Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restraint And Seclusion Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Disability Rights Connecticut outlines review of evidence-based interventions and restraint/seclusion monitoring under Public Act 25-67
Summary
Disability Rights Connecticut presented a plan to study feasibility of requiring private providers to use evidence-based behavioral interventions and to review monitoring and random audits of restraint and seclusion; the subgroup will conduct interviews (up to 20), about five focus groups and a survey, and must submit a report by Jan. 1 under Public Act 25-67, Section 14.
Tom Cosker, an advocate with Disability Rights Connecticut, told the work group that the subgroup's statutory charge under Public Act 25-67, Section 14, requires a report by Jan. 1 on behavioral intervention methods for students receiving special education and on monitoring and random audits of restraint and seclusion by the state department of education.
"We shall submit, TCB shall submit a report by January 1, regarding behavioral health issues impacting students in the state receiving special education," Tom said. He described the two main workstreams: (1) evaluate the feasibility and impacts of requiring private providers to use evidence-based behavioral interventions and train staff, and (2) review monitoring and random audits of restraint and seclusion incidents, including compiling incidents and evaluating enforcement of restraint-and-seclusion laws.
Tom said the team is completing literature and gray-literature reviews, designing interview and focus group instruments, and drafting a methodology. The plan calls for up to 20 interviews (targeting behaviorists, providers, educators, auditors and policymakers), roughly five focus groups, and a two-wave survey (administrators first, then educators and practitioners). Some data requests to the state department of education are already underway; the team expects interviews to begin next week and to carry through the summer, with most report drafting scheduled for the fall.
Work-group members asked whether the task applies mainly to private providers; Tom confirmed the statutory charge centers on private providers but said findings may be applicable to public-school settings and could inform future actions. Attendees pressed the team to ensure the literature review and interviews explicitly consider whether evidence-based practices have excluded people with intellectual disabilities, autism or other subgroups; Tom said the project will document subgroup-specific evidence and limitations. He also clarified that caregiver (parent) interviews are not part of the current statutory scope, though family input is noted as valuable for potential future work.
The subgroup will share interview scripts, focus-group plans and survey instruments as they are finalized and requested assistance from attendees for recruitment and contacts.
