By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
Restraint is ethically justified only when an individual is engaging in behavior that poses an immediate and significant risk of serious harm to themselves or others, when less restrictive alternatives have been attempted or considered and found insufficient to address the immediate safety concern, and when the restraint is implemented within a comprehensive treatment plan designed to reduce the need for restraint over time. The justification must be documented and reviewed regularly by the clinical team. Restraint is never appropriate as a consequence for noncompliance or as a convenience for staff.
This distinction is critical. Restraint as a safety measure is used in the moment to prevent immediate serious harm, similar to how a medical professional might immobilize a patient to prevent them from pulling out a life-sustaining device. Restraint as treatment would involve the routine or scheduled use of restraint as an intervention strategy, which is not supported by current best practices. Judicious use of restraint is always the former: a temporary safety measure employed while effective treatment is being developed and implemented to address the underlying behavior.
Functional assessment is foundational. Before restraint is considered, the clinical team should have a thorough understanding of the variables maintaining the dangerous behavior. This understanding guides the development of function-based treatment that addresses the root causes of the behavior, making restraint less necessary over time. Without a functional assessment, there is no basis for developing effective treatment, and restraint may become a default response rather than a judicious measure within a comprehensive treatment plan.
Every restraint episode should be documented immediately, including the antecedent events, the specific behavior that triggered the restraint, the technique used, the duration, the individual's physical and emotional state during and after, any injuries, and the staff involved. This data should be aggregated and reviewed at least weekly by the clinical team to identify patterns and evaluate whether the overall treatment plan is reducing restraint frequency. Increasing trends should trigger immediate treatment plan review and modification.
Staff should receive competency-based training that includes the specific restraint techniques authorized in their setting, safe implementation procedures including positioning and monitoring, recognition of medical risk factors and distress signals, de-escalation techniques that should be attempted before restraint, the legal and ethical standards governing restraint use, and documentation requirements. Training should include hands-on practice with competency assessment, not just didactic instruction. Regular refresher training, typically at least annually, should be required for ongoing authorization.
Organizations can reduce restraint use by investing in functional assessment and function-based treatment capabilities, ensuring adequate staffing levels that allow for proactive behavior management, training staff in de-escalation and crisis prevention techniques, modifying environmental conditions that contribute to dangerous behavior, providing access to clinical expertise in severe behavior, and establishing a culture that treats every restraint episode as an opportunity for learning and improvement. Data review systems that track restraint trends across the organization support accountability for reduction goals.
Physical risks include positional asphyxia (particularly with prone restraint), soft tissue injury, joint injury, cardiac events in individuals with underlying medical conditions, and aspiration. Psychological risks include trauma responses, increased anxiety and fear, damage to the therapeutic relationship, and learned helplessness. There is also risk to staff, including physical injury during restraint implementation and psychological distress. These risks underscore the importance of using restraint only when the risk of not restraining clearly exceeds the risks associated with restraint itself.
This depends on the setting and circumstances. In home-based services, families may witness restraint episodes as a matter of course. In clinic or facility settings, organizational policies may vary. Regardless of whether families are present during episodes, they should be informed about every restraint incident promptly. Families should also be involved in the development and review of the restraint protocol, including decisions about the specific techniques authorized and the conditions under which restraint may be used.
Legal requirements vary significantly by jurisdiction and setting type. Common regulatory provisions include requirements for written restraint protocols, staff training standards, documentation and reporting requirements, time limits on restraint duration, prohibitions on specific techniques (particularly prone restraint), and requirements for post-incident review. Behavior analysts must be familiar with the specific regulatory requirements applicable to their practice setting and jurisdiction. Ignorance of applicable regulations does not constitute a defense for noncompliant practices.
Post-restraint debriefing should include both the individual who was restrained and the staff who implemented the restraint. For the individual, debriefing should include emotional support, physical assessment for any injuries, and, when appropriate, discussion about what happened and what might be done differently. For staff, debriefing should include emotional processing of the experience, review of whether the restraint was implemented correctly, discussion of what could have been done to prevent the need for restraint, and support for any staff experiencing distress. Debriefing should occur as soon as possible after the incident.
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.
Virtual Town Hall On The Judicious Use Of Restraint — CASP CEU Center · 1 BACB Ethics CEUs · $
Take This Course →1 BACB Ethics CEUs · $ · CASP CEU Center
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
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.