Judge Rotenberg Educational Center

The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC, founded in 1971 as the Behavior Research Institute) is a residential school in Canton, Massachusetts, United States for children with developmental disabilities, emotional disorders, and autistic-like behaviors. The school has been condemned for torture by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. Before the practice was banned in 2020, the school used to punish students by administering electric shocks through a device called the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED), which was designed by Matthew Israel, the school's founder.[1] While it is now illegal in the United States to use electric shocks as punishment, the JRC continues to employ other means to inflict pain on students for the purpose of behavior modification.

Autism rights movement

The Judge Rotenberg Center's behavior modification program uses the methods of applied behavior analysis, and relies heavily on aversion therapy. Aversives used by the JRC include contingent food programs, long-term restraints, sensory deprivation, and GED shocks (before the device was banned in 2020). Students may also be forced to take part in behavior rehearsal lessons, in which they are provoked into a target behavior for the sole purpose of punishing that behavior. If they refuse to perform the target behavior, they are punished anyway for noncompliance.

Before aversives can be used, approval must be given by the student's parent or legal guardian, a judge, and a human rights counsel. While JRC claims to rely mainly on positive behavior support and contends that electric skin shocks were used only as a last resort, a 2006 report by the New York State Education Department found that the shocks were used for minor episodes of noncompliance, and that no significant positive behavior support program existed. Reasons for administering shocks included: failing to be neat, wrapping one's foot around the leg of a chair, using the bathroom without permission, urinating on oneself after being refused the right to use the bathroom, screaming while being shocked, and attempting to remove the GED. Shocks were often given while restrained, either as punishment or as part of a behavior rehearsal lesson.

In a video that surfaced in 2011, JRC staff tied an autistic boy face-down to a four-point board and shocked him 31 times at the highest voltage setting. The first shock was given for failing to take off his coat when asked, and the remaining 30 shock were given for screaming and tensing up while being shocked. The boy was later hospitalized with third degree burns and acute stress disorder, but no action was taken against any of the staff as neither the law nor JRC policy had been broken. In a separate incident, two students were awoken from their beds at night, restrained, and shocked 77 and 29 times (respectively) on the false allegation that they had misbehaved. The center's founder, Matthew Israel, was indited on criminal charges for ordering a video of the incident destroyed and was forced to resign his position at the JRC as part of a plea deal to avoid prosecution.

There have been repeated attempts to shut down the center by autism rights advocates, disability rights advocates, and human rights advocates. Notable people who have opposed the center include Ari Ne'eman, Shain Neumeier, Lydia Brown, and Brian Joyce. Organizations the oppose the center include the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Disability Rights International, and Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth. Six students have died at the school since it was founded in 1971.[2][3]

History

1971-1976: Founding and early years

In 1971, Matthew Israel founded the center as the Behavior Research Institute (BRI) in Providence, Rhode Island. Initially, the school had just two students, one autistic and the other schizophrenic. In 1975, the BRI expanded to include group homes in Massachusetts, and in 1976 it opened another branch in California.[4] While the school used aversives during these years, the issue had not yet come to national attention. Not much has been written about the school in this time.

1976-1981: Behavior Research Institute of California

Israel opened the California branch of the BRI without a license to operate a group home, without a license to practice psychology in the state of California, and without a license to use aversives on students. The school used aversives nonetheless. When the institute applied for a license to operate in 1977, the California Department of Health rejected the application, citing lack of meaningful peer review and the unnecessary use of painful aversives.[5][6] The department also found that there was insufficient evidence to show that Israel was "reputable and responsible" and that he had the ability to comply with regulations. Without a license, the school was scheduled to shut down.[6]

The day after the scheduled shutdown, a group of parents reopened the school as a co-op, moving Israel's official position of executive director to consultant. The school then changed its name to the Behavior Research Institute of California, and applied for a license to operate a group home and a permit to use aversives. With the aid of then-California governor Pat Brown (who's law firm was hired to represent the school), they received the license to operate, as well as the only permit ever granted by the state of California for a group home to use physical aversives on its residents.[6] The institute was awarded $35,000 a year per child by the state, the highest rate of any community facility in California.[5]

Following the 1981 death of a student and an investigation by the States of California, the institute was banned from using physical aversives, as well as from using restrains and withholding meals as punishment.[6] The Institute soon after closed down its California branch, which was immediately re-opened by Israel's wife as Tobinworld.

1981-1994: BRI in Rhode Island and Massachusetts

While corporal punishment was against the law in Massachusetts, the institute was granted special permission to use aversives in 1983. The institute was welcomed by some state officials due to its near-zero rejection rate, as it was able willing to take the state's most difficult students.[6][7] In 1993, the Massachusetts department of Mental Retardation said that the school had "repeatedly failed to comply with a number of state regulations" and threatened to take away its certification.[8]

1994-Present: Judge Rotenberg Center

In 1994, the center changed its name to the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center "to honor the memory of the judge [who] helped to preserve [the] program from extinction at the hands of state licensing officials in the 1980s." JRC moved from its original location near Providence, Rhode Island to its current facilities in Canton, Massachusetts in 1996. In 2011, Israel was forced to resign from his position as director of the Judge Rotenberg Center as part of a deferred prosecution agreement after being indited on criminal charges related to the abuse of two students.[9][10] Six students have died of preventable causes at the school since it opened in 1971.[11][12]

As the result of a 2011 ruling by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, governor Deval Patrick’s administration imposed regulations that only residents whose treatment plans approved the GED before that time were still permitted to receive it, but new students and residents enrolling into JRC were no longer allowed, by law, to receive the GED as part of their treatment plan.[13][14]

The Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services is responsible for providing the JRC with its license to use aversives, including electric shocks.[15]

Behavior modification

The Judge Rotenberg Center provides behavioral treatment using the methodologies of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). JRC's behavior modification program relies heavily on aversion therapy with treatment directed exclusively towards promoting normalization. Aversives used to modify behavior include: food deprivation; restraint; solitary confinement; and GED skin shocks (before the FDA ban on such in 2020).[16] While the center often claims that it uses aversives only as last resort against self-harm and aggression, these claims have been refuted. Reports by multiple government agencies have found that the center regularly uses aversives on children with no history of self-harm or aggression, often for minor infractions. Several former residents of the center who used to be on the GED have successfully transitioned positive behavior support programs elsewhere.[17] There is medical consensus that positive support is both safer and more effective than the use of aversives.[18]

Contingent skin shocks
Further information: Graduated Electronic Decelerator
A patent drawing for the GED

The center has stated that the GED was only used as a last resort to prevent violent or self-injurious behavior when positive behavioral support had failed.[19][18] However, a 2006 report by the New York State Education Department found that the device was regularly used when there was no threat of serious physical harm or injury, including for:

  • Failing to be neat
  • Wrapping one's foot around the leg of a chair
  • Stopping work for more than ten seconds
  • Closing one's eyes for more than five seconds
  • Minor acts of noncompliance

Other reported reasons for administering shocks include:[4]

  • Using the bathroom without permission
  • Urinating on oneself after being refused the right to use the bathroom
  • Screaming while being shocked
  • Attempting to remove the GED

The report also found that despite the center's claims, no significant positive behavioral support program existed.[20]

Additionally, the report found that the GED could be programed to give automated skin shocks in response to targeted behaviors. For example, some students were made to sit on GED seats that would automatically administer skin shocks for the target behavior of standing up, while others wore waist holsters that would administer skin shocks if the student pulled a hand out of the holster. Shocks were administered continuously until the target behavior stopped occurring. The center did not have approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use the device in this way.[20]:8

An FDA investigation found that some parents and guardians were pressured into giving consent to put their child on the GED, that they were not provided with accurate information about the device's risks, and that other options were not exhausted before resorting to the GED. The agency also found that the GED could cause both physical and psychological harm, including: pain, burns, tissue damage, depression, fear, and aggression. Furthermore, they concluded that the GED device may have caused one resident to enter a catatonic state, and that it can in some cases worsen the behaviors that it claims to treat.[17]

Greg Miller, a teacher's assistant at the JRC, reported that staff were expected to administer shocks without consideration for the reason a resident was misbehaving. On one occasion, he saw a girl with cerebral palsy shocked for moaning and reaching out to hold a staff member's hand. Miller said that other staff warned him to always announce to the class before reaching into his pocket. Once when he did not, four children screamed and he was forced to shock them. Miller said that this kind of scenario occurred "all the time" at the school. Staff were continually observed by cameras to ensure that they administered the prescribed shocks, and feared losing their jobs if they did not.[4]

"All of these behaviors had to be consequated with a GED electric shock. There were no exceptions—a scream was a scream, a grab was a grab, and we had to follow court-approved orders."

— Greg Miller

William Pelham, a behavioral specialist and director of the Center for Children and Families at the State University of New York at Buffalo, argued that the center's use of electric shocks was harmful and unnecessary. "People don't use... shock anymore because they don't need to. It is not the standard of care. There are alternative procedures that do not involve aversives like electric shock."[21] At the time of the ban, the JRC was the only institution in the United States using electric skin shocks as aversives.[22]

Contingent food program

In the contingent food program, a student's food is withheld to be used as a reward for good behavior. If a student fails to meet all the goals laid out for them by the JRC each meal, they are made to discard the excess food not earned. If a student fails to meet their daily minimum calorie intake (which may be as little as 20% of their prescribed calories), non-preferred make up food is dispensed to bring them up to the minimum. The non-preferred make up food is designed to be noxious so as to punish the student: For example, it may be mashed up and sprinkled with liver powder. A 2006 investigation of the JRC concluded that the contingent food program posed an "unnecessary risk" to the students' growth and development.[20]

Sensory deprivation

A common sensory deprivation punishment involves forcing a student to wear a helmet that produces restricts vision and hearing (through the use of white noise) for an extended period of time. The student may also be restrained and subjected to other aversives during this time.[20] In 1981, a resident died of asphyxiation during this procedure.[23] The punishment continues to be used.[20]

At least one resident was subjected to a procedure called "isolation-deprivation" in which he was restrained by the wrists and ankles for 24 hours and boxes were stacked so as to prevent him from seeing anything in the room. During this time he would receive no meals, or only lettuces with mayonnaise three times a day. On some occasions he was not allowed to use the bathroom and was forced to soil his pants. Furthermore, staff were directed to pinch his feet once per hour and spray him with water whenever they walked by.[24]

Movement limitation

The use of long term restraints is as punishment is common at the JRC. Many residents are required to carry their own "restraint bags", which contain the materials required to restrain them. Commonly used restraints include the four-point board and the five-point restraint chair. Restraints may be used alone, or in combination with other aversives to punish students. For example, one student's behavior plan specified that he was to receive 5 GED while restrained to a four-point board as a consequence for pulling the fire alarm.[20]

Behavior rehearsal lessons

In a behavior rehearsal lesson, a student is provoked, tricked, or coerced into exhibiting a target behavior (e.g. eating nonfood items, destruction of property) so that the target behavior may be punished. If the student refuses to perform the target behavior, they are punished for noncompliance, but if they perform the target behavior then they are punished much more harshly for breaking the rules. There is no way for the student to escape punishment. The student is repeatedly challenged to perform the behavior, and the lesson does not end until they sit perfectly still for ten minutes. The JRC contends that behavior rehearsal lessons are an effective way of reducing "high risk, low frequency" behaviors. As of 2006, at least nine students at the JRC were approved for behavior rehearsal lessons.[20]

Controversy and investigations

In its 2006 Private Special Education School Program Review Report of Findings, the Massachusetts Department of Education found that unsigned Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) were being utilized for students at JRC, and that the school did not have a written policy indicating that it must obtain consent before revising or changing an IEP.[25] At various points in its history, investigations and lawsuits have been brought against the center's operations. Matthew Israel has cited Ivar Lovaas's use of a cattle prod on autistic children as justification for the center's use of electric skin shocks.[26]

A 1979 report from the state for New York found that:

Rather than being a program of neglect which harms children by not assisting them in growth, the [institute's] program utilizes a current professional ideology to deny children the opportunity to grow; to deny them any choices; to deny them developmental experiences in decision-making; to deny them normal experiences in leisure-time pursuits; to deny them any opportunities for fun; to deny them any opportunity to demonstrate anything other then a few pre-selected responses.

— 1979 New York State Report

As a result of the report, the state of New York restricted the institute's right to use aversives to cases where a student was a danger to himself or others, and even then only after other means had failed.[6] However, the institute soon after regained its right to use aversives on New York students.[27]

1982 report

In 1979, a staff member resigned and asked the district attorney to file child abuse charges against the institute, alleging that he had observed abuse there.[28][23] On the prompting of various former staff, residents, and concerned family members, the California Department of Social Services launched an investigation into the institution.[23] The ensuing investigation revealed various abuses by the institute including: improper and unsafe use of restraints, punishments designed to humiliate the residents, failure to provide proper nutrition, failure to provide proper medical care, and severe bruising/lacerations/scars from aversive interventions. In a 1982 report of the investigation, the California Department of Social Services documented various violations and abuses that had occurred at the institute.[24]

As a result of the investigation, the state of California revoked the institute's license to use aversives and forbade Matthew Israel from setting foot on the property.[4]

Physical abuse

The investigation found that residents had received "excessive bruises" from "excessive and unnecessary aversives". Residents had cuts, scars, scabs, and open wounds from the use of aversives. Furthermore, staff took action to disguise these injuries from doctors and family members: Doctor's appointment were sometimes postponed due to of excessive bruising, and aversive interventions were put on hold before scheduled visits with family for "public relations purposes". Residents were made to wear long sleeves to cover up the injuries, and social service employees were on some occasions denied the right to adequately inspect them for bruises.[24]

Residents were often put in positions where there was no way for them to avoid receiving an aversive: For example, deaf children were punished for failing to comply with verbal commands. Residents were also forced to take part in behavior rehearsal lessons where they were punished regardless of whether or not they behaved correctly. Additionally, residents were regularly spanked for crying after being punished. The report found that at least one resident's behavior substantially worsened at the institute due to "improper treatment" and "unprofessional use of aversives".[24]

Humiliation

The report found that staff pinched residents to make them repeat certain phrases, and threatened residents with the use of aversives if they did not comply with the staff's arbitrary demands. One resident was made to eat dinner outside with his arms restrained by his sides from a plate of food had had been placed on the ground. Other residents were deprived of the right to bed: One was forced to sleep in a kneeling position while tied to a piece of furniture, while another was made to sleep on the floor with his arms restrained to nearby fixtures. Residents were sometimes made to soil themselves when staff refused to let them use the bathroom.[24][6]

Restraints

Residents were restrained for punishment, as well as for the personal convenience of staff. Restraints were restrained in unsafe ways, and sometimes received cuts and bruises.[24] In 1981, a fourteen year boy old died at the institute while restrained face down to a four-point board.[23] The institute was not authorized to use restraints on any resident at this time, and continued to do so even after being informed that it was against of the law.[24]

Record keeping and retaliation

The institute was found to have removed records, making them inaccessible to investigators and family. Furthermore, they were found to have denied the right to view records to family members and investigators. In many cases, the institute's records were inaccurate. Examples include: denying a resident food as punishment while recording that he had been fed, recording that restraints had been checked when they had not been checked, and failing to properly record the administration of aversives. The institute retaliated against people who complained about their practices and refused to let the Department of Social Services investigate those complaints. Parents were told that their children would be expelled if they questioned or complained about the institute.[24]

Before and after video

The investigation found that residents were provoked into violent and aggressive behavior as part of the filming of a "before and after" video, where staged clips of the residents responding to provocation were shown as examples of how they had behaved "before" treatment. The residents were then taken off aversive therapy, rewarded heavily for several days, and asked to perform only tasks that placed little demand on them so that a video could be produced to show how they behaved "after" treatment.[24] This film is often shown to parents of prospective students and to reporters to convince them of the benefits of the school.[29][6]

Andre McCollins

In 2002, Andre McCollins, an autistic student from New York City, was restrained on a four-point board and shocked 31 times over the course of seven hours. The first shock was given after he did not take off his coat when asked; subsequent shocks were given as punishments for screaming and tensing up while being shocked.[30] In the video, McCollins can be heard shouting “Someone, help me, please!” The JRC staff listed this as a “major disruptive behavior”, for which he was administered a GED shock.[31]

The day after the incident, McCollins’ mother had to drive him to the hospitable, as he was unable to speak and had third-degree burns on many parts of his body. The doctor diagnosed him with acute stress disorder, a mild form of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was a direct result of the school's aversive treatment. His mother subsequently claimed that "There is no counseling for the [students] there... and the staff there lied to [her] all these years..."[32] at the time, McCollins was in withdrawal after the school abruptly took him off his anti-psychotics.

In 2011, a video of the incident was released and aired on CNN, leading to McCollins‘ mother launching a civil lawsuit against the center, which was settled in 2012, with both sides claiming to be satisfied with the outcome.[33] The video also caught the attention of the hacker group Anonymous, which announced in a YouTube video that the center and those affiliated with it were targets. Anonymous hacked the JRC's website, retrieved confidential information about individuals and groups associated with it, and posted that information to Pastebin. The leaked information included the names and addresses of the center's sponsors, lobbyists, lawyers, supporters, and founder.[34]

Hoax phone call

After the center received a phone call alleging that two of its residents had misbehaved earlier that evening, staff woke them from their beds, restrained them, and repeatedly gave them electric shocks. One of the residents revived 77 shocks and the other revived 29. After the incident, one of the residents had to be treated for burns. The phone call was later found to be a hoax perpetrated by a former resident who was pretending to be a supervisor. In December 2007, the center was found by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care to have been abusive towards residents and to fail to protect their health.[35][9]

There were two major investigations following the incident, one of which was by the federal government. Massachusetts state authority officials also investigated the school, and all investigating parties viewed the video tapes multiple times before the originals of the surveillance tapes were destroyed on the order of Matthew Israel, the founder of the center, even though there was a court order to keep them.[36] In May 2011, Israel was indited on charges of child endangerment, acting as an accessory after the fact, and obstruction of justice for misleading a grand jury over the school's destruction of tapes.[36] In 2011, Israel was forced to resign his position at JRC in a deferred prosecution plea deal with the Massachusetts State Attorney General's office.[36][9][10][37]

Deaths

Danny Aswad

Danny Aswad was a 14 year old autistic boy who died at the JRC (then called the Behavior Research Institute) in 1981 while restrained face-down to a bed.[23] The coroner's report concluded that he had died of "mental retardation" and "cerebral malformation" and recorded his death as from natural causes.[6] The institute was not authorized to use restraints its residents at that time.[24]

Vincent Milletich

Vincent Milletich was a 22 year old autistic man who died at the institute in 1985. He had been restrained and forced to wear a white noise emitting sensory deprivation helmet when he died of asphyxiation after suffering an epileptic seizure.[38][39] Milletich had a history of epileptic seizures, and had been made to wear the helmet as punishment for "making inappropriate sounds".[40][6] The judge who presided over a hearing on Milletich's death declared that two staff doctors were negligent for approving the therapy, and that the school's director, Matthew Israel, had been negligent in authorizing the helmet's use. Milletich's mother said that she did not want charges pressed against the school, but did sue the school for $10 million.[39]

Linda Cornelison

Linda Cornelison was a 19 year old non-verbal and intellectually disabled resident of the institute who died in 1990 of complications related to a gastric perforation. At the time of her death, Cornelison was on a contingent food program[41] where food was withheld as a reward for good behavior. She had been provided approximately 300 calories per day in the days leading up to her death. Cornelison's expressions of pain were interpreted as misbehavior by staff, who administered 56 physical aversives over five hours before calling an ambulance.[41][42][43] Cornelison was unconscious when the ambulance arrived.[44]

An investigation of Cornelison's death, conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Retardation, reported that the treatment was “inhumane beyond all reason” and violated “universal standards of human decency”, but failed to find enough evidence to link the JRC to Cornelison's death. However, a Massachusetts court found in 1995 that the JRC had exhibited negligence.[41][42][43] At the time of her death, Cornelison had been a resident of the institute for seven years, and had been subjected to 88,719 aversives.[41]

Opposition

Condemnation for torture

In 2010, the American human rights organization, Disability Rights International, filed an appeal with the office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, stating they believed the residents were being subjected to human rights abuses due to the center's use of aversives.[45] The then-Special Rapporteur, Manfred Nowak, sent what he described as "an urgent appeal to the U.S. government asking them to investigate."[46] In 2013, the Special Rapporteur declared that the use of the GED device violated the United Nations Convention Against Torture.[47]

FDA bans the GED

In April 2014, the United States Food and Drug Administration announced a public hearing where a panel of neurological devices experts would consider whether or not the FDA should issue a ban of electric shock aversive conditioning devices like the GED.[48] In April 2016, the Food and Drug Administration took the further step of formally proposing a regulatory ban on electric shock aversive conditioning devices.[49][50] In 2020 the FDA issued the final rule banning the device with only minor changes from the 2016 draft. The GED was the third medical device ever to be banned by the organization in its history.[51]

Attempts to close down the center

First attempt

Soon after the death of Vincent Milletich In 1985, the Massachusetts Office of Children issued an order to close the center, which was then called the Behavior Research Institute (BRI). The BRI counter-sued the Office of Children, and after seeing the institute's presentation of one of his worst self-harming students, Judge Ernest Rotenberg sided with the BRI.[4] In the settlement[52] that followed, the Office for Children agreed to pay $580,000 to the BRI in legal fees. The head of the Office of Children later resigned and was sued by a group of parents for $15 million, who claimed that her attempt the shut down the center was a violation of their children's rights.[53][4][54] The Behavior Research Institute soon after changed its name to the Judge Rotenberg Center to honor the judge for his ruling.[4]

Second attempt

In the mid 1990s, the Massachusetts Department of Mental Retardation launched the second attempt to shut down the center. A judge described the case as a "war of harassment" against Matthew Israel and ruled that the attempt to close the and ordered the state to pay $1.5 million to the JRC in compensation for legal fees and other costs. Additionally, he stripped the agency of its power to regulate the center and awarded it to the courts. The commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation was forced to resign.[4]

Further attempts

Attempts to shut down or cripple the JRC at the legislative level have been made in every legislative session since the late 1980s. However, none have passed due to a combination of lobbying from the JRC and the protests of parents.[55] At one time, a group of parents sued the state for $15 million, contending that the state's attempts to close the institute violated their children's rights to treatment.[39] Additionally, Massachusetts state Senator Jeffrey Sanchez, whose nephew, Brandon, has been a resident of the JRC since 1992, is a major proponent of the JRC and their practices. Sanchez has repeatedly blocked the passage of legislation that would threaten the center.[55]

Massachusetts State Senator Brian Joyce tried repeatedly during his tenure in office to close down the center without success.[56]

If this same treatment were allowed on terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, there would be worldwide outrage.

— Brian Joyce

Brian Joyce's tenure in office ended in 2018.[57]

There have been repeated attempts to shut down the center by autism rights advocates, disability rights advocates, and human rights advocates. Notable people who have opposed the center include Ari Ne'eman, Shain Neumeier, Lydia Brown, and Brian Joyce.[58][59][60][56] Organizations the oppose the center include the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Disability Rights International, and Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth.[61][45][62]

Financials

It costs $220,000 per year to keep a student at the JRC, which is payed for in tax dollars.[63][64] The center advertises a near-zero rejection rate, and has said that it is a good fit for any teen who is failing school, refusing to attend, or in a psychiatric or correctional setting.[65] The center has sent out promotional materials to various institutions, and has had some success in picking up students from New York's juvenile jails and from Rikers Island.[66] As of 2017, the JRC had an annual revenue of $70 million.[67]

The JRC is incorporated as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.[67] In 2020, it received $1.7 million in COVID-19 relief funds.[68]

Overbilling

In 2006, it was found that 14 of the school's 17 psychologists, including the director of psychology, lacked proper licenses. Because the state reimburses the JRC for services rendered by doctors, the JRC had overbilled the state by nearly $800,000. As of 2008, the state had not collected the money.[4] For misrepresenting licensing status of the psychologists, the Board of Registration of Psychologists fined the JRC $43,000, and Matthew Israel $29,600.[69][70]

Lobbying

The center regularly lobbies the government to prevent the passage of legislation that could threaten it. In 2010, it spent over $100,000 to lobby against the passage of a bill that would have made the its use of electric shocks illegal.[71][12][72] The school has also lobbied against bills that would have banned the use of restraints and other aversives in Massachusetts schools.[73] As of 2011, the school had spent over $1 million on lobbying efforts.[74]

In 2007, the JRC spent $2.8 million in legal fees.[45]

Advertising and promotion

In 2008, the JRC spent over $390,000 on advertising and promotion. The JRC advertises at psychiatric and juvenile justice conferences, where it attempts to get professionals to suggest the school to parents and guardians. It also places ads on New York City radio. If a parent or guardian expresses interest in the center, a JRC recruiter will contact them to provide gifts and promotional materials. Some students are also sent to the school by the foster care system.[75]

Salaries

In 2007, Matthew Israel was paid $321,000.[4]

Lawsuits

By JRC

In 1986, the institute filed a lawsuit for $15 million against the director of the Massachusetts Office of Children, alleging that her attempt to shut the school down was a violation of the students' rights.[53][54] Several critics of the JRC claim that the school harassed them, and that it sued them for defamation or threatened to sue them if they did not revoke their statements.[76] According to Disability Rights International, former students, teachers, state officials, and legal advocates have expressed fear about publicly criticizing the JRC. The JRC has filed numerous other lawsuits.[45]

By parents

Some parents and former students have filed lawsuits against the JRC.[32][33] In 2006, the family of Evelyn Nicholson sued the school over the use of electric shocks, claiming that the treatment was inhumane and violated her civil rights. The lawsuit was later settled for $65,000.[77] The mother of Andre McCollins sued the center, settling in 2012 for an undisclosed sum.[78] Some parents have filed and won lawsuits against their local school districts to keep their children enrolled at JRC.[14]

Enrollment

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the federal government requires that all states must provide a “free and appropriate” education to all students. Any school district than cannot provide and appropriate education to a student is required to send that student to an approved school that can. The JRC helps families sue their school district to send their children there. It also frequently sues school districts and states to keep children enrolled at the JRC after they turn 21.[75]

Company culture

Employees are encouraged to file anonymous reports against each other, and are forbidden from making casual conversation. The negative write-ups that result from these anonymous reports are called "performance improvement opportunities".[79] Sometimes management will direct an employee to bait another into breaking the rules as a test to see if they will do it. For example, an employee might try to start a casual conversation with another employee at the direction of management. The conversation will be recorded so that staff caught breaking the rules may be punished. All employees must sign a legally binding agreement[80] not to talk publicly about the JRC, even after they no longer work there.[81]

Student demographics

As of 2014, nearly 90% of the school's students were from New York City, and about 90% of the residents were racial minorities.[82]

See also

Human rights movements

Abuse

Torture

Behaviorists

References
  1. Pilkington, Ed (2020-03-05). "US bans shock 'treatment' on children with special needs at Boston-area school". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
  2. ""The Crisis of Disability Is Violence: Ableism, Torture, and Murder" by Brown, Lydia - Tikkun, Vol. 29, Issue 4, Fall 2014 | Online Research Library: Questia". www.questia.com. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
  3. Gonnerman, Jennifer. "The School of Shock". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  4. "The Shocking Truth". Boston Magazine. 2008-06-17. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  5. "14 Mar 1979, 70 - The Los Angeles Times at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2020-08-11.
  6. Kahn, Ric. "Doctor Hurt" (PDF). Boston Phoenix. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
  7. "Some Call It Torture, but a New England School Says That Its Therapy Is Taming Autistic Students". PEOPLE.com. Retrieved 2020-08-07.
  8. "2 Jul 1994, 7 - North Adams Transcript at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 15 August 2020.
  9. Pilkington, Ed (25 May 2011). "Founder of electric shock autism treatment school forced to quit". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  10. "Founder Forced To Leave Controversial Special Needs School". www.wbur.org. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  11. ""The Crisis of Disability Is Violence: Ableism, Torture, and Murder" by Brown, Lydia - Tikkun, Vol. 29, Issue 4, Fall 2014 | Online Research Library: Questia". www.questia.com. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
  12. Gonnerman, Jennifer. "The School of Shock". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  13. "School Questions Plan to Ban Shock Therapy". CBS Boston/WBZ. Associated Press. Retrieved January 3, 2014.
  14. Wen, Patricia. "Center hasn't challenged aversion therapy rules". The Boston Globe. Retrieved January 3, 2014.
  15. "Torture in the U.S.: Shocking Disabled Children at the Judge Rotenberg Center | Globalization101". www.globalization101.org. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  16. "FDA Bans 'Aversive' Shock Treatment". www.medpagetoday.com.
  17. Vogell, Heather. "FDA to Massachusetts Group Home: Stop Shocking Disabled Residents". ProPublica. Retrieved 2020-08-13.
  18. Pilkington, Ed. "Shock Tactics: Treatment or Torture?". The Guardian. Retrieved December 31, 2013.
  19. "History of JRC". Archived from the original on 2014-02-23. Retrieved 2014-01-13.
  20. "Observations and Findings of Out-of-State Program Visitation: Judge Rotenberg Educational Center" (PDF). New York State Education Department. June 9, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 8, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2014.
  21. Kaufman, L. (December 25, 2007). "Parents Defend School's Use of Shock Therapy". The New York Times.
  22. Thompson, Dennis (Apr 24, 2014). "FDA reconsiders behavior-modifying "shock devices"". CBS News. Retrieved Oct 29, 2019.
  23. WHARTON, DAVID (14 August 1986). "After a Troubled Past, Autistic Home Reopens". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 27 July 2020.
  24. Adams (EdSource ), Jane. "California Investigation into Behavior Research Institute of..." www.documentcloud.org. Retrieved 2020-08-04.
  25. "Program Review Report of Findings" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-08-08. Retrieved 2014-07-31.
  26. Willingham, Emily. "FDA Proposes Ban On Electric Shock Devices Used On Autistic Children". Forbes. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  27. "23 Dec 1985, 9 - Kingsport Times-News at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  28. "14 Mar 1979, 71 - The Los Angeles Times at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2020-08-11.
  29. Gonnerman, Jennifer. "The School of Shock". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2020-08-05.
  30. "Inside last facility in the country to use electric shock on students". masslive. 2016-07-22. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  31. "Autism in the News: Judge Rotenberg Center Petition". Autism Parenting Magazine. 2014-05-26. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  32. Anderson, Karen. "Mother Sues Judge Rotenberg Center Over "Torture" Of Disabled Son". CBS Boston/WBZ-TV. Retrieved December 31, 2013.
  33. Hanson, Fred. "Both sides satisfied with outcome of skin-shock therapy case". The Patriot Ledger. Retrieved December 31, 2013.
  34. hqanon (2019-03-08). "Anonymous Top 10 Accomplishments". AnonHQ. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  35. "School Keeps License to Give Shock Therapy Despite Prank". The Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved January 1, 2014.
  36. Wen, Patricia. "Head of Rotenberg Center agrees to leave post in deal with prosecutors". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on February 23, 2014. Retrieved April 19, 2014.
  37. Contreras, Russell. "Charges settled in prank-call shock therapy case". The Boston Globe. Retrieved January 2, 2014.
  38. "11 Sep 1985, 20 - The Boston Globe at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2020-08-12.
  39. Ap (1987-01-08). "Negligence Is Cited in Death". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  40. "3 Nov 1985, 3 - Casper Star-Tribune at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2020-08-12.
  41. Cobb, Polyxane S. "A Short History of Aversives in Massachusetts" (PDF).
  42. Network, Autistic Self Advocacy (2014-08-09). ""Prisoners of the Apparatus": The Judge Rotenberg Center". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  43. Gonnerman, Jennifer. "The School of Shock". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2020-07-28.
  44. "Investigation Report" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2008-03-06.
  45. "Torture not Treatment: Electric Shock and Long-Term Restraint in the United States on Children and Adults with Disabilities at the Judge Rotenberg Center" (PDF). Disability Rights International. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 8, 2013. Retrieved December 31, 2013.
  46. Hinman, Katie. "UN Calls Shock Treatment at Mass. School 'Torture'". ABC News. Retrieved December 30, 2013.
  47. Fortin, Jacey (2020-03-06). "F.D.A. Bans School Electric Shock Devices". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-07-27.
  48. "FDA considers ban on electric shock conditioning for autistic patients". the Guardian. Associated Press. September 15, 2014. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  49. "Press Announcements - FDA proposes ban on electrical stimulation devices intended to treat self-injurious or aggressive behavior". FDA. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  50. "#StopTheShock". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  51. "FDA Bans 'Aversive' Shock Treatment". www.medpagetoday.com.
  52. "Wayback Machine" (PDF). 2012-03-08. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-03-08. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
  53. "9 Aug 1986, 22 - The Boston Globe at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  54. "23 Jun 1987, 17 - The Boston Globe at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2020-08-12.
  55. Gonnerman, Jennifer. "Why Can't Massachusetts Shut Matthew Israel Down?". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
  56. News, A. B. C. "UN Calls Shock Treatment at Mass. School 'Torture'". ABC News. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
  57. Times, Milton. "Sen. Joyce won't run again". Miltontimes.com. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  58. "ASAN Testimony to the Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee of the FDA". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  59. "Activists Tell FDA Head: Ban Electric Shocks on People With Autism". Rewire.News. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  60. Heather Adams (July 22, 2016). "Advocates hope FDA will ban electric shock devices used at Judge Rotenberg Center in Canton". masslive.com. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  61. "ASAN Comments on FDA's Proposed Ban of Electric Shock Devices". Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Retrieved 2018-05-17.
  62. Girard, Christopher. "Advocates rally for a law to ban shock treatment at Canton special-needs school". Boston.com MetroDesk blog. Retrieved January 7, 2014.
  63. "3 Dec 1995, 44 - North County Times at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2020-08-12.
  64. News, A. B. C. "UN Calls Shock Treatment at Mass. School 'Torture'". ABC News. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  65. Kaufman, Leslie (2007-12-25). "Parents Defend School's Use of Shock Therapy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  66. Gonnerman, Jennifer. "Nagging? Zap. Swearing? Zap". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2020-07-30.
  67. ProPublica, Mike Tigas, Sisi Wei, Ken Schwencke, Brandon Roberts, Alec Glassford. "Judge Rotenberg Educational Center Inc - Nonprofit Explorer". ProPublica. Retrieved 2020-08-02.
  68. Young, Colin A. "Judge Rotenberg Educational Center gets $1.7 million in COVID-19 relief funds". The Enterprise, Brockton, MA. Retrieved 26 July 2020.
  69. "10/26/2006". web.archive.org. 2010-07-07. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  70. "7 Oct 2009, B14 - The Boston Globe at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 2020-08-14.
  71. Pilkington, Ed (2011-03-12). "Shock tactics: Treatment or torture? | Matthew Israel". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020-07-26.
  72. NW, The Center for Responsive Politics 1300 L. St; Washington, Suite 200; info, DC 20005 telelphone857-0044. "Judge Rotenberg Center Lobbying Profile". OpenSecrets. Retrieved 2020-08-13.
  73. Bigler, Taylor. "Judge Rotenberg Center lobbies D.C. against bill". The Patriot Ledger, Quincy, MA. Retrieved 13 August 2020.
  74. Slack, Donovan (28 February 2011). "School lobbied to stop electric shock ban". Boston.com. Retrieved 13 August 2020.
  75. "New York's boarding school of hard knocks". 219 Magazine. 2011-08-24. Retrieved 2020-08-12.
  76. "23 Mar 1994, 24 - The Boston Globe at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  77. "Settlement agreed to in lawsuit against Mass. special needs school that uses shock therapy". Associated Press. 27 March 2015. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
  78. "Rotenberg Center Electric Shock Trial Settlment". www.lubinandmeyer.com. Retrieved 2020-08-13.
  79. "The Rotenberg Center's Controversial Behavior-Modification Program -- New York Magazine - Nymag". New York Magazine. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
  80. "JRC confidentiality agreement" (PDF).
  81. Gonnerman, Jennifer. "The School of Shock". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2020-08-05.
  82. Waldman, Heather Vogell,Annie. "New York City Sends $30 Million a Year to School With History of Giving Kids Electric Shocks". ProPublica. Retrieved 2020-08-12.

Further reading

Investigations

FDA hearings and rulings

A thorough archive of documents on the Judge Rotenberg Center

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.