The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) is probably the best known and most controversial special education school in the world. The JRC describes itself as:
The JUDGE ROTENBERG CENTER (JRC) is a special needs school in Canton, Massachusetts serving ages 3-adult. For 38 years JRC has provided very effective education and treatment to both emotionally disturbed students with conduct, behavior, emotional, and/or psychiatric problems and developmentally delayed students with autistic-like behaviors.
If you haven’t heard of them, you are probably wondering how they could be controversial. From the JRC website:
If positive and educational procedures alone are not effective, then after trying them for an average of 11 months, we approach the parents to suggest supplementing the rewards with a corrective (aversive) consequence for the problem behavior. If the parent approves, and if we obtain an individualized authorization from a Massachusetts Probate Court, we apply an aversive in the form of a 2-second shock to the surface of the skin, usually on the arm or leg, as a consequence each time the problem behavior occurs.
Yes. The JRC uses aversives. Not just any aversives, they use electric shocks. When I first read that it sounded like they get parental and Court approval for each shock. Not so. Children are fitted with backpacks or “fanny packs” which have control units. Children are monitored 24/7. If a staff member believes an aversive is called for, the JRC staff can remotely signal the control unit to apply a shock to the child. Children can be shocked 30 timesor morein a single day.
Disability advocates have cause for celebration today. In response to the September 30th letter signed by 31 disability organizations, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division has announced that they have initiated an official investigation of the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC); see the Department of Justice letter attached.
I’ve been waiting to receive the official notice before announcing this exciting news for the 31 disability organizations that signed the September 30th letter and for all of the disability advocates who have been fighting for over twenty-five years to put an end to the use of electric shock, other painful and aversive procedures, seclusion, unnecessary restraint, and food deprivation as methods of behavior control. Our September 30th letter was sent to seven government agencies and three human rights organizations (see list of letter’s recipients below and the letter and addendum, attached).
The initial response of the Department of Justice was that they didn’t believe that they could take action because they didn’t believe they had jurisdiction over privately operated facilities (like the Judge Rotenberg Center) since CRIPA, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/cripa.php) applies only to state-run (not state-funded or -licensed) institutions. I suggested to them that they consider jurisdiction under the ADA on the basis that people with disabilities are being treated in ways that are neither legal nor would be tolerated if applied to people who do not have disabilities (see my email to them below). Their letter states that they are pursuing this investigation under Title III of the ADA which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.
None of the other government or human rights organizations that were recipients of the letter have so far been able or willing to take action – Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights had other priorities; Amnesty International is seeking guidance through their international headquarters in London but, as has been our experience in the past, they have shown little interest. The U.S. Department of Education referred us to their efforts with regard to seclusion and restraint, which, while related and important issues, do not address the concerns about electric shock and other aversive procedures described in the letter. The Office on Disability suggested that advocates should “think about finding a way to connect this issue to regulatory compliance,” though clearly we have pursued this approach with limited success for over twenty-five years.
While it is not possible to say how long the Department of Justice investigation will take (they just chuckled when I asked this) or what the impact of this investigation will be, we know that Department of Justice investigations are customarily thorough and rigorous. I will certainly keep the 31 signing organizations and others who have expressed interest in this effort informed along the way. If you are not sure you are on that list and would like to be kept posted, just send a reply email.
If you have first hand knowledge of JRC/BRI related issues and would like to be interviewed by the Department of Justice investigators, please let me know and I will pass this on to them.
To each of you who has maintained energy for this issue over a long, frustrating and mostly unproductive battle, I am most appreciative of your continued commitment. When you think about how long these abuses have been known and generally ignored, I know you share my sense that we must have fallen down the rabbit hole. We can only keep our fingers crossed that this is the first step in righting a long history of wrongs.
We are writing to ask the above Government agencies and human rights organizations to take action to put an end to the use of electric shock, other painful and aversive procedures, seclusion, unnecessary restraint, and food deprivation – all inhumane and unnecessary methods of behavior modification used in some schools and residential facilities for children and adults with disabilities in the United States. This letter is signed by 31 disability organizations concerned with the humane treatment of people with disabilities.
The attached information focuses on the practices of the Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton, Massachusetts. While there are examples of the use of prolonged seclusion and unnecessary restraint in schools and residential facilities across the country, studies prepared by government agencies and investigative reports that have appeared in the media suggest that the Judge Rotenberg Center uses these procedures as well as painful electric shock and food deprivation. According to public sources, residents of the Judge Rotenberg Center receive painful electric shocks for behaviors as innocuous as stopping work for more than ten seconds, getting out of their seats, interrupting others, or whispering1. In the view of the undersigned, the use of painful and dehumanizing behavioral techniques violates all principles of human rights. We are sending this letter to a number of government and human rights organizations. We ask that you show leadership in protecting the rights of all people in the United States by acting to put an end to these inhumane practices wherever they occur.
The type of practices against which we ask you to take action have been documented in numerous government reports and other public documents. One of the best documentations of these practices is the June, 2006 New York State Education Department report2 that noted the following concerns about the Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC):
“Students wear the GED device [the device that delivers the electric shock] for the majority of their sleeping and waking hours, and some students are required to wear it during shower/bath time. The GED receivers range in size and are placed in either “fanny” packs or knapsacks. Staff carry the GED transmitters in a plastic box. Students may have multiple GED devices (electrodes) on their bodies. For example, one NYS student’s behavior program states, “C will wear two GED devices. C will wear 3 spread, GED electrodes at all times and take a GED shower for her full self care.” (p.7)
“A combination of mechanical restraint and GED skin shock is also used to administer a consequence to students that attempt to remove the GED from their bodies. In instances where this combined aversive approach is used, the student, over a period of time specified on his or her behavior program, is mechanically restrained on a platform and GED shocks are applied at varying intervals. … An example of this is found on one NYS student’s behavior program; a consequence for pulling a fire alarm is to receive 5 GED [shocks], over a 10-minute period, while being restrained on a four-point board.” (p. 9)
Another example of these inhumane practices was documented by NPR Health Reporter Joseph Shapiro, in his book No Pity. His observations of The Judge Rotenberg Center include the following:
” … one young man got tired of picking out matching shapes on a computer screen. But his teacher demanded that he continue and pinched him on the palm for disobeying. The young man …made a guttural noise of protest and tried to get up. In a second, two staffers had thrown him face down on the floor. This only made him more agitated. Then came a squirt in the face with ammonia water. The man spent a minute on the floor, trying to move and protest, but was restrained by one staffer’s knee in his back and another’s grip on his arm.”3
The JRC website describes these practices as “intensive treatment procedures”4 but almost every national disability organization agrees that the use of painful procedures to change a person’s behavior is unnecessary, inhumane, and should be banned.5
With this letter, we ask The House Committee on Education and Labor to take legislative action to end the use of these practices. In our view the practices described in the New York State Education Department report on JRC meet the definition of torture in the United Nations’ Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment that is, “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person; for such purposes as:
obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession;
punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed;
intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person;
or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind;
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”6
We the undersigned urge you to review the attached information which documents extensive instances of inhumane practices and take legislative and regulatory action to halt the continued abuse of children, adolescents and adults with disabilities. Through numerous pleas and campaigns, advocates have seen little action from federal, state or local regulatory agencies or the criminal justice system. These entities have been aware of the documented abuses for over thirty years. Even though there is broad professional agreement that a wide range of positive interventions are available which are at least as effective in managing dangerous behaviors, and which do not inflict pain on or dehumanize individuals with disabilities, no regulatory agency has been able or willing to act to eliminate these practices.
As a group of advocates concerned with the support of persons with disabilities, we call on these Government agencies and human rights organizations to work with us to expose and condemn these behavioral techniques, take the legislative and other necessary steps to protect the rights of people with disabilities, and bring an end to these practices.
For additional information, to discuss proposed action, or to contact the organizations below, please contact Nancy Weiss by phone: 410-323-6646 or e-mail: email@example.com
Alaska Youth and Family Network and YouthMOVE
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Association of University Centers on Disabilities
Silver Spring, MD
The Arc of the U.S.
Silver Spring, MD
Autism National Committee (AutCom)
Forest Knolls, CA
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Center on Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies, Syracuse University
The Coalition for the Legal Rights of People with Disabilities
Cobb and Douglas Counties Community Service Boards
Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Exceptional Parent Magazine
Hope House Foundation
The Learning Community for Person Centered Practices
The Maine Independent Media Center
Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education
National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors
National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities
National Association for the Dually Diagnosed (NADD)
National Disability Rights Network
The National Leadership Consortium on Developmental Disabilities, University of Delaware
Respect ABILITY Law Center
Royal Oak, Michigan
RHA Howell, Inc.
Self Advocates Becoming Empowered
Kansas City, MO
United Cerebral Palsy
Values Into Action
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, School of Nursing
University of San Diego Autism Institute
San Diego, CA
The Voices and Choices of Autism
Here is an addendum letter.
If you can stand reading more about JRC, Mother Jones ran a story on JRC in 2007, School of Shock .
The disability advocates say it much better than I ever could. Picking but one sentence: We cannot condone treating persons with disabilities in a manner that would not be tolerated if applied to other segments of the population.
If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.
<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/02/u-s-department-of-justice-opens-investigation-on-judge-rotenberg-cente/">U.S. Department of Justice opens investigation on Judge Rotenberg Center</a>
The negative references to the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center that appeared on WellSphere on February 22, 2010 have been brought to my attention. To providing some balance to your readers, I would appreciate your bringing the following information to the attention of your readers.AVERSIVE THERAPY SAVES LIVESJRC is a residential behavior modification school in Canton, Mass., for individuals whose severe, often life-threatening behavior disorders are not effectively treated by psychotropic drugs, counseling, or rewards-only procedures. Through the use of safe, parent-requested, individually
scientifically validated aversive therapy – while avoiding or minimizing psychotropic drugs – the center has, to cite just a few cases, saved the life of a child who vomited so frequently that he was in danger of starving to death; restored the eyesight of two children whose head-banging was so severe that each detached both retinas and risked permanent blindness; and saved the life of a boy whose severe, compulsive self-scratching placed him at risk of dying from blood and bone infections.The center’s program consists, overwhelmingly, of
positive rewards and educational procedures. However, as
research has shown, such procedures alone are effective in only 60 percent of cases at best. Consequently, positive procedures at JRC need to be supplemented, in the most difficult cases, with the use of
shock to the surface of the skin. This feels like a hard pinch and is administered as an immediate corrective consequence for the problem behaviors. Behavioral skin shock bears no resemblance to electroconvulsive therapy treatment (psychiatric brain stimulation that causes seizures) or police stun guns (JRC’s skin shock uses 60 volts; a stun gun generates 350,000 volts). This form of treatment is extremely effective, and a
peer reviewed study found that there are no negative side effects. The procedure is far less aversive and far less painful than the damaging self-abusive, aggressive, and dangerous behaviors that it eliminates. The procedure is so effective that it is applied infrequently (on average fewer than three times per week), and is used only until the student’s problem behaviors decrease and positive behaviors take their place. Aversive therapy: ·Eliminates the need for cocktails of mind-numbing psychotropic medications which, instead of treating behaviors, often put the user into a semi-comatose state in which the individual sleeps most of the day. They also expose the user to frightening short- and long-term side effects such as permanent tics, obesity, diabetes, organ damage, metabolic changes that can shorten life expectancy.·Eliminates the need for manual and mechanical restraints, which most programs use to control aggressive and self-abusive behaviors. In a
published study in which we treated aggression in 60 students, once our skin-shock aversive was employed, the use of manual restraints dropped to zero and psychotropic medications dropped by 98 percent.·Eliminates the need for time-out rooms and isolation.·Is used with only 27 of the Judge Rotenberg Center’s 145 school age students and only after JRC has tried, for an average period of approximately one year, to accomplish the treatment goals using only positive rewards and educational procedures. ·Is pre-approved, individually, by the parent and a physician, and by a judge at a hearing in which the child is represented by his/her own court-appointed attorney. ·Is aprocedure that
numerous parents and students have credited with saving lives. ·Is used with students whose behaviors are so severe that
they have been rejected and expelled by other treatment programs that pride themselves on using “positive-only” procedures.·Enables JRC to maintain a policy of near-zero rejections and expulsions. Parents do not have to fear a call asking them to “come take your too-difficult-to-handle-child home.”Most if not all critics of JRC have never visited the center or spoken with any of our current clinicians, staffers and students, or those students' parents. Most of the opposition to the center’s skin-shock aversive treatment reflects an ignorance of its effectiveness and a refusal to rationally weigh the benefits against the disadvantages. The boy we saved from life-threatening blood infections
died at age 25 from a resumption of those same self-scratching-caused blood infections after he was removed from JRC by advocates who made the same claim as Ms. Ahern, that his severe self-injurious behaviors could be treated successfully without aversives. By contrast, two independent, tenured, full professors of special education who took the trouble to visit the center and saw first-hand what it has accomplished recently wrote a textbook (Williams, B.F. & Williams, R.L., Effective Programs for Treating Autism Spectrum Disorder: Applied Behavior Analysis Model) that
devotes a chapter to JRC and that cites the center as one of a handful of effective, nationally-recognized behavioral treatment programs for children with autism spectrum disorders.
The writer, a behavioral psychologist, is the executive director of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, a residential special-needs school in Canton, Mass. which he founded in 1971. His email address is