Findings from a 2006 Review

The New York State Education Department Board of Regents and others conducted a review of JRC's program on April 25 and 26, and on May 16,17, and 18, 2006. The review was conducted by NYSED staff and three behavioral psychologists in the role of independent consultants. The April 25-26 review was an announced visit. The May 16-18 review was an unannounced visit.

F I N D I N G S

The integrity of the behavioral programming at JRC is not sufficiently monitored by appropriate professionals at the school and in many cases the level of background and preparation of staff is not sufficient to oversee the intensive treatment of children with challenging emotional and behavioral problems.

This makes sense to me.  In order to avoid abuses in the case of extremely difficult children and overseers who are given extraordinary power over those children, JRC would need to hire highly trained people with very high credentials.  The risk of losing those credentials due to abuse should be extremely serious.

JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students with a broad range of disabilities, many without a clear history of self-injurious behaviors.

 and also

JRC employs a general use of Level III aversive behavioral interventions to students for behaviors that are not aggressive, health dangerous or destructive, such as nagging, swearing and failing to maintain a neat appearance.

This damages the argument that these measures are needed to stop the children from harming themselves.  It also reinforces my conjecture in the previous post about the center essentially being a dictator's attempt at having absolute control over a group of disabled children in order to create some world of his own imagination.

The use of electric skin shock conditioning devices as used at JRC raises health and safety concerns.

I wonder if it's possible to get any evidence to support this: emergency medical treatment of skin burns or other evidence of abuse. Would it be possible to get testimony from police or EMT workers who may have dealt with cases at JRC?

Video surveillance system monitoring includes most bathrooms and all bedrooms but no formal staff monitoring system is in place to ensure the privacy and dignity of students/consumers during intimate grooming/hygiene or personal sexual behavior (e.g., masturbation). For example, no procedures were in place to ensure staff was not observing opposite sex residents during showering.

[emphasis added]

It would be a gross understatement to say that I'm starting to form an opinion about JRC.

It may be that they have taken steps to address these issues.  But I believe in the "where there's smoke, there's fire" principle.  True evil is like feces in your food.  Once its existence is established, claims of its removal require an extraordinary burden of proof.