The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) is a controversial institution in Canton, Massachusetts, United States, for people with developmental disabilities and emotional and behavioral disorders.

Organizations that oppose the center include the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Disability Rights International and Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth.

[7] Researchers for JABA believed that because there was data supporting the effectiveness of the use of aversives on disabled people, their use was "science-based" and that arguments based on human values were irrelevant.

[8] In 1974, a dissenting group of researchers founded the Association for the Education and Treatment of the Severely and Profoundly Handicapped (AESEPH; later renamed TASH), which distinguished itself through its opposition to the use of aversives and involuntary commitment.

[10] In 1966, Israel founded the Association for Social Design (ASD),[11] an organization intent on building a network of communes based on the behavior modification principles described in Skinner's utopian novel Walden Two.

[16] In February 1973, after several months of study, the Human Rights Committee of the Rhode Island Planning and Advisory Council on Developmental Disabilities published a report on the BRI raising concerns over the institute's unchecked usage of aversives.

[18] In response to allegations of abuse in the Human Rights Committee report, Rhode Island Mental Health Services for Children and Youth asked a team of ABA researchers led by Richard B. Stuart to conduct site visits to the BRI.

[18] In opposition to the Human Rights Committee, Stuart's team praised the BRI, reporting that it was effectively run and well conceived, but recommended better oversight over the institute's usage of corporal punishment.

[23] In November, the board of the NLACRC followed suit by unanimously voting to withdraw its support for the BRI and urging its executive to actively oppose funding by the state.

[36] The following Monday, Kathy Corwin, a BRI treatment worker who witnessed the incident, resigned and filed a child abuse complaint with the district attorney.

[36] The board of the NLACRC voted on January 10, 1979, to discontinue its funding for the BRI, concluding that the institution "was seriously jeopardizing the rights, health, safety, and welfare of children at the facility".

[36] The BRI appealed the NLACRC's decision and a Fair Hearing—a mediation process in the state of California involving independent hearing officers acting as judges—was scheduled for March 14 and 15.

[40] In a memo to David Loberg, the director of the California DDS, Bronston recommended that the state immediately and permanently end its support for the institution, writing that the BRI obsessively used aversive techniques where there was no need, failed to provide adequate educational services, and lacked any oversight or accountability.

[42] On May 24, on the recommendation of Loberg, CDSS director Marion Woods revoked portions of the BRI's license that sanctioned aversion therapy as part of its program.

A judge described the case as a "war of harassment" against Matthew Israel and ruled against the attempt to close the center and ordered the state to pay $1.5 million to the JRC in compensation for legal fees and other costs.

[63] In 2011, Israel was forced to resign from his position as director of the Judge Rotenberg Center as part of a deferred prosecution agreement after being indicted on criminal charges related to the abuse of residents.

[66][67] 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.

[69] 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.

The agency also found that the GED could cause both physical and psychological harm, including pain, burns, tissue damage, depression, fear, and aggression.

Residents report that they were sometimes awoken by shocks in the night, which were administered for reasons including nighttime incontinence, tensing up while asleep, and having broken a rule earlier in the day.

[80] 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.

Matthew Israel has cited Ole Ivar Lovaas's use of a cattle prod on children with autism as justification for the center's use of electric skin shocks.

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.

[45] 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.

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.

[90][91][92][93] Organizations that oppose the center include the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Disability Rights International, and Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth.

[76] However, the FDA issued an "Administrative Stay" in March 2020, that allowed the center to continue using shock on "individuals who would need a physician-directed plan" indefinitely, pending the end of the COVID-19 pandemic which limited physician contact with many residents.

[107] The center advertises a near-zero rejection rate, and has said that it is a good fit for any teen who is failing school, refusing to attend, or in a psychiatric or correctional setting.

[95] In 1986, the institute filed a lawsuit for $15 million against the director of the Massachusetts Office of Children, alleging that her attempt to shut the center down was a violation of the residents' rights.

[112] According to Disability Rights International, former residents, teachers, state officials, and legal advocates have expressed fear about publicly criticizing the JRC.