A Descriptive Analysis of District Restraint and Seclusion Documentation and Data-Driven Decision Making

Abstract

Restraint and seclusion are two crisis intervention practices that educators employ to manage students who display escalated behavior. These procedures, however, are high-risk, intensive practices that have resulted in psychological trauma, physical injury, and even death. While there are no federal laws in place on this topic, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) recommended 15 principles to guide state and local school districts’ development of policies and practices for the use of restraint and seclusion. Schools and mental health organizations that have effectively reduced or eliminated their use of these aversive practices have identified documentation and decision-making based on these data to drive practice and policy change as integral components to their success. Despite federal reporting requirements of school use of restraint and seclusion, a recent audit conducted by the U. S. Government Accountability Office found many school districts are not collecting and accurately reporting these data even when located in states that mandate these procedures. Thus, the extent to which these potentially harmful practices are employed across the nation’s public schools is unknown. A descriptive research design was employed to explore the crisis incident documentation review, oversight, and data-driven decision-making procedures enacted within a sample of four public-school sites that resided in one state that had restraint and seclusion legislation in place. The benefits and barriers to completing these practices as reported by district personnel who were charged with these responsibilities was addressed. A secondary purpose of the study was to explore the quality of school district crisis incident documentation and the degree to which the documentation aligned with the DOE recommendations. Descriptive statistics and thematic analyses were conducted to explore the nature of these phenomena. Results of the study indicated minimal monitoring, oversight, and data-based decision making occurred across the four sites and that the procedures enacted by each district site varied despite having similar policies in place. In addition, while each district’s crisis incident documentation obtained most of the DOE components, the extent to which the components were reported within the documentation was insufficient to allow for meaningful review and decision-making. Findings from this study provide initial insight of how public-school districts employ restraint and seclusion and their efforts in managing these practices. Furthermore, the findings provide valuable information for future policy development, research interests, and areas of support to aide districts in maintaining a safe environment for all students.