A Study of One State’s School District Physical Restraint and Seclusion Policies - Behavioral Disorders 2021

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Bulrr

Descriptive analysis examined local school district policies on physical restraint and seclusion in one Midwestern state without state legislation. Using a maximum variation sample of 90 districts, the study assessed whether policies existed, whether federally recommended principles were included, and whether policy content varied by student enrollment. Although nearly all districts had policies, many recommended principles were missing, and fewer than 10% limited use to imminent danger of serious injury to self or others. Enrollment size showed no effect; policy substance reflected districts’ legal policy sources.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Policy Guidance

Federal Policy

A Study of One State’s School District Physical Restraint and Seclusion Policies Behavioral Disorders 2021, Vol. 47(1) 40–52 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2020 Article reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[DOI: 10.1177/0198742920973213](DOI: 10.1177/0198742920973213)[ ](DOI: 10.1177/0198742920973213)[journals.sagepub.com/home/bhd](journals.sagepub.com/home/bhd) Eryn Y. Van Acker, PhD 1, Elisabeth J. Kane, PhD2, Nicole C. Bricko, MA2, and Reece L. Peterson, PhD2 Abstract This descriptive analysis of policy content examined local school district policies on physical restraint and seclusion in one Midwestern state that did not have state legislation on these topics to determine whether districts had policies and, if so, whether their content included recommended principles from the U.S. Department of Education. No previous research has addressed district policies. A maximum variation sample of 90 districts was examined to determine whether policies were in place, whether recommended principles were included, and whether policies varied based on student enrollment. Although almost all districts had policies, many of the federally recommended principles were not addressed across the sample and less than 10% of the district policies indicated that these procedures should only be used in the case of imminent danger of serious injury to self or others. District enrollment size did not affect policy, but the substance of the policy was determined by the districts’ policy source from advising attorneys. Keywords physical restraint, seclusion, district policy Children and adolescents have continued to be killed or seriously injured by the use of physical restraint procedures in schools and treatment settings (Eldeib, 2016; Kentucky Protection and Advocacy, 2016; U.S. Government Accountability Office [U.S. GAO], 2009) . Although thereis no official count of deaths or injuries as a result of physical restraint, a recent report that scanned media news accounts indicated there were 28 deaths of children and youth between 2003 and 2017 as a result of physical restraint procedures, with seven deaths between 2013 and 2017 (Holden & Nunno, 2019) . Advocacy organizations have brought suit against public schools for lack of adequate training, lack of evidence-based prevention interventions, and lack of supervision leading to the increased use of physical restraint in special education programs (e.g., Kentucky Protection and Advocacy, 2016; Pillsbury & Disability Rights Legal Center, 2018; Samuels, 2017) . The U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and some states have required districts to supply data on their use of physical restraint and seclusion procedures, but differing definitions, ambiguity in distinguishing high-risk situations and behavior, and inconsistency in gathering of these data has made interpretation of the federal data difficult. Moreover, data submitted to the OCR have substantially underreported the actual use of these procedures in schools (Abamu & Manning, 2019; Morrison, 2015; U.S. GAO, 2020) . Currently, there is no system to identify deaths or injuries to students or staff as a result of these procedures, nor has there been any reliable source of data collected on how often these procedures are used, or for what reasons. Most reports have indicated that restraint and seclusion have been employed most often with students with emotional or behavior disorders, and with students on the autism spectrum, although they have been used with students with other disabilities and students without disabilities (Gage et al., 2020; Peterson et al., 2013; Westling et al., 2010) . Reported abuse, overuse, and discriminatory application of these procedures toward certain populations (e.g., students with disabilities, students of color) has continued to be problematic (OCR, 2016) . This is despite the f

FAQs

What does the study examine about school district restraint and seclusion?

It analyzes whether local school district policies on physical restraint and seclusion exist in one Midwestern state and whether those policies include U.S. Department of Education–recommended principles.

How was the sample of districts selected, and what variables were evaluated?

A maximum variation sample of 90 districts was used to determine whether policies were in place, which recommended principles were included, and whether policy content varied by district enrollment size.

What key gap did the study find in federally recommended principles across districts?

Although almost all districts had policies, many recommended principles were not addressed, and fewer than 10% indicated that these procedures should be used only in cases of imminent danger of serious injury to self or others.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Bulrr