By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · April 2026 · 12 min read

Reducing Restraint and Seclusion in Schools: A Comprehensive Guide for Behavior Analysts

Overview & Clinical Significance

The use of restraint and seclusion in school settings remains one of the most pressing ethical and clinical issues facing behavior analysts who consult in educational environments. Despite decades of research demonstrating the effectiveness of positive behavioral interventions and supports, restraint and seclusion continue to be employed in schools across the country, often disproportionately affecting students with disabilities, students of color, and students from marginalized communities. For Board Certified Behavior Analysts working in or consulting with school systems, understanding how to systematically reduce these practices is both a clinical imperative and an ethical obligation.

Restraint and seclusion carry documented risks including physical injury, psychological trauma, damaged therapeutic relationships, and in extreme cases, death. When a student is subjected to physical restraint or placed in seclusion, the experience can function as a punishing event that disrupts the learning environment and erodes trust between students and staff. From a behavior-analytic perspective, these procedures rarely address the function of the challenging behavior and instead create conditions that may increase the very behaviors they are intended to reduce.

Behavior analysts are uniquely positioned to lead systemic change in this area. Our training in functional assessment, antecedent manipulation, reinforcement-based interventions, and data-driven decision-making provides the technical foundation needed to develop alternatives to restraint and seclusion. However, technical skill alone is insufficient. Effective reduction of these practices requires an understanding of organizational behavior management, staff training systems, crisis prevention frameworks, and the systemic variables that maintain reliance on restrictive procedures.

The movement to reduce restraint and seclusion in schools aligns with broader shifts in the field toward compassionate, person-centered care that prioritizes dignity and autonomy. Federal guidance from the U.S. Department of Education has repeatedly emphasized that restraint and seclusion should never be used as planned interventions, should never be used as consequences for noncompliance, and should only occur when there is an imminent danger of serious physical harm. Many states have enacted legislation restricting these practices, though implementation and enforcement remain inconsistent.

For behavior analysts, engaging in restraint and seclusion reduction is not merely a matter of following trends or complying with policy changes. It reflects a fundamental commitment to the principles of our science and the ethical standards that govern our practice. The BACB Ethics Code (2022) is clear that behavior analysts must prioritize the least restrictive effective interventions and must ensure that any procedures that restrict rights are justified, monitored, and subject to ongoing review.

Background & Context

The history of restraint and seclusion in schools is intertwined with the broader history of how educational and therapeutic systems have responded to challenging behavior. For much of the 20th century, restrictive procedures were viewed as acceptable and even necessary tools for managing behavior in institutional settings. Students who engaged in aggression, self-injury, elopement, or severe disruption were frequently subjected to physical holds, isolation rooms, and other aversive interventions with little oversight or accountability.

The shift away from these practices has been gradual and is rooted in several converging developments. First, the growing evidence base for Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) demonstrated that school-wide prevention frameworks could dramatically reduce the frequency and intensity of challenging behavior without resorting to restrictive procedures. PBIS operates on a three-tiered model: universal supports for all students, targeted interventions for students at risk, and intensive individualized supports for students with the most significant behavioral needs. When implemented with fidelity, PBIS frameworks consistently reduce office discipline referrals, suspensions, and the conditions that lead to crisis situations.

Second, investigative reporting and advocacy efforts brought national attention to the harms caused by restraint and seclusion, particularly for students with disabilities. Reports documented cases of students being restrained face-down, confined in closets or padded rooms for extended periods, and subjected to procedures that bore no relationship to their individualized education programs. These revelations prompted Congressional hearings, federal investigations, and increased scrutiny of school discipline practices.

Third, the disability rights and neurodiversity movements have elevated the voices of individuals who have experienced restraint and seclusion firsthand. Their accounts of fear, humiliation, and lasting psychological harm have fundamentally reframed the conversation from one of behavioral management to one of human rights and dignity.

Within behavior analysis, the conversation about restraint and seclusion has evolved alongside broader discussions about the role of punishment in practice. While the experimental literature on punishment procedures is well-established, the field has increasingly recognized that the use of aversive and restrictive procedures in applied settings raises concerns that extend beyond technical effectiveness. Issues of consent, power differentials, contextual fit, and long-term outcomes have become central to how behavior analysts evaluate intervention options.

The current landscape is one of transition. Many school districts have adopted restraint and seclusion reduction policies, but implementation varies widely. Staff may lack training in de-escalation techniques and trauma-informed approaches. Data collection on restraint and seclusion incidents may be inconsistent or nonexistent. Behavior analysts entering school settings must be prepared to navigate these systemic challenges while advocating for evidence-based, compassionate alternatives.

Clinical Implications

The clinical implications of reducing restraint and seclusion in schools are far-reaching and touch virtually every aspect of behavior-analytic service delivery in educational settings. At the individual level, behavior analysts must develop intervention plans that address the function of challenging behavior while minimizing the likelihood that crisis situations will arise. At the systems level, behavior analysts must work with administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, and other stakeholders to create environments where restrictive procedures become unnecessary.

Functional behavior assessment is the cornerstone of any effort to reduce restraint and seclusion. When challenging behavior is understood in terms of its environmental determinants, the need for reactive, restrictive responses diminishes. A student who engages in aggression to escape academic demands requires a fundamentally different intervention than a student whose aggression is maintained by attention or access to preferred items. Without functional assessment data, school staff are left to respond to the topography of behavior rather than its function, which often leads to ineffective and potentially harmful interventions.

Antecedent-based strategies are particularly critical in school settings where restraint and seclusion are common. Environmental modifications such as reducing task difficulty, providing choice, increasing predictability through visual schedules, teaching replacement behaviors, and embedding reinforcement into academic activities can prevent the escalation of behavior that leads to crisis situations. These proactive strategies are more efficient, more humane, and more consistent with educational goals than reactive approaches.

De-escalation training for school staff represents another essential clinical consideration. Many restraint incidents occur not because the student's behavior is truly dangerous, but because staff members lack the skills to respond effectively to escalating situations. Behavior analysts can develop and deliver training programs that teach staff to recognize early signs of distress, use verbal and nonverbal de-escalation strategies, provide space and time for students to regain regulation, and avoid the confrontational interactions that often precipitate crisis situations.

Trauma-informed care is increasingly recognized as a necessary complement to traditional behavior-analytic approaches in schools. Many students who are subjected to restraint and seclusion have histories of trauma, including abuse, neglect, community violence, or adverse childhood experiences. For these students, being physically held or isolated can trigger traumatic stress responses that exacerbate behavioral difficulties. Behavior analysts must consider the role of trauma history when designing interventions and must ensure that the strategies they recommend do not inadvertently re-traumatize the students they are intended to help.

Data systems for monitoring restraint and seclusion incidents are essential for driving systemic change. Behavior analysts should advocate for comprehensive data collection that includes the frequency, duration, and context of each incident, as well as information about the antecedent events, the staff involved, and the outcomes. These data enable pattern analysis that can reveal systemic issues such as specific times of day, transitions, staff members, or environmental conditions that are associated with higher rates of restrictive procedures.

Ethical Considerations

The ethical dimensions of restraint and seclusion in schools are among the most serious that behavior analysts will encounter in their careers. The BACB Ethics Code (2022) provides clear guidance that behavior analysts must prioritize interventions that are least restrictive, most effective, and most consistent with the rights and dignity of the individuals they serve.

Code 2.01 (Providing Effective Treatment) establishes that behavior analysts have a responsibility to recommend and implement interventions that are supported by the best available evidence. In the context of restraint and seclusion, this means that behavior analysts cannot ethically support the use of these procedures as planned interventions when less restrictive alternatives have not been adequately explored and implemented. The evidence is clear that proactive, function-based interventions are more effective than reactive, restrictive procedures for reducing challenging behavior in school settings.

Code 2.15 (Minimizing Risk of Behavior-Change Interventions) requires behavior analysts to recommend the least restrictive procedures likely to be effective. This is not merely a preference but an ethical obligation. Before any restrictive procedure is considered, behavior analysts must demonstrate that reinforcement-based alternatives have been implemented with fidelity and have proven insufficient. Even then, the use of restrictive procedures must be accompanied by appropriate oversight, informed consent, and ongoing monitoring.

Code 3.01 (Behavior-Analytic Assessment) mandates that behavior analysts conduct appropriate assessments before developing behavior-change programs. Restraint and seclusion that occur in the absence of a functional behavior assessment and individualized behavior intervention plan represent a failure to meet this standard. When school staff resort to restraint or seclusion without understanding why a student is engaging in challenging behavior, they are essentially implementing a procedure without a clinical rationale.

Code 1.05 (Practicing Within Scope of Competence) is relevant for behavior analysts who are asked to develop or oversee restraint and seclusion protocols. Behavior analysts must ensure that they have adequate training in crisis prevention and intervention before assuming responsibility for these systems. Additionally, they must ensure that staff members who may be called upon to implement physical interventions have received proper training and demonstrate ongoing competency.

Code 4.07 (Incorporating and Addressing Diversity) requires behavior analysts to consider cultural variables in their practice. This is particularly relevant given the documented disparities in how restraint and seclusion are applied across racial, ethnic, and disability categories. Behavior analysts must actively work to identify and address biases that may contribute to the disproportionate use of restrictive procedures with certain student populations.

Informed consent is another critical ethical consideration. Parents and guardians must be informed about the potential use of restraint and seclusion, the risks associated with these procedures, and the alternatives that are available. Code 2.11 (Obtaining Informed Consent) requires that consent be obtained before implementing behavior-change programs that include restrictive elements. In practice, many schools fail to adequately inform families about their restraint and seclusion practices, which places behavior analysts in an ethically untenable position.

The principle of dignity and respect for persons underlies all of these specific code requirements. Restraint and seclusion, by their nature, involve the restriction of a person's freedom and autonomy. For behavior analysts, the question is not simply whether these procedures can be technically justified in a given situation, but whether the broader system of care is designed to make them unnecessary.

Assessment & Decision-Making

Effective decision-making around restraint and seclusion reduction requires a multi-level assessment approach that examines individual student needs, staff competencies, organizational systems, and environmental variables. Behavior analysts must move beyond the individual case level to consider the systemic factors that contribute to reliance on restrictive procedures.

At the individual level, comprehensive functional behavior assessment remains the gold standard. Behavior analysts should conduct descriptive assessments, indirect assessments using validated tools, and when appropriate, functional analyses to identify the variables maintaining challenging behavior. The results of these assessments should directly inform the development of function-based intervention plans that include proactive strategies, teaching procedures for replacement behaviors, and reinforcement contingencies that make the target behavior unnecessary.

Beyond the functional assessment of individual students, behavior analysts should assess the broader school environment for risk factors associated with restraint and seclusion. These risk factors include high student-to-staff ratios during transitions, lack of structured activities during unstructured times, inconsistent expectations across settings, limited access to preferred activities or items, and physical environments that are crowded, noisy, or otherwise aversive. Environmental assessments can be conducted using structured observation protocols and checklists that identify specific antecedent conditions associated with behavioral escalation.

Staff skills assessment is an often-overlooked component of restraint and seclusion reduction efforts. Behavior analysts should evaluate whether school personnel have adequate training in de-escalation techniques, trauma-informed practices, positive reinforcement strategies, and crisis prevention. Skills assessments can include direct observation of staff responses to challenging situations, self-report measures, and structured role-play scenarios. The results of these assessments should guide the development of targeted training programs that address specific skill deficits.

Organizational assessment examines the policies, procedures, and cultural variables that influence how a school system responds to challenging behavior. Key questions include whether the school has a written policy on restraint and seclusion, whether there are clear criteria for when these procedures may be used, whether there is a systematic process for debriefing after incidents, and whether data on restrictive procedures are regularly reviewed by leadership. Tools such as the PBIS Tiered Fidelity Inventory can provide useful information about the implementation status of school-wide prevention systems.

Decision-making frameworks should incorporate a graduated response model that provides clear guidance for staff at each level of behavioral escalation. At the lowest levels, universal strategies such as environmental modifications, choice-making, and reinforcement should be in place for all students. As behavior escalates, targeted strategies such as individualized calming procedures, access to a designated safe space, and communication with the behavior support team should be activated. Physical intervention should only be considered when there is an imminent risk of serious physical harm and all less restrictive alternatives have been exhausted.

Data-based decision-making is essential throughout this process. Schools should track not only the frequency of restraint and seclusion incidents but also near-misses, de-escalation attempts, and environmental variables associated with escalation. These data should be reviewed regularly at both the individual student level and the systems level to identify trends, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and make data-informed adjustments to prevention strategies.

What This Means for Your Practice

If you work in or consult with school settings, reducing restraint and seclusion should be a central priority of your practice. This is not a peripheral issue or a matter of personal preference. It is a direct application of the principles and ethics that define behavior analysis as a discipline.

Start by conducting an honest assessment of the current state of restraint and seclusion practices in the schools where you work. How frequently are these procedures used? Who is being subjected to them? Under what circumstances do they occur? If this data does not exist, advocating for a comprehensive data collection system should be among your first priorities. You cannot reduce what you do not measure.

Invest in building the capacity of school staff to prevent and respond to challenging behavior without resorting to restrictive procedures. This means providing training that goes beyond information delivery to include modeling, practice, feedback, and ongoing coaching. Staff members need to develop fluency in de-escalation techniques, and this fluency only comes through repeated practice with constructive feedback.

Ensure that every student who has a history of restraint or seclusion has a current functional behavior assessment and a behavior intervention plan that includes proactive, reinforcement-based strategies. If these documents exist but are not being implemented with fidelity, focus your efforts on identifying and addressing the barriers to implementation rather than revising the plan itself.

Advocate at the organizational level for policies and practices that support restraint and seclusion reduction. This includes working with administrators to establish clear expectations, allocating resources for staff training and support, creating systems for post-incident debriefing and review, and ensuring that families are informed and involved in decisions about behavioral intervention.

Finally, approach this work with humility and a commitment to continuous improvement. Reducing restraint and seclusion is not a one-time project but an ongoing process that requires sustained attention, collaboration, and willingness to learn from both successes and setbacks. The students you serve deserve nothing less than your best effort to create school environments where they feel safe, supported, and able to learn.