavior that led 

to the restraint or seclusion; (6) prevention, redirection, 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 

injuries or physical damage that occurred during 

the incident; (9) how the child was monitored 

during and after the incident; (10) the debriefing 

that occurred with staff following the incident; 

(11) the extent to which staff adhered to the 

procedural implementation guidelines (if established by the State, district, or school); and (12) 

follow-up that will occur to review or develop 

the student’s BIP. 

For individual children, these data should be 

periodically reviewed to determine whether 

(1) there are strategies in place to address the 

dangerous behavior at issue; (2) the strategies 

in place are effective in increasing appropriate 

behaviors; and (3) new strategies need to be 

developed, or current strategies need to be 

revised or changed to prevent reoccurrences 

of the dangerous behavior(s). 

Data on the frequency of use of restraint and 

seclusion for all children should be periodically reviewed at school leadership meetings, 

grade-level meetings, and other meetings of 

school staff. Data to be reviewed at these meetings should include information, consistent with 

privacy laws, about the frequency and duration 

of restraint and seclusion incidents across individual children, groups of children (e.g., gender, 

race, national origin, disability status and type 

of disability, limited English proficiency, etc.), 

settings, individual staff, and programs, as well 

as the number and proportion of children who 

were restrained or placed in seclusion since 

the last meeting and for the year to date. Such 

reviews should be used to determine whether 

state, district, and school policies are being 

properly followed, whether procedures are 

being implemented as intended, and whether 

the school staff should receive additional training on the proper use of restraint and seclusion 

or PBIS. States, districts, and schools should 

consider making these data public, ensuring that 

personally identifiable information is protected. 

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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 23 
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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 24 
A summary of these Federal efforts is 

presented below. 

DEPaRtmEnt Of EDUCatiOn 

EffORtS 

letters from the Secretary 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan issued two 

letters articulating the Department’s position on the 

use of restraint and seclusion. 

The first letter was sent to Chief State School Officers on July 31, 2009 urging each State to review its 

current policies and guidelines on the use of restraint 

and seclusion in schools, and, if appropriate, to 

develop or revise them to ensure the safety of 

students. The letter highlighted a school-wide system 

of PBIS as an important preventive approach that 

can increase the capacity of school staff to support 

children with complex behavioral needs, thus reducing the instances that require the use of restraint 

and seclusion. The letter also explained that the 

Department would be contacting each State to 

discuss the State’s plans to ensure the proper use 

of restraint and seclusion to protect the safety of 

children and others at school. 

On December 8, 2009, the Secretary sent a letter to 

Chairman Dodd, Chairman Miller, and Representative McMorris Rodgers. This letter expressed the 

Department’s appreciation of Congressional efforts 

to limit the use of restraint and seclusion. The letter also articulated a list of nine principles that the 

Secretary believed would be useful for Congress to 

consider in the context of any legislation on restraint 

and seclusion. Additionally, the letter informed 

Congress that the Department was reviewing 

information about each State’s laws, regulations, 

policies, and guidance on restraint and seclusion. 

Review of State Policies and Procedures 

The Department’s Regional Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers collected information on the 

policies and procedures on restraint and seclusion 

in each of the 50 States, eight territories, Bureau of 

Indian Education, and District of Columbia. These 

data were summarized and presented in a public report released in February 2010 and updated through 

a review of State Web sites in August 2011. 

The first letter was sent to 

Chief State School Officers 

on July 31, 2009 urging each 

State to review its current 

policies and guidelines on the 

use of restraint and seclusion 

in schools, and, if appropriate, 

to develop or revise them to 

ensure the safety of students. 

Office for Civil Rights 

The Department’s OCR enforces certain civil rights 

laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, sex, and disability by 

recipients of Federal financial assistance from the 

Department and certain public entities. In September 

2009, OCR announced in the Federal Register that 

it would include, for the first time, questions on 

restraint and seclusion in the Civil Rights Data 

Collection (CRDC). The CRDC now collects 

school- and district-level information about students 

in public schools that includes (1) the number of 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 25 
students by race/ethnicity, sex, Limited English Proficiency (LEP) status, and disability status subjected 

to physical restraint; (2) the number of students by 

race/ethnicity, sex, LEP status, and disability status 

subjected to mechanical restraint; (3) the number of 

students by race/ethnicity, sex, LEP status, and disability status subjected to seclusion; and (4) the total 

number of incidents of physical restraint, mechanical restraint, and seclusion by disability status. The 

data collection tables can be found at http://ocrdata. 

ed.gov/Downloads.aspx. The CRDC restraint and 

seclusion data are available at http://ocrdata.ed.gov. 

The data were released in two parts, in September 

2011 and March 2012. 

Office of Special Education Programs 

OSEP has a long history of investments in national 

centers and projects that support school-wide behavioral 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 development 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 behavioral interventions into an integrated, multi-tiered 

continuum that maximizes academic and behavioral 

outcomes for all students. 

SWPBIS is organized around six core principles: 

(1) invest first in the prevention of the social 

behavior that impedes student academic and social 

success in schools; (2) build a positive wholeschool social culture by defining, teaching, and 

acknowledging clearly defined behavioral 

expectations for all students; (3) establish and 

apply consistently a continuum of consequences 

for problem behavior that prevents the inadvertent 

reward of problem behavior; (4) establish and apply 

consistently a multi-tiered continuum of evidencebased behavioral practices that supports behavioral 

success for all students, especially those students 

with more complex behavior support challenges; 

(5) collect and use data continuously to screen and 

monitor progress of all students, make instructional 

and behavioral decisions, and solve problems; and 

(6) invest in the organizational infrastructure and 

capacity to enable effective, efficient, and relevant 

implementation of evidence-based practices. These 

six core principles offer school administrators, 

teachers, and other school staff practical guidelines 

for implementing comprehensive behavioral systems 

that help prevent the need to use restraint and seclusion in school. 

A growing body of evaluation and experimental 

research supports the following conclusions about 

the impact of SWPBIS implementation. Schools 

throughout the country are able to adopt and implement SWPBIS practices. When SWPBIS is implemented as intended, schools experienced reductions 

in problem behaviors (e.g., behavior that results in 

office referrals, suspensions). SWPBIS implementation enhances the impact of effective instruction on 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 26 
academic outcomes. When SWPBIS is implemented 

as intended, students and staff members report 

improved school safety and organizational health. 

Furthermore, SWPBIS is sustainable when initial 

implementation is done as intended. 

OSEP’s Technical Assistance Center on PBIS has 

assisted States and local districts with the implementation of SWPBIS in over 17,000 schools across 

the United States. Each of these schools has a team 

that has gone through, or is going through, formal 

training on SWPBIS practices. Teams benefit from 

local coaching provided by district school psychologists, social workers, counselors, administrators, 

and special educators. States and districts have been 

successful in implementing and sustaining SWPBIS 

by actively and formally developing State, local, and 

school capacity for coordination, training, coaching, and evaluation. This capacity building, in turn, 

supports continual improvement, effective outcomes, 

and efficient and accurate implementation, and 

maximizes student academic and behavior outcomes 

for all students. The center’s technical assistance 

supports participating local districts and schools 

in identifying, adopting, and sustaining SWPBIS 

effectively. 

DEPaRtmEnt Of hEalth anD 

hUman SERviCES EffORtS 

Children’s health act 

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 

immediate physical safety and only after less 

restrictive interventions have been found to be 

ineffective; (2) restraint and seclusion may not be 

used for discipline or convenience; (3) mechanical 

restraints are prohibited; (4) restraint or seclusion 

may be imposed only by individuals trained and 

certified in their application; and (5) children being 

restrained or secluded must be continuously monitored during the procedure. The Children’s health 

Act also required DHHS to draft regulations for 

States to use in training individuals in facilities 

covered under the Federal law.9 

9 Regulations implementing Part H (Requirements Relating 

to the Rights of Residents of Certain Facilities) of Title V of 

the Public health Service (PhS) Act have been promulgated, 

although regulations implementing Part I (Requirements 

relating to the rights of Residents of Certain Non-Medical, 

Community-Based Facilities for Children and Youth) 

of Title V of the PHS Act have not yet been promulgated. 

Moreover, regulations have not been issued regarding 

training of facility staff. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 27 
The Children’s health Act of 2000 (ChA) (Pub. L. 

106-310) amended title V of the PhS Act to add two 

new parts (Parts h and I) that established minimum 

requirements for the protection and the promotion of 

rights of residents of certain facilities to be free from 

the improper use of seclusion or restraint. Consistent 

with section 3207 of the Children’s health Act, the 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 

issued regulations setting forth patient rights to be 

free of medically unnecessary restraint and seclusion 

in several types of health care facilities and programs, including: hospitals, in a final rule published 

at 71 Fed. Reg. 71378 (Dec. 8, 2006) that also applies to critical access hospitals; hospices, in a final 

rule published at 73 Fed. Reg. 32088 (June 5, 2008); 

Medicaid managed care, in a final rule published at 

67 Fed. Reg. 40989 (June 14, 2002); programs of 

all-inclusive care for the elderly (PACE), in a final 

rule published at 71 Fed. Reg. 71244 (Dec. 8, 2006); 

and psychiatric residential treatment facilities for individuals under age 21, in an interim final rule published at 66 Fed. Reg. 7148 (Jan. 22, 2001). CMS 

has also proposed regulations governing the use of 

restraint and seclusion in Community Mental Health 

Centers, at 76 Fed. Reg. 35684 (June 17, 2011). 

SamhSa 

As part of SAMhSA’s continuing efforts to provide 

guidance on the Children’s health Act, in 2002, the 

agency developed the Six Core Strategies10 model, 

which defines specific interventions to prevent or 

reduce the use of restraint and seclusion in healthcare settings. This model curriculum includes the 

following six core components: 

■■ Leadership toward organizational change 

■■ The use of data to inform practice 

■■ Workforce Development: In-service training, 

supervision, and mentoring 

■■ Use of primary prevention tools 

■■ Supporting roles for persons served and 

advocates in programs 

■■ Debriefing tools 

While mainly used for training in healthcare settings, 

these six components have been found to be applicable in school settings. Furthermore, the policy 

concerns exemplified in these core components have 

contributed to the Department’s interagency collaboration with SAMHSA to address the use of restraint 

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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 28 
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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 29 
State or District Statutes and Regulations Addressing 

Restraint and Seclusion+ 

Policies and Guidance Addressing 

Restraint and Seclusionx 

Alabama No state statute or regulations addressing 

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

Alaska Please see State Web site for further information. No policies or guidance addressing 

seclusion and restraint. 

Arizona No state statute or regulations addressing 

seclusion and restraint. 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. 

District of Columbia Please see District Web site for further 

information. 

Please see District Web site for further 

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 No state statute or regulations addressing 

seclusion and restraint. 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 No state statute or regulations addressing 

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

Kentucky No state statute or regulations addressing 

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

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

and restraint. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 30 
State or District Statutes and Regulations Addressing 

Restraint and Seclusion+ 

Policies and Guidance Addressing 

Restraint and Seclusionx 

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 No state statute or regulations addressing 

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

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

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. No policies or guidance addressing seclusion 

and restraint. 

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

New Jersey* No state statute or regulations addressing 

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

New Mexico No state statute or regulations addressing 

seclusion and restraint. 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. No policies or guidance addressing seclusion 

and restraint. 

Ohio No state statute or regulations addressing 

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

Oklahoma* No state statute or regulations addressing 

seclusion and restraint. 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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 31 
State or District Statutes and Regulations Addressing 

Restraint and Seclusion+ 

Policies and Guidance Addressing 

Restraint and Seclusionx 

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. 



South Carolina No state statute or regulations addressing 

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

South Dakota* No state statute or regulations addressing 

seclusion and restraint. 

No policies or guidance addressing seclusion 

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. No policies or guidance addressing seclusion 

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 No state statute or regulations addressing 

seclusion and restraint. 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. No policies or guidance addressing seclusion 

and restraint. 

x 

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. 

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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 32 

Please see State Web site for further information. 
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, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. 

Some of this information is presented as examples of information 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. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 33 
Federal Resources 

Duncan, A. (2009, July 31). Letter from Education 

Secretary Arne Duncan to the Council of Chief 

State School Officers (CCSSO). Retrieved 

from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/ 

secletter/090731.html 

In this letter to the CCSSO, Education Secretary 

Arne Duncan responds to the testimony issued by 

the Government Accountability Office on “Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and 

Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment 

Centers.” He encourages the CCSSO to develop or 

review and, if appropriate, revise their State policies 

and guidelines to ensure that every student in every 

school under their jurisdiction is safe and protected 

from being unnecessarily or inappropriately restrained or secluded. He also urges them 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 do occur; provide the resources 

needed to successfully implement the policies and Jones, N. L. & Feder, J. (2010). The use of seclusion 

and restraint in public schools: The legal issues. 

d Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

10 Retrieved from http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/ 

R40522_20101014.pdf 

hold school districts accountable for adhering to 

the guidelines; and to have the revised policies an

guidance in place prior to the start of the 2009–20

school year. 

Duncan, A. (2009, December 8). Letter from 

Education Secretary Arne Duncan to Chairman 

Christopher J. Dodd, Chairman George Miller, 

and Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers. 

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/ 

guid/secletter/091211.html 

In this letter, Education Secretary Arne Duncan 

applauds the efforts of Chairman Christopher J. 

Dodd, Chairman George Miller, and Representative 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers to develop legislation to 

limit the use of physical restraint and seclusion in 

schools and other educational settings that receive 

Federal funds, except when it is necessary to protect 

a child or others from imminent danger. He reports 

that the U.S. Department of Education has identified 

a number of principles that may be useful for Congress to consider in the context of any legislation on 

this issue. These principles are listed in the letter. 

The following legislation was introduced in the 

111th and 112th Congresses, concerning limitations 

on the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and 

other educational settings: 

■■ S. 2020, 112th Congress 

■■ H.R. 1381, 112th Congress 

■■ S. 3895, 111th Congress 

■■ H.R. 4247, 111th Congress 

■■ S. 2860, 111th Congress 

This research report was prepared by the 

Congressional Research Service for the members 

and committees of Congress. It was prepared 

because of congressional interest in the use of 

seclusion and restraint in schools, including 

passage of H.R. 4247 and the introduction of 

S. 2860, 111th Congress, first session. This report 

focuses on the legal issues concerning the use of 

seclusion and restraint in schools, including their 

application both to children covered by the 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 34 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 

and to those not covered by IDEA. It refers to 

reports that document instances of deaths and 

injuries resulting from the use of seclusion or 

restraints in schools. This report notes that the 

IDEA requires a free appropriate public education 

for children with disabilities, and an argument 

could be made that some uses of seclusion and 

restraint would violate this requirement. The 

passage of S. 2860 in the Senate would establish 

minimum safety standards in schools to prevent 

and reduce the inappropriate use of restraint 

and seclusion. 

Kutz, G. D. (2009). Seclusions and restraints: 

Selected cases of death and abuse at public 

and private schools and treatment centers. 

(GAO-09-719T). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, Forensic 

Audits and Special Investigations. Retrieved 

from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09719t.pdf 

This report addresses the recent testimony of the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) before the 

Congressional Committee on Education and Labor 

regarding allegations of death and abuse at residential programs for troubled teens. It cites other reports that indicate that vulnerable children are being 

abused in other settings, through the use of restraint 

and seclusion in schools. This report provides an 

overview of seclusion and restraint laws applicable 

to children in public and private schools, discusses 

whether allegations of student death and abuse 

from the use of these methods are widespread, and 

examines the facts and circumstances surrounding 

cases in which a student died or suffered abuse as 

a result of being secluded or restrained. The report 

is a review of Federal and State laws and abuse 

allegations from advocacy groups, parents, and the 

media from the past two decades. The report found 

no Federal law restricting the use of seclusion and 

restraint, and found hundreds of cases of alleged 

abuse and death related to the use of these methods 

on school children; examples are provided. 

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. Washington, DC: 

Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/ 

seclusion/seclusion-state-summary.html 

This summary documents the results of the Department of Education’s 2009 request that the States 

report on their laws, regulations, guidance, and 

policies regarding the use of seclusion and restraints 

in schools. The document includes the descriptive 

information as verified by each State and territory, 

and a summary of this information. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration Jan Lebel (2011) The business 

case for preventing and reducing restraint and 

seclusion use. Washington, DC: Retrieved 

from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content// 

SMA11-4632/SMA11-4632.pdf 

This document asserts that restraint and seclusion 

are violent, expensive, largely preventable, adverse 

events. The document also makes a number of 

claims, including the following: (1) the rationale for 

the use of restraint and seclusion is inconsistently 

understood and contribute to a cycle of workplace 

violence that can reportedly claim as much as 23 to 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 35 
50 percent of staff time, account for 50 percent of 

staff injuries, increase the risk of injury to consumers and staff by 60 percent, and increase the length 

of stay, potentially setting recovery back at least 

6 months with each occurrence; (2) restraint and 

seclusion increases the daily cost of care and contributes to significant workforce turnover reportedly 

ranging from 18 to 62 percent, costing hundreds of 

thousands of dollars to several million; (3) restraint 

and seclusion procedures raise the risk profile to an 

organization and incur liability expenses that can adversely impact the viability of the service; (4) many 

hospitals and residential programs, serving different ages and populations, have successfully reduced 

their use and redirected existing resources to support 

additional staff training, implement prevention-oriented alternatives, and enhance the environment of 

care; and (5) significant savings result from reduced 

staff turnover, hiring and replacement costs, sick 

time, and liability-related costs. 

Associated Resources 

American Association of School Administrators. 

(2010, March 2). Letter to U.S. House of 

Representatives. Retrieved from http://www.aasa. 

org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/ 

HR4247LetterMarch2010.pdf 

In this letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, 

the American Association of School Administrators 

(AASA) urges the House not to pass restraint and 

seclusion measure H.R. 4247. The AASA states 

that the need to establish these particular Federal 

regulations for seclusion and restraint has not been 

established by objective, carefully gathered and 

analyzed data, and that the voices of teachers and 

administrators have not been heard. The letter 

notes that the Office for Civil Rights within the U.S. 

Department of Education is preparing to gather 

more objective information, and asks the House 

to wait for these objective results. The AASA also 

describes the report recently released by the U.S. 

Department of Education, which confirms that 31 

States already have policies in place to oversee the 

use of seclusion and restraint and 15 more are in the 

process of adopting policies and protections. Given 

this substantial State action, AASA questions the 

need for Federal involvement on this issue. Finally, 

the letter protests the tone of H.R. 4247, which it 

describes as relentlessly negative toward teachers 

and administrators. 

The Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. 

(2009). Physical restraint and seclusion procedures 

in school settings. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/ 

sites/default/files/CCBD%20Summary%20on%20 

Restraint%20and%20Seclusion%207-8-09.pdf 

This document is a summary of policy recommendations from two longer and more detailed documents 

available from the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD) regarding the use of physical restraint and seclusion procedures in schools. 

CCBD is the division of the Council for Exceptional 

Children (CEC) committed to promoting and facilitating the education and general welfare of children 

and youth with emotional or behavioral disorders. 

In this document, CCBD states that while restraint 

and seclusion can be effective when dealing with 

children with behavioral issues, they should not be 

implemented except as a last resort when a child 

or others are in immediate danger. CCBD further 

recommends that new legislation or regulations be 

established to formally require that data on restraint 

and seclusion be reported to outside agencies, such 

as State or provincial departments of education. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 36 
The document also notes that additional research is 

needed on the use of physical restraint and seclusion 

with children or youth across all settings. 

Dunlap, G., Ostryn, C., & Fox, L. (2011). 

Preventing the Use of Restraint and Seclusion with 

Young Children: “The Role of Effective, Positive 

Practices”. Issue Brief. Technical Assistance 

Center on Social Emotional Intervention for 

Young Children. University of South Florida, 

13301 North Bruce B Downs Boulevard 

MHC2-1134, Tampa, FL 33612. Web site: 

http://www.challengingbehavior.org. Retrieved 

from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/ 

contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno= 

ED526387 

The purpose of this document is to review what 

constitutes restraint and seclusion, what should 

be done as an alternative, and discuss positive 

strategies that can be used to prevent behaviors 

that could lead to considerations of these invasive 

and potentially-dangerous practices. 

Hague, B. (2010, February 18). Stricter standards 

sought for use of seclusion and restraint by 

schools. (Recording). Wisconsin Radio Network. 

Retrieved from http://www.wrn.com/2010/02/ 

stricter-standards-sought-for-use-of-seclusionand-restraint-by-schools/ 

This interview discusses a Wisconsin State 

capitol hearing on how best to deal with students 

with special needs who become disruptive. The 

organization, Disability Rights Wisconsin, claims 

that the State’s department of education is not 

doing enough to curtail excessive use of restraint 

and seclusion; the State department of education 

disagrees. The interview reports that the State 

Senate is discussing legislation to restrict the use 

of restraint and seclusion, but the department of 

education is arguing that this legislation will go too 

far and prevent teachers and administrators from 

maintaining a safe classroom. The Senate intends to 

require that all teachers and other personnel be required to receive training in PBIS to reduce the need 

for seclusion and restraint, and claims that this will 

make schools safer and improve academic performance. The piece also notes concerns about the costs 

to districts of implementing additional training, as 

well as potential lawsuits. 

Horner, R. & Sugai, G. (2009). Considerations for 

seclusion and restraint use in school-wide positive 

behavior supports. Eugene, OR: OSEP Technical 

Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support. Retrieved from http://www.pbis. 

org/common/pbisresources/publications/Seclusion_ 

Restraint_inBehaviorSupport.pdf 

The PBIS Center defines seclusion and restraint as 

safety procedures in which a student is isolated from 

others (seclusion) or physically held (restraint) in 

response to serious problem behavior that places the 

student or others at risk of injury or harm. This document expresses concern regarding these procedures 

being prone to misapplication and abuse, potentially 

placing students at equal or more risk than their 

problem behavior. The specific concerns are listed 

and recommendations are made to promote effective policies. School-wide positive behavior support 

(SWPBS) is one of the major recommendations, 

defined as a systems approach to establishing the 

whole-school social culture and intensive individual 

behavior supports needed for schools to achieve social and academic gains while minimizing problem 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 37 
behavior for all students. SWPBS emphasizes four 

integrated elements: socially valued and measurable 

outcomes, empirically validated and practical practices, systems that efficiently and effectively support 

implementation of these practices, and continuous 

collection and use of data for decision-making. 

These elements are described in detail along with 

supporting research. 

The Legal Center for People with Disabilities 

and Older People. (2007). Public report of an 

investigation into the improper use of restraint 

and/or seclusion of students with disabilities at 

Will Rogers elementary school. Denver, CO: 

Author. Retrieved from http://66.147.244.209/ 

~tashorg/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ 

The-Legal-Center_PA-Investigation.pdf 

The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and 

Older People (the Legal Center) is the Protection 

and Advocacy System for Colorado. This report 

presents the results of the investigation conducted by 

the Legal Center into the circumstances surrounding 

the use of seclusion and restraint of five elementary 

school students. The Legal Center received complaints that students with a range of emotional, mental health, and developmental disabilities were subjected to improper use of restraint and seclusion by 

school staff at Will Rogers Elementary School. The 

information produced in the course of this investigation supports the conclusion that the five students 

were repeatedly subjected to improper restraint and 

seclusion in violation of the Colorado Department 

of Education restraint/seclusion rules. Based on this, 

the Legal Center recommends a number of actions 

be taken by District 11 and staff at Will Rogers 

Elementary school. 

Morrison, L. & Moore, C. (2007). Restraint and 

seclusion in California schools: A failing grade. 

Oakland, CA: Protection & Advocacy, Inc. (PAI). 

Retrieved from http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/ 

pubs/702301.htm 

PAI conducted an in-depth investigation into allegations of abusive restraint and seclusion practices 

involving seven students in five public schools and 

one non-public school in California. The investigations revealed both the failure of school personnel 

to comply with existing regulations and the inability of current law to sufficiently regulate the use of 

these dangerous practices. PAI released this report to 

reinforce compliance with current regulatory requirements and to challenge schools and the education system to bring standards regarding behavioral 

restraint and seclusion of students into line with current practices in all other settings. The report notes 

that there are strict guidelines limiting the use of 

restraint and seclusion to extreme situations where 

there is an imminent risk of serious physical harm 

to an individual and only for the duration and to the 

extent necessary to protect the individual. 

National Association of State Mental Health 

Program Directors (NASMHPD): Huckshorn, K. 

(2005). Six core strategies to reduce the use 

of seclusion and restraint planning tool. 

Retrieved from http://www.hogg.utexas.edu/ 

uploads/documents/SR_Plan_Template.pdf 

This planning tool guides the design of a seclusion 

and restraint reduction plan that incorporates the use 

of a prevention approach, includes six core strategies 

to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint described 

in the NASMHPD curriculum, and ascribes to the 

principles of continuous quality improvement. It 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 38 
may also be used as a monitoring tool to supervise 

implementation of a reduction plan and identify 

problems, issues barriers and successes. 

National Disability Rights Network. (2009, January).

School is not supposed to hurt: Investigative 

report on abusive restraint and seclusion in schools. 

Retrieved from http://www.napas.org/images/ 

Documents/Resources/Publications/Reports/ 

SR-Report2009.pdf (Updated in 2010) 

This report is divided into two sections. The first 

identifies the problems attributed to restraint or 

seclusion. It includes a “Chronicle of Harm” detailing treatment of children of all ages and in every 

corner of the nation – urban, suburban, and rural, 

in wealthy and poor school districts, as well as in 

private schools. It outlines the problems associated 

with the use of restraint or seclusion, and details the 

proven risks to children associated with the use of 

these aversive techniques. Contributing factors are 

identified, such as the lack of appropriate training 

for teachers and other school personnel in the 

use of positive behavioral supports that address 

children’s behavioral and other issues in a humane 

and effective way. 

The second section of this report proposes solutions 

to the use of restraint or seclusion by highlighting 

the best practices in education and the use of positive behavioral supports. Included is a catalogue of 

advocacy activities that have been undertaken by 

P&As to protect children with disabilities. These 

activities range from educating parents, students, 

and school personnel, to investigating and litigating 

when abuses occur, to working for strong State and 

federal laws to protect these vulnerable children. 

An update to this report and follow-up letter are 

available at: National Disability Rights Network, 

Not Supposed to Hurt: Update on Progress in 2009, 

at http://ndrn.org/images/Documents/Resources/ 

Publications/Reports/School-is-Not-Supposed-toHurt-NDRN.pdf 

National Disability Rights Network, School Is Not 

Supposed to Hurt: The U.S. Department of Education 

Must Do More to Protect School Children from 

Restraint and Seclusion, March 2012, at http://ndrn. 

org/images/Documents/Resources/Publications/ 

Reports/School_is_Not_Supposed_to_Hurt_3_v7.pdf 

Samuels, C. A. (2009). Use of seclusion, restraints 

on students at issue: Watchdog agency preparing report on practices. Education Week, 28(29), 

6. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ 

articles/2009/04/17/29restrain.h28.html 

This article reports that many States lack policies related to seclusion or restraint in schools, and that the 

Federal government does not require record-keeping 

on the practices. The article details the efforts of 

advocacy groups for people with disabilities to keep 

the issue of restraint and seclusion as a priority for 

the Federal government and the national media. 

Organizations are trying to get Federal economic 

stimulus funds as a source of money to pay for the 

professional development that they say would foster 

a positive school environment. Advocates believe 

that such training for educators would prevent 

problems from escalating to the point that secluding 

students or physically restraining them is needed. 

Advocates, as well as educational organizations, 

agree that more training is necessary to reduce the 

use of restraint and seclusion in school. The article 

presents a discussion by several organizations’ 

representatives on ways to provide this training. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 39 
Shank, C., Greenberg, J., & Lebens, M. (2011). Keep

school safe for everyone: A report on the restraint 

and seclusion of children with disabilities in Oregon 

schools. Portland, OR: Disability Rights Oregon is 

the Protection & Advocacy System for Oregon. 

Retrieved from http://www.disabilityrightsoregon. 

org/results/DRO-Keep%20School%20Safe%20 

for%20Everyone%20Report.pdf 

The Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) gathered 

information from parents and schools about the use 

of physical restraint and seclusion in Oregon and 

provided policy recommendations on the use of 

these practices in the State. The DRO report found 

that the use of physical restraint and seclusion varied 

considerably across Oregon school districts. For 

example, some Oregon districts had adopted 

appropriate policies and were trying to follow them. 

Other districts, however, had not adopted any 

policies at all. Furthermore, many Oregon districts 

were found to have policies that were inconsistent 

with their own administrative rules. This report 

also details stories of Oregon children who were 

restrained and secluded and had experienced 

psychological and physical injuries resulting from 

the use of these practices at school. In addition, the 

report provides a list of policy recommendations 

on physical restraint and seclusion. The report 

notes that its recommended policies are generally 

consistent with policies contained in Federal legislation. The DRO concludes that its recommended 

policies will provide enforceable minimum safety 

standards, provide administrative review and 

independent oversight, and help make Oregon’s 

schools safe for all students and staff. 

Southern Tier Independence Center, Disabled Abuse 

Coalition. (2009). Abuse and neglect of children 

with disabilities in New York non-residential public 

schools. Binghamton, NY: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/ 

Restraint_and_Seclusions/NDRN_Children_with_ 

Disabilities_2009.pdf 

This document responds to reports by families and 

advocates indicating a pattern of discriminatory 

treatment toward children with disabilities who are 

neglected or abused in non-residential public schools 

in New York. The document notes that, under New 

York law, these schools are allowed to use physical 

restraints, including straps, “take-downs,” and 

“time-out rooms,” for unlimited periods of time as 

punishment for minor infractions, including any 

behavior that may “disrupt the order of the school.” 

However, such restraints are often used by poorly 

trained staff, and the potential for serious injury is 

high. The document states that experts in special 

education universally agree that restraints should not 

be used except as emergency measures for children 

who are immediately and seriously dangerous to 

themselves or others, and that use of restraints under 

those circumstances should trigger an immediate 

comprehensive response to investigate antecedents 

to the problem behavior and develop proactive 

plans to address it. Thus, the STIC argues that New 

York State needs to enact stringent legislation to 

regulate the use of physical restraint, provide training requirements for public non-residential school 

aides that are strictly enforced, and empower State 

and local police and child-protective authorities to 

immediately accept and promptly investigate all 

complaints of abuse and neglect and to file criminal 

charges when warranted. 

U.S. Department of Education Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 40 
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