Free Walden
Disability, Intersectionality. Autonomy, Human Rights,
and the Fight to Shut Down the Judge Rotenberg Center
Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services
(formerly the Department of Mental Retardation)
versus
The Judge Rotenberg Center
(formerly the Behavior Research Institute)
by K.G. October 31, 2022
On December 12, 1986, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (formerly the Office of Children), the Judge Rotenberg Center, and some of the students’ parents entered into a settlement agreement that prohibited the Department of Children and Families from interfering with the institute (3, 69, 19, C3). In January 1987, the Department of Children and Families and the Judge Rotenberg Center settled with a consent decree, which allowed the JRC to continue using aversives as long as they receive permission for each individual student from a judge through a "substituted judgment" hearing at the Bristol County Probate and Family Court. The decree was intended to terminate after a year, but it still remains in place today (1, 67, 68, 70, C10).
As part of the decree, the Department of Developmental Services was put in charge of licensing, which proved just as useless at stopping the JRC from hurting its disabled students as the Department of Children and Families, but it was not due to a lack of effort. The Department’s commissioner, Philip Campbell, would eventually face a lawsuit and be forced to resign for his relentless denial of level III aversive certification (C3, C9).
In June 1987, the JRC's 4th resident died. Abigail Gibson was a 29-year-old autistic woman with epilepsy living and receiving aversives in the Attleboro, Massachusetts facility who had a heart attack in her sleep and died 2 days later. When psychologist John Daignault, who was appointed by the court to monitor the facility's educational and treatment programs, conducted a preliminary inquiry into her death he concluded that it had nothing to do with the aversive therapy she was receiving. A group of JRC residents’ parents, including Abigail's parents, issued a statement in support of the school and its practices (15).
U.S Patent diagram for the SIBIS. image credit: public domain.
Right Image: US patent for Matthew Israel's GED image credit: wikipedia.
Matthew Israel stepped up his torture game and started administering electric skin shocks to developmentally disabled and mentally ill students “for whom non-aversive programming, psychotropic medication, and several aversive procedures had previously failed” (20). Israel preferred electric shocks, which he described as "cleaner" than pinching, slapping, and squeezing because it took less energy from staff and there was less bruising. The JRC began to phase out the existing aversives in favor of contingent sin shocks (4).
Israel wasn't satisfied with the current skin shock device he was using, the Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System (SIBIS), which was the only device of its kind being manufactured, so he invented his own. Israel's skin shock device, the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED), was almost 3 times as strong as the SIBIS, and when disabled students would build up a resistance, he would create a newer stronger version (1, 20, 24).
Left image: The arm of a student with a strap around the forearm that administers electric shocks. Photo credit: Aljazeera 2012.
Right Image: Student at the Judge Rotenberg Center wearing the Graduated Electronic Decelerator. Photo credit: Rick Freidman 2010.
One of the residents who received skin shocks, from the SIBIS and then the GED, was Linda Cornelison, a 19-year-old non-speaking autistic woman who had been living at the JRC since 1984. In December 1990, Linda began experiencing severe stomach pain because ulcers were tearing holes through her stomach. The staff and medical doctors not only dismissed her cries and expression of excruciating pain but punished her for it. For two days, instead of bringing her to the hospital, staff at JRC punished her. She received 56 physical aversives in the 4-hour period before they decided to call an ambulance. Linda Cornelison died on December 19, 1990 (4, 21, 45).
In 1991, the JRC applied for recertification in the use of aversives and the Department of Disability Services conducted an onsite visit to the facility. According to the report published on December 21, 1991, it was determined that the JRC should receive recertification for level III aversives, but several months later it was denied because the Department of Developmental Services had just learned about the JRC's two newest “treatments” -a reduced calorie contingent food program and the graduated electronic decelerator (C9).
The Department of Disability Services had never regulated aversives, electric shock devices, and a behavior modification program as severe as this. As the department learned more about the "therapies" used by the JRC, more provisions would be developed. Matthew Israel felt that the numerous additional regulations it had to adhere to were arbitrary and unfair.
The Department of Disability Services conducted another onsite visit in 1992 and found that the JRC was in compliance with its conditions and that there were zero adverse health effects from the GED-4 or the new contingent food program. But once again, the Department denied the JRC recertification for level III aversives (C9).
So, in 1993, a pissed-off Matthew Israel filed a lawsuit against the state commissioner of the Department of Developmental Services, Phillip Campbell, accusing him of abusing his power, acting in bad faith, and having a clear bias against autistic students being starved, shocked, and abused. Israel claimed to have cut the JRC’s staff in half because so much of the money had to go to legal fees (72, C9). According to Israel, Campbell excessively and unfairly targeted the JRC and covered up recommendations that the JRC be recertified for level III aversives, which violated the settlement agreement.
Campbell did crusade, though. He held Tuesday morning meetings dedicated to disrupting the JRC by any means necessary from 1993 until the fall of 1994 (C9). Between August 1993 and December 1994, the Department of Developmental Services made over 400 visits to the Judge Rotenberg Center, which disrupted daily operations and pulled staff away from students. The DDS also sent letters to funding agencies and parents explaining that the facility might not be permitted to use aversives in the future, which caused some students to leave (72).
In October 1995, Massachusetts judge, Elizabeth O’Neill La Staiti awarded the JRC $1 million and ruled that Philip Campbell did in fact abuse his power and waste state resources by trying to shut down a facility that was carrying out elaborate human rights abuse on disabled people (72).
Judge LA Staiti was wrong. In 1993, very few people who had the power to do anything gave a shit about the disabled people who were being physically harmed at the JRC. Philip Campbell did not abuse his power, he used it.
The facility’s use of aversives was erratic and inconsistent. In August 1993, an outside source told the DDS that the 1. Also, the graduated electronic devices were only supposed to be used for the most aggressive and self-injurious behaviors, but the staff at the JRC were administering electric shocks via remote control for minor infractions (33, C9).
One former resident told a reporter that she was shocked for standing up to go to the bathroom without permission (33). Another student told a reporter that when staff came to work on Mondays, they would review the video footage of the weekend looking for students misbehaving and breaking rules, then administer electric shocks to those students as punishment (4).
In 2002, an autistic resident refused to take off his jacket, so staff tied him face-down to a gurney for 7 hours and shocked him 31 times. He was catatonic and had to be hospitalized for 3rd-degree burns and acute stress disorder. The video footage of this incident went viral in 2012 (33, 46).
In 2002 an autistic student at the Judge Rotenberg Center who refused to take off his jacket was tied to a gurney, face-down, and shocked 31 times for 7 hours.Photo credit: World Socialist Web Site (WSWS.ORG)
Surveillance footage of a Judge Rotenberg Center Sudent being restrained and shocked for 7 hours.
When the New York State Education Department investigated the JRC in 2006, they found that disabled residents were being shocked for a myriad of nonviolent reasons, including nagging, swearing, making involuntary body movements or noises, not maintaining a neat appearance, and slouching. Israel actually told a reporter that swearing can be an antecedent of aggressive behavior, which is absolute bullshit (4, C5).
In February 1994, the DDS gave the JRC 12 more conditions to comply with in order to receive aversive certification for the next 2 years. The JRC was required to rewrite all of the 55 behavior modification treatment plans and allow 2 new independent psychiatrists and physicians to conduct independent medical evaluations, including psychiatric, on all 60 JRC students within the next 80 days (C9).
In May, the DDS and JRC began a 6-week negotiation process regarding level III aversives and on July 5, 1994, the JRC’s certification was extended until December 31, 1994 (C9). In January 1995m the DDS added more conditions including the discontinuation of the contingent specialized food program and a mandate that six specific JRC students stop receiving level III aversives. The JRC requested mediation again, and then on March 23, 1995, the DDS decertified the facility (C9).
When the JRC went to court the next day the judge entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DDS from decertifying the facility. The DDS was found to be in contempt of the settlement agreement, the commissioner was forced to resign, and the court prohibited DDS from interfering and appointed another 3rd party to take over anything regarding the JRC from 1996-2006 (68, C9).
In 1994, Matthew Israel changed the facility's name from the Behavior Research Center to the Judge Rotenberg Education Center, after Probate Judge Ernest Rotenberg, who consistently sided with Israel and allowed aversives to be used on autistic students. In 1996, the JRC moved from its original location near Providence RI to Canton Massachusetts, but the new name and location failed to stop the 6th death in May 1998.
Silverio Gonzalez was a 16-year-old with paranoid schizophrenia, ADHD, and Tourette’s, who, upon arriving at the JRC, was taken off of all of his medications because Matthew Israel does not believe in psychotropic drugs. In a 2007 interview, Matthew Israel claimed "The real torture is what these children are subjected to if they don't have this program. They're drugged up to the gills with drugs that cause them to be so sedated that they essentially sleep all day" ( 40 81). The effects of Gonzalez's withdrawal and the lack of proper and compassionate medical care got to him, so one day while on interstate 90, going 50 miles per hour, he jumped out of the back of his school bus and sustained a severe head injury causing him to die the next day (23, C4).
The Department of Developmental Services didn’t make any serious attempts to stop the JRC’s use of aversives until 2011, but the Naughts turned out to be a real shit show for the facility. In 2006, Massachusetts Department of Education found that the JRC did not provide students with essential learning opportunities. Autistic students were made to work on a computer for most of the day, but the facility was unable to explain how its computer software fits into the school’s curriculum or how it helps students reach state graduation standards (73).
That same year (2006) Massachusetts Division of Professional Licensure found out that 14 of the school’s 17 psychologists did not have licenses. The JRC was fined $43,000 and Matthew Isreal was fined $29,600 (21,47,48, 47).
In the summer of 2006 the New York State Education Department published the New York Board of Regent’s findings of its site review of the Judge Rotenberg Center that took place in April and May. After conducting interviews, reviewing written materials, and making on-site observations of what goes on at the JRC, the NY Board of Regents concluded that:
-
The staff is unqualified to oversee the intensive behavioral programming treatment that takes place (page 11 C5).
-
The JRC’s Contingent Food Program imposes unnecessary risks that negatively affect a person's growth and development (page 16 C5).
-
the GED is regularly used even when there was no threat of violence or physical injury (page 13 C5).
-
The GED raises safety and health concerns ( page 15) and there’s little evidence that students are faded away from the shock device (page 23 C5).
-
JRC students are forced by staff to exhibit “bad” target behaviors so that aversives can be used (page 17 C5).
-
The JRC discourages social interactions between students and between staff and students (page 24 C5).
-
The JRC does not support or promote the transition of its students to less restrictive environments (page 22 C5).
-
JRC students are denied sufficient academic instruction and related services (page 20 C5).
-
The JRC is not in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (page 19 C5).
-
“The privacy and dignity of students is compromised in the course of JRC’s program implementation” (page 25 C5).
The JRC’s environment of punishment, fear, and neglect lead to one of the most horrific occurrences at the facility. One night in 2007, staff at the Judge Rotenberg Center received a prank phone call from a person pretending to be a supervisor. The caller told the staff that two residents, ages 16 and 19, had misbehaved so they had to be woken up, restrained by their arms and legs, and shocked a total of 106 times (one was given 77 shocks, the other 29) (34, 35). When the staff realized that what they were participating in was a hoax they notified authorities who started an investigation, reviewed the surveillance footage of the abuse, and ordered Israel to save the footage. Israel then instructed an employee to destroy the evidence. To avoid prosecution for destruction of evidence in 2011 Israel was forced to resign, prohibited from working for the JRC or serving on the Board of Directors, and had to serve a 5-year probation (74).
When the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care investigated the facility after the incident it found that the staff at the JRC:
-
were physically abusing residents
-
lacked the necessary training and experience
-
failed to follow policies regarding medical treatment
-
used poor judgment
-
were unable to provide for the well-being and safety of a child
-
were unable to provide a safe environment
-
were neglectful as fuck
(21, 50)
In 2011, the Department of Developmental Services proposed regulations that would ban the practice of aversive therapy in the state and held two public hearings on July 20, and 22, to listen to experts' opinions on aversives (75, C13).
Testimony was given by disability advocacy organizations, human rights organizations, medical professionals, provider organizations, a union that serves families with disabled people, family members of learning-disabled and autistic people, and attorneys. 272 out of 287 written comments were in support of proposed regulations, including testimony from the President’s National Council on Disabilities (Read NCS's letter/testimony), the Massachusetts chapter of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, the ARC of Massachusetts, the National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disability Services, the Association of Developmental Disability Providers, the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council, the Provider's Council, MA Advocates Standing Strong, and TASH (C14).
People from the Massachusetts chapter of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, a research and advocacy organization testified, "Research indicates that aversive procedures such as deprivation, physical restraint, and seclusion do not reduce challenging behaviors, and in fact can inhibit the development of appropriate skills and behaviors" ( page 14 C14).
Another advocacy organization, the ARC of Massachusetts testified that current research in the field demonstrates "that aversive procedures are not regarded to be effective methods of permanently altering behavior, including behavior which may be self-abusive. Other, non-invasive methods, which pose no risk to an individual’s well-being, have been developed. Such methods have been demonstrated to be effective, not only during the period in which they are applied, but after the intervention is withdrawn" (page 14 C14).
Doctor, professor, researcher, and director of the Autism Institute, Anne M. Donnellan, testified that she had never used painful aversives like electric shock in her 35 years serving disabled people because she believes these techniques are unacceptable and unsupported by any professional literature. She has found that alternative interventions are more successful in reducing aggressive or self-injurious behavior and do not cause the problem behavior to return after the aversives have stopped (page 9 C14).
Nirbhay N. Singh, Ph.D. and professor of psychiatry, who has served as editor to several psychology journals testified that Level III aversives should be completely eliminated because punishment and contingent aversives don’t teach people how to behave or improve, just how to suppress behaviors (page 10 C14).
Gary W. Lavigna, researcher and Ph.D. from the Institute of Applied Behavior Analysis testified that punishment is not needed in changing behavior because it doesn’t work and it increases the severity of episodes. Positive alternatives, like antecedent control, are superior:
“Based upon [my experience] and based upon the extensive published research in this area, there is no clinical support nor empirical justification for the extreme aversive, punitive procedures authorized by Massachusetts’ regulations, particularly the use of contingent skin shock” (page 10 C14, R1).
Out of the 97 oral comments, 56 opposed the proposed regulations. Of course, the only people that were against the DDS banning aversives were people associated with the JRC. 59 JRC employees; two attorneys, nine family members, and one former student gave testimony in support of the JRC and the use of aversives.
The DDS also reviewed scientific literature about positive behavior supports and found they are more effective and do not cause as much pain and anxiety for disabled people:
A 1999 review concluded that positive applied behavior analysis interventions were effective in the reduction of problem behavior in ½ to ⅔ of all cases (R2). When looking at literature published between 1999 and 2005, researchers found that positive behavior supports are significantly effective in reducing problem behavior in “severely disabled” people (R3). A 2002 review shows that the clinical effects of punishment are short-lived (R4).
There have only been 30 studies investigating the effects of contingent shock therapy. Since 1979, only seven studies have been published. Seven articles were published in the US and only three groups of American researchers conducted research between 1995 and 2011 (C14). One of those groups is headed by Matthew Israel who published research in 2008 reporting a 100% success rate (a 90% reduction) in treating aggressive behavior with contingent skin shocks. The research took place from 2003 to 2006 and the subjects were 60 students of the JRC. This research, of course, is not peer-reviewed, as Israel refused to submit any of his work, and the "100% success rate" doesn't inspire much faith that he can be impartial (R5).
On October 14, 2011, the Department of Developmental Disabilities responded to the hearings and concluded that aversive therapy and punishment should not be used on intellectually disabled people with behavioral problems. According to the testimony when Level III aversives are allowed to be used staff ends up using them for non-aggressive or self-injurious behavior.
"The Department bases this opinion both on the body of empirical evidence showing the effectiveness of other less intrusive forms of treatment that do not involve pain; on the overwhelming support of this position by virtually every local, statewide or national organization supporting individuals with intellectual disability, and by providers and clinicians whose practice demonstrates that non-aversive treatment can modify difficult or dangerous behaviors effectively and for the long-term, while aversive interventions, in addition to causing pain and anxiety in such individuals, have no proven long-term efficacy" (page 20 of C14).
But the Department of Developmental Services refused to ban aversives because they didn’t want to repeat the extensive litigation that had occurred with parents of JRC students who felt painful aversives were the only treatment for their children. JRC students with an existing, as of September 1, 2011, court-approved plan that includes Level III aversives would continue to receive aversives (C14).
"With regard to requests for a broader “ban” on aversives, the Department recognizes that many guardians and family members of individuals receiving this form of treatment believe, based upon their past experience, that aversives are the only effective form of treatment for their loved one(s). While the Department does not agree, the history of extensive litigation over access to painful stimuli as treatment should not and need not be repeated here. The Department believes that by leaving aversives in place for this limited group of individuals, it will be an important step towards moving the system of services towards more positive, non-aversive treatment" (page 20 of C14).
In the Spring of 2012, the JRC lost a court battle to stop the release of the 2002 footage of an autistic student being restrained and shocked for 7 hours for refusing to take off his jacket, and it went viral (33, 46).
After witnessing the video, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick asked the courts to vacate the 1987 consent decree, and on February 14, 2013, Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office filed the motion that would finally take control away from the Bristol County Probate and Family Court. The AG’s Office argued that the consent decree was only intended to be in place for a year and “current clinical and empirical evidence, which was not available when the decree was entered, reflects an overwhelming professional consensus that the aversive, punitive interventions now used by JRC—primarily, contingent electric skin shock do not conform to the accepted standard of care for treatment of individuals with intellectual and developmental disability” (page 2 of C11)( 77, 78, C11, C12).
More than 3 years later, a 44-day evidentiary hearing was held at Bristol County Probate and Family Court and on June 20, 2016, Judge Katherine Field ruled in the JRC’s favor, upholding the 1987 consent decree. She did not believe that the state proved that there is a consensus among professionals that aversives should not be used on disabled people (77).
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services asked the state Attorney Generals' Office to appeal the judge’s decision in July 2018 and the Appeals Court added the case to the docket on August 12, 2021 (77). The Department of Developmental Services filed its principal brief (written arguments) and was accepted by the Appeals Court on March 3, 2022 ( C21).
As of November 12, 2022, this case has yet to be heard and the 1987 consent decree remains in place.