HOW MANDT CAN HELP YOU!
Return on Investment
Increase Workplace Safety
FAQS
Request more information
Event Locations
Trainer Resource Center
Traumagenic PBS & Complex Behavior
Work with Complex
Behavior Testimonial
Traumagenic PBS Resources
Presentations and Publications
Print Train the Trainer Brochure
Print Training Options Brochure
Print Info Page
EDUCATIONAL INFO
Educational Brochure Print
Education info Print
Educational Options Brochure Print
Educational PD Training Brochure Print
Classroom Culture In-Service Info
Classroom Culture In-Service Inquiry
Sectors > Education > HR 4247
H.R. 4247 Preventing Harmful Seclusion and Restraint in Schools Act
H.R. 4247 was passed by the House of Representatives on, and will be going to the Senate. There is no current timeline I know of for action by the Senate. The Mandt System, Inc. supports the intent and purpose of the bill, however I and others who have followed this issue are concerned about several of the definitions in the bill. The definitions come from the Public Health Service Act. Some are so general that they could result including activities or actions that are clearly not restraint.
If the definitions in the legislation are passed they will be used in the federal and state regulations which are subsequently written. As you are aware Federal laws are translated to regulatory language written at a state level. It is imperative that the Federal legislation correctly identify and target the activities or actions that are indeed restraints. The legislation will ultimately lead to data collection and it is necessary that the information collected be accurate and specific in order to be meaningful. By making the law as clear as possible, we can minimize the distortion that sometimes occurs when Federal regulations are translated into state regulations and data collection
The Mandt System® uses definitions from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) as we teach how to prevent, de-escalate, and, if needed, utilize restraint. We use these definitions because:
- The definitions are clear, precise, and measurable. As a result, it is easier to teach the definitions to others minimizing the "gray areas" that exist in the current definitions in the bill.
- Using DOJ definitions provides a solid foundation to teach staff how to prevent, de-escalate and, if needed, use restraint and then document the interactions and outcomes. This approach minimizes the opportunity for misperception in reviewing documentation.
- We know that negative outcomes such as injuries and, in rare occasions, death occur when restraint and seclusion are used. In such cases, there will be a thorough review of the evidence, including documentation and, where available, video of the incident. Using DOJ definitions gives administrators and supervisors a method to anticipate the questions that will be asked in such a review. It is our experience that when organizations are able to demonstrate through documentation that their actions were consistent with training, liability is greatly minimized.
The definitions we would like to change are:
a) seclusion;
b) physical restraint;
c) mechanical restraint;
d) Physical Escort;
e) time out; and
f) positive behavior support.
There are links to five documents at the right hand side. These include:
- a chart comparing the current definitions and our recommendations for change,
- a list of the Senators on the Education, Pension and Labor Committee,
- a sample letter to your Senator and addresses,
- the bill itself, and
- a copy of testimony from the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Instruction in Loudon County, VA schools.
As a educator, we suspect that you are invested in reducing the frequency of the use of restraints and seclusions. It would be extremely beneficial to you and the individuals you serve, if you would take the time to write a letter to your representative. I would greatly appreciate your effort to improve this very vital piece of legislation.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact:
Bob Bowen, The Mandt System, Inc. CEO
hr4247@mandtsystem.com
