This is the report from recent visits by a professional team investigating practices at the Judge Rotenberg Center. It is truly horrific what they are doing. I am shocked that was is happening there is worse than we ever knew.
This report was made on the 6th June 2006.

http://boston.com/news/daily/15/school_report.pdf

Extracts -

Observations and Findings of Out-of-State Program Visitation
Judge Rotenberg Educational Center

Summary of Findings
Following is a summary of the findings1 of concern primarily relating to the behavioral interventions and related instructional practices used at JRC.

JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions (electric shock devices and restraint chairs) to students with a broad range of disabilities, many without a clear history of self-injurious behaviors.
• JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive, such as nagging, swearing and failing to maintain a neat appearance.
• The use of the electric skin shock conditioning devices as used at JRC raises health and safety concerns.
• The Contingent Food Program and Specialized Food Program (withholding food) may impose unnecessary risks affecting the normal growth and development and overall nutritional/health status of students subjected to this aversive behavior intervention.

JRC promotes a setting that discourages social interaction between staff and students and among students.
• Students are provided insufficient academic and special education instruction, including limited provision of related services.

Most of these students have the disability classification “Emotional Disturbance” with IQ scores that fall in the low average to average range of intelligence. There are also a number of students with the classification of Autism with cognitive abilities falling in the range of mild to profound mental retardation. Many of the students from NYS have diagnoses of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and bipolar disorder. A number of students also have histories of abuse and abandonment.

JRC’s marketing representatives provide information through presentations to staff at some NYS psychiatric facilities that in turn discuss the program with the families. JRC’s marketing representatives visit the family in their homes and as indicated in representatives’ case notes, provide the family with information and gifts for the family and student (e.g., a gift bag for the family, basketball for the student).

One student’s behavior chart documenting total inappropriate behaviors showed an increase from 800 per week during the first weeks after admission to JRC to average of 12,000 per week. Clinician notes only document the number of inappropriate behaviors. They did not denote any positive behaviors or academic progress.

Level III Aversive Procedures Used by JRC Staff
Upon receipt of parental consent, JRC applies to a Massachusetts Probate Court through a substituted judgment petition to use Level III aversives in the student’s behavioral program. Level III aversives constitute a broad spectrum of punishment techniques that include movement limitation (i.e. mechanical and physical restraint), contingent food, helmet, and electric skin shock. The use of Behavior Rehearsal Lesson (BRL)3 and combined use of aversive techniques are also Level III interventions.

Electric skin shock
The most common Level III aversive procedure used at JRC is skin shock in which one or more electrical stimulations are administered to a student after he or she engages in a targeted behavior. Skin shocks are delivered through a graduated electronic deceleration (GED) device that consists of a transmitter operated by JRC staff and a receiver worn by the JRC student. The receiver delivers an electrical current to the student’s skin upon command from the transmitter. Electrodes are worn by the student on various parts of the body, notably the arms, legs and stomach area, and can range in number and placement dependent upon the students’ behavior program guidelines.
Students wear the GED device for the majority of their sleeping and waking hours, and some students are required to wear it during shower/bath time. The GED receivers range in size and are placed in either “fanny” packs or knapsacks. Staff carry the GED transmitters in a plastic box. Students may have multiple GED devices (electrodes) on their bodies. For example, one NYS student’s behavior program states, “C will wear two GED devices. C will wear 3 spread, GED electrodes at all times and take a GED shower for her full self care.”
The GED is manufactured by the JRC. While JRC has information posted on their website and in written articles which represents the GED device as "approved", it has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA has cleared the device for marketing as “substantially equivalent to devices marketed or classified as “aversive conditioning devices.” FDA's clearance prohibits JRC from representing the device as FDA approved. JRC’s GED was modified from other similar devices on the market by doubling the intensity (amperage and voltage) and increasing the duration by 10 times (from .2 to 2 seconds) of the shock administered and by expanding the positions on the body where the electrodes could be placed. JRC also uses a device called the GED-4, which applies an even greater intensity shock to the student when the student fails to respond to the lower level shock.

At the time of team’s April visit there were 148 NYS students enrolled at JRC. At that time, 77 were approved to receive Level III behavioral interventions from staff at JRC. Of these 77 students, 53 were receiving skin shock through the GED that is adjustable with an average intensity of 15.25 mill amperes RMS, a duration of .2 seconds to 2 seconds, an average peak of 30.5 milliamperes, and 24 students are receiving GED (referred to as a GED-4) skin shock which has a maximum current of 45.0 milliamperes RMS, an average peak of 91 milliamperes, and a maximum duration of 2 seconds. The higher-level shock is used when it is determined that the student is not responding to the lower level shock.
Use of automated electronic devices – “automatic negative reinforcement”
At JRC, an additional form of electrical circuitry is used to automatically administer a series of aversives (e.g., skin shocks) as soon as a behavior is initiated. Shocks are administered at regular intervals (e.g., one every three seconds). The automatic negative reinforcement shocks terminate as soon as the behavior stops occurring. This device is not operated by JRC staff. For example, some students are made to sit on a GED cushion seat that will automatically administer a skin shock for the targeted behavior of “standing up”, while others wear waist holsters that will administer a skin shock if the student pulls his/her hands out of the holster. NYSED could not find evidence, nor did JRC provide the evidence as requested, that this automated electric shock device has been cleared for marketing by FDA or approved by FDA. FDA regulations prohibit the use of an aversive conditioning device that has not been approved or cleared by FDA.
Movement limitation
Movement limitation is another commonly used Level III intervention that may be applied manually or mechanically. When applied manually, staff members physically hold the student. With mechanical movement limitation the student is strapped into/onto some form of physical apparatus. For example, a four-point platform board designed specifically for this purpose; or a helmet with thick padding and narrow facial grid that reduces sensory stimuli to the ears and eyes. Another form of mechanical restraint occurs when the student is in a five-point restraint in a chair. Students may be restrained for extensive periods of time (e.g., hours or intermittently for days) when restraint is used as a punishing consequence. Many students are required to carry their own “restraint bag” in which the restraint straps are contained.
Under the terms of the Court Order, JRC must notify the Court Monitor if a student requires more than eight continuous hours of movement limitation procedures in a 24-hour period. In addition, the Court must also be notified if the student spends five or more days in movement limitation in a seven-day period. The school nurse stated that she is responsible to monitor any skin burns caused by the GED and abrasions due to restraints. She also advises staff on the positioning of restraints and potential complications for each student. Based upon the nurse’s recommendation, a student may be restrained in a prone, seated, or upright position.

This post was last modified: 06-17-2006 11:37 PM by Amy.

Part 2

The Contingent Food Program is also widely applied and designed to use hunger to motivate students to be compliant. This intervention requires that a student “earn” a portion of his or her daily prescribed calories by not engaging in identified target behaviors (as per his/her behavior contract). If the student passes each of the behavioral contracts that are set for him/her, he/she will earn 100 percent of the planned calories for each meal served. If the student fails to pass one or more of his/her contracts, the student is not given the food portion(s) that is (are) the potential reward(s) for that contract. Food portions not earned are discarded by the staff and/or student. If the student does not earn the minimum daily total of calories by 7:00 PM, then the balance necessary to bring the total calories eaten to the student’s targeted calories is dispensed to him in the form of nonpreferred staple food (e.g., consisting of mashed food sprinkled with liver powder). The Court Monitor must be informed when a student has been required to consume the full calories in the form of nonpreferred food for a period of two weeks.
The Specialized Food Program is more restrictive. For students on the Specialized Food Program, JRC does not offer make-up food to compensate for food that the student missed by failing to pass his or her contracts unless the student has eaten 20 - 25 percent or less of his normal daily caloric target. If the student has eaten 20 - 25 percent or less, he/she is offered make-up food to bring him up to the 20 - 25 percent level. The Court Monitor is informed whenever the student receives no more that 20 – 25 percent of the daily caloric goal for two consecutive weeks. Daily weights are maintained and ketone levels are measured when the prior day’s intake is less than 80 percent of the recommended daily caloric intake.
• Currently there are ten NYS students on the Contingent Food Program and one NYS student on the Specialized Food Program.

The GED device may also be sent home with NYS parents after they receive training from JRC regarding the use and application of the GED. One record reviewed indicated that the student went home for a vacation break and a family member, to administer punishment, used the GED device. However, the report did not identify which family member actually administered the GED skin shocks. This uncertainty as to how and by whom GED punishment was administered during the home visit raises questions regarding the appropriateness of making the device available to families where documentation of implementation does not occur. Moreover, there are specific requirements imposed by the Court Order that require JRC to report to the Court Monitor when more than 50 skin shock aversives are delivered to a student in a 24 hour period and when the student receives 250 skin shocks in seven days. The lack of specific data regarding the home use of the GED suggests that the court mandate for reporting may be compromised.
• JRC's practice of providing the shock device to families and allowing newly hired staff with little to no training and information on a student to administer the GED appears to be in direct violation of the FDA required safety precautions on the use of the device.
• In one classroom it was observed that a new staff member was briefly informed that his role in the room was to monitor 1:1 student S and second party verification was not required before administering the GED. The new staff person was handed the SLED (GED transmitter) and verbally given direction and instruction in when to administer the GED. As the instructing staff person was departing, she also informed the new staff that student S is deaf.

One student wearing the GED who was interviewed displayed insight into his behaviors and related replacement and coping behaviors he taught himself (writing in a journal; writing poetry). These abilities indicate the possibility that less aversive and intrusive interventions could be attempted systematically with this student.
Findings: JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive, such as nagging, swearing and failing to maintain a neat appearance.
• Many of the students observed at JRC were not exhibiting self-abusive/mutilating behaviors, and their IEPs had no indication that these behaviors existed. However, they were still subject to Level III aversive interventions, including use of the GED device. The review of NYS students’ records revealed that Level III interventions are
used for behaviors including ‘refuse to follow staff directions’, ’failure to maintain a neat appearance’, ‘stopping work for more than 10 seconds’, ‘interrupting others’, ‘nagging’, ‘whispering and/or moving conversation away from staff’, ‘slouch in chair’, as well as more intensive behaviors such as physical aggression toward others, property destruction and attempts to hurt/injure self.

A higher functioning teenage student was observed sneezing in class. She covered her face and called out for a tissue. The teacher then indicated that that “calling out” was a target behavior that would result in her action being pinpointed as inappropriate (i.e., subject to aversive consequence). This example raises concerns that there might be little to no discrimination of acceptable, appropriate behaviors within a targeted behavior category subject to Level III aversive consequences by untrained or poorly supervised staff.

Despite the safety warning of the GED device that the GED should no be allowed to become wet or submerged in water, it was reported by JRC staff that for some students, the GED device remains on them while they take a bath or shower. Student records verified this and one student interviewed stated that she had been burned by the GED device while taking a shower. By this student’s report, a new staff person was not adequately trained to administer the GED-4 shock during the student’s shower, resulting in a burn to her skin where the device was attached.

JRC has a policy on modifying contingencies due to the special “pleading” of students. Part of the treatment program for students involves deliberately setting up unfair or mistaken directions or decelerative (application of a skin shock with a GED device) consequences for the students. The student is expected to handle these unfair situations successfully and not ‘plead’ or appeal to a psychologist or clinician regarding his/her treatment. In instances where the student “pleads” to the psychologist or clinician, there are consequences imposed on the student.

The use of camera monitoring allows for delayed punishment. In cases where the student did not receive the GED, the individual reviewing the video footage from earlier in the day reports to the psychologist, who then makes the determination that the GED should be applied long after the targeted behavior occurred. One NYS student reported of an instance when she had returned to her residence and fallen asleep. She was woken without explanation and told to stand. She was given a GED across her stomach, and then was informed that the reason for the punishment was a target behavior earlier that day for which she did not receive a GED.

It was reported by a JRC staff member that one of the BRL episodes involved holding a student’s face still while staff person went for his mouth with a pen or pencil threatening to stab him in the mouth while repeatedly yelling “YOU WANT TO EAT THIS?” The goal was to aversively treat the student’s target behavior of putting sharp objects in the mouth.

Many students spend their instructional day at individual computer terminals, performing the same instructional task over and over. The repetitive nature of the task was evident when the team visited classrooms and saw students repeatedly tapping unresponsive computer screens.

During the May 16-18 site visit, it was confirmed that the majority of staff serving as classroom teachers at JRC are not certified teachers. One crisis classroom teacher the team spoke to has a high school diploma and had acquired college credits through distance learning Internet courses.

A student interviewed stated that she had entered JRC at the age of 19 with the expectation that she would receive vocational training while she resolved her emotional and behavioral problems. She had not received any vocational training and still remained in the most restrictive settings offered by JRC. This student wept as she asked the team to bring her back to New York.

Findings: The privacy and dignity of students is compromised in the course of JRC’s program implementation.
• Video surveillance system monitoring includes most bathrooms and all bedrooms but no formal staff monitoring system is in place to ensure the privacy and dignity of students/consumers during intimate grooming/hygiene or personal sexual behavior (e.g., masturbation). For example, no procedures were in place to ensure staff was not observing opposite sex residents during showering.
• One NYS student’s behavior program states, “C will wear two GED devices. C will wear 3 spread, GED electrodes at all times and take a GED shower for her full self care.” This student, as are all students at JRC, is monitored through JRC’s video surveillance system and a staff person would monitor her in the shower.
• Students were observed as they arrived and departed from school. Almost all were restrained in some manner, some with metal ‘police’ handcuffs and leg restraints, as they boarded and exited the vehicles. Several students are transported in wheeled chairs that keep them in four-point restraint.

One student’s behavior plan indicated that the student is to be rewarded when he does not react to a staff member preparing to or administering the GED to another student, implying that this student may be having collateral effects when peers receive skin shock consequences.
• One student stated she felt depressed and fearful, stating very coherently her desire to leave the center. She is not permitted to initiate conversation with any member of the staff. She also expressed that she had no one to talk to about her feelings of depression and her desire to kill herself and told the interviewing team that she thought about killing herself everyday. Her greatest fear was that she would remain at JRC beyond her 21st birthday.

I have added to the autism wiki page on the Judge Rotenberg Center.
http://aspiesforfreedom.com/wiki/index.p...erg_Center

It now gives details of their numerous human rights abuses and torturous treatment of their students.

Good job adding this to the wiki, Amy.  Maybe a parent who googles for information about the JRC after getting a referral will read the wiki page and will refuse to have their child sent there.

It's highly likely, one set of parents at least found it and then contacted us. Sadly they support the electric shocking of their adult aspie son.

:evil:   That's horrible!  Truly, disgustingly awful.


I have posted this on my blog- it doesn't get much trafic, but the more we spread the word about the awful treatment of these students, the better.

:evil:  :mad:  :cry:

I just read the PDF. It's beyond me how anyone could see using electrodes, that they have to change around to prevent skin burns from repeated shocks, could find that to not be wholly inhumane.

All else aside, horrible as the "else" is, these are CHILDREN, who need food to be able to grow! This is worse than anything in Dickens' novels, or Abu Ghraib.

Line them against the wall and shoot the bastards.

Bluelight.ru has also started a thread against the rottenberg center (and I had to give a severe yelling at an NT chemhack who used the term *** burger" against us. he has since apologised (he had little choice :evil: )

can we see a link?

I'd prefer not to have a link to a site or page where someone has been trolling about AS because it attracts them here and we get the same trolls in our faces, the same has happened before.

for those who didn't sign the petition yet, and for those who signed it before and want to see how many signatures have been collected so far and how many spoke against these horrors!

http://www.petitiononline.com/NYs6876/petition.html

I hope that report will have effect.

Amy. the remark made by the chemist (and subsequently eaten for breakfast before being made to apologise) was not on bluelight, but in private conversation, the guy apologised pretty quickly when faced with a a rather pissed off aspie (it seems a lot of us are AS)

I would give a link, but unfortunately the forum was pruned recently, and even though it was a recent thread, it fell victim to the pruning.

Everyone on BL collectively came down against the rottenberg center like the proverbial ton of bricks actually, us lot there are discriminated against in the same way really, so its not surprising, but hell hath no fury like a bunch of hacked-off tweakers :lol:


"Failing to maintain a neat appearance" ? what the F*CK?

I would almost certainly get a shocking for "failing not to kick heads into walls" :evil:

I just had something occur to me.

I live in Massachusetts.
I turn 18 in three weeks.
My state representative and senator both actually make efforts to listen to their consitutuents.
My friends are all also around 18.

The question then is whether my state congresspeople will listen, or whether, as in the cases of the seatbelt laws, they'll consider "curing Autism" or "providing essential services" as part of the "public good."

Worth a try I suppose.

Too bad I'm too much of a coward for "Direct Action" (e.g. committing crimes against the personell and property of the center).