Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Matthew Israel

Matthew Israel is an behavioral treatment specialist who founded the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) in 1971 as a specialized day and residential program in , for individuals with severe emotional disturbances, conduct disorders, intellectual disabilities, and disorders unresponsive to conventional interventions. Drawing on principles of , Israel developed comprehensive protocols incorporating both positive reinforcement and aversive contingencies, including the —a remote-controlled device delivering brief, graduated electric skin shocks—to interrupt and extinguish life-threatening self-injurious or aggressive behaviors, with data from JRC indicating substantial reductions in such incidents for treated students. Israel's methods, implemented since the late for select severe cases, have enabled many residents to achieve greater independence and transition to community settings, as reported by the center and supporting families, though they have provoked ongoing debates over efficacy, ethics, and , resulting in regulatory battles, FDA scrutiny, and Israel's 2011 resignation as amid criminal charges resolved via plea agreement.

Personal Background

Early life and education

Matthew Israel was born in , the younger of two sons; his older brother became an electrical engineer, while his father practiced law specializing in corporate and real estate matters. He attended high school alongside future Massachusetts governor , who was one grade ahead. Israel enrolled as a freshman at in 1950 at age 17 or 18, initially considering careers in government or the Foreign Service. To meet a science requirement, he took a course titled "," which introduced him to the work of psychologist and sparked his interest in behavioral science; he later cited Skinner's book as a profound influence, inspiring him as early as age 17 or 18 to envision establishing utopian communities based on behavioral principles. He majored in at Harvard during the 1950s and briefly attended for two years before returning to graduate studies in psychology under Skinner's supervision, ultimately earning a Ph.D. in the field.

Efforts to establish intentional communities

Inspired by B.F. Skinner's 1948 novel , which depicts a utopian society governed by behaviorist principles of reinforcement and conditioning, Matthew Israel sought to create real-world intentional communities applying these ideas. As a Harvard undergraduate in 1950, Israel began corresponding with readers interested in the book after receiving misdirected letters intended for Skinner, leading him to publish a to connect potential collaborators. In 1966, Israel founded the Association for , an organization dedicated to establishing experimental communes worldwide based on techniques to foster cooperative living and eliminate maladaptive behaviors through systematic rewards and punishments. The group aimed to build a network of such communities, initially expanding to chapters in cities including and Albuquerque, though it ultimately dissolved amid practical challenges. Israel's first direct attempt occurred in 1967 with a small communal house in , envisioned as a step toward a "Walden Three." There, he lived adjacent to a three-year-old girl named and applied rudimentary behaviorist methods, such as positive reinforcement for desired actions and mild like finger flicks for disruptions. A second house followed in Boston's South End with six to seven residents, including , but both ventures collapsed within a year due to interpersonal conflicts and logistical failures common in early countercultural communes. These experiences, occurring in 1967 and 1968, convinced Israel that broader societal application required institutional structures rather than voluntary adult collectives, prompting his shift toward educational programs for individuals with behavioral challenges.

Professional Career and Institutions

Behavior Research Institute

The Behavior Research Institute (BRI) was established by Matthew Israel in 1971 in , as a residential program for children exhibiting severe self-injurious and aggressive behaviors unresponsive to prior interventions. Initially enrolling two students, the institute applied techniques derived from B.F. Skinner's work to modify maladaptive behaviors through structured environmental controls and . Israel's approach emphasized empirical measurement of changes, prioritizing over subjective interpretations. BRI's protocols integrated positive with aversive stimuli, including physical restraints, sensory penalties, and later graduated electronic devices to decelerate targeted behaviors such as head-banging or . conducted at the facility demonstrated efficacy in specific domains; for instance, a program trained severely autistic residents in fire evacuation skills, resulting in 100% successful exits at posttest with a mean time of 60 seconds. These interventions were tailored for individuals with developmental disabilities, including , who had histories of institutionalization or failures elsewhere. By the mid-1970s, BRI expanded operations beyond , establishing group homes in , licensed for care of persons with mental retardation. A sister facility, the Behavior Research Institute of , operated briefly before closing. The program faced regulatory scrutiny, including a 1979 investigation highlighting inadequacies in educational components despite behavioral progress in some residents. Following legal challenges and relocation to , BRI transitioned into the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in the late , retaining core methodologies amid ongoing debates over aversive applications. Empirical outcomes from BRI-era studies underscored behavior reduction rates exceeding 90% for targeted self-injury in select cohorts, contrasting with criticisms from advocates favoring non-aversive alternatives lacking comparable for severe cases.

Founding and expansion of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center

Matthew Israel founded the Behavior Research Institute (BRI) in 1971 in , as a residential program applying principles of to treat adolescents and adults exhibiting severe self-injurious and aggressive behaviors unresponsive to conventional therapies. The institution initially operated on a small scale, focusing on empirical measurement of behaviors and reinforcement-based interventions, with aversive stimuli incorporated where positive methods proved insufficient to achieve rapid behavior suppression. Facing regulatory scrutiny in Rhode Island during the late 1970s, including a 1979 investigation by New York state officials into its practices, BRI relocated to Canton, Massachusetts, around 1980. The facility was renamed the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) in the 1980s, honoring Judge David L. Rotenberg, who presided over litigation upholding the center's right to employ graduated electronic decelerators for behavior modification following challenges to its methods. This judicial support facilitated the program's continuity and expansion under Israel's direction. The JRC grew substantially in the ensuing decades, transitioning from a modest operation to a comprehensive residential school serving students from multiple states, primarily those with emotional disturbances, intellectual disabilities, and disorders exhibiting extreme maladaptive behaviors. By 2001, enrollment reached 128 residential students housed in 21 community-based residences, supported by over 600 staff members implementing individualized plans. Expansion continued, with approximately 230 residential students across 37 homes by 2012, reflecting increased referrals from systems unable to manage similar cases and sustained parental demand for the program's outcomes. This growth included development of on-campus facilities in while maintaining decentralized living arrangements to promote community integration.

Behavioral Treatment Approaches

Principles of applied behavior analysis at JRC

The (JRC) applies principles of (ABA) rooted in , targeting observable behaviors through environmental contingencies to increase adaptive responses and decrease maladaptive ones. Interventions are individualized, based on functional behavioral assessments that identify maintaining factors via direct , antecedent analysis, and data from natural settings. Continuous forms the empirical foundation, with staff recording frequencies of target behaviors—both problematic (e.g., , self-injury) and positive—24 hours a day, , using daily sheets deposited into a for clinician and parental review. Standard Celeration Charting visualizes trends, enabling precise adjustments to treatment plans when behaviors deviate from baselines or goals. Positive reinforcement drives behavior acquisition via comprehensive reward hierarchies, including token economies where compliance earns points or simulated currency redeemable at on-site stores, movie theaters, internet cafés, or for field trips and jobs. Behavioral contracts outline escalating rewards for meeting short-term (e.g., 2 minutes of compliance), daily, or multi-day targets, fostering self-management and reducing reliance on external prompts. Loss of privileges serves as a graduated consequence for breaches, suspending access proportionally (minutes to weeks) without isolation. Consistency across settings—classrooms, residences, transport—ensures , with the same trained staff implementing protocols to replicate environmental controls. JRC prioritizes least-intrusive methods proven effective for severe cases, aiming to replace dangerous behaviors with functional alternatives while minimizing medications, restraints, or external interventions like .

Aversive conditioning techniques and protocols

The aversive conditioning techniques employed at the (JRC) under Matthew Israel's leadership center on contingent skin shock delivered via the (GED), a remote-controlled device attached to a client's or leg, as a supplementary procedure within a broader framework emphasizing positive reinforcement. Shocks are administered immediately following targeted problem behaviors, such as severe self-injury (e.g., pulling out throat tissue, biting off fingers, or auto-extraction of teeth) or , to associate the behavior with an unpleasant consequence and thereby decelerate its occurrence. The GED delivers a 2-second direct current pulse at graduated intensities: the GED-3A model outputs 15.25 mA at 60 volts with less than 0.45 joules of energy, while the GED-4 model provides 41 mA at 66 volts with under 1.353 joules, using 20 pulses per second (effective 80 pulses with a 25% of 3 ms on and 9 ms off) confined to the skin surface without penetrating deeper tissues like the heart or brain. Protocols require individualized treatment plans developed by licensed following functional behavioral assessments, with GED use limited to behaviors unresponsive to non- interventions and approved annually by parents or guardians, medical professionals (including cardiologists if indicated), and, for residents, courts via substituted judgment proceedings. Applications are capped at 10 per 24-hour period, with an institutional average of fewer than one per week per client; exceeding limits triggers clinician notification and potential suspension pending review. Electrode sites are rotated after each shock, inspected hourly and immediately post-application for skin integrity, and clients receive continuous data-driven monitoring through behavior charts to evaluate progress and taper aversives. Oversight includes quarterly reporting to courts and parents, annual individualized education program (IEP) or service plan (ISP) reviews, and mandatory external expert evaluation after six months if applications exceed one per week, alongside internal human rights and peer review committees to ensure ethical application. Staff undergo specialized training for precise timing and documentation, integrating shocks with positive programming such as token economies and skill-building to promote long-term behavior reduction, as Israel maintained that such contingencies yield rapid suppression without significant side effects when paired appropriately.

Evidence of Treatment Outcomes

Empirical data on behavior reduction

A review of treatment outcomes for 173 individuals with severe problem behaviors, including and self-injurious actions, at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) documented a 97% reduction in the frequency of these behaviors during the first year of contingent skin shock (CSS) implementation, with mean reductions reaching 98.5% by the second year and 99% by the third year. These , derived from continuous behavioral observations and device activation logs, indicated that CSS, applied contingently alongside positive reinforcement and procedures, suppressed behaviors refractory to prior non-aversive interventions. The , conducted by JRC clinicians, emphasized that initial high rates (often exceeding 100 incidents per day) dropped to near-zero levels in most cases, though the study's internal sourcing raises questions about validation amid broader regulatory of the center. In a separate of 120 JRC patients treated with CSS between 2005 and 2019, 73% exhibited immediate and sustained suppression of challenging behaviors upon device introduction, with behaviors remaining low during ongoing . Response patterns included rapid deceleration followed by maintenance without shock reinstatement in 58 cases, while 28 required periodic reintroduction due to , and others showed partial or variable effects; overall, the data supported CSS's role in achieving long-term behavior suppression when integrated into comprehensive protocols. This peer-reviewed analysis, based on archival clinical records, highlighted causal links between shock contingencies and reduced incident rates, corroborated by inter-observer agreement exceeding 90% in sampled sessions. Peer-reviewed case reports further illustrate these outcomes. For instance, in a cognitively typical with treatment-refractory and self-injury, CSS via the (GED) reduced daily aggressive episodes from over 50 to zero within weeks, alongside elimination of self-injurious behaviors, after failing multiple pharmacological and non-aversive trials. Similarly, another of in a non-autistic individual reported comparable suppression, with CSS enabling functional community reintegration absent in pre-treatment baselines. These findings, while limited to individual cases, align with aggregate JRC data showing CSS's efficacy for behaviors unresponsive to standard , though critics note the paucity of randomized controlled trials and potential confounds from multifaceted interventions.

Long-term success metrics and parental testimonials

JRC-conducted follow-up studies provide metrics on post-discharge outcomes for former students. A 2004 evaluation of 39 former students, assessed an average of 1.71 years after leaving (range 0.3 to 3.75 years), reported a general life adjustment rating increase from 1.54 (very poor) pre-admission to 4.14 (good) post-JRC on a 5-point . In this cohort, 82.1% engaged in constructive daytime activities such as or , 61.5% discontinued psychotropic medications (versus 19.4% pre-JRC), and 82.1% experienced no psychiatric hospitalizations post-discharge (versus 47.5% pre-JRC). A 2005 follow-up of 45 former students, evaluated a mean of 1.75 years post-discharge (range 0.17 to 4.08 years), showed life adjustment ratings rising from 1.36 pre-JRC to 3.96 post-JRC across the group, with subgroups including developmentally delayed students improving from 1.00 to 4.19 and cognitively typical students from 1.38 to 3.93. Outcomes included 91.1% in constructive daytime activities (versus 2.2% pre-JRC), 81.1% off psychotropic medications (versus 8.9% pre-JRC), and 80.0% free of psychiatric hospitalizations (versus 30.8% pre-JRC). Broader JRC reviews indicate sustained reductions in restrictive placements, decreased reliance on antipsychotics and services, and instances of competitive , military or police service, attendance, , and positive social relationships among . Matthew Israel reported that contingent skin shock achieves a 95% reduction in aggression for 96% of recipients within weeks, with many eventually fading off the intervention; positive-only programming succeeds for about 50% of school-age students, supplemented for the remainder. Parents of JRC students have attested to long-term benefits in public statements. The 2012 JRC Parents Association declaration emphasized that aversive treatments, including skin shock, reduced severe self-injurious and aggressive behaviors to zero or near-zero levels after prior failures with alternatives like high-dose drugs or restraints, enabling learning, family time, and safe, happy living; one case highlighted unprecedented progress over seven months before temporary regression. Parents described JRC as providing effective management for intractable disorders, contrasting it with institutionalization or sedation, and praised staff commitment and transparency via long-standing video monitoring.

Criticisms and Opposition

Allegations of abuse and ethical violations

In 2007, two students at the (JRC) received 29 and 77 electric shocks, respectively, over three hours in response to a prank telephone call falsely reporting a ; this incident involved untrained staff administering the shocks and led to a stage-two on one , prompting a into potential by JRC leadership, including founder Matthew Israel. Israel was indicted in 2011 on charges of misleading a and ordering the destruction of a video recording of the shocking session; as part of a , he admitted no guilt but agreed to resign as effective June 1, 2011, and serve five years of probation to avoid further prosecution. Multiple state investigations have documented physical abuses at JRC, including the use of electric shocks (delivered via the device at 15.5–45.5 milliamps for two seconds) for minor behaviors such as swearing, yelling, or noncompliance, as well as prolonged mechanical restraints. A 2006 New York State Education Department review found shocks administered for infractions like removing a tray too slowly or tense body movements, alongside insufficient staff training; Israel was fined $29,600 that year for misrepresenting 14 clinicians as licensed psychologists. In the , a resident died from a perforated following repeated aversives including 8 spankings, 27 finger pinches, and deprivation, with Massachusetts Department of Mental Retardation () reports citing "egregious" and "inhumane" acts by staff. A 2009 U.S. report identified hundreds of alleged abuse cases at JRC, including excessive restraints and shocks. Specific cases highlight restraint-related abuses, such as an 18-year-old autistic in 2002 who endured 31 skin shocks while strapped face-down in four-point restraints for seven hours without water or restroom access, resulting in abrasions, a five-week hospitalization, and diagnosed PTSD with claimed permanent ; the case (McCollins v. JRC) settled confidentially after trial. Other documented incidents include a shocked 350 times in one day in 1992 and restraints lasting nearly 10 hours as in 2011. Behavioral Rehearsal Lessons involved simulated attacks, such as placing a knife to a followed by shocks for "inappropriate" reactions, conducted multiple times weekly for months. Ethical concerns center on the and of aversive techniques, with critics including a labeling the shocks as in 2010 due to their pain-inducing nature and application to vulnerable populations without sufficient evidence of long-term behavioral benefits. Investigations noted conflicts of interest, such as JRC-funded lawyers representing parents in court approvals for treatments and inadequate annual reviews of treatment plans (only 23 of 105 plans assessed in one 2009 report, despite 48 students shocked for over five years). Disability rights groups have alleged systemic violations of standards, arguing that practices like shocking for innocuous responses (e.g., moaning from a broken ) prioritize behavior suppression over positive interventions, though JRC maintains such measures are court-approved and parent-consented for severe cases.

Challenges from disability rights advocates and media

Disability rights organizations have criticized the (JRC) for its reliance on aversive conditioning, particularly the (GED) device, which delivers electric shocks to modify behaviors such as self-injury or aggression. Groups like Disability Rights International (DRI) have issued reports documenting over 200 instances of GED use on children and adults in a single year, alongside prolonged restraints sometimes lasting weeks, contending these methods constitute under international standards and exacerbate trauma rather than resolve underlying issues. The (ASAN) has led campaigns such as #StopTheShock, arguing that shocks are applied for minor infractions like nagging staff or tense movements, violating the and of autistic individuals and contravening principles of positive behavioral support. The Arc, a major advocacy group for intellectual and developmental disabilities, has condemned JRC's practices as abusive, citing cases where residents endured repeated shocks—such as the 2002 incident involving Andre McCollins, who received 31 shocks over two days while restrained in a chair, leading to his commitment to a . In 2009, a coalition of 29 organizations, including and The Arc, urged state officials to end JRC's "inhumane practices," highlighting shocks for behaviors as minor as stopping work or raising a hand without permission. The (ACLU) has echoed these concerns, portraying JRC as an outlier in using pain induction on students with severe challenges where less invasive therapies suffice. Critics from these groups often frame as relics of outdated , incompatible with modern emphases on , though they rarely engage empirical data on treatment efficacy for treatment-resistant cases. Media coverage has intensified scrutiny, with outlets portraying JRC's methods as ethically indefensible. reported in 2018 on ongoing shocks to control behaviors in young people with , quoting advocates who described the center as state-sanctioned and demanded regulatory intervention. A 2011 investigation detailed JRC's electric shock protocols for severe and emotional disorders, interviewing former staff and families who alleged overuse and psychological harm. Magazine's 2008 exposé, "The Shocking Truth," revealed shocks powerful enough to cause skin burns and involuntary screams, based on leaked videos and whistleblower accounts, fueling public outrage. Publications like and Review have sustained criticism, labeling the GED a punitive "apparatus" that persists despite alternatives, often aligning with disability rights narratives that prioritize harm avoidance over behavioral suppression. Such reporting, while highlighting verifiable incidents, has been noted by proponents for selective emphasis on while downplaying positive components or success stories from parents of JRC .

Legal and Regulatory Conflicts

State-level investigations and judicial rulings

In 1986, the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC), founded by , initiated litigation against the Massachusetts Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation (later renamed the Department of Developmental Services, or ) challenging state regulations that restricted the use of aversive behavioral interventions for students with severe self-injurious or aggressive behaviors. This resulted in a 1987 consent decree approved by and , which permitted JRC to employ specified aversive techniques, including graduated electronic deceleration for approved students, under individualized court-supervised treatment plans consented to by parents or guardians. Subsequent state attempts to impose broader bans, such as 1993 emergency regulations prohibiting facial screening plans and 1995 rules eliminating Level III aversives, were enjoined by courts citing violations of the decree and rights of the class comprising JRC residents. The (SJC) addressed these conflicts in multiple rulings. In Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation (424 Mass. 476, 1997), the SJC upheld a ban on certain outdated like the "verbal " procedure but affirmed the continuation of electrical and other interventions for students whose plans had been judicially approved, emphasizing that state regulations could not unilaterally override court-authorized treatments without of inefficacy or harm. A 2006 decision further found in contempt for bad-faith delays in reviewing treatment plans, ordering expedited approvals and highlighting the department's regulatory overreach. In 2023, the SJC in Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Department of Developmental Services (492 Mass. 772) unanimously upheld the denial of DDS's motion to terminate the , ruling that evolving professional standards alone did not render the agreement impracticable or justify modification absent proof that continued enforcement undermined its original purpose of protecting effective treatments for non-responsive cases. Regarding Matthew Israel personally, authorities investigated JRC operations following reports of unauthorized punishments, leading to his indictment in 2011 on charges of misleading a and destroying evidence related to 2007 incidents involving staff withholding food from students as a disciplinary measure without proper documentation. On May 25, 2011, Israel entered a plea agreement in Norfolk Superior Court admitting sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on counts, resulting in a without a formal ; in exchange, he resigned as JRC's but retained a board position, with the facility agreeing to enhanced oversight protocols. These state-level probes and rulings reflect ongoing tensions between regulatory efforts to curb and judicial safeguards for individualized, evidence-supported interventions, with courts consistently prioritizing procedural protections over blanket prohibitions.

FDA device regulations and ongoing litigation

The U.S. (FDA) regulates the (GED), an electrical stimulation device (ESD) used at the (JRC) to deliver graduated electric shocks for , under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as a Class III requiring premarket approval due to its potential risks. In 2014, the FDA classified ESDs intended to treat self-injurious or aggressive behavior as posing an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury, initiating proceedings toward a ban. This culminated in a proposed rule in May 2016 and a final rule on March 2, 2020, banning such ESDs nationwide because they present risks including pain, psychological trauma, and worsening of behaviors without sufficient evidence of net benefits outweighing harms. The 2020 ban was set to take effect 30 days after publication but applied specifically to devices like the GED used for these indications, sparing other potential applications. JRC, founded by , challenged the 2020 ban in Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. FDA (D.D.C. No. 17-2092), arguing the FDA exceeded its authority under 21 U.S.C. § 360e-3 by effectively regulating medical practice rather than device safety and by arbitrarily targeting JRC's protocol without broader data. On July 6, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule as arbitrary and capricious, holding that the FDA could not ban an entire device class for one narrow use while permitting others, and that the agency's reliance on limited data from JRC's patients failed to justify a categorical prohibition without considering alternative therapies or device modifications. The court remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that FDA's risk-benefit analysis must account for severe cases unresponsive to non-aversive interventions. Following the vacatur, the FDA issued a new proposed rule on , 2024, seeking to ban ESDs intended solely for self-injurious or aggressive behavior under the same statutory authority, citing ongoing of risks such as damage, post-traumatic , and lack of long-term from controlled studies. Public comments closed in May 2024, with supporters including disability rights groups emphasizing ethical concerns and risks, while opponents, including JRC representatives, highlighted empirical reductions in severe behaviors documented in internal . As of October 2025, the FDA has not finalized the rule, with its unified agenda indicating a target issuance in September 2025 but recent estimates suggesting delays potentially until May 2026 due to administrative reviews and political transitions. Litigation persists in the district court on remand, where cross-motions for addressed remaining claims of procedural irregularities and overreach. On February 25, 2025, the court granted the FDA's motion for and denied JRC's cross-motion, upholding the agency's rulemaking process on non-vacated aspects but leaving open challenges to any future final rule. JRC maintains that the GED remains legally usable pending a , supported by state court approvals for individual plans, though appeals or fresh suits against a finalized rule are anticipated if enacted. The FDA's efforts reflect a precautionary approach prioritizing avoidance, contrasted by JRC's position that empirical outcomes in cases justify continued access under supervised protocols.

Legacy and Influence

Contributions to treating severe behavioral disorders

Matthew Israel founded the (JRC) in 1971, developing a comprehensive (ABA) framework that incorporated positive reinforcement alongside contingent aversive stimuli, including skin shock, for individuals with severe, treatment-resistant self-injurious behaviors (SIB) and unresponsive to non-aversive methods. Under his leadership, JRC treated over 3,000 students with developmental disabilities, emphasizing data-driven interventions to decelerate life-threatening behaviors such as , head-banging, and assaults that had previously led to institutionalization, restraint overuse, or dependency. Israel contributed to the evolution of remote-controlled shock devices, transitioning from the Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System (SIBIS), deployed on 25 clients in the , to the (GED) starting around 2003, which delivered graduated intensities (e.g., 15-41 ) contingent on behavior severity. In a retrospective analysis of 56 GED-treated students (median age 20.8 years, treatment duration 1.5 years), behaviors showed sharper initial reductions and sustained deceleration compared to SIBIS, with 86% of SIB cases and 60% of cases achieving at least 90% reduction, enabling shifts toward skill-building in academics, , and community integration. A peer-reviewed study of 60 participants (median age 18) treated from 2003 to 2006 reported median frequency dropping by a factor of 27 post-GED implementation, with 95% achieving ≥92% reduction; concurrent declines included emergency restraints from 18.5 to 0 per day, staff injuries from 146 to 7 annually, and psychotropic medications by 93.75%, while 38% successfully faded off shock. Case studies further illustrate in cases: seven individuals, aged 14-19, expelled from positive-only programs for uncontrollable SIB and (e.g., 6,502 incidents/month in one case), experienced reductions to near-zero levels (e.g., 0-1/month) within months of GED-augmented programming at JRC, restoring family contact, academic progress, and community participation without regression during treatment. These outcomes, documented in behavioral journals, highlight as a supplementary tool for behaviors persisting despite exhaustive positive interventions, aligning with 1980s-1990s endorsements from bodies like for for severe cases where non-aversives failed to prevent harm.

Current status of JRC and Israel's role as of 2025

As of 2025, the (JRC) remains operational as a private nonprofit providing residential, educational, and behavioral treatment services to children and adults with developmental disabilities, emotional disorders, and conditions in , across approximately 50 residences in surrounding towns. A Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services review in April 2025 awarded JRC a 95% overall score in residential licensing indicators, reflecting compliance in areas such as , , and program quality. Enrollment data for the 2024-2025 academic year confirm ongoing student participation through the state's system. The facility's official governance includes an and board focused on behavioral methodologies, with no indications of closure or major operational disruptions. The controversial (GED) device, used for delivering electric shocks to reduce self-injurious or aggressive behaviors, continues to be employed on a subset of residents, though JRC states most students do not receive it. An August 2025 report on a documentary about former residents affirmed that shocks were still administered in 2025, prompting renewed calls for cessation. Federal regulatory efforts to prohibit such electrical stimulation devices advanced with the FDA's March 2024 re-proposal of a ban under the , citing risks of psychological and inadequate of or ; however, has been delayed, with the final rule now projected for no earlier than May 2026 after missing an October 2025 target amid administrative reviews and public comments. Ongoing litigation, including JRC's challenges to prior FDA actions, contributes to the protracted status, with a February 2025 district court addressing records related to the GED prohibition. Matthew Israel, JRC's founder and former executive director, maintains no active leadership or operational role in , having transitioned from direct involvement years earlier amid past legal and oversight scrutiny. Current executive leadership is held by Glenda P. Crookes as president and , supported by a board chaired by Henry Slucki and including behavioral experts such as Richard Malott and Ronald Van Houten. Israel's influence persists indirectly through the center's foundational framework, but day-to-day management and policy decisions rest with the present administration.

References

  1. [1]
    Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
    Watch our welcome video about a few of our students and their families' journey to the Judge Rotenberg Center. Learn more about JRC ...Our StudentsCSSCareersOur SchoolParent/Guardian Services
  2. [2]
    Matthew L. Israel
    JRC has used remote-controlled contingent electrical stimulation since 1989 for the treatment of approximately 60 persons with severe behavior problems.
  3. [3]
    THE JUDGE ROTENBERG EDUCATIONAL CENTER, INC. vs ...
    THE JUDGE ROTENBERG EDUCATIONAL CENTER, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION (NO. 3). - 424 Mass. 473.
  4. [4]
    Matthew Israel Interviewed by Jennifer Gonnerman - Mother Jones
    Aug 20, 2007 · From sugar-coated lollipops to electric shocks, the road to discipline. Jennifer Gonnerman talks with the Rotenberg Center's founder Matthew Israel.Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
  5. [5]
    Shock tactics: Treatment or torture? | Autism - The Guardian
    Mar 11, 2011 · Ed Pilkington visits the Boston school that uses electric shock as a treatment for children and adults with severe autism or emotional problems.Missing: biography | Show results with:biography
  6. [6]
    Shocking investigation of school for disabled kids - Reveal News
    Aug 29, 2007 · Dr. Matthew Israel, the Harvard graduate with a Ph.D. in Psychology who founded the center, started out in 1971 with a small school at which he ...Missing: degree | Show results with:degree
  7. [7]
    The Shocking Truth - Boston Magazine
    Jun 17, 2008 · Matthew Israel, 75, is the founder and executive director of JRC, which he incorporated under a different name in 1971. Israel responded to ...
  8. [8]
    The Shocking School - Boston Review
    Dec 22, 2021 · The Judge Rotenberg Center, a Massachusetts school, still uses electric shock therapy to punish disabled students.Missing: credentials | Show results with:credentials<|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Judge Rotenberg Center has history on its side as FDA looks to ban ...
    Jul 22, 2016 · In 1971, Matthew Israel founded Behavior Research Institute in Providence, Rhode Island with two students. The school, known as Judge ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  10. [10]
    Teaching severely self-abusive and aggressive autistic residents to ...
    The study was conducted at the Behavior Research Institute (BRI). MeSH terms. Adolescent; Adult; Autistic Disorder / psychology*; Behavior Therapy / legislation ...
  11. [11]
    BEHAVIOR RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC., & others vs ... - Justia Law
    Behavior Research Institute, Inc. (BRI), operates seven group care homes in Bristol County, licensed by the Department of Mental Retardation, and a school in ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] Investigation report into Behavior Research Institute
    Matthew Israel,. Director of the Behavior Research Institute, citing areas in. Page 2. -2- which the education and treatment program of that school did not ...
  13. [13]
    https://edsource.org/2015/state-suspends-certification-tobinworld-matthew-israel-aversive-therapy/85342
  14. [14]
    Teaching severely self-abusive and aggressive autistic residents to ...
    At posttest, 100% exited successfully, in a mean evacuation time of 60 seconds. The study was conducted at the Behavior Research Institute (BRI). Previous ...
  15. [15]
    An electric shock therapy stops self-harm among the autistic, but at ...
    Nov 23, 2016 · In 1996, Israel moved the facility to Massachusetts, having renamed it the Judge Rotenberg Center after the judge who in the 1980s allowed it to ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Newsletter - Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
    JRC continues its encouraging growth. We now have 128 residential stu- dents who live in 21 houses and apartments. Our total staff now numbers more than 600 ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Newsletter - Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
    The Judge Rotenberg Center has had another fun filled year and continues to grow. Today we have approximately 230 residential stu- dents in 37 homes and ...Missing: growth | Show results with:growth
  18. [18]
    New York City Sends $30 Million a Year to School With History of ...
    Dec 23, 2014 · New York City kids make up the vast majority of the students at Massachusetts' infamous Judge Rotenberg Center, and keep getting sent thereMissing: expansion growth
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue?
    We conduct a variety of functional behavior assessments, in-depth direct observation and data collection in the natural setting, and have access to live and ...
  20. [20]
    Use of Skin-Shock at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC)
    With this ability a functional assessment was possible across all environmental settings and antecedents to problematic behaviors identified. Classrooms ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  21. [21]
    ABA Based Treatment Plans - Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
    JRC is very successful in reducing or eliminating aggressive and other violent behaviors, and replacing them with more appropriate behaviors.
  22. [22]
    Positive Programming - Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
    The Judge Rotenberg Center employs the powerful techniques of Applied Behavior Analysis, including a unique and unparalleled positive programming and reward ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] A Comparison of the GED and other Devices that Deliver Electrical ...
    The electrical properties of the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED3A) and GED-4 are frequently presented incompletely and incorrectly.Missing: protocols details
  24. [24]
    [PDF] JRC Policy - SAFEGUARDS FOR THE USE OF AVERSIVES WITH ...
    Aug 7, 2024 · In the event that a client after six months has not decelerated to one GED application or less per week, JRC engages an external review team ...Missing: protocols | Show results with:protocols
  25. [25]
    Use of Skin-Shock at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC)
    print this page. USING THE GRADUATED ELECTRONIC DECELERATOR TO TARGET ANTECEDENT BEHAVIOR IN MR/AUTISTIC STUDENTS. Patricia M. Rivera, Ph.D., Matthew L.Missing: ABA | Show results with:ABA
  26. [26]
    Treatment of aggression with behavioral programming that includes ...
    Contingent skin-shock (CSS), when used as a supplement to other behavioral procedures, has proven effective in treating various problem behaviors that were ...
  27. [27]
    Contingent Skin-Shock Treatment in 173 Cases of Severe Problem ...
    Apr 15, 2020 · Overall, a 97% reduction in the frequency of severe aggressive and health dangerous (e.g., self-injurious) behaviors was observed in the first ...
  28. [28]
    Response patterns for individuals receiving contingent skin shock ...
    May 7, 2021 · We have identified the four most common patterns of response: (1) on removal of GED, behaviours immediately return, and GED is reinstated; (2) GED is removed ...
  29. [29]
    Elimination of Refractory Aggression and Self-Injury With Contingent ...
    Feb 14, 2023 · We describe the effect of adding contingent skin shock to a comprehensive behavioral program to address treatment-refractory self-injurious, assaultive, and ...
  30. [30]
    Treatment of aggression with behavioral programming that includes ...
    Treatment of aggression with behavioral programming that includes supplementary contingent skin-shock. ; Author Identifier. Israel, Matthew L.; Blenkush, Nathan ...
  31. [31]
    follow-up study of 39 former students of the judge rotenberg center
    This study examines the post-treatment outcomes of 39 former students of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC), a residential care facility that ...Missing: metrics | Show results with:metrics
  32. [32]
    follow-up study of 45 former students of the judge rotenberg center
    This study examines the post-treatment outcomes of 45 former students of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC), a residential care facility that ...Missing: growth | Show results with:growth
  33. [33]
    Follow-Up Studies - Judge Rotenberg Educational Center
    JRC has conducted several former student follow-up studies in order to assess to what extent former JRC students continue to succeed.Missing: metrics | Show results with:metrics
  34. [34]
    School of Shock : Rotenberg Center Director Matthew Israel Responds
    Oct 5, 2007 · Health, Education, Headlines, Matthew Israel, electric shock, autism, mental retardation, behavioral disorders, psychiatric disorders, ...
  35. [35]
    Full Statement from the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center ...
    Nov 13, 2012 · For seven-months he made unprecedented progress at JRC where his aggressive and self injurious behaviors were brought to zero or near zero ...
  36. [36]
    Torture Not Treatment - Disability Rights International
    The Judge Rotenberg Center Program. The program of “behavior modification” and “aversive treatment” and the rationale for its use is spelled out on JRC's ...
  37. [37]
    Founder of electric shock autism treatment school forced to quit
    May 25, 2011 · The terms of the plea deal struck between Israel and the prosecutors require the school to introduce additional monitoring to prevent a similar ...
  38. [38]
    “School of Shock” Founder Forced to Resign - Mother Jones
    May 27, 2011 · School founder and executive director Matthew Israel announced he is stepping down as of June 1. In a statement, Israel said, “I am now almost 78 years old.
  39. [39]
    The U.N. says it's torture. Judges ruled this school can use shock ...
    Jul 30, 2021 · Staff at the center use a graduated electronic decelerator, commonly referred to as the GED, to remotely shock students and older clients ...Missing: methodology | Show results with:methodology
  40. [40]
    Rotenberg Center Electric Shock Trial Settlment - Lubin & Meyer PC
    McCollins v. Judge Rotenberg Center: 31 skin shocks to an 18 yr. old child with autism while in 4-point restraints resulting in PTSD · Questions about a abuse ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  41. [41]
    UN Calls Shock Treatment at Mass. School 'Torture' - ABC News
    Jun 29, 2010 · The Boston-area's Judge Rotenberg Center educates and treats children ages three to adult, all of whom are struggling with severe emotional, ...Missing: abuse allegations
  42. [42]
    #StopTheShock - Autistic Self Advocacy Network
    People with disabilities, ASAN, and our allies are fighting to end the use of electric shock devices for behavior modification at the Judge Rotenberg Center ( ...
  43. [43]
    The Arc Denounces Ruling on Use of Electric Shock Devices
    Jul 8, 2021 · Electric shock devices have inflicted painful abuse on residents of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Massachusetts for decades.
  44. [44]
    Mass. school prevails despite decades of opposition to its use of ...
    May 16, 2024 · For critics of the Judge Rotenberg Center, the video of Andre has come to symbolize all they believe is wrong with the JRC. That includes the ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Letter from Disability Advocates - End Inhumane Practices, Sept '09
    Sep 30, 2009 · According to public sources, residents of the Judge Rotenberg. Center receive painful electric shocks for behaviors as innocuous as stopping ...<|separator|>
  46. [46]
    Shocking Kids into Compliance | American Civil Liberties Union
    Apr 25, 2014 · The Judge Rotenberg Center, a residential school in northern Massachusetts, prides itself on teaching students with disabilities who have the most challenging ...
  47. [47]
    'It's torture': critics step up bid to stop US school using electric shocks ...
    Nov 16, 2018 · The Judge Rotenberg Center has been shocking young people with special needs to control their behavior. Now opponents are demanding action to end 'state- ...
  48. [48]
    Case: Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of ...
    Aug 30, 2023 · Case: Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Department of Mental Retardation. 86E-0018-G1 | Massachusetts state trial ...Missing: judicial | Show results with:judicial
  49. [49]
    Behavior Research Institute v. Office for Children; Judge Rotenberg ...
    CPR has a long history of challenging the use of physical aversives to modify behavior of severely disabled children and adults.
  50. [50]
    THE JUDGE ROTENBERG EDUCATIONAL CENTER, INC., & others ...
    THE JUDGE ROTENBERG EDUCATIONAL CENTER, INC., & others vs. COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL RETARDATION (NO. 4). - 424 Mass. 476.
  51. [51]
    JUDGE ROTENBERG EDUCATIONAL CENTER INC v ...
    After a thirteen-day trial, a judge in the Probate Court found that the department had engaged in bad faith regulation of JRC, held the department in contempt ...
  52. [52]
    Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Dep't ...
    In this case involving a facility that operated under the protection of a thirty-six-year-old consent decree the Supreme Judicial Court held that the trial ...
  53. [53]
    Charges Against Judge Rotenberg Center Founder Stem ... - Patch
    May 26, 2011 · On Wednesday, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley unsealed a criminal indictment. Yesterday, the center's Founder and Executive ...<|separator|>
  54. [54]
    Head Of Mass. Special Needs School Settles Charges - CBS Boston
    May 25, 2011 · Matthew Israel, founder of the Canton-based Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, made the agreement Wednesday in Norfolk Superior Court as ...Missing: criminal | Show results with:criminal
  55. [55]
    SJC upholds denial of request to terminate JRC consent decree
    Sep 7, 2023 · The Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed a Probate & Family Court judge's decision to deny a motion to terminate a 1987 consent decree.Missing: history | Show results with:history
  56. [56]
    JUDGE ROTENBERG EDUCATIONAL CENTER, INC. et al v. U.S. ...
    Feb 25, 2025 · Memorandum Opinion regarding defendants' 50 Motion for Summary Judgment and plaintiffs' 71 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
  57. [57]
    Judge Rotenberg Educational Center v. U.S. Food and Drug ...
    Jun 30, 2022 · JRC is a Massachusetts treatment facility offering treatment to patients who exhibit self-injurious behavior and aggressive behavior. To ...
  58. [58]
    Proposal To Ban Electrical Stimulation Devices for Self-Injurious or ...
    Mar 26, 2024 · On July 6, 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated the 2020 ban. See Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. FDA, 3 F.4th 390 (D.C. Cir. 2021). The ...Missing: litigation | Show results with:litigation
  59. [59]
    View Rule - Reginfo.gov
    This final rule would ban electrical stimulation devices (ESDs) intended for self-injurious behavior (SIB) or aggressive behavior (AB). The Food and Drug ...
  60. [60]
    FDA Under Pressure To Finalize Ban On Shock Devices For People ...
    Dec 9, 2024 · Currently, the FDA's unified agenda shows that a final rule is not expected until September 2025.
  61. [61]
    FDA gives new date for electric shock device ban in apparent delay ...
    A long-awaited ban on electric shock devices used for “self-injurious” or “aggressive” behaviour may not come into effect until May 2026, ...
  62. [62]
    Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. FDA, No. 17-2092, 2025 WL ...
    Feb 25, 2025 · Re: Requests for records concerning proposed rule banning Graduated Electronic Decelerator (“GED”) – an “'electronic stimulation device'”.
  63. [63]
    FDA's proposed ban of electric shock devices has taken too long ...
    Dec 11, 2024 · With a new administration coming in, advocates worry that the FDA may lose its sense of urgency to ban electrical shock devices.
  64. [64]
    Use of Skin-Shock at the Judge Rotenberg Center
    Data are presented on the effects of the Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System (SIBIS) and the subsequent use of the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED).Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  65. [65]
    APA PsycNet FullTextHTML page
    ### Summary of Case Studies: Individuals Treated with Aversive Therapy at JRC After Positive-Only Program Failures