Flashback: Dangerous Use of Restraints Still Persists in Minnesota Group Homes, Decades After Promises to Stop—No Word On Systemic Restraint of Disabled In The Community?

Where's The Benevolence?

Despite repeated promises by state officials to eliminate punitive restraint and seclusion practices in programs serving people with disabilities, these controversial methods continue to be used in Minnesota group homes and other licensed facilities — raising questions about the effectiveness of oversight, compliance, and systemic reform.

Jensen v. DHS Settlement vs. Practiced Continued Culture

In October 2014, a federal court monitor’s report revealed that more than three years after the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) pledged to phase out dangerous restraint practices, individuals with developmental disabilities were still being subjected to them under everyday care routines. State officials had touted a dramatic drop in restraint use over the preceding year, and DHS Commissioner Lucinda Jesson described the issue as a “massive undertaking” requiring ongoing attention.

Still, the court monitor documented continued use of both physical and mechanical restraints as well as seclusion. Between July 2013 and September 2014 — even with stated reductions — 963 people with disabilities were physically restrained, 40 were mechanically restrained, and 70 were placed in seclusion over that period, according to the federal monitor’s findings.

The persistence of these practices stood in contrast to earlier state commitments. DHS had pledged to end non-emergency use of such techniques following long-standing criticism that Minnesota lagged behind widely accepted national standards.

Case Study: A Woman Strapped for Hours

One of the starkest examples detailed in the monitor’s report involved a 33-year-old woman at a group home in Crystal, Minnesota. Rather than being restrained only in emergencies, "she was strapped to a restraint chair for up to nine hours a day without food or bathroom breaks — and this occurred routinely for months."

State regulators did not intervene until more than three years after the facility operator first reported the practice, and only did so by chance during an unrelated investigation, according to the monitor. When action was finally taken, the facility received a modest fine and was ordered to make improvements. Roberta Opheim, then the state ombudsman for mental health and disabilities, described the incident as evidence of systemic breakdown — pointing to reports that were “lost in a bureaucratic maze” rather than acted upon.

Isolation and Inhumane Placement Still in Use

Another case highlighted in the report involved a man with cerebral palsy and autism who was moved from a state hospital into an isolated, warehouse-like setting, where he spent nearly all his time alone, with extremely limited interaction or activity. Though this placement cost the state over $1 million per year, the monitor noted that it left him “a very unnatural form of life” lacking meaningful relationships, work, or community involvement — conditions clearly out of step with both federal law and broader philosophies of community integration.

An Ongoing Pattern of Concern

These findings did not emerge in isolation. Minnesota’s history with restraints and seclusion goes back decades, even to symbolic actions like Governor Luther Youngdahl’s 1949 burning of straitjackets and shackles in an attempt to signal an end to inhumane practices — a promise that was repeatedly broken before Just Plain Wrong and other investigations forced reform efforts. After federal class-action lawsuits and state legal settlements in the early 2010s, Minnesota changed its laws and training requirements to prohibit many forms of restraint and to require reporting of incidents. But even when the laws were tightened and reporting mechanisms put in place, enforcement lagged and incidents continued, demonstrating that policy statements alone are insufficient without consistent oversight, accountability, and independent investigation.

The Human Toll and Systemic Questions

Disability advocates have long argued that restraint and seclusion — widely rejected by leading disability and mental health organizations as dangerous and dehumanizing — should be eliminated except in rare, true emergency situations. Critics view continued use as a symptom of deeper systemic problems:

failures in reporting and enforcement,
inadequate staff training on non-coercive approaches,
a regulatory apparatus more focused on documentation than protection, and
an institutional culture that tolerates harmful practices despite official commitments to stop them.

In some cases, reports of restraint are filed internally but never trigger independent investigation or corrective action, leaving those subjected to harmful practices without recourse.

Why This Still Matters

The Star Tribune’s 2014 reporting shows that even after formal commitments to end punitive restraint and seclusion, and after years of legal pressure, practices persisted deep into community and group-home settings. This continuity underscores a broader question about whether Minnesota’s human services system has the mechanisms, will, and accountability necessary to protect the rights and dignity of the people it is meant to serve.

Sources

Dangerous use of restraints persists at homes for disabled, Star Tribune by Chris Serres (Oct. 29, 2014) — evidence of ongoing restraint and seclusion despite state pledges.
Related reporting on restraint use and regulatory patterns in state facilities and group homes.
Contextual information on restraint harms and policy goals from the Minnesota Department of Health.