Abstract
The current study investigates the prevalence of restraint and seclusion within U.S. public school systems at both the national and state levels, using CRDC data collected during the school years 2015-2016, 2017-2018, and 2020-2021. A descriptive analysis using a repeated cross-sectional study design was used to investigate changes in physical restraints, mechanical restraints, and seclusion across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. For the state-level analysis, absolute numbers were utilized to facilitate the classification of states into high-, moderate-, and low-reporting states.
Upon analyzing the CRDC data, one notices that physical restraints were always the most prevalent type of incident, while mechanical restraints had the fewest incidents. Some of the states with relatively high rates of physical restraints and seclusions include Texas, Wisconsin, and Illinois, while some of the states with very few instances include Hawaii and Delaware. There is variation across states and reporting years, indicating different policies, reporting practices, and behavioral intervention strategies among states. While there was no clear trend observed in terms of change from 2015/2016 to 2017/2018 for any of the restrictions, there was a decline in all three types of restrictions during 2017/2018 and 2020/2021. The reason for the decrease might be due to the interruption of physical school operations during the COVID pandemic period, as there would be less chance of the occurrence of behavioral incidents necessitating such interventions. There is still considerable variation in the number of incidences across states, even during those reporting years, despite the general decrease observed. This information is vital since the use of physical and/or mechanical restraints and seclusion is linked to injuries, emotional issues, and unfavorable academic achievements.
Such results reveal that restrictive practices continue to be employed in American education settings, These results highlight the necessity of enhanced policy supervision, documentation, and evidence-based intervention strategies, as there have been reports of physical, psychological abuse and potential disruption of learning among students due to such behaviors.. Further academic inquiry is needed to examine the role of different state laws in lowering the prevalence of such practices among at-risk groups.
Introduction
The practice of exclusionary and restrictive practices in American public schools is an issue of critical concern for educators, policymakers, and civil rights advocates. The problem of exclusionary and restrictive practices used in U.S. public schools is of serious concern for the academic community, policymakers, and human rights activists. “Restraint” means the use of physical force to restrict a student’s movement. “Seclusion” involves involuntary isolation, meaning a student is left alone in a room or enclosed space and is physically prevented from leaving. The purpose of these practices is mainly to control the behavior of students who pose a potential danger. (GAO, 2020). The GAO revealed that there are no federal laws governing seclusion and restraint in schools, state laws are inconsistent, and there are hundreds of serious abuse cases involving student injuries and deaths over two decades, with no national system in place to track their use and related allegations ( GAO, 2009).
Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) is a federal initiative implemented by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education and is an important component of data collection related to restraints and seclusions at the federal level. Being able to conduct surveys among almost all public school districts in the United States, the CRDC program enables an understanding of the situation with civil rights and disciplinary measures implemented in US educational institutions. On the other hand, some states maintain their own systems of reporting about restraints and seclusions that can complement the information collected at the federal level. According to the GAO, there are several problems regarding the reliability and accuracy of reporting restraints and seclusions to the Department of Education, and the need for improvement is evident (GAO, 2020). The American education system has drastically changed in the recent decade due to legislative changes at the state level, a trauma-informed approach, and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The current report represents a longitudinal analysis of the national and state-level datasets of three CRDC waves (2015–2016, 2017–2018, and 2020–2021). This research is designed to explore whether the rates of the use of restraint and seclusion in U.S. public schools have increased or decreased over time and whether there are differences among subpopulations of students based on their racial/ethnic background, gender, and presence of a disability. According to the preliminary results of this research, physical restraint was found to be the most widespread restrictive intervention in all reporting periods studied, while mechanical restraint had the least number of cases in all of them. State-level trends were highly variable. The number of mechanical restraint cases has increased in Colorado (from 92 to 207) and Georgia (from 184 to 503), while sharp drops were noted in California (from 226 to 15) and Texas (from 1,625 to 661) during 2017–2018 and 2020–2021. Physical restraint and seclusion rates showed similar trends: many states experienced declines during 2020–2021. The possible cause of such changes could be linked to the disruption of in-person education caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting the number of behavior incidents that required the use of restraint and seclusion.
Methods
Data Source
In this research, three datasets were used, all indicating the number of physical restraints, mechanical restraints, and seclusions in the United States for the academic years 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2020-21. These datasets were summarized at the state level, which included all 50 states in the US and Washington, DC (OCR, 2025).
Study Design and Population
A descriptive repeated cross-sectional study design was utilized. Each round of the CRDC study can be considered a cross-sectional study of restraint and seclusion practice for a given school year. The study participants were comprised of students in public schools in the US, as measured by state-reported counts of restraints and seclusions. The analysis was focused on comparisons rather than causal estimation.
Measures
The primary outcome measures of interest were the number of reported incidents of physical restraint, mechanical restraint, and seclusion in each state and school year. As enrollment denominators were not included in the available data sets and the number of events was low in some states, absolute counts and relative distributions were emphasized rather than standardized rates. All reported values represent the number of incidents, not the number of individual students.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive analysis was conducted for each outcome and year. For state-level data, the results were described with the help of medians, ranges, and interquartile ranges to identify the distribution of the data. In addition to that, states were grouped into three tiers: low, medium, and high, based on the distribution of the count data collected each year. The grouping was done to compare the results while keeping the effect of small counts stable.
For the results of the 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2020-21 school years, the focus was on the changes in the distribution pattern and the consistency of state variation. No inferential statistical tests were applied to the data as the aim was to provide descriptive results. For the analysis of the data and the results, RStudio was used with the help of Tableau for visualization. States were categorized into high-, medium-, and low-reporting groups based on the relative distribution of incident counts within each category to improve the interpretability of state-level patterns.
Results
Based on the analysis of the three CRDC reporting periods, certain trends have been identified regarding the application of the restraint and seclusion procedures within U.S. public schools. Physical restraints constituted the highest number of cases reported in all three reporting periods, while the number of seclusion cases was lower than that of physical restraints. Meanwhile, mechanical restraint was reported to constitute the lowest number of incidents. From the period 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, there were minor increases in the physical restraint and seclusion cases, but the number of mechanical restraints did not significantly increase. But from the period 2017-2018 to 2020-2021, the number of all three procedures decreased. Statewide analysis also demonstrated significant geographic variability in restraint use. For instance, Texas, Wisconsin, and Illinois consistently had among the highest numbers of physical restraints and seclusion cases, while Hawaii and Delaware had very few or none throughout several reporting periods. Meanwhile, mechanical restraint also varied geographically, with increases being seen in states like Colorado and Georgia, and major declines in states such as California and Texas. Generally, there were major reductions in reported incidents at the state level in the 2020-2021 reporting period compared to previous years.
4.1 Reporting Coverage and Study Population
The CRDC analysis of the data gathered during the school years 2015-2016, 2017-2018, and 2020-2021 revealed specific temporal trends related to the use of restrictive practices in American public schools. Physical restraint is the restrictive practice that was used more often than the other two types, namely, seclusion and mechanical restraint. In terms of the trend during 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, the use of physical restraint and seclusion remained either steady or had a small increase in several states, while mechanical restraint had insignificant changes on a national scale. All three types of restrictive practices declined from 2017-2018 to 2020-2021. Geographic analysis revealed considerable differences regarding the use of restrictive practices in different states during the entire research period. Texas, Illinois, Wisconsin, and California are states reporting the largest rates of restraint or seclusion, while Hawaii and Delaware reported very few or even no events in several research periods. Meanwhile, states such as Colorado and Georgia experienced an increase in mechanical restraint, while states such as California, Texas, and Illinois had a decline in all restrictive practices.
4.2 Mechanical Restraint
Mechanical restraint consistently represented the lowest counts among the three categories.
2015–2016 to 2017–2018
Between 2015–2016 and 2017–2018, there were increases in the number of mechanical restraints in 10 states, decreases in 36 states, and stability in 5 states. The states that showed an increase in the number of mechanical restraints include Arizona (from 9 to 17), Colorado (from 77 to 92), and Connecticut (from 7 to 25). Decreases were also noted in California (from 291 to 226), Florida (from 269 to 53), and Illinois (from 304 to 165). States that showed stability include Delaware and Hawaii (from 0 to 0).
2017–2018 to 2020–2021
From 2017–2018 to 2020–2021, 7 states showed increases, 42 states showed decreases, and 2 states remained stable. Notably, increases were noted in Colorado (92 to 207), Georgia (184 to 503), and Nebraska (17 to 31). Significant declines were observed in California (226 to 15), Illinois (165 to 7), and Texas (1625 to 661). Mechanical restraint had a predominant downward trend in the most recent cycle.
4.3 Physical Restraint
Physical restraint consistently accounted for the highest reported counts across all three reporting cycles.
2015–2016 to 2017–2018
Between 2015–2016 and 2017–2018, 28 states showed an increase in the number of physical restraint counts, with 22 states showing a decrease and 2 states showing no change. Increases were seen in Arizona (880 to 1130), Connecticut (1643 to 1946), and Wisconsin (3067 to 4405). Decreases were seen in Alabama (1153 to 1080), Colorado (592 to 568), and Iowa (2644 to 2276). Hawaii (0 to 0) and Arkansas (321 to 323) showed no change.
2017–2018 to 2020–2021
From 2017-2018 to 2020-2021, 9 states showed an increase, while 41 states showed a decrease, and 2 states showed stability. There were increases in Idaho (118 to 205), Oklahoma (415 to 608), and Utah (447 to 537). There were significant decreases in California (1982 to 437), Illinois (2965 to 1154), and Texas (6402 to 5264). Most states showed a decrease in this time frame.
4.4 Seclusion
Seclusion demonstrated intermediate counts relative to physical and mechanical restraint, with notable variability across states.
2015–2016 to 2017–2018
Between 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, 20 states reported increases in seclusion counts, while 29 states reported decreases in seclusion counts. 2 states remained the same. Increases were observed in Arizona (380 to 514), Connecticut (1050 to 1269), and Wisconsin (2555 to 2690). Decreases were observed in Alabama (669 to 342), California (402 to 157), and Iowa (3320 to 2453). States that remained the same were Hawaii (0 to 0) and Rhode Island (31 to 31).
2017–2018 to 2020–2021
Between 2017–2018 and 2020–2021, there were increases in 10 states, decreases in 39 states, and stability in 3 states. States with increases included Georgia (75 to 476), Idaho (56 to 230), and Oklahoma (200 to 501). Large decreases were also observed in Illinois (2340 to 420), Maryland (686 to 80), and Washington (1638 to 769). Most states had decreases in this period.
4.5 Overall State-Level Temporal Patterns
In all the categories of restraint and seclusion, the changes at the state level between 2015–2016 and 2017–2018 did not show a uniform trend. For the interval between 2017–2018 and 2020–2021, the majority of the changes in mechanical restraint, physical restraint, and seclusion at the state level showed declines.
Mechanical restraint had the greatest number of states showing declines in both intervals. Physical restraint had widespread increases at the state level in the earlier interval, followed by substantial declines in the later interval. Seclusion had mixed changes in the earlier interval, followed by declines in the later interval. These findings highlight consistent national patterns alongside substantial state-level variability in restraint and seclusion practices over time.
Discussion
The current study sought to explore the national and state-level temporal trends of the use of mechanical restraint, physical restraint, and seclusion in US schools, with the use of three reporting cycles of the Civil Rights Data Collection, i.e., 2015-2016, 2017-2018, and 2020-2021. The results indicated that there is a significant variation in the use of different types of restraint and states, with a general decline in the use of restraint and seclusion between the 2017-2018 and 2020-2021 reporting cycles. Though the overall participation rate of the CRDC is steady, significant variation is observed in the trends of restraint and seclusion use.
Physical restraint consistently represented the highest number of incidents in each reporting cycle, implying that it is the most frequently used form of restraint in the schools of the U.S. The above trend agrees with previous studies that have noted that physical restraints are often used in emergency situations to control dangerous behavior(LeBel et al., 2010). The high rate of physical restraint is, however, a major concern that warrants attention to the safety of students in schools. The decline in the number of incidents in the 2017-2018 school year and the 2020-2021 school year could be attributed to the increased awareness of the dangers that are posed by restraint practices.
On the other hand, mechanical restraint recorded the lowest reported numbers across the cycles. This is understandable considering the policy direction in the United States, whereby many states have developed regulations that significantly limit the practice of mechanical restraint in the school setting. The dominance of state-level decreases in mechanical restraint between the reporting cycles implies that there is an influence from the regulations and guidelines developed at the state level. However, the fact that mechanical restraint is still reported in various states implies that there is limited enforcement of the regulations.
The use of seclusion also showed the existence of intermediate reporting levels; however, it also showed the variability in the use of seclusion among the states. Seclusion is defined as involuntarily confining a student alone in a room or area from which he or she cannot physically leave. Just as the use of restraint is highly criticized, the use of seclusion is also highly criticized, considering the psychological effects on the students, as well as the violation of their human rights. The possible reasons for the decrease in the use of seclusion from 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 in some states include the increased attention to the problem at the national level. In particular, the U.S. Department of Education has recommended that schools adopt positive behavioral interventions and approaches focused on trauma rather than restraint and seclusion; the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has criticized the way restraints and seclusions are reported and has issued recommendations for improved monitoring of these restrictive measures (GAO, 2020). In addition, the Alliance Against Seclusion and Restraint (AASR) is working hard to change the current policies related to these restrictive measures. It seems that restraint and seclusion have been paid much attention over the past decades, and this is why the use of these practices has declined in many states.
The major finding from this study is that there exist significant variations in the application of restraint and seclusion procedures from one state to another in the three reporting periods covered in the CRDC. While the general trend nationally was that of declining numbers, the degree of change, as well as the trend, was dependent on the state involved. For instance, there was a rise in the utilization of mechanical restraints in Georgia and Colorado in 2017-2018 compared to 2020-2021, while there was a decrease in California, Illinois, and Texas. Another possible explanation for the variability of the state patterns is the difference in reporting. It is possible that the states and their respective schools may have had differing understandings of the CRDC reporting.
The drop seen from the 2017-2018 to the 2020-2021 reporting periods can also be attributed to contextual considerations that were part of the school settings during the COVID-19 outbreak. In the 2020-2021 academic year, most schools in the United States had moved to online or blended learning modes, thus making the physical presence in classrooms very minimal, and hence the chances of students having behavioral incidents that would require either restraint or seclusion were minimal too. There have been national reports showing considerable reductions in the amount of physical learning going on in the 2020-2021 academic year, thus contributing to the lower reporting rates seen in most states (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
Here are some strengths of this research. Firstly, the study makes use of CRDC data, which have a national representation and are based on data collected from tens of thousands of schools and millions of students. Even though CRDC is one of the most comprehensive national data sources, it is necessary to note that there were some problems with the quality, completeness, and consistency of restraint and seclusion data submitted by school districts, according to the report of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO, 2020), so some results should be treated with caution. Secondly, the study involves multiple reporting cycles, thus making it possible to analyze trends over time both at the national and state levels. Thirdly, the study considers three kinds of restrictive practices separately, namely mechanical restraint, physical restraint, and seclusion.
It should be noted that there are some factors that should be considered while conducting an analysis of the results obtained in this study. Firstly, the CRDC uses self-reports from the school districts, and there is a risk of under-reporting and errors. Secondly, when comparing the states, it is important to exercise some caution since the states have different definitions and policies related to restraint and seclusion. It is very difficult to compare the states regarding this metric since they have different definitions and policies of restraint and seclusion, thus affecting the results. Thirdly, the CRDC provides aggregated data; thus, it is not possible to examine on a case-by-case basis and find out whether the same person was subjected to multiple incidents. Finally, disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic of 2020-2021 had an impact on such practices and the way they are reported.
Nonetheless, even taking into account the shortcomings mentioned above, there are some important implications that need to be considered regarding the findings of this research concerning education policy and practices. While there is a general trend of decrease when speaking about the use of seclusion and restraints in national statistics from 2017-2018 to 2020-2021, there were some variations between different states, which indicated some policy enforcement gaps, lack of professional development of teachers, and differences in reporting methods. This fact proves that it is necessary to continue decreasing the number of restrictive practices by implementing good policies, professional development of teachers in managing behavior and dealing with crisis situations, and proper reporting.
The focus of future studies should be to examine the differences in the application of restraint and seclusion practices, especially among students with disabilities, racial and ethnic groups, and other vulnerable populations. Longitudinal studies using student-level data could potentially yield information about the trends of multiple exposures to restraint and seclusion practices. Another set of studies focusing on the relationship between state policy frameworks and rates of incidents could yield information on the regulation of harmful school disciplinary practices.
Conclusion
This paper presents an extensive examination of trends associated with restraint and seclusion practices in U.S. public schools in the last three CRDC data collections. As indicated by the results of this study, despite the general decrease in restraint and seclusion practices from 2017-2018 to 2020-2021, such practices still continue to exist in the majority of states, with substantial differences in their prevalence. At the same time, physical restraint practices prevail, mechanical restraints are used less frequently, and seclusions are sporadic.
The continuation of these behaviors calls into question issues relating to student safety and equity, as well as effective methods of managing student behavior within schools. While the decrease in recent years could be due to greater awareness of these issues, it may also be linked to outside factors, such as the influence of the coronavirus pandemic on schools.
In summary, this study highlights the importance of implementing policies, data handling, and adopting solutions effectively instead of incarceration. The implementation of this solution is critical in ensuring that safety and justice are achieved in learning institutions, particularly those involving children who belong to disadvantaged backgrounds.
References
LeBel, J., Huckshorn Ka Fau – Caldwell, B., & Caldwell, B. (2010). Restraint use in residential programs: why are best practices ignored? https://doi.org/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20857886/
Office, U. S. G. A. (2009). SECLUSIONS AND RESTRAINTS
Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-719t.pdf
Office, U. S. G. A. (2020). K-12 Education:
Education Needs to Address Significant Quality Issues with its Restraint and Seclusion Data. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-345
Rights, C. R. D. C. O. f. C. (2025). Recent Data Files (https://doi.org/https://ocrdata.ed.gov/data
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2020). K–12 Education: Education Needs to Address Significant Quality Issues with Its Restraint and Seclusion Data (GAO-20-345). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-345
