Talk:Judge Rotenberg Center

Then Governor Pat Brown

Nope, sorry. perhaps Jerry, but then it wouldn't have been his law firm, but his daddy's. Haven't time to research now, but fumbles of basic facts discredit the piece. 2601:2C6:4300:B8C0:A1B9:C2BC:AD44:D186 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"In her memo she provides a brief history and points out that Israel and BRI had hired former Governor Gerald “Pat” Brown Sr. to represent their appeal for recertification. Retaining a highly visible and high-powered attorney was essential to BRI’s survival..." (Nisbet 2021 p. 44) The article is incorrect to call him "then-governor", but it was in fact Pat Brown. :3 F4U (they/it) 03:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Merging sections

Hi all, I've been editing/expanding this article quite a bit and I'd just like to lay out my future plans in case anyone wants to comment on them:

1. I think having a separate section for Controversy and investigations removes them from their context within the institution's history and also removes needed context from the history section itself. As I continue to work on the article, I'm planning on moving it up an merging into either the History or Behavior modification sections. It probably is warranted to keep Deaths as its own subsection though/promote it to a section.
2. From a glance, it appears that Financials, Lawsuits, and Company culture and their subsections might be a frivolous number of sections. As I get to those sections, I'm considering ways to merge them together or into other sections.
3. The Opposition section should really be about criticisms from "notable opinions", the latter two subsections there would really be better fit in History.
4. Information from the 1982 report would be better merged into Behavior modification.

:3 F4U (they/it) 13:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Update needed

My daughter goes to JRC and it no longer resembles the house of horrors described in the article. I would like to update the opening information, which I think is very misleading, and caused us to avoid consideration of JRC for over a year. She is thriving now, and I only wish we had enrolled her earlier. JohnTeach (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@JohnTeach Wikipedia relies on what reliable secondary sources report and does not engage in original research. Do you have any reliable sources that report this? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You might try Dr. Shoshana Fagen, at Franciscan Children's Hospital, who found several other sources for us to help us past the wikipedia article. CNN has more timely information https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/16/health/judge-rotenberg-center-appeals-court-ruling/index.html. Also the Boston Globe https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/09/07/metro/rotenberg-center-sjc-ruling/

JRC provides a lot more than electric shock behavior modification, but this gets lost in the maelstrom. And they accept clients that no other facility will, which means the hardest cases that no one else in New England will touch come to JRC. JohnTeach (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't suggest any of the things you say in your comment. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

From the CNN article: "The school says it treats about 20% of its approximately 300 students with its device..."; from this it can be inferred that about 80% of JRC students are not subject to this device, which can only be used with parent/guardian permission. The lawyer for JRC stated “All the other many hospitals and programs that tried to treat them before coming to JRC with the traditional treatments were unsuccessful, and they were living a life of constant mechanical and chemical restraint and isolation.” This is not a treatment of first resort: it's a treatment of last resort. We have seen ourselves how our daughter was over medicated and isolated before being accepted at JRC, and it how harmed rather than helped her mental health. No other facility would accept her because of her many complications or she didn't meet the narrowly tailored treatment offered.

The MA DDS 2018 report mentioned in the CNN article is mostly positive, and had this to say about human rights abuses: "Human Rights (Indicators L48, L65, L66) - JRC maintains an effective HRC, providing essential safeguards for clients served. The 2017 minutes were audited for mandated composition, meeting frequency, and quorums and to assess whether specific behavior plans were reviewed. Interviews were also conducted with JRC's HR Coordinator, by-laws were reviewed, as well as training provided to HRC members.

Restraint information via HCSIS for 2017 was reviewed, ensuring that information was entered in a timely and accurate manner. JRC provides DDS with copies of each restraint on a monthly basis as agreed upon by JRC and DDS. Restraints are reviewed by JRC's HRC within 120 days, which was confirmed through a review of HCSIS and HRC minutes.
" [1]https://www.mass.gov/doc/the-judge-rotenberg-center-2018/download]

The areas for human rights improvement in the 2018 DDS report stated "Several individuals with behavior plans had restrictive practices that did not contain all required components. For example, audio/visual monitoring was in place for some people and there were not provisions regarding plans to fade or eliminate this practice over time. Another area that needed further refinement concerned practices that impact human rights including a right to privacy. Additionally, strategies need to be in place to assist individuals who have hearing or speech impairments to utilize accessible communication technologies to connect with families and friends." Note that none of these areas of improvement mention electric shock treatment. The report further states in areas for improvement "The agency needs to ensure that the HRC meets mandated composition, and that these members actively and consistently attend meetings. In addition, the HRC needs to file minutes with the Office of Human Rights promptly." [2]https://www.mass.gov/doc/the-judge-rotenberg-center-2018/download]

The most recent targeted review from 2023, [3]https://www.mass.gov/doc/the-judge-rottenburg-educational-center-targeted-review-2023/download] shows marked improvement and still does not mention any abuse of electric shock treatment.

As for the other article in the Boston Globe, it says that the MA Supreme Court unanimously ruled "as of 2016 there was no medical consensus for or against the use of electric shock therapy." and that "The court also noted that the state agency has always had the right under the consent decree to seek a judicial review of the use of the treatment on a case-by-case basis but has failed to use it regularly."

Again, in support of electric shock treatment being a treatment of last resort, the article also states "[Supreme Court Justice] Kafker wrote that relatives of patients have supported the center’s use of skin shocks as an effective means of curtailing dangerous behavior 'such as gouging their own eyes, puncturing their own bodily orifices, and violently attacking others.' "

While the headlines in the two articles doesn't suggest any of the comments I made previously, a deeper reading of both does. I think the MA DDS Executive Summary is a much more accurate description of The Judge Rotenberg Center:

The Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc (JRC) is a private not for profit organization that provides day and residential services to children and adults from Massachusetts as well as other states. Since 1971, JRC has provided education and treatment to both emotionally disturbed students with conduct, behavior, emotional, and/or psychiatric problems, as well as those with intellectual disabilities or on the autism spectrum....JRC has earned Two-Year Licenses for both its Residential supports with 96% of indicators met and Employment/Day supports with 97% of indicators met. The agency is also Certified for both Residential and Employment/Day services. [4]https://www.mass.gov/doc/the-judge-rottenburg-educational-center-targeted-review-2023/download] JohnTeach (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

About over medicated: not denying that there are side effects of medicines, but that isn't a judgment to be done lightly. Choosing between over medicated and electrical shocks is an ethical dilemma. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't to be taken lightly. My daughter was prescribed a wide range of anti-psychotics and anti-depressants over the years: there were several occasions where we stopped a medication immediately because of adverse effects, others were stopped after having no long term benefits. At JRC, they systematically deprescribed the number and amount of anti-psychotic medication she was on and her behavior & abilities actually improved. My daughter described it as feeling less foggy and being able to think more clearly.

As for the ethical dilemma, when parents have tried every therapeutic approach, have seen every doctor available, have watched their child suffer, and been harmed by their own child, it's not choosing between over medicated and electrical shocks: it's choosing between life and death. They have run out of options.

Nor is this issue anecdotal: many studies have shown that doctors are too quick to prescribe medications for children with mental health problems:

Overmedicating vulnerable children in the U.S https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6999034/

The Medicated Child https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/medicatedchild/etc/synopsis.html

Over-Medicating Kids Leads to More Health Problems — and More Meds https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/medicating-kids-polypharmacy-health-problems-cola/ 209.6.224.19 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the center meets the minimum requirements to stay open does not contradict the article. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

"Based on the findings of this report and the agency's self-assessment, JRC has earned Two-Year Licenses for both its Residential supports with 96% of indicators met and Employment/Day supports with 97% of indicators met.

The agency is also Certified for both Residential and Employment/Day

services."

The fact that the center meets the highest requirements to be licensed does contraindicate the article presenting the current center as if it were still being run from half a century ago. These are the current standards:

"DDS service providers get licensed every two years. Providers can be issued one or both of the following licenses for residential supports and employment day supports. The level of licensure is:

-Two year license

-Two year license with mid-cycle review

-Deferred license

-Recommendation for non-licensure

Agencies are also certified. Levels of certification are as follows:

Certified

Certified with a mid-cycle progress review

For more information on levels of licensure and certification please see the quick guide."

[5]https://www.mass.gov/lists/dds-provider-licensing-reports

The quick guide describes the requirements to achieve two year licensure and certification as follows:

Levels of Licensure

Upon completion of the survey, the agency receives a separate license for

residential/home supports and for day/employment supports. Levels of licensure are:

-Two Year License – agency receives “standard met” in at least 80% of the indicators including the 8 critical indicators.

Levels of Certification

Upon completion of the survey, the agency receives a separate certification level for residential/home supports and for day/employment supports. Levels of certification are:

- Certified – agency receives “standard met” in at least 80% of the indicators including the 8 critical indicators.

[6]https://www.mass.gov/doc/licensure-and-certification-quick-guide/download JohnTeach (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't provide anything more than that they are meeting state standards. And if they weren't, they wouldn't be open! Not to mention that its inclusion would definitely be WP:UNDUE and on the border of WP:original research. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, anecdotal evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Judge Rotenberg Educational Center → Judge Rotenberg Center – The institution itself inconsistently uses both names, but among reliable sources, there is a clear preference for "Judge Rotenberg Center" over "Judge Rotenberg Educational Center" (39,500 hits vs 14,400 hits; Google ngram; 200 hits on Google scholar vs 106 hits on Google scholar). Therefore suggesting this move under WP:COMMONNAME. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.