The Hidden Consequences of Hands-off Policies

Nobody wants to see restraint happen.?When overused or used incorrectly, it can and has compromised safety.?So, compassionate educators and advocates who are disturbed by these safety issues opt for the quick fix of implementing a “hands-off policy.”?On the surface, this seems like a great thing if you just want to avoid using restraint and the risks associated with it.?But it’s not long before frustrations grow as a number of other issues set in.?These include, but are not limited to, decreases in learning for the student and other students as well as increased danger as disruptive and dangerous behaviors intensify and compromise the well-being of all.

Dreams of Safe and Positive Culture

The fact is that everybody in education dreams of a positive climate and culture, one characterized by an eagerness to learn coupled with safe and prosocial behavior. However, there are numerous risks to this dream as well as the safety of students and educators for those schools and districts who dismiss the prudent use of restraint for a child in crisis.?

But this dream can be realized with the right crisis management system in place.?A system where staff are well trained to fluency in evidence-based prevention and de-escalation strategies. One where criteria for restraints are very precise to prevent the misuse, overuse, or underuse of restraints. One where students are constantly offered choices, even during restraints.?And finally, one where students are quickly and seamlessly reintegrated back into the educational programming following an incident.

Listen, having a hands-off policy for restraints when there is imminent danger would be like a parent allowing their child to run into the middle of a busy road because they didn’t want to hold them to prevent harm. They would never let this happen.?And neither would educators.?If the school isn’t “hands off” when a child runs toward a busy intersection, then why are they hands off when a teacher or peer is attacked? Why are they hands-off when self-injury occurs???

How about Setting Limits?

We do not live in a world where there are no behavioral limits for people. For example, all parents set limits on their children. All parents. When children are older, with language, these limits are usually set verbally as they are with all typically developing adults. For very young children, however, verbal control often fails.?Consequently, in dangerous situations physical control, which is some form of restraint no matter how mild, is not only warranted but absolutely necessary for safety. The problem is that when older, stronger, more experienced students engage in dangerous behavior, their physical management becomes more challenging and dangerous for all parties.

Still, nobody would disagree that older stronger children must be kept safe and must be kept from harming others. It is hard to imagine that any educator would let a special needs nonverbal child run toward a busy intersection simply because the school has a hands-off policy. We must treat children with special needs differently from others, not in terms of their fundamental human rights or respect they deserve, but in terms of what we will tolerate/accept/accommodate that we would not from the non-disabled population.

Risks of Not Restraining

We do not want our children or other children handcuffed like the infamous six-year-old?Florida girl who was arrested?at school and has now been diagnosed with PTSD three years later.?Oh, and let’s not talk about the potential for students to be over-medicated, tased, pepper sprayed or expelled from school.?We also should not allow a child to destroy a classroom because we do not want the responsibility that comes with the use of restraint as is a growing issue in education. Yes, restraint can and is used irresponsibly, but “hands off” policies can also be used irresponsibly to the child’s ultimate detriment.?We must not get rid of restraints, but make sure there is a crisis management system in place that focuses on preventing crisis in the first place. We must respect, empower, collaborate, and provide choice. We must set limits more gently, non-violently, and non-punitively, yet we must set these limits. To allow anyone to do anything they want, unchecked, sets them up for failure as a contributing member of society.

Hands-off policies for students who engage in intense and dangerous behavior can lead to several unintended yet harmful consequences. Some potential risks include:

1. Self-harm: If a child is prone to harming themselves, not restraining them can put them at risk of serious injury or death.
2. Harm to others: If a child is violent or aggressive towards others, not restraining them can put others at risk of injury or harm while also causing harm to their learning or treatment.
3. Damage to property: If a child is destructive, not restraining them can result in significant damage to property or belongings. While some say you should never restrain for property destruction, what if that property was being used to help other children? For example, what if it was a medical device like a breathing apparatus?
4. Legal consequences: If a child causes harm to themselves or others, parents or guardians could face legal consequences for not taking appropriate actions to prevent the harm.
5. Trauma: Witnessing a child causing harm to themselves or others can be traumatic for those involved, including the child themselves.
6. Denial of services: There are a number of schools and treatment facilities that will not accept certain children because of their behavior.
7. Staff Turnover: Witness children engage in behavior that is damaging to themselves, others, or the environment can be frustrating and demoralizing to staff. This often leads to staff turnover which negatively impacts other children being served.

In the Professional Crisis Management?System, physical holding isn’t used to “punish” bad behavior. It is used to 1) prevent, 2) set limits 3) de-escalate, 3) increase safety for all through transportation or immobilization when behavior becomes dangerous to the student or others, and 4) reintegrate students back into the classroom; moreover, it is used to prevent problem behavior from increasing in?rate and intensity because it contacts unlimited reinforcement through behaviors like destroying things, injuring self and others.

In an independent poll we recently conducted, 92% of the respondents believed that restraints by trained practitioners were a better option than “hands-off” policies. Very likely, the 8% of respondents who voted for a hands-off policy have either directly experienced poor restraints or they've heard of them and the outcomes associated with them.?So their views are absolutely understandable! But let’s not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.?Nobody I know “likes” using restraint. We all wish to minimize its use. But a failure to employ judicious, effective, and humane short-term restraint can result in a lifetime of restriction or even trauma as experienced by the 6-year-old in Florida. When we allow a child to destroy a classroom by doing a room clear which, by the way, we as parents would never allow in public from our own children, we may solve one perceived problem in that we are avoiding the use of restraint, but eventually, the child’s behavior becomes someone else’s problem.?And more importantly, it becomes a problem for the child as they progressively become unable to function in society.??

So What’s The Right Way?

Well, from our perspective at PCMA, let’s accommodate individuals who require accommodations. Let’s create a positive climate and culture powered by the science of humane behavior to teach skills using positive reinforcement as a means of effectively minimizing or even eliminating the need for restraints. Let’s make sure crisis management practitioners are being trained to fluency (which, by the way, will not occur through 3-5 repetitions of a given procedure) in prevention, de-escalation, and ethical restraints that employ natural body positioning! And let's increase clinical oversight being provided to ensure a positive learning environment is maintained while guaranteeing the proper use of restraint.?But let’s be careful in our well-intended hands-off policies and efforts to create prosthetic environments where students are inadvertently taught that all behavior is allowable.?And let’s not rely on the police for things that we could do ourselves with the proper training. Believe us, law enforcement does not want to be involved in these situations any more than any of us!?

If you'd like to find out more about PCMA's Training Solutions aimed at creating safe and positive learning environments, even during a crisis, check out our YouTube Channel below and email Drew Carter at [email protected].

About the Author

Specializing in human performance, coaching, and organizational leadership, Dr. Paul "Paulie" Gavoni is a behavior scientist and educator who has worked across education and human services for almost three decades. In this capacity, he has served the needs of children and adults through various positions, including COO, Vice President, Director of School Improvement, Leadership Director, Professor, Assistant Principal, School Turnaround Manager, Clinical Coordinator, Therapist, District Behavior Analyst, and Director of Progam Development and Public Relations at?PCMA. Dr. Gavoni is passionate about applying Organizational Behavior Management (OBM), or the science of human behavior, to make a positive difference in establishing safe, productive, and engaging environments that bring out the best in faculty and staff so they can bring out the best in the learners they serve. He is an active board member of the?Opioid Awareness Foundation?and?World Behavior Analysis Day Alliance.

Known for his authenticity and practical approaches, Dr. Gavoni is the host of the Top 1.5% globally ranked?Crisis in Education Podcast?and a sought-out speaker at various Educational and Behavior Analytic Conferences Internationally. He a the Wall Street Journal and USA Today best-selling co-author of The Scientific Laws of Life & Leadership: Behavioral Karma; Quick Wins! Accelerating School Transformation through Science, Engagement, and Leadership; Deliberate Coaching: A Toolbox for Accelerating Teacher Performance; and MMA Science: A Training, Coaching, and Belt Ranking Guide. Dr. Gavoni is proud to introduce OBM and Applied Behavior Analysis to worldwide audiences through his numerous publications and his work with PCMA to create productive, safe, and positive cultures.

Beyond his work in education and human services, Dr. Gavoni is also a former Golden Gloves Heavyweight Champion and a highly respected striking coach in combat sports. Coach “Paulie Gloves,” as he is known in the Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) community, has trained world champions and UFC vets using technologies rooted in the behavioral sciences. Coach Paulie has been featured in the books?Beast: Blood, Struggle, and Dreams a the Heart of Mixed Martial Arts, A Fighter’s Way, and the featured article Ring to Cage:?How four former boxers help mold MMA’s finest. He is also an author who has written extensively for various online magazines such as Scifighting, Last Word on Sports, and Bloody Elbow, where his?Fight Science series?continues to bring behavioral science to MMA. Finally, Paulie was also a featured fighter in FX’s highest-rated show at the time, The Toughman, and as an MMA coach in the Lifetime reality series?Leave it to Geege.