Disproportionality in restrictive interventions: what schools should look for in the data
The 2026 DfE guidance expects governing bodies and proprietors to analyse intervention data, including monitoring disproportionality across vulnerable groups.
That is a significant instruction.
It means schools should not only ask, “Were incidents recorded?” They should also ask, “Who is experiencing restrictive interventions, how often, and why?”
This is uncomfortable work, but necessary. Restrictive interventions may be lawful in individual cases and still reveal a troubling pattern when viewed across a term or year. A school may discover that pupils with SEND are over-represented, that boys from a particular year group appear repeatedly, that one ethnic group is disproportionately affected, or that children in care are more likely to be restrained or secluded.
The point of looking is not to accuse staff. It is to improve the system.
Philip Zimbardo’s work on situational influences is a useful reminder that behaviour is shaped by context. Good people working in stressed systems can develop patterns they do not see clearly from inside the day-to-day pressure. Data helps make those patterns visible.
A useful disproportionality review should examine five questions.
- Who is involved?
Break down incidents by SEND, disability, ethnicity, sex, age, looked-after status and other relevant categories where appropriate and lawful.
- What type of intervention occurred?
Was it physical restraint, seclusion, guiding, removal, or another restrictive intervention? Are some groups more likely to experience more restrictive responses?
- Where and when did incidents happen?
Certain locations or times may create risk for particular pupils: transitions, lunch, unstructured time, busy corridors, transport, sensory-heavy spaces.
- Which staff and systems were involved?
Are incidents linked to specific roles, cover arrangements, staffing levels, training gaps or inconsistent implementation of plans?
- What changed afterwards?
If the same pattern repeats, the review process is not yet reducing risk.
Schools should be careful with interpretation. Disproportionality does not automatically prove discrimination in an individual incident. But it does require explanation and action. If pupils with SEND account for most restrictive interventions, the school must ask whether reasonable adjustments, communication supports, environmental changes and staff training are strong enough.
Data should lead to curiosity before conclusion — but it must lead somewhere.
One practical approach is to review incidents termly and create a short narrative alongside the numbers. For example:
- “Most incidents occurred during lunchtime transition.”
- “Three pupils accounted for 60% of restrictive interventions.”
- “All three have updated support plans, but only one plan was consistently known by lunchtime staff.”
- “Training will now include transition scenarios and support staff briefing.”
- “Governors will review the data again next term.”
That is far more useful than a table that simply counts incidents.
Schools should also involve safeguarding and SEND leaders in the review. A behaviour-only lens may miss disability, trauma, communication or environmental factors. A safeguarding lens may identify whether certain pupils are experiencing school as repeated threat.
Parent and pupil voice can help too. Pupils may describe triggers adults missed. Parents may explain sensory or communication needs. Staff may describe practical barriers: too many pupils in a narrow corridor, no radio coverage, unclear call-out systems, or plans that are too long to remember.
There is a training implication. If data shows disproportionality, the answer is not automatically “more restraint training”. It may be:
- better reasonable adjustments
- more consistent behaviour support plans
- de-escalation practice for specific roles
- environmental changes
- staffing changes at flashpoints
- improved parent partnership
- scenario practice around common triggers
- clearer recording categories
For MATs, disproportionality should be reviewed both locally and across the trust. Variation between schools may reveal differences in pupil population, recording culture or practice. Leaders should not jump to simplistic conclusions, but neither should they ignore variation.
A final caution: poor data hides disproportionality. If records are vague, inconsistent or incomplete, the school cannot learn. Good recording is therefore the foundation of equity as well as compliance.
I hope the above helps. Monitoring disproportionality is not about producing a spreadsheet for governors. It is about noticing who is most affected by restrictive intervention, asking why, and changing the conditions that make repeated intervention more likely.
This guide on disproportionality in restrictive interventions: what school is part of our ongoing work with schools and academies.