Providers tell committee restraint can be avoided with investment in trauma‑informed, relationship‑based care

Two presenters who run intensive residential or therapeutic‑education programs told the House Human Services Committee that seclusion and physical restraint rates fall when programs prioritize relationship‑based practices, sustained staff training and trauma‑informed interventions.

Shelley McGinnis, program director for Park Street (Howard Center), described a multi‑decade effort to move from a program that once used physical intervention to a largely hands‑off model. "We decided to make a shift to move to being a hands off program," McGinnis said, describing long‑term investments in staff training, in‑house trainers, daily debriefing, collaborative problem solving, ARC (Attachment, Regulation, and Competency), SMART sensory‑motor work and regulation spaces rather than seclusion rooms.

Why it matters: Committee members are considering H.30, a bill related to seclusion and restraint of children in the custody of the Department for Children and Families (DCF). The committee heard concrete program features that presenters said enabled restraint‑free practice and reduced harm: low staff‑to‑youth ratios, consistent and specialized training, clinically involved milieu staff, family and agency coordination, individualized crisis plans and alternatives such as restorative circles and sensory regulation areas.

Key program details and outcomes: McGinnis said Park Street is a small program with a 10‑bed maximum and long lengths of stay that create opportunity to build trust and teach replacement skills. She said Park Street does not use seclusion and that the program’s approach includes proactive planning for transitions, body‑based interventions, restorative circles, and strong local partnerships (Rutland City Police, local mental health agencies and DCF) for support.

Kelly Bushey, founder and director of Connected Circles, described an approved independent therapeutic school in Berlin that serves up to 12 students ages roughly 12–22. Bushey said Connected Circles has used physical restraint only twice in its operation and has never used seclusion. Both incidents were reported and followed by after‑action reviews. Bushey said the school emphasizes “connection over compliance,” high staff contact, environmental design, and long, consistent positive experiences for youth who often have histories of multiple adverse childhood experiences.

Reporting and oversight: Both programs said they document critical incidents and send reports to DCF and to parents as required. Park Street noted its licensing and reporting obligations through its oversight entity; Connected Circles said it follows the Agency of Education reporting guidelines, writes comprehensive incident reports when restraints occur, and conducts after‑action reviews that include staff reflection and relationship repair.

Limits and transferability: Both presenters cautioned that their success depends on sustained resources. McGinnis noted Park Street’s small size (maximum 10 youth), long‑term model and high staffing levels; she said not all residential or school programs have the capacity, staff stability or infrastructure to replicate Park Street’s model without additional investment. Bushey said students she receives often have histories of repeated restraint in previous settings and that building trust takes time and consistency. Both presenters invited committee members to visit their sites.

Ending: Committee members welcomed the concrete program examples and said they expect to call these providers back during the next legislative session as the committee develops H.30. No formal policy action was taken at this meeting.