Clarinda Restraint Practices Academy’s Policy and Behavior Management Plans To further investigate allegations of inappropriate restraints, DRW reviewed and requested Clarinda policies and plans to Academy’s assess the standards for employing restraints. Neither the polices nor the plans contained specific nor individualized guidance to help prevent incidents from escalating into restraint episodes. Under Clarinda Restraint/Crisis Academy’s “Physical Intervention” policy, physical restraints are a resort option when students are “last creating situations which pose an imminent/immediate harm to themselves or others.” The Clarinda Academy policy requires one of following criteria: Imminent or immediate danger to themselves Imminent or immediate danger to others Any behavior including serious disruption, destruction of property or truancy that could pose an imminent or immediate danger to self or others. The policy does not define or immediate Unlike the “imminent danger.” other Change policies that detail numerous “Behavior Methodologies” examples of and the policy on physical “norms” “accountabilities,” restraint offers no examples of behavior that may indicate “imminent or immediate Additionally, there is no definition of danger.” “serious or examples of such disruptions that create or disruption” “imminent immediate danger.” Nonetheless, DRW considered the possibility that more detailed descriptions of what constitutes or immediate “imminent danger” would be included in individual plans. Clarinda policy Academy’s states that treatment plans address any contraindications or “should inappropriate interventions for the and student,” Washington’s contracts with Clarinda Academy require that each student have an Behavior Management This plan should include “Individualized Plan.” details such as and that may contribute to “safety issues” “factors escalated behavior for the as well as strategies for youth,” “response preventing or defusing escalated and a plan for behavior” “back-up contract further obligates Clarinda behavior.” Washington’s
Clarinda Academy’s Restraint Practices Policy and Behavior Management Plans To further investigate allegations of inappropriate restraints, DRW reviewed and requested Clarinda Academy’s policies and plans to assess the standards for employing restraints. Neither the polices nor the plans contained specific nor individualized guidance to help prevent incidents from escalating into restraint episodes. Under Clarinda Academy’s “Physical Restraint/Crisis Intervention” policy, physical restraints are a “last resort option when students are creating situations which pose an imminent/immediate harm to themselves or others.” The Clarinda Academy policy requires one of following criteria: Imminent or immediate danger to themselves Imminent or immediate danger to others Any behavior including serious disruption, destruction of property or truancy that could pose an imminent or immediate danger to self or others. The policy does not define “imminent or immediate danger.” Unlike the other “Behavior Change Methodologies” policies that detail numerous examples of “norms” and “accountabilities,” the policy on physical restraint offers no examples of behavior that may indicate “imminent or immediate danger.” Additionally, there is no definition of “serious disruption” or examples of such disruptions that create “imminent or immediate danger.” Nonetheless, DRW considered the possibility that more detailed descriptions of what constitutes “imminent or immediate danger” would be included in individual plans. Clarinda Academy’s policy states that treatment plans “should address any contraindications or inappropriate interventions for the student,” and Washington’s contracts with Clarinda Academy require that each student have an “Individualized Behavior Management Plan.” This plan should include details such as “safety issues” and “factors that may contribute to escalated behavior for the youth,” as well as “response strategies for preventing or defusing escalated behavior” and a “back-up plan for behavior.” Washington’s contract further obligates Clarinda