Prone Restraint in School: Minnesota’s Experience Tammy L. Pust PACER Boardr August 6, 2013
Prone Restraint in School:
Minnesota’s Experience
Tammy L. Pust
PACER Boardr
August 6, 2013
History in Minnesota
1975 – EAHCA/(now IDEA)
passed by US
1987 – “Rule 40” passed
regulating restrictive
procedures in MN-DHS
facilities
1993 – first “behavior
intervention rule” passed to
regulate seclusion/restraint in
MN schools
Some Definitions
“Restrictive Procedures” =
seclusion or physical holds
used in an emergency.
“Seclusion” = child alone;
egress barred
“Physical Holds” = body
contact used to limit
movement to prevent injury.
Recent History
2009 – MN’s behavior intervention rule repealed effective 8/2011 New law prohibited any
restraint that “impaired ability to breathe”
Didn’t use the word “prone restraint” Was prone restraint allowed
or banned?????
Would it be banned at effective date of repeal????
Not Prone Prone
Prone Restraint: Feds “Push” States
1998 Hartford
Currant report
1998 Harvard
Center for Risk
Analysis
2009 GAO report
July 2009 Letter to
the states from
Secretary Duncan,
US DOE
2012 Efforts in MN
Strengths = Partners
Strengths²
Lots of People Committed to Doing the
Best for Children
Data Collection and Required Reporting
Legal Framework that Already Existed in
State Law
Political Influence of Partners
DHS Litigation Settlement
Weaknesses
New Administration
Time Constraints
Under-developed
relationships with
potential partners
Threats
Lack of Trust
Differing Agendas
Partisan Politics
Economic Realities
Opportunities
Data
Data
Data
2012 Report and All the Data
http://education.state.mn.us/M
DE/SchSup/SpecEdComp/Co
mplMonitor/
Legislative Report
Summary of every incident
reported
Result: 2012 Legislative Changes
Gains:
Support for PBIS
“Prone” definition
Banned breathing or
communication
impairment and placing
any weight or pressure
on child
No prone if < age 5
Qtrly data reports
Effective date of repeal:
6/2013
“Losses”
Prior medical certification
Required reporting of ALL
restrictive procedures (not
just prone)
Got for 2012
Complete ban on prone
restraint
The Effort Continued
Legislative Mandate:
statewide plan to reduce
use of all restrictive
procedures, including
prone restraint
Stakeholders specified
PACER represented
Data collection
continued
What the Data Showed
All Restrictive Procedures 11-12
Incidents
16,604 holds
5,236 seclusions
21,840 incidents
Students
2,592/127,561 (total sped) = approx. 2%
Averages
physical holds/student = 7.2%
seclusion/student = 6.6%
restrictive procedures/student = 8.4%
Restrictive Procedures – by Age
All Restrictive Procedures - Gender
Restrictive Procedures - Disability
Restrictive Procedures by Race
Prone: Reports v. Incidents
Prone: Reports v. Incidents
7:1 – Male to Female
August 16, 2011 – January 13, 2012 596
January 14, 2012 – April 14, 2012 360
April 15, 2012 – July 14, 2012 462
Students\Incidents – by Disability
Prone Restraint by Race
2013 Group Recommendations
Use of Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
Increasing Access to School-Linked Mental Health Services
Reduce Barriers to Accessing Day and Residential Treatment
Increase and Dedicate Safe School Levy Funds
Provide Training on Statutory Requirements
Develop Models for Post-Use Debriefing and Oversight Committee
Ensure Adequate Provider Training
Develop and Publish Resources
Define Data-Driven Process for MDE Targeted Technical Assistance
Continue Current Stakeholder Group Efforts
2013 Legislative Changes
Definition of “emergency”
Definition of “blocking egress” for seclusion
More detail for district oversight committee
Changes to requirements for post-use IEP Team meetings
Holding/seclusion can’t be used for discipline
Extended allowed use of prone restraint until 8/1/2015
Lessons Learned
Be at the table
Build coalitions
Knowledge is power: Get and
publish the data
Do the right thing
Spend necessary political capital
Set limits; Know who you are
sleeping with…
Never ever ever give up. Winston Churchill
Thanks PACER – for all you do
for kids and families!