Brat Camp
The full text of BILD's letter to Channel 4 regarding unacceptable use of physical restraint on a 15 year old English girl, together with a reply from the twentytwenty television.
21st February 2006
(Also sent to The Controller)
Viewer Enquiries,
Channel 4 Television,
124 Horseferry Road,
London.
SW1P 2TX
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re: Brat Camp - 15 February 2006
I am writing as the Chief Executive of the British Institute of Learning
Disabilities to express deep concern about the physical restraints portrayed on
the above programme. BILD has a national reputation for its work in this area,
and has produced policy and practice guidance and operates an accreditation
scheme for organisations training staff on behaviour management and physical
interventions.
I appreciate that reality television shows are essentially entertainment rather
than education. The acceptability or legitimacy of the approaches to behavioural
management and behavioural change displayed are consequently not normally the
major issue. However the overall message conveyed by your programme is that the
staff practices portrayed at the Aspen project are both effective and
legitimate.
In last night’s episode a 15 year old English girl was shown being restrained by
two adult staff members. This was done in both a sitting and in a face down,
prone posture, whilst her wrists were held in a hyperflexed position, known
colloquially as a "Gooseneck", designed to promote compliance through the
infliction of pain.
In both the UK and the USA, we are in the process of discovering the high levels
of previously hidden injuries and fatalities caused through the inappropriate
and unquestioning use of physical restraint methods. Investigative journalism
has played a major role in exposing, what is widely regarded as a national
scandal in both countries. In the USA the publication of a data base listing 142
restraint related deaths by the Hartford Courant newspaper led to a number of
formal initiatives, including a Congressional Grant for a 3 year evaluative
restraint reduction project, co ordinated by the Child Welfare League of
America. It is interesting to note that the lowest injury rates in this project
were achieved by the application of British methods and principles.
It is estimated that restraint related deaths are running at approximately 150 a
year in the USA. A number of these fatalities have involved children and young
people in wilderness projects similar to the one portrayed in your programme.
Most recently, this includes restraint fatalities to 14 year old boys in Georgia
and Florida. Most of these deaths have been associated with the use of
restraints in the prone position. Such methods are widely regarded as highly
unsafe, and potentially fatal.
In the UK, the BBC programme “McIntyre Under Cover” portrayed the inappropriate
use of methods identical to those portrayed in your programme with adults with
learning disabilities in UK, with a resultant public outcry. This programme was
highly instrumental in bringing the problem to the attention of the public and
the Government. The Government response included the development of Guidance by
relevant Departments. Similar guidance has since been developed for Scotland.
The issue remains high on the social policy agenda, not least in response to the
recent restraint death of a young person in a UK service.
A central element of this strategy was the establishment of an accreditation
scheme for physical restraint training administered by BILD and we remain one of
the leading bodies in the national debate on restraint use with vulnerable
individuals.
The use of restraint and the types of restraint which are potentially safe and
legally defensible remain a controversial topic. The question of legality is
ultimately a matter for the courts. However the use of pain compliance and prone
restraint methods is the focus of specific concern, particularly when used with
young people and this would be widely regarded as unacceptable and outdated from
a best practice perspective. Prone restraint in particular is generally accepted
as carrying unacceptably high risks. The use of such methods with children and
young people is consistently advised against within current guidance and,
dependent on circumstances may well contravene the central legal obligation
under UK and European law for the use of the "least restrictive" option, when
force is employed. A similar obligation for the use of the "less drastic means"
is imposed by the US Constitution.
The behaviour of the young people portrayed in your programme would certainly be
judged as unacceptable by most criteria. However the over simplification of the
issues is certainly of concern. The rights and protections offered to children
and young people under UK and US law are very different. However, your programme
consistently ignores the issue of the rights of young people and the ethics of
the practices to which they are being exposed. It is to be hoped that less
sophisticated members of your viewing audience do not copy the methods portrayed
on the assumption that such practices are legitimate. After a protracted
struggle over a 10 year period to progress the restraint safety debate in the
UK, the uncritical portrayal of such methods by your programme is regrettable.
I am particularly concerned about your programme’s invitation to UK parents to
sign up and to send their unruly children to this project. This raises a number
of interesting questions around the rights of the young people and the child
protection obligations of the parents who, it is to be assumed, are advised that
their children will be exposed to such high risk methods of restraint. Should
any form of injury result, interesting liability issues will inevitably emerge.
I look forward to receiving your comments in response to the points I have
raised.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Smith
Chief Executive
Response from twentytwenty tv
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for taking the time to write to me and for outlining the position of
BILD. As one of the UK’s leading independent production companies we take the
welfare of our contributors extremely seriously and pride ourselves on the
positive experience a series such as Brat Camp can offer families.
The camps featured in the series are all independently assessed as showing
excellent practice and are regularly inspected and licensed by State
departments. When selecting the course we screened a number of camps and the one
used was widely recognised as particularly reputable by a number of independent
bodies. Families who take part in the series complete all necessary contracts
and disclaimers with the camps. The families are fully briefed on the methods
used by the camps and the fact that they can use physical restraint where
necessary.
We spent a total of 90 days filming in the wilderness with the British teenagers
and, as you can see from the programmes, they were treated with patience and
civility at all times. The physical restraint to which you refer was a last
resort and, in our opinion, carried out responsibly and under very challenging
circumstances. It is our opinion that the staff use minimum force and only when
necessary to protect the individual and others around them. Certainly the family
to which you refer have no complaint about the way they were treated.
On another note, I would like to thank you for bringing to our attention the
work your organization has done in defending vulnerable young people. Especially
in situations where families and individuals do not have the additional
protection afforded by being in a television production.
Yours sincerely,
James Isaacs
Executive Producer
Back to index of BILD Responses
Page ref: '05policyandresearch_responses_bratcamp' Owned by: enquiries@bild.org.uk
Last updated: 30/07/2007