In February 2024, the International Coalition Against Restraint and Seclusion (ICARS) issued a public Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to England’s Department for Education (DfE). The request sought detailed insights into the funds allocated by schools for de-escalation, restraint, and seclusion training.
The Department’s response revealed a significant gap in oversight: it does not collate or track this information. Instead, these expenditures are managed at the local school level, using funds from individual school budgets, leaving this critical area of spending unreported and unsupervised.
Research Findings: Unregulated Spending and Systemic Challenges
Research documented in The ICARS Report England illustrates the harm to children from these practices and highlighted that 58% percent of respondents were unaware of the entities who had provided the restraint training to the educators and staff in their child’s school.
This unregulated and unmonitored sector, ICARS reference as the “Restraint Industrial Complex,” is estimated to cost millions of pounds annually.
To address the lack of centralized data, ICARS submitted thousands of FOIA requests to schools across England using the WhatDoTheyKnow.com platform, approved by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The aim was twofold:
- To uncover the extent of public funding allocated for de-escalation, restraint, and seclusion training.
- To identify the relationships between schools and training vendors.
The investigation sheds light on a financial ecosystem where restraint practices persist without sufficient monitoring, scrutiny, or evidence of efficacy.
Key Findings
Total Expenditure: Over £9.5 million recorded across 1,000+ schools.
Average Per School: Exceeding £8,500.
Future Projections: Based on ICARS analysis taxpayer costs could surpass £210 million by the end of the Labour government’s parliamentary term if aims by the Restraint Industrial Complex to place this training into guidance and standards across England’s educational system are implemented across 24,453 schools.
Scope of Analysis
The dataset includes:
- Financial records from over 1,000 schools.
- Payments to training companies for de-escalation and restraint training.
- Yearly and cumulative expenditures over a five-year period.
Unregulated Spending
Analysis has revealed that public funds are funneled into training programs without central oversight or monitoring by the DfE. Schools independently manage expenditures with little guidance.
A literature review by A. McDonnell et al. (2023) noted that many training programs for physical interventions lack rigorous licensing and evidence-based validation, and training in crisis intervention may actually increase restraint incidents.
Source: Staff training in physical interventions: a literature review by A. McDonnell et al. (2023)
The authors state:
The vast majority of training in physical interventions that takes place around the world could be described by researchers as in effect ‘unlicensed products.’
Safety and Efficacy Concerns
Despite significant financial investment, there is limited evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of these training programs, particularly for disabled children. Additionally, research into the physical safety of restraint cannot measure the future emotional, behavioural, and cognitive impact.
The use of restraint and seclusion not only lacks robust evidence of efficacy but is associated with documented physical harm, severe trauma, and, in some cases, fatal outcomes, making their continued implementation unjustifiable.
Neurodivergent children are disproportionately affected by restraint and seclusion, yet training programs have not demonstrably prioritized safeguarding their needs. The ICARS Report England documents the long-term physical and psychological harm caused by these practices.
Influence of Vendors
In addition to school payments, the data highlights instances where training providers are working with local authorities. We suggest this could limit schools’ autonomy to choose training that meets their unique needs. We believe these arrangements could contradict the DfE’s mandate that training decisions should be school-led.
Furthermore, and of grave concern, some proponents of these programs have historically and are currently attempting to influence policy and legislative proposals, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and the prioritization of financial gain over educational outcomes.
Conflict of Interest and Profit-Driven Policies
Evidence shows training vendors and accreditation body employees and trustees have actively worked to embed their ethos and program ideology into official standards, guidance, and legislative proposals across the UK. This influence has often solidified their position as shaping education policy and ensuring future revenue for their interests while potentially sidelining more effective and inclusive approaches.
The ICARS Report England notes that similar dynamics in the health and juvenile justice sectors have coincided with increases in restraint incidents, highlighting the need for greater accountability and public scrutiny regarding who is meeting with and influencing policymakers.
Additionally, many English schools implicated in high-profile restraint and seclusion abuse scandals in the media had implemented behavior modification and restraint training programs marketed to reduce such incidents. Yet, poor practices and harm persist, raising questions about the programs’ efficacy, implementation, and the significant cost to a system already struggling with funding shortages.
The Fundamental Questions
This situation raises a critical question for the UK Government:
Why are millions of pounds being spent on training programs that failed to achieve their stated goals of reducing restraint as seen in data released in governmental data in health and juvenile justice?
If these programs do not transform school culture or ensure better outcomes for students, perhaps the issue lies not with educators but with the inadequacy of the training itself. This underscores the urgent need to reassess and redirect resources toward approaches that prioritize safety, inclusivity, and evidence-based practices.
There is an urgent need for the government to reassess these programs and reallocate resources toward approaches that genuinely prioritize safety, inclusivity, and evidence-based practices that align with the values of the disability community, ensuring better outcomes for all children. Additionally, this reassessment must align with England’s commitment to uphold children’s most fundamental right—the right to life—as enshrined in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 10 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). This includes ensuring that policies and practices comply with international human rights obligations, protecting children from practices that endanger their lives and wellbeing and fostering an inclusive environment that respects their dignity and rights.
The Impact of the Restraint Industrial Complex
The data collected by ICARS, through freedom of information requests and lived experience testimonies, reveal systemic financial and safety concerns hidden under the pretense of behavior management practices.
- Unmonitored Spending: The absence of centralized tracking enables unchecked vendor influence and unaccountable spending.
- Profit-Driven Dynamics: Training companies employees and proxies have played significant roles in influencing and shaping policy and practice, creating potential conflicts of interest.
- Lack of Evidence: Many training programs fail to demonstrate efficacy in reducing restraint incidents or safeguarding children’s rights.
- Educational Inequities: Resources are diverted from inclusive education approaches that could better support disabled and neurodivergent students.
Recommendations for Reform
ICARS calls for systemic changes to address these issues:
- Transparency and Oversight: Centralized tracking and public reporting of funds spent on training programs.
- Legislative Reform: Clear policies to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure accountability in vendor relationships.
- Evidence-Based Practices: Redirect funding to inclusive, disability-, and trauma-informed approaches which are recommended by a cross section of autistic and otherwise disabled experts connected to the broader autistic and disabled community.
- Child-Centered Policies: Prioritize safe, inclusive learning environments that function proactively to ensure there is little-to-no need for the use of restraint and no need for seclusion because the needs of children are being understood. These policies should align with international standards, including the 2023 concluding observations of the UNCRC Committee regarding the restraint of children, ensuring that practices respect their rights, promote their dignity, and safeguard their well-being.
Next Steps
ICARS will submit our data and report under parliamentary privilege to the Education Select Committee’s “Solve the SEND Crisis” Inquiry. We firmly advocate for the public release of our submissions. ICARS’s submission will aim to drive reforms that enhance transparency, safeguard public funds, and protect children from harmful practices which could lead to death or lifelong harm.
Conclusion
ICARS’ data collection and research offers a rare glimpse into the financial structures underlying behaviour modification, crisis intervention, de-escalation, restraint, and seclusion practices by shedding a light on unregulated spending. We advocate for disability-affirming and trauma-informed training as defined by UK Gov rather than the behavior modification practices and restraint training currently monopolizing taxpayer funding.
As a volunteer-led organization, ICARS remains committed to advocating for the rights and dignity of children, families, and educators.
