The 2019 government guidance, Reducing the Need for Restraint and Restrictive Intervention, is one of the most important modern documents for schools and services supporting children and young people with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum conditions and mental health difficulties. Its purpose is not simply to clarify when restraint may be lawful. Its deeper purpose is to help settings build systems where restraint becomes less likely, less frequent and less harmful.
Restraint can cause harm — reduction is the goal
The guidance applies directly to special education settings, health services and social care services. It is also highly relevant to mainstream schools, alternative provision and other education settings because the principles are grounded in children’s rights, safeguarding, SEND practice and positive behaviour support. The document’s central proposition is that restraint and restrictive intervention can cause physical, psychological, emotional and developmental harm. Therefore, schools should work proactively to understand behaviour, meet needs earlier, adapt environments and support children without using restrictive approaches wherever possible.
A rights-based, child-centred starting point
The guidance starts from a rights-based and child-centred position. Every child and young person has the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Restraint may sometimes be necessary to prevent serious harm — for example, stopping a child running into a busy road or preventing a pupil from attacking another person — but it must never become a long-term solution or a substitute for proper assessment and support. The key question for adults is: what is in the best interests of the child and those around them, considering the risks presented at that moment?
Behaviour is communication
A major strength of the guidance is its explanation that behaviour is a form of communication. Children and young people may communicate distress through behaviour when they are in pain, overloaded, frightened, traumatised, confused, unable to communicate verbally or unable to cope with the environment. If adults misread that behaviour as merely “naughty” or “bad”, they risk responding in a way that escalates rather than resolves the situation. Schools are therefore advised to understand the underlying causes and triggers of behaviour and to develop plans that help children communicate needs in safer, more constructive ways.
A positive and proactive whole-school approach
The guidance sets out a positive and proactive approach. This includes building a culture that improves children’s quality of life, identifying and managing risk, involving children and families, using evidence-based approaches, developing staff skills and establishing clear governance. For schools, this means restraint reduction is not just a training issue. It is a leadership issue. Leaders should know how often restrictive interventions occur, why they occur, whether certain pupils or groups are affected disproportionately, and what is being done to reduce reliance on them.
Positive Behavioural Support
The document strongly supports Positive Behavioural Support. PBS is presented as a framework for understanding the function of behaviour, improving quality of life, teaching alternative skills and preventing escalation. In practical school terms, this means moving beyond generic behaviour consequences and towards individualised support based on assessment. A good behaviour support plan should identify triggers, early warning signs, communication needs, sensory factors, health issues, environmental changes, preferred support strategies and agreed responses if risk escalates.
Risk assessment in both directions
Risk assessment is another major theme. Schools should assess both the risk of using restraint and the risk of not using restraint. The guidance makes clear that restrictive intervention should only be used where necessary to prevent serious harm, where no less restrictive option would be sufficient, and where the intervention is proportionate to the risk. This is especially important for pupils with SEND because communication differences, sensory sensitivities, trauma histories, physical vulnerabilities or medical needs may alter both the likelihood of distress and the risks associated with physical intervention.
Planned and unplanned interventions
The guidance distinguishes between planned and unplanned interventions. Planned interventions may be included in a behaviour support plan after careful assessment and consultation. Unplanned interventions may be necessary in emergencies. However, even emergency interventions must be followed by review. If an emergency happens once, the setting should ask whether it is now foreseeable and whether a plan is needed to prevent repetition.
Restraint is broader than holding
The 2019 guidance covers different forms of restraint: physical restraint, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint, withdrawal, seclusion and long-term segregation in health settings. For schools, two points are particularly important. First, restraint is broader than “holding”. It can include any planned or reactive act that restricts movement, liberty or freedom to act independently. Secondly, seclusion and imposed withdrawal need careful scrutiny. A child choosing to go to a quiet place is very different from a child being confined or prevented from leaving.
Staff need more than physical techniques
The guidance places strong emphasis on staff training and development. Staff need more than physical techniques. They need competence in communication, de-escalation, trauma-informed practice, autism and learning disability awareness, risk assessment, behaviour support planning and post-incident review. Physical intervention training, where required, should sit within a wider restraint-reduction strategy rather than becoming the centre of the school’s behaviour response.
Recording, reporting and equality data
Recording and reporting are treated as essential safeguards. Schools and services should record incidents accurately, review patterns and use data to improve practice. The guidance connects this to the Public Sector Equality Duty, because schools need to understand whether restrictive intervention is affecting particular groups disproportionately, including disabled pupils or pupils with other protected characteristics. Without good data, leaders cannot know whether practice is improving or whether hidden patterns of risk are developing.
Post-incident support and debrief
Post-incident support is also critical. Children and staff may be distressed or injured after an incident. The guidance expects settings to offer support, debrief carefully and learn from what happened. A proper review should consider what led to the incident, whether earlier action could have helped, whether the intervention was necessary and proportionate, what the child experienced, and what changes are needed to reduce future risk.
What it means for schools
For schools, the practical message is powerful: restraint reduction is not achieved by telling staff simply to “use restraint less”. It is achieved by building a whole-school system that understands children better, adapts earlier, plans intelligently and reviews honestly. The aim is safer children, safer staff and a more humane learning environment.
Practical advice for schools
- Build a whole-school restraint-reduction strategy led by senior leaders and governors.
- Treat behaviour as communication and investigate underlying causes.
- Use behaviour support plans that are individual, evidence-based and regularly reviewed.
- Make environmental, communication and reasonable adjustments before crisis points develop.
- Train staff in prevention, de-escalation, trauma-informed support and SEND-informed practice.
- Use restraint only when necessary, lawful, proportionate and the least restrictive option.
- Record incidents consistently and analyse patterns, including equality data where appropriate.
- Debrief with pupils and staff and use learning to update support plans.
- Involve parents, carers and relevant professionals in planning, review and improvement.
The source document
This explainer summarises the 2019 joint Department for Education / Department of Health and Social Care guidance, Reducing the need for restraint and restrictive intervention: children and young people with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum conditions and mental health difficulties in educational and residential settings. The official GOV.UK publication page is: Reducing the need for restraint and restrictive intervention, with the full document as a PDF.
Keep reading
- The 2026 DfE Guidance on Restrictive Interventions: What School Leaders Should Be Reviewing Now
- Why schools need a training needs assessment before positive handling training
- Post-incident debrief: where safer practice is built
More guidance explainers for schools
- What the DfE reasonable force guidance said
- What the 2002 restrictive physical interventions guidance said
- What the EHRC restraint in schools inquiry said
- What the Ofsted positive environments guidance said
- What the 2010 DCSF use of force guidance said
Call to action
Restraint reduction is a leadership project as much as a training one. If you want training that sits inside a whole-school reduction strategy — prevention, PBS, de-escalation and defensible physical skills — talk to an adviser about our training.