By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
The BACB Ethics Code (2022) does not specifically mention restraint and seclusion by name, but several codes directly apply. Code 2.15 requires behavior analysts to recommend the least restrictive procedures likely to be effective. Code 2.01 mandates providing effective treatment based on the best available evidence, which overwhelmingly supports proactive, reinforcement-based interventions over restrictive procedures. Code 3.01 requires appropriate assessments before intervention, meaning restraint should never occur without a functional understanding of the behavior. Together, these codes establish a clear ethical framework that positions restraint and seclusion as last-resort measures that require thorough justification and oversight.
Functional behavior assessment identifies the environmental variables maintaining challenging behavior, which allows behavior analysts to design interventions that address the root causes rather than simply reacting to the behavior's topography. When staff understand that a student's aggression is maintained by escape from demands, they can implement antecedent modifications like task interspersal, choice-making, and graduated difficulty rather than attempting to physically manage the behavior. FBA data also enable the identification of replacement behaviors that serve the same function, giving students more appropriate ways to communicate their needs. Without FBA, staff often default to reactive, topography-based responses that increase the likelihood of restraint.
Effective de-escalation strategies include maintaining a calm, non-threatening tone and body posture, providing physical space rather than crowding the student, offering choices to restore a sense of autonomy, validating the student's emotional experience without reinforcing the challenging behavior, removing or reducing environmental triggers such as audience or task demands, and allowing time for the student to self-regulate without imposing additional demands. Active listening and brief empathic statements can reduce arousal. Avoiding power struggles, ultimatums, and confrontational language is critical. These strategies should be taught to all school staff through structured training that includes modeling, role-play practice, and performance feedback.
Addressing disproportionality requires disaggregating restraint and seclusion data by race, ethnicity, disability status, and other demographic variables to identify patterns. Behavior analysts should advocate for regular equity audits of discipline practices and participate in training on implicit bias and culturally responsive behavior support. Code 4.07 of the BACB Ethics Code (2022) requires behavior analysts to incorporate and address diversity in their practice. Practically, this means examining whether behavior expectations reflect cultural norms of the dominant group, ensuring that functional assessments consider cultural context, and working with diverse stakeholders to develop interventions that are culturally appropriate and equitable.
Trauma-informed care recognizes that many students who experience restraint and seclusion have histories of adverse childhood experiences, including abuse, neglect, and exposure to violence. For these students, physical restraint can re-trigger traumatic stress responses, leading to heightened physiological arousal, dissociation, or intensified aggression. Trauma-informed approaches emphasize physical and psychological safety, trustworthy and transparent relationships, peer support, collaboration, empowerment, and attention to cultural and historical factors. Behavior analysts can integrate trauma-informed principles by ensuring that intervention plans prioritize predictability, minimize power-based interactions, and provide students with tools and opportunities for self-regulation.
Schools should collect data on every restraint and seclusion incident, including the date, time, duration, location, student involved, staff involved, antecedent events, behavior that prompted the procedure, type of restraint or seclusion used, any injuries sustained, and the outcome. Additionally, schools should track de-escalation attempts that prevented restraint, near-miss situations, and patterns across time, settings, and personnel. These data should be reviewed monthly by a multidisciplinary team that includes behavior analysts, administrators, and family representatives. Trend analysis can reveal systemic issues such as specific transitions, times of day, or environmental conditions that are consistently associated with incidents.
PBIS is a three-tiered prevention framework that reduces challenging behavior through school-wide systems of support. At Tier 1, universal strategies such as explicit teaching of behavioral expectations, consistent reinforcement of prosocial behavior, and predictable routines reduce the overall incidence of challenging behavior. At Tier 2, targeted interventions such as check-in/check-out systems, social skills groups, and self-management programs support students who need additional structure. At Tier 3, individualized function-based interventions address the specific needs of students with the most significant behavioral challenges. When PBIS is implemented with fidelity, the conditions that lead to crisis situations become less frequent, making restraint and seclusion unnecessary for the vast majority of students.
A thorough post-incident debriefing should occur within 24 hours and involve all staff who were present, along with a behavior analyst or administrator. The debriefing should review the antecedent events that led to the incident, the de-escalation strategies that were attempted, the decision-making process that led to restraint or seclusion, any injuries or adverse outcomes, and what could be done differently in the future. The student should also have an opportunity to process the experience in an age-appropriate and supportive manner. The debriefing should result in specific action items, which may include modifications to the student's behavior plan, additional staff training, or environmental changes. Documentation of the debriefing and its outcomes should be maintained.
Building administrative buy-in requires framing restraint reduction in terms that resonate with school leadership priorities: legal liability, student safety, staff well-being, school climate, and regulatory compliance. Behavior analysts should present data on current restraint and seclusion practices, including trends and comparisons with peer schools or state averages. Sharing research on the effectiveness of alternative approaches, providing examples of successful reduction initiatives in similar settings, and connecting the initiative to existing school improvement goals all strengthen the case. Starting with a pilot program in one building or grade level can demonstrate feasibility and generate local evidence that supports broader implementation.
Staff training should address multiple competency areas: understanding the function of challenging behavior, implementing proactive behavior support strategies, using verbal and nonverbal de-escalation techniques, recognizing signs of physiological escalation, providing trauma-informed responses, and knowing the legal and ethical requirements related to restraint and seclusion. Training should be ongoing rather than one-time, use behavioral skills training methods including instruction, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback, and include fidelity monitoring to ensure skills are maintained over time. Behavior analysts should design training to be role-specific, recognizing that classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and support staff may require different levels of depth and specificity.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Reducing Restraint and Seclusion in Schools: Creating Safety — Do Better Collective · 2 BACB Ethics CEUs · $25
Take This Course →2 BACB Ethics CEUs · $25 · Do Better Collective
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.