they failed to stay awake at daytime. one resident reported that after being shocked while asleep, staff would not explain to her why she was shocked. after the incident, the fear of being shocked in her sleep produced extreme insomnia.it was not explained to me why i got this shock. i was terrified and angry. i was crying. i kept asking why? and they kept telling me 'no talking out'… after this incident i really stopped sleeping. every time i closed my eyes they would jump open, anticipating that jolt somewhere in my body. — anonymous former residentwilliam pelham, a behavioral specialist and director of the center for children and families at the state university of new york at buffalo, argued that the center's use of electric shocks was harmful and unnecessary. "people don't use... shock anymore because they don't need to. it is not the standard of care. there are alternative procedures that do not involve aversives like electric shock." at the time of the ban, the jrc was the only institution in the united states using electric skin shocks as aversives. contingent food program in the contingent food program, a resident's food is withheld to be used as a reward for good behavior. if a resident fails to meet all the goals laid out for them by the jrc each meal, they are made to discard the excess food not earned. if a resident fails to meet their daily minimum calorie intake (which may be as little as 20% of their prescribed calories), non-preferred make up food is dispensed to bring them up to the minimum. the non-preferred make up food is designed to be noxious so as to punish the resident; for example, it may be mashed up and sprinkled with liver powder. a 2006 investigation of the jrc concluded that the contingent food program posed an "unnecessary risk" to the residents' growth and development. sensory deprivation a common sensory deprivation punishment involves forcing a resident to wear a helmet that restricts vision and hearing (through the use of white noise) for an extended period of time. the resident may also be restrained and subjected to other aversives during this time. in 1981, a resident died of asphyxiation during this procedure. the punishment continues to be used. at least one resident was subjected to a procedure called "isolation-deprivation" in which he was restrained by the wrists and ankles for 24 hours and boxes were stacked so as to prevent him from seeing anything in the room. during this time he received only lettuce with mayonnaise to eat. on some occasions he was not allowed to use the bathroom and was forced to soil his pants. furthermore, staff were directed to pinch his feet once per hour and spray him with water whenever they walked by. movement limitation in an illustration by a former resident, a resident pleads for mercy while receiving ged shocks, restrained to a four-point board. the use of long term restraints is common at the jrc. many residents are required to carry their own "restraint bags", which contain the materials required to restrain them. commonly used restraints include the four-point board and the five-point restraint chair. restraints may be used alone, or in combination with other aversives to hurt residents. for example, one resident's behavior plan specified that he was to receive five ged shocks while restrained to a four-point board as a consequence for pulling the fire alarm. behavior rehearsal lessons in a behavior rehearsal lesson, a resident is provoked, tricked, or coerced into exhibiting a target behavior (e.g. eating nonfood items, destruction of property) so that the target behavior may be punished. if the resident refuses to perform the target behavior, they are punished for noncompliance, but if they perform the target behavior then they are punished much more harshly for breaking the rules. there is no way for the resident to escape punishment. the resident is repeatedly challenged to perform the behavior, and the lesson does not end until they sit perfectly still for ten minutes. the jrc contends that behavior rehearsal lessons are an effective way of reducing "high risk, low frequency" behaviors. as of 2006, at least nine residents at the jrc were approved for behavior rehearsal lessons. rewards in addition to punishments, residents of the center are given the opportunity to earn rewards. state reports have found that despite the institute's claims, its reward programs are minimal. things considered rewards at the jrc may include verbal praise, the opportunity to look out a window, and sometimes food. a child who cries is not to be given attention, as this is considered a reward, and the child may be punished for crying. one reward that a resident may win is the opportunity to visit the "big rewards store" (brs). the brs contains a pool table and various arcade games, and is the only place in the center that residents may socialize freely. we had to wait until we were in brs to communicate with others. that was the only time you really laughed, had fun, hung around with your friends. because usually, you can't talk to them.— isabel cedeño, former student controversy and investigations in its 2006 private special education school program review report of findings, the massachusetts department of education found that unsigned individualized education programs (ieps) were being utilized for residents at jrc, and that the center did not have a written policy indicating that it must obtain consent before revising or changing an iep. at various points in its history, investigations and lawsuits have been brought against the center's operations. matthew israel has cited ivar lovaas's use of a cattle prod on children with autism as justification for the center's use of electric skin shocks. 1979 report a 1979 report from the state for new york found that: rather than being a program of neglect which harms children by not assisting them in growth, the program utilizes a current professional ideology to deny children the opportunity to grow; to deny them any choices; to deny them developmental experiences in decision-making; to deny them normal experiences in leisure-time pursuits; to deny them any opportunities for fun; to deny them any opportunity to demonstrate anything other then a few pre-selected responses.— 1979 new york state report as a result of the report, the state of new york restricted the institute's right to use aversives to cases where a resident was a danger to himself or others, and even then only after other means had failed. however, the institute soon after regained its right to use aversives on new york residents. 1982 report in 1979, a staff member resigned and asked the district attorney to file child abuse charges against the institute, alleging that he had observed abuse there. on the prompting of various former staff, residents, and concerned family members, the california department of social services launched an investigation into the institution. the ensuing investigation revealed various abuses by the institute including: improper and unsafe use of restraints, punishments designed to humiliate the residents, failure to provide proper nutrition, failure to provide proper medical care, and severe bruising/lacerations/scars from aversive interventions. in a 1982 report of the investigation, the california department of social services documented various violations and abuses that had occurred at the institute. as a result of the investigation, the state of california revoked the institute's license to use aversives and forbade matthew israel from setting foot on the property. physical abuse the investigation found that residents had received "excessive bruises" from "excessive and unnecessary aversives". residents had cuts, scars, scabs, and open wounds from the use of aversives. furthermore, staff took action to disguise these injuries from doctors and family members: doctor's appointments were sometimes postponed due to the presence of excessive bruising, and aversive interventions were put on hold before scheduled visits with family for "public relations purposes". residents were made to wear long sleeves to cover up the injuries, and social service employees were on some occasions denied the right to adequately inspect them for bruises. residents were often put in positions where there was no way for them to avoid receiving an aversive: for example, deaf children were punished for failing to comply with verbal commands. residents were also forced to take part in "behavior rehearsal" lessons where they were punished regardless of whether or not they behaved correctly. additionally, residents were regularly spanked for crying in response to punishment. the report found that at least one resident's behavior substantially worsened at the institute due to "improper treatment" and "unprofessional use of aversives". humiliation the report found that staff pinched residents to make them repeat phrases uttered by staff, and threatened residents with the use of aversives if they did not comply with the staff's arbitrary demands. one resident was made to eat dinner outside with his arms restrained by his sides from a plate of food that had been placed on the ground. other residents were deprived of the right to sleep in a bed: one was forced to sleep in a kneeling position while tied to a piece of furniture, while another was made to sleep on the floor with his arms restrained to nearby fixtures. residents were sometimes made to soil themselves when staff refused to let them use the bathroom. restraints residents were restrained for punishment, as well as for the personal convenience of staff. residents were restrained in unsafe ways, and sometimes received cuts and bruises. in 1981, a fourteen-year boy old died at the institute while restrained face down to a four-point board. the institute was not authorized to use restraints on any resident at this time, and continued to do so even after being informed that it was against the law. record keeping and retaliation the institute was found to have removed records, making them inaccessible to investigators and family. furthermore, they were found to have denied the right to view records to family members and investigators. in many cases, the institute's records were inaccurate. examples include: denying a resident food as punishment while recording that he had been fed, recording that restraints had been checked when they had not been checked, and failing to properly record the administration of aversives. the institute retaliated against people who complained about their practices and refused to let the department of social services investigate those complaints. parents were told that their children would be expelled if they questioned or complained about the institute. before-and-after video the investigation found that residents were provoked into violent and aggressive behavior as part of the filming of a before-and-after video, where staged clips of the residents responding to provocation were shown as examples of how they had behaved before treatment. the residents were then taken off aversive therapy, rewarded heavily for several days, and asked to perform only tasks that placed little demand on them so that a video could be produced to show how they behaved after treatment. this film is often shown to parents of prospective residents and to reporters to convince them of the benefits of the institute. hoax phone call after the center received a phone call alleging that two residents had misbehaved earlier that evening, staff woke them from their beds, restrained them, and repeatedly gave them electric shocks. one of the residents received 77 shocks and the other received 29. after the incident, one of the residents had to be treated for burns. the phone call was later found to be a hoax perpetrated by a former resident who was pretending to be a supervisor. in december 2007, the center was found by the massachusetts department of early education and care to have been abusive towards residents and had failed to protect their health. the incident led to two investigations – one by the federal government, and one by the state of massachusetts. while the investigation was ongoing, matthew israel ordered tapes destroyed, despite a court order to keep them. in may 2011, israel was indicted on charges of child endangerment, acting as an accessory after the fact, and obstruction of justice for misleading a grand jury over the jrc's destruction of tapes. in 2011, israel was forced to resign his position at jrc in a deferred prosecution plea deal with the massachusetts state