Torture not Treatment - Disability Rights International

TORTURE NOT TREATMENT
48 students receiving electric shock for over 5 years; the use of shock for ‗destroying,
major disruptive, and non-compliance; 214
only 23 of 105 treatment plans received the required annual review by JRC‘s Human
Rights Committee (HRC); 215
JRC‘s Human Rights Committee failed to meet its regulatory requirement of conducting
quarterly meetings; 216
the failure to meet resulted in an inadequate opportunity to properly oversee rights issues
in Level III behavioral plans; 217
HRC failed to review any emergency restraints used for 2 years; ‗Irregularities‘ in
mechanical restraint practices (referred to in the report as ‗Limitation on Movement‘ or
LOM) such as authorizing restraint devices for medical reasons; no waivers or approvals
from DMR existed for these devices as required; undocumented restrictions for
visitations, possessions and locked buildings [residences]; 218
the use of Level III punishments for ‗relatively minor behaviors‘ remains problematic;
concern that the impact of physical disability or acute illness might have on ‗ problem
behavior‘ or ‗targeted negative behavior‘ which would result in punishment; seemingly
minor behaviors punished with electric shock; 219
student described as having anxiety but not treated with behavioral interventions
commonly used to treat anxiety; 220
absence of explanation of which authorized Level III punishment used; labeling noncompliance
as a behavior was not acceptable; 221
Level III punishment for minor behaviors and the argument that these minor behaviors
are antecedent to more dangerous behaviors must be augmented with more data
demonstrating this relationship; 222
Limitation of Movement [restraint] interventions must be treated as Level III aversives
and documented accordingly; 223
plans routinely refer to the use of helmets as ‗health related protection,‘ authorized by a
physician. When LOM is included in a treatment plan, there must be specific
individualized data to support its inclusion. 224
JRC was granted a six month certification to use Level III aversives. The DMR report cited
partial compliance to state regulations, previous recommendations and conditions. The state
promised to work with JRC to address the deficiencies and assist JRC in developing a
―monitoring plan‖ for compliance. Additionally, certification was subject to full compliance in
the areas of: improved behavioral plans subject to the specific needs of the individual students;
explanation for increase/decrease in effectiveness of Level III aversives and a plan to fade
(discontinue) the use of aversives; rationale for using Level III aversives on minor behaviors; an
outside expert engineering and medical report on the safety of the GED devices; mandate that the
Peer Review Committee meet with the frequency required by state regulation; mandate that the
40