Subscribe
Previous Post
Public outcry over the Judge Rotenburg Center (JRC) in Canton, Massachusetts, has focused on the school’s use of “shock therapy” for special needs students who have self-injurious and other “challenging” behaviors. The December 25th New York Times reported on some parents who defend the use of this type of “therapy” and About.com asked if such “aversive therapy” is a “tool for good or evil”? It was recently reported that, back in August, a former JRC student made a prank phone call to the JRC staff; the former student pretended to be a supervisor and directed a staff member to administer a number of shocks to two current students.
Beyond the use of shock treatment, the prank phone call incident points to serious lapses in administrative protocol and staff supervision at the JRC. The December 22nd Boston Globe describes other aspects of the JRC that suggest the services and education it provides are in need of significant revision and improvement:
- Shocks are given for “minor infractions” such as swearing or getting out of one’s seat.
- Shocks are delivered to students who are sleeping.
- “Delayed punishments” are performed upon students.
- Treatment plans and assessments for students appear to be “generic looking,” as if the JRC uses a “common template for many of them.”
Massachusett’s Department of Mental Retardation has given the JRC a one-year provisional reauthorization; past reauthorizations have been for two years. The JRC must prove that it only uses the shock treatments for “the most dangerous and self-destructive behaviors,” and that this “therapy actually led to a reduction of those harmful actions.” It also must show that it has made a ” greater commitment to phasing out shock treatments” and especially for students who are about to leave the school.
According to the report, the school has about 250 students, nearly all of whom attend the center’s Canton school and live in one of its 38 group homes in nearby communities. Two-thirds are minors; the rest are adults. Roughly one-third are from Massachusetts. About 60 percent of all students have court-approved plans that allow for shock treatment……
[State officials] also said the center failed to consider circumstances that may have provoked an offending behavior or to reduce those triggering situations.
One student observed by inspectors looked bored sorting Popsicle sticks. This boredom, the report found, may “serve to lower the threshold for engaging in inappropriate behaviors,” thus triggering a potential punishing shock.
Does the JRC perform an accurate and complete Functional Behavior Analysis for each student, for each challenging behavior? What other teaching methods are used? Are other teaching methods first tried prior to the decision to use shock treatment?
Defenders of the JRC use the rhetoric of last resort to defend the use of shock treatment. Such defenders repeatedly emphasize that families have “no other resort” and have “tried everything” and that the use of shock treatment is rather a sign of a parent’s willingness to do “whatever it takes” to help their disabled child. No one doubts the love of a parent for a child but a fuller sense of what had previously been attempted to help a child with self-injurious behavior would be helpful to know. And, what does the JRC do to help students transition back to life after the school and after shock treatment?—and if a former student starts engaging in self-injurious behavior again, does the student go back to the JRC?
95 days ago
[...] pretending to be a staff member, made the request over the phone. The JRC’s operations were under review by the state of Massachusetts until December 2008. In 2011, Massachusett’s Department of Developmental Services banned the [...]
I noticed that on JRC’s site they keep repeating that the people who are AGAINST the JRC “aren’t addressing the fact that these aversives solve self-harming behaviors”.
What that website WON’T answer, is HOW is “swearing” or “getting out of your seat” a “self harming behavior”?
Maybe their staff members should be shocked for clocking out early, is THAT a “self-harming behavior”?
JRC still has not addressed the fact that children are shocked for “failing to maintain a neat appearance”, yet they keep repeating a bunch of crap about “self-harming behaviors”.
Maybe we should shock the owner of this dump and later say “well we had to protect him from his own self-harming behavior” because I’m sure there are times when his tie is on crooked. Apparently that IS a “self-harming behavior” so why not?
1453 days ago
[...] to condemn the JRC’s shock therapy and other “aversive” treatments. In December of 2007, more questionable practices at the JRC were noted in an article by the Boston Globe. Back in January, a key legislative committee in [...]
1575 days ago
[...] their children, some of whom have autism, mental retardation, and developmental disabilities. Other serious administrative lapses and questionable protocols and practices in the supervision and training of staff and the treatment of children at the school have also been [...]
This is the School of Shock webpage on the JRC.
@Christschool:
“I would like to note, if Kristina will approve, that my comment under SchoolofShock, was primarily directed to her for not allowing my previous comment which dealt with exposing those who make the torture of children and adults possible and a redirection to a new website where there will be a repository of information on JRC. ”
Christschool, I apologize. If comments have a lot of URLs/links, they sometimes end up in SPAM (I will, in cowardly fashion, blame the software) and I am not always as diligent in noting these. I am looking for your comment now; if you can note that date that you posted it, I will also retrieve it. Best wishes and thanks to Ed, too.
Why is that Kristina?
Why would comments be moderated in such a way?
This isn’t unbiased journalism or any kind of dipomacy at all.
This would instead fall under the catagory of wanting to “promote awareness” of all the wrong things with all the wrong motivations.
If you are not willing to allow people who are willing to work to prevent torture to post here, you need to specifically describe your position so that people can identify your very dangerous position and not confuse your position with people who really care and want to help.
I would like to note, if Kristina will approve, that my comment under SchoolofShock, was primarily directed to her for not allowing my previous comment which dealt with exposing those who make the torture of children and adults possible and a redirection to a new website where there will be a repository of information on JRC. I note that many comments derogatory towards autistic people are allowed through, but a comment saying those that do business with JRC should be exposed so that others can determine whether they want to associate themselves with institutions and persons that perpetuate this torture.
Terrible.
You should read NY’s report on JRC http://boston.com/news/daily/15/school_report.pdf also you should check out some of the you tube videos like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9-xXfgQiTU which actually is a little inaccurate because it states the the shock devices are removed for bathing but they aren’t always.
And there is this article on HIPPA violations http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=391
and I am sure you have already read the mother jones article http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/nagging_zap_swearing_zap.html
You should also read the JRC website and the wayback machine archives of the JRC website (unless Matthew Isreal finally got the archives removed) for info about how students are forced to eat an almost all vegan diet, have food with held, have no privacy, are not allowed therapy have speech and OT removed from their IEPS, how JRC “doesn’t need functional analysis” because it “doesn’t matter why” the behaviors happen.
I live and work in Mass and am ashamed of JRC. I have had friends visit their and leave sickened by what they saw. One friend was their to install wiring for closed circuit tv and asked why he kept hearing screams. Finally he was told it was kids being shocked.
Frankly our prisoners in the USA are better treated.
I’m wondering. Can there be certain things that are too radical for certain people when it comes to advocating against torture? Was Simon Wiesenthal too radical in his pursuit of exposing war criminals? Is it too radical to post the names of people who help the “system” set up to torture children and adults? Would that be impolite? While we are all being polite about it, someone is being shocked tonight because of a neurological difference with which they have no control over.
to Marla:
what’s worse, even more adults than students get shocked- according to JRC’s own website, it’s about 85 PERCENT.
Another question about what year this is. Is it 2007 or 1907? Here’s what “aversion therapy” does to people:
Some clinicians have reported that patients undergoing aversive treatment utilizing electric shocks have experienced increased anxiety and anxiety-related symptoms that may interfere with the conditioning process as well as lead to decreased acceptance of the treatment. As indicated above, a few clinicians have reported a worrisome increase in hostility among patients receiving aversion therapy. Although aversion therapy has some adherents, lack of rigorous outcome studies demonstrating its effectiveness, along with the ethical objections mentioned earlier, have generated numerous opponents among clinicians as well as the general public. These opponents point out that less intrusive alternative treatments, such as covert sensitization, are available.
I think this is the NPR story entitled “School of Shock“?
And MotherJones has an index of media coverage, including the recent NY Times article.
NPR has a very good transcript with a former teacher at JRC about some of the things he observed there.
In the names above, Robert Worsham is the one I have on video telling an audience that he and the center use what he called “creative language” in the court testimony. In my opinion, and I believe others who have seen this video, Mr. Worsham’s intention is to mislead the court. Everything is considered a possible antecedent for shocking. Tear a cup, shock. Look bored, shock. Raise your arms to a certain level, shock. Talk out of turn, shock. Ask to go to the bathroom in class, shock.
In my opinion, the court should not allow antecedents to be used as justification for shocking period because as Mr. Worsham has told audiences, he misleads the court on what a proper antecedent is.
As in “Dr. Von Heyn” quoted here in the 2006 Village Voice:
JRC gets court orders by presenting “expert” testimony. However, the “experts” were recently fined by the state of Mass. for falsely claiming that they were psychologists. In addition, there is video out there of one of the faux psychologists giving a lecture on how he and the center use creative language to describe behavior in such a way to obtain the order. I believe the state needs to put 2 and 2 together here (giving false testimony to the courts by way of lying about the qualifications of the experts and JRC’s creative use of language in court testimony) and have these cases seen again by another probate court using third party experts unaffiliated with JRC.
Here is the order I referred to.
Judge Rotenberg Center Clinicians Enter Into A Consent Agreement With Board Of Psychologists
October 19, 2006
The Division of Professional Licensure announced today that 14 Judge Rotenberg Center (“JRC”) clinicians entered into a Consent Agreement with the Board of Registration of Psychologists (“Board”) to resolve allegations that they held themselves out as Psychologists and/or used the title “Psychologist” without having a valid Massachusetts license.
“Psychology is a state licensed profession in Massachusetts,” said George K. Weber, Director of the Division of Professional Licensure. “Psychologist is not just a title that can be used at will. A licensed Psychologist is an individual who has met the academic and clinical experience requirements of the Board. Consumers have the right to expect that their Psychologist has the proper credentials and is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth.”
The Board was notified in April of 2006 that these clinicians were identified on the JRC website with the title of Psychologist, even though it was believed that these individuals were not licensed as such by the Board. The Board immediately investigated these allegations and found that the individuals were not licensed as Psychologists by the state. The Board took action and originally filed applications for criminal complaints in Stoughton District Court in May 2006. Court action is no longer necessary because the Board was able to negotiate an appropriate result for the Commonwealth.
During the course of the Board investigation five of the clinicians also acknowledged that they had held themselves out as Psychologists in Massachusetts Probate Court while testifying regarding the treatment of children at JRC.
As part of the Consent Agreement, the clinicians agreed that they would not represent themselves as Psychologists or use the title “Psychologist” until they had applied for and received a valid license to practice psychology in Massachusetts. In addition the clinicians provided a total of $43,000.00 which was paid by their employer, JRC.
The clinicians told investigators that JRC had assigned them the position and title of “JRC Psychologist” and that they were informed by JRC that they could use the title even though they were not licensed.
The following is a list of those individuals who entered into a Consent Agreement with the Board:
Clinician Amount Paid by JRC
Kelly Isley $2,000
Robert Worsham $5,000
James C. Griffin $5,000
Nicholas Lowther $2,000
Andre Vlok $5,000
Nathan Blenkush $2,000
Timothy Paisey $2,000
R. Nicolle Matthews $2,000
Thelmisha Vincent $2,000
Peter Jaberg $2,000
Christine Chiudina $5,000
Rachel Coffin $2,000
Sinead Wood $2,000
Robert Von Heyn $5,000
“About 60 percent of all students have court-approved plans that allow for shock treatment…… ”
That is an alarmingly high percentage. What are these people doing that they require shocking? I would like to know more details in that area as well.
“No one doubts the love of a parent for a child but a fuller sense of what had previously been attempted to help a child with self-injurious behavior would be helpful to know.”
I agree. It is imperative to know what has been tried and failed.