Bonnie Dunham

I am writing to ask you to please oppose HB 1688, expanding the circumstances where the restraint is permitted in schools and treatment facilities and modifying the definition of seclusion. I am particularly concerned about the 2nd part of the bill, which amends RSA 126-U:5, I to read: I. Restraint shall only be used in a school or facility to ensure the immediate physical safety of persons when there is [a substantial and] an imminent risk of [serious] bodily harm to the child or others. This language is far too expansive; it seems to encourage the use of a reactive response to children’s behavior as opposed to the far more effective proactive approach that relies on the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports. RSA 126-U does not define “bodily harm”; the closest term that it defines is “serious injury”. The Federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act uses, and defines, the term, “serious bodily injury”, while a different Federal law includes a definition for “bodily injury “. 18 U.S.C. 1365(3)(h)(4) says that a “bodily injury” can include a cut, abrasion, bruise, or even illness, and adds, “or any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary”. Taken at the extreme, “an imminent risk of bodily harm” could include situations when it is likely that a child may be cut or bruised, as may be an anticipated outcome when children are playing contact sports or even a vigorous game of dodgeball. Of course, we would not expect teachers to intervene and restrain a child in any of those instances. RSA 126-U, Limiting the Use of Child Restraint Practices in Schools and Treatment Facilities, was developed through a thoughtful process and should not be changed without engaging in a similar careful and thoughtful process. RSA 126-U followed the introduction of the joint NH Department of Education / Department of Health and Human Services Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) initiative. Research strongly supports the use of PBIS, a positive, proactive approach to supporting children with challenging behavior, as opposed to the negative and reactive reliance on restraint. In 2005, the Department of Education convened a broad group of stakeholders as a Crisis Prevention Task Force to provide input into their document, “Guidance on Considering the Use of Physical Restraints in New Hampshire School Settings” Participants included representatives from the NH Department of Education, NAMI NH, the Parent Information Center, the Disabilities Rights Center, the Institute on Disability, 2 LEA special education administrators, a director of an alternative high school program, an attorney from the NEA NH, a special education attorney, a special education T/A consultant with a post-secondary education institution, a school psychologist, and the co-director of the NH Center for Effective Behavior Intervention and Supports. The guidance document recognized positive behavioral interventions as a best practice, but also acknowledged that restraint carries inherent risks. Some of the risks referenced included injury, and in rare instances death to the person being restrained, injury to staff carrying out the restraint, psychological harm, particularly for children who have experienced trauma (about 20% of NH children have experienced one or more adverse childhood experiences including abuse and neglect), and an erosion of trust between the child and the adults they rely on to keep them safe. We should not be expanding the use of restraint in schools. I believe that a far better use of the state’s time and resources would be to, with the involvement of stakeholders as appropriate, identify ways to prevent the incidents that lead to the use of restraint, and to intervene when children are demonstrating serious behavioral challenges. Please recommend HB 1688 ITL.