How State Institutions Inadvertently Punish Restraint Reporting—And What They Should Do Instead

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away—well, not quite, but it certainly felt like it—I found myself parachuted into a struggling school with a team, tasked with turning around a situation where discipline issues had gotten so out of hand that law enforcement was being called out twice a week. What we encountered was a chaotic environment, desperately in need of better systems and processes.

As part of our intervention, we introduced a simple yet innovative coding system designed to accurately capture data every time a student was removed from the classroom. Prior to our arrival, the school had heavily relied on office discipline referrals to track behavior issues, which were grossly underreported. Through diligent action research, we uncovered that only about 40-50% of incidents that warranted a referral were actually being documented. The data discrepancy was not just a clerical error—it was a systemic failure.

To address this, the coding system was implemented to ensure that every incident was recorded, aiming to enhance the fidelity of the discipline referral process. This method proved to be effective, yet enlightening. For instance, at School X, where we piloted this approach, we observed a reduction in behavioral codes from 100 to 80 in just one week. Strikingly, however, the number of formal referrals documented doubled from 40 to 80 compared to the previous year. This wasn't because discipline issues had suddenly surged—on the contrary, there was actually a 20% reduction in incidents. The spike in reported referrals was due to improved data input fidelity, painting a truer picture of the school's disciplinary landscape.

Instead of recognizing the progress and learning from our methodologies, the district reacted with concern, questioning why reported discipline issues had seemingly doubled. They missed the point entirely: the fidelity of data reporting had enhanced, not the frequency of misbehavior. This scenario mirrors a widespread issue across schools and states concerning the reporting of restraints. Rather than penalizing schools for apparent increases in incident reports, state institutions should be encouraging and reinforcing robust, preventive systems that lead to such transparent reporting.

This story from the trenches highlights a critical need for systemic change, setting the stage for a deeper discussion on how we can shift from punishment to reinforcement in the context of restraint reporting and beyond.

The Problem: Punitive Measures Against Honest Reporting

In addressing the systemic issues in educational and treatment facilities concerning behavior management, state leadership often leans heavily on policy revisions. Task forces are convened, and policies are painstakingly rewritten over months or even years, yet, in many cases, these efforts result in little tangible change on the ground. The underlying problem often remains unaddressed: the punitive measures against facilities that honestly report incidents involving restraints, and the lack of robust systems and effective leadership for reducing the need for restraints in the first place.

In their commitment to safety and maintaining standards, state institutions have traditionally stressed the importance of stringent reporting of incidents involving restraints. While well-intentioned, this approach has unfortunately led to a counterproductive outcome. Facilities that follow the protocols and report these incidents faithfully often find themselves facing penalties—be it through cuts in funding, adverse media coverage, or administrative sanctions. Such punitive responses not only discourage transparency but also erode trust, fostering an environment where the focus shifts from prevention to cover-up.

Facilities that report higher numbers of restraint incidents are frequently perceived as problematic, fostering a stigmatized view that can lead to harsher scrutiny and punitive measures from oversight bodies. This perception fails to consider that higher reporting numbers could actually reflect a more robust and compliant monitoring system, not necessarily a higher occurrence of restraint use. Current policies often inadvertently disincentivize accurate reporting as facilities may underreport to sidestep these negative consequences.

The Proposal: Reinforcement Over Punishment

The paradigm needs to shift from punishment to reinforcement. Instead of penalizing facilities for reporting restraints, state institutions should develop mechanisms to reward transparency and the implementation of robust preventative measures. This can be achieved through several strategic initiatives:

1. Positive Reinforcement for Reporting: Introduce incentives for accurate and timely reporting of restraint incidents. These incentives could include increased funding for training, recognition awards, and other resources to support facility improvements.
2. Focus on Prevention: Encourage the development and implementation of proactive behavioral management strategies that minimize the need for restraints. Facilities that demonstrate a commitment to such strategies should be acknowledged and rewarded.
3. Utilize Social Validity Data: Collect and use social validity data to gauge the acceptability of the behavioral interventions from the perspective of those directly affected—students, patients, and staff. Facilities that score high on social validity measures should be recognized as models of best practice.

Case Studies: Lessons from Successful Implementations

Highlight examples where institutions have successfully shifted their focus from punitive responses to supportive enhancements. For instance, a school that reduced restraint incidents through comprehensive staff training in de-escalation techniques could be showcased. Detail the steps taken by the school, the challenges faced, and the outcomes, including improved safety and better educational outcomes.

Enhanced Strategic Framework for State Oversight in Behavior Management

Let's take a deeper look at some key approaches to improving restraint reporting and reducing the need for restraints in the first place. State institutions play a vital role in shaping the behavior management practices of schools and facilities, aiming to minimize the use of restraints through enhanced systems and leadership. Instead of solely setting standards, states can also provide frameworks, incentives, and financial rewards that encourage and sustain the adoption of best practices. This approach is designed to foster long-term improvements in both safety and effective behavior and crisis management.

Comprehensive Strategic Areas for State Guidance:

1. Define and Promote Best Practices

• Establish Clear Guidelines: Clearly define actionable standards for behavior and crisis management that are grounded in science and prioritize preventative measures (as opposed to just de-escalation) and positive interventions.
• Incentive Programs: Create a system of recognition, such as certifications or public commendations, for facilities that consistently meet or exceed these standards.

2. Supportive Oversight and Accountability

• Constructive Monitoring: Develop a supportive oversight mechanism that guides facilities in implementing these standards, focusing on consultation and collaborative support rather than punitive measures.
• Transparent Reporting Protocols: Encourage the adoption of standardized, non-punitive reporting protocols that facilitate honest and consistent documentation of behavioral incidents.

3. Leadership Development and System Evaluation

• Leadership Training Programs: Advocate for the development and participation in leadership programs that enhance the abilities of managers and administrators to effectively oversee and innovate in behavior management. Include fluency-based training to ensure that staff not only learn but also master the necessary skills at a level where they can perform them competently and confidently under varying conditions.
• Deliberate Coaching for Skill Generalization: To bring out the best in students and consumers, we must bring out the best in those who are supporting them. This means well-designed and effective professional development, not just "sit and gets" with no follow-up. Following training, implement deliberate coaching sessions that focus on the application of learned skills in real-world settings. This step is essential for the generalization of skills across different scenarios and ensures that staff can effectively apply their training in the actual work environment.
• Ongoing System Evaluations: Support facilities in conducting regular evaluations of their behavior management systems, offering feedback and actionable recommendations for continuous improvement. Use data from these evaluations to refine both the training and coaching processes, ensuring they remain effective and responsive to the needs of the facility. Data should be broken up into leading and lagging indicators that ultimately connect to the desired outcome of reduced restraints and increased restraint reporting. For example, leading indicators, training completion rates, frequency of coaching sessions, participation in climate surveys, and staff and student attendance rates, provide early signals of potential issues and confirm the effectiveness of current strategies. Lagging indicators might include the reduction in discipline issues, accuracy and timeliness of restraint reporting, results of follow-up climate surveys, the number of meetings held on behavior management, the number of people who receive followed-up coaching, measure the outcomes of actions taken and assessment the overall success of the interventions.

4. Transition Support and Scalability

• Assistance During Transition: Provide support for facilities during the initial phases of implementing new practices, which might include temporary increases in reported incidents due to improved documentation.
• Adaptation Guidelines: Offer guidance on how to adapt and scale effective behavior management practices to accommodate the unique needs and resources of various facilities, ensuring that all can implement best practices regardless of their starting point.

5. Stakeholder Engagement and Feedback Integration

• Collect Broad Stakeholder Feedback: Encourage facilities to gather and utilize feedback from all stakeholders, including students, staff, families, and community leaders, to gauge the effectiveness and social validity of behavior management strategies.
• Feedback-Driven Improvements: Establish mechanisms for integrating stakeholder feedback into ongoing system reviews and improvements, ensuring that behavior management practices are responsive to the needs and perceptions of the community.

6. Financial Incentives for Excellence

• Reward-Based Funding: Implement financial incentives that reward facilities demonstrating excellence in their systems and leadership, based on data from evaluations and reporting. These rewards could be structured as bonus funding, grants for further improvements, or public investment in programs that exemplify best practices in behavior management.
• Data-Driven Recognition: Ensure that financial rewards are contingent on clear, measurable outcomes such as reduced restraint usage, improved reporting accuracy, and positive social validity metrics.

By integrating financial incentives into this framework, state institutions can not only guide but also materially support schools and facilities in maintaining high standards of behavior management and leadership. This enhanced support structure is designed to motivate ongoing excellence, leading to safer and more supportive environments for all community members.

The Cost

As we propose a shift towards more supportive and preventive approaches in behavior management within educational and treatment facilities, several counterarguments arise, primarily focusing on the perceived high costs and feasibility of implementing these changes. Critics argue that the initial financial outlay required to implement new training programs, develop oversight mechanisms, and revise policies is prohibitively expensive. While it's true that these actions require upfront investment, it's crucial to consider the long-term savings and benefits. The current system's costs, including legal settlements like the $3 million payout by Glen Mills Schools and high turnover rates, which can cost $20,000 to $30,000 per exiting teacher, far exceed the expenses associated with preventive measures. And the negative cost to our learners and those who are most vulnerable is immeasurable.

Another concern is the practicality of uniformly applying new policies across diverse settings, especially in resource-limited areas. However, scalable solutions and phased implementations can ensure that even under-resourced schools can adopt these changes effectively. State and local grants can be strategically used to support these transitions. There is often resistance within institutions accustomed to traditional disciplinary approaches. Effective change management strategies, clear communication of the long-term benefits, and involvement of staff in the transition process are essential to overcoming this inertia. Success stories and pilot programs demonstrating the benefits of the new approach can further encourage buy-in.

Critics also worry about how success will be measured. By establishing clear, measurable outcomes—such as reductions in restraint use, improvements in school climate scores, and positive feedback from community stakeholders—success can be clearly tracked and communicated. The shift might lead to concerns about undermining authority with an over-reliance on positive reinforcements. However, when implemented alongside clear guidelines and consistent consequences, positive reinforcement strategies enhance authority and improve compliance and engagement.

To truly address these issues, state institutions must pivot from punitive responses to a model that values and incentivizes good practices. By investing in systems that enhance transparency and promote proactive behavior management, not only are the immediate financial wastes reduced, but the broader, more profound costs to individuals and society are also significantly mitigated. This shift is not merely a financial calculation—it is a fundamental realignment towards a more just and effective management of behavior that reverberates through all levels of service provision.

A Call for Integrity and Improvement

Look, I'm sure there are lots of things to consider that aren't addressed in this Behavioral Brief. And that's ok. The point here is to begin reflecting on current practices in hopes that a shift can eventually be made. The ultimate goal should be to create safe environments for all, minimize the need for restraint, and ensure that restraint is used within a framework of ethical care and transparency. By reversing the punitive approach to reporting, state institutions can foster a culture of honesty and improvement, benefiting not only the individuals in their care but society as a whole.

State institutions have a responsibility to lead by example, demonstrating that accountability and continuous improvement are not just expected but rewarded. Only then can we expect to see real, lasting change in the management and reporting of restraints—a change that is crucial for the dignity and safety of everyone involved.

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.