Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

NCD Response to the State of the Union Address

18 Feb

The U.S. National Council on Disability (NCD) has issued a response to the State of the Union address presented by President Obama recently. I am presenting it in its entirety below:

In the annual State of the Union address, President Barack Obama addressed several policy areas of importance to the 56 million Americans with disabilities and their families. As the independent federal agency which advises the President and Congress on disability policy, the National Council on Disability (NCD) applauds the significant agenda proposed by the President and recommends the following actions to guarantee full participation and integration in all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.

The President called for an increase in the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour by stating “in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty.”

NCD agrees. In 2010, statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau revealed that nearly 28 percent of Americans with disabilities aged 18 to 64 live in poverty.

Today, hundreds of thousands of Americans with disabilities earn less than minimum wage under a little-known relic of employment policy that assumed people with disabilities were not capable of meaningful, competitive employment.

As the President said, “America is not a place where chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny. And that is why we need to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them.”

Twenty three years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the time has come for minimum wage to be available to everyone who works, including Americans with disabilities. Over a quarter of a million Americans with disabilities work under the Fair Labor Standards Act 14 (c) program resigning people with disabilities to earning less than minimum wages and the poverty, isolation and segregation that often results.

In our August 2012 Report on Subminimum Wage and Supported Employment, NCD recommended a gradual phase out of the 14 (c) program. The ladders our nation builds to opportunity must be accessible to every American – including those with disabilities. As America works toward increasing minimum wage, implementation of a comprehensive set of supports and targeted investments in integrated employment services to make it possible for people with disabilities to rise to the same heights as other Americans must also be assured.

In addition, the President announced a non-partisan commission to improve voting in America by emphasizing “our most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote. When any Americans … are denied that right … we are betraying our ideals.” A Fact Sheet on the Voting Commission issued by the White House lists voters with disabilities and “physical barriers” among the issues to be corrected.

NCD appreciates inclusion of the difficulties faced by voters with disabilities as part of the Commission’s work. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found as recently as 2008, only 27 percent of polling places were barrier-free. In fact, the Federal Election Commission confirmed that, in violation of state and federal laws, more than 20,000 polling places across the nation are inaccessible, depriving Americans with disabilities of their fundamental right to vote. People with disabilities and senior citizens are particularly disenfranchised by long lines at polling places and by constraints on and, in some places, the discontinuation of early voting.

To address this disparity, NCD has been collecting the experiences of voters with disabilities in the November 2012 General Election from across the nation in coordination with the National Disability Rights Network and EIN SOF Communications. NCD will issue a report on our findings later this year.

NCD urges the Voting Commission to consider the findings of our upcoming report and to include voters with disabilities on their Commission.

The President also stressed the importance of key reforms to realize cost savings in the Medicare program, including the shift from a fee for service payment system to a managed care model designed to pay for performance. NCD understands the importance of shifting to payment models that both manage costs and increase quality for our health care financing infrastructure. However, it is crucial that people with disabilities and seniors retain the ability to have their needs met.

Over the last two years, NCD has conducted a detailed exploration of managed care within Medicaid, issuing comprehensive recommendations on due process safeguards, program design, performance measures and other facets of responsible managed care frameworks that consider the needs of Americans with disabilities without causing adverse consequences on the quality of care we receive. As the Administration considers various measures to enhance health care quality while controlling costs, NCD stands ready to apply this expertise to Medicare reforms.

As President Obama affirmed, “the responsibility of improving this union remains the task of us all.” NCD looks to continuing its role in developing and promoting robust disability policies in close collaboration with the Administration, Congress and the public.

— Jeff Rosen, Chairperson
On behalf of the National Council on Disability

—
By Matt Carey

Via Autistic Hoya: Judge Rotenberg Center Survivor’s Letter

10 Feb

The Judge Rotenberg Center (JRC) is a school for autistic students which incorporates aversives into the program for some of their students. These aversives are electric shocks delivered via remote-control to packs the students wear 24/7.

The JRC has been the focus of a great deal of criticism. To put it mildly. JRC has repeatedly described the shocks in relatively mild terms. Autistic Hoya (whose blog I highly recommend) has an article which includes a letter from a JRC survivor. I do not have permission from the author to copy the letter here, so I will send you to her site. With the warning that this is not an easy letter to read:

Judge Rotenberg Center Survivor’s Letter

—
By Matt Carey

IACC to hear about Minnesota Somali Project, Optimal Outcomes and National Children’s Study

28 Jan

The U.S. Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) meets tomorrow (January 29th). The agenda is listed online and below.

The committee and the public will hear updates on the Minnesota Somali Autism Project–a project to explore whether there is a high prevalence of autism in the Minnesota Somali community and, if so, why. The autism prevalence in Puerto Rico ranks high for the U.S., even though the territory population is largely Hispanic and Hispanics typically have a low reported autism prevalence in the U.S.. An update on the autism prevalence in Puerto Rico will be presented. A recent study on individuals who achieved what the authors refer to as “optimal outcomes” will be discussed. Also, a study of health outcomes in children with autism and their families will be presented.

The IACC will also discuss plans for moving forward. There are many areas I would like to see some focus applied to. But three I have proposed and hope to discuss are (1) the needs specific to children and adults with autism and intellectual disability and/or communication difficulty and (2) difficulties in delivery of medical services to autistics and (3) autism and epilepsy. It is too late for comments to be included in the record for this meeting, but if you have opinions of where autism research and policy should be moving towards, send the IACC comments at IACCPublicInquiries@mail.nih.gov.

Here is tomorrow’s agenda:

10:00 a.m. Welcome, Roll Call and Approval of Minutes
Thomas Insel, M.D.
Director, National Institute of Mental Health
Chair, IACC

10:05 Science Update
Thomas Insel, M.D.
Director, National Institute of Mental Health
Chair, IACC

10:20 Round Robin

10:50 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Minnesota Somali Project Update
Amy Hewitt, Ph.D.
Director, Research and Training Center on Community Living
University of Minnesota

Mashalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, M.D.
Chief, Developmental Disabilities Branch, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

11:20 Update on Autism Prevalence in Puerto Rico
Jose Cordero, M.D.
Dean, Graduate School of Public Health
University of Puerto Rico
Member, IACC

11:35 Lunch

1:00 p.m. Oral Public Comments

1:30 Optimal Outcomes in Individuals with a History of Autism
Deborah Fein, Ph.D.
University of Connecticut
Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor Department of Psychology
Department of Pediatrics

2:00 Study of Health Outcomes in Children with Autism and their Families
Anjali Jain, M.D.
The Lewin Group

Craig Newschaffer, Ph.D.
AJ Drexel Autism Institute, Drexel University

2:30 National Children’s Study Update
Alan Guttmacher, M.D.
Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Member, IACC

2:50 Break

3:05 IACC Business
Thomas Insel, M.D.
Director, National Institute of Mental Health
Chair, IACC

Susan A. Daniels, Ph.D.
Acting Director, Office of Autism Research Coordination
Executive Secretary, IACC

•2012 Strategic Plan Update
•2013 Strategic Plan Update Process
•2012 Summary of Advances
•2011-2012 Portfolio Analysis
•Other Activities

4:15 Public Comments Discussion Period

4:45 Wrap-Up

5:00 Adjournment

—
By Matt Carey

Note: I serve as a public member to the IACC. However, all comments and opinions, here and elsewhere are my own.
Note: I made small edits after I published this article to include the third area I would like to see get greater focus.

IACC Full Committee Meeting Tuesday, January 29, 2013

24 Jan

There will be a meeting of the U.S. Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) next Tuesday. Full details can be found on the IACC website. The meeting will be from 10am to 5pm.

The agenda is:

The committee will discuss updates on ASD research and services activities, discuss plans for the 2012 IACC Summary of Advances and plans for the update of the IACC Strategic Plan for ASD Research.

And will be held at:

William H. Natcher Conference Center
45 Center Drive, Conference Rooms E1/E2
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
Map and Directions</blockquote>

One can attend in person or watch via videocast

One can submit comments. The deadline to be included for this meeting is today:

Notification of intent to present oral comments: January 24th by 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Submission of written/electronic statement for oral comments: January 25th by 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Submission of written comments: January 24th by 5:00 p.m. Eastern

One can always submit written comments (IACCPublicInquiries@mail.nih.gov), they will be held for the next meeting.

The meeting website has a long “please note”:

Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the Committee must notify the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, January 24, 2013, with their request to present oral comments at the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of organizations must submit a written/electronic copy of the oral presentation/statement including a brief description of the organization represented by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on Friday, January 25, 2013. Statements submitted will become a part of the public record. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments and presentations will be limited to three to five minutes per speaker, depending on number of speakers to be accommodated within the allotted time. Speakers will be assigned a time to speak in the order of the date and time when their request to speak is received, along with the required submission of the written/electronic statement by the specified deadline.

In addition, any interested person may submit written comments to the IACC prior to the meeting by sending the comments to the Contact Person listed on this notice by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on Thursday, January 24, 2013. The comments should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. All written statements received by the deadlines for both oral and written public comments will be provided to the IACC for their consideration and will become part of the public record.

The meeting will be open to the public through a conference call phone number and webcast live on the Internet. Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting but will not be heard. If you experience any technical problems with the webcast or conference call, please send an e-mail to IACCHelpDesk2012@gmail.com or by phone at (301) 339-3840.

Individuals who participate in person or by using these electronic services and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 5 days prior to the meeting.

To access the webcast live on the Internet the following computer capabilities are required: A) Internet Explorer 5.0 or later, Netscape Navigator 6.0 or later or Mozilla Firefox 1.0 or later; B) Windows® 2000, XP Home, XP Pro, 2003 Server or Vista; C) Stable 56k, cable modem, ISDN, DSL or better Internet connection; D) Minimum of Pentium 400 with 256 MB of RAM (Recommended); E) Java Virtual Machine enabled (Recommended).

NIH has instituted stringent security procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitors must enter through the NIH Gateway Center. This center combines visitor parking, non-commercial vehicle inspection and visitor ID processing, all in one location. The NIH will process all visitors in vehicles or as pedestrians. You will be asked to submit to a vehicle or personal inspection and will be asked to state the purpose of your visit. Visitors over 15 years of age must provide a form of government-issued ID such as a driver’s license or passport. All visitors should be prepared to have their personal belongings inspected and to go through metal detection inspection.

When driving to NIH, plan some extra time to get through the security checkpoints. Be aware that visitor parking lots on the NIH campus can fill up quickly. The NIH campus is also accessible via the metro Red Line, Medical Center Station. The Natcher Conference Center is a 5-minute walk from the Medical Center Metro Station.

Additional NIH campus visitor information is available at: http://www.nih.gov/about/visitor/index.htm

As a part of security procedures, attendees should be prepared to present a photo ID at the meeting registration desk during the check-in process. Pre-registration is recommended. Seating will be limited to the room capacity and seats will be on a first come, first served basis, with expedited check-in for those who are pre-registered.

Schedule is subject to change.

—
By Matt Carey

Note: I serve as a public member to the IACC, but I do not represent the IACC here or anywhere else. All comments and opinions are my own.

IACC Press Release: Statement of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Related to the Sandy Hook Tragedy

21 Dec

The U.S. Interagency Autism Coordinating Commitee (IACC) has posted a Statement Related to the Sandy Hook Tragedy. I have copied the statement and the rest of that web page below:

Statement of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) Related to the Sandy Hook Tragedy

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, an independent Federal advisory committee that provides advice to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on activities related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), has issued the following statement regarding the tragedy that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 13, 2012:

Here is the statement:

The events of December 14 in Newtown, Connecticut shocked and saddened people worldwide. All of the members of the IACC express our deepest sympathy and support for the families and community affected by these terrible killings. Some news reports suggested the gunman had Asperger syndrome, an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Because this tragic event has shaken so many, the IACC wants to ensure that continued speculation about the gunman’s diagnosis does not hurt others in the community. Our committee has collectively prepared this statement to address public concerns and questions about the implied association between autism and extreme violence directed at others.

There is no scientific evidence linking ASD with homicides or other violent crimes. In fact, studies of court records suggest that people with autism are less likely to engage in criminal behavior of any kind compared with the general population, and people with Asperger syndrome, specifically, are not convicted of crimes at higher rates than the general population (Ghaziuddin et al., 1991, Mouridsen et al., 2008, Mouridsen, 2012).[1, 2, 3]

Officials do not yet know whether the person associated with the school shooting in Newtown had been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, another developmental or mental disorder or disability, or multiple disorders. We may never know what undiagnosed conditions or motivations he may have had. Whatever his diagnosis, this individual’s acts are not representative of people with developmental or mental disorders or disabilities, very few of whom are violent or dangerous towards others.

While a rare event, the impact of violence is a tragedy for all of those involved. These devastating events remind us of the importance of providing the best care and support for those challenged by developmental or mental disorders or disabilities. We do know that individuals with autism spectrum disorders, including Asperger syndrome, do better with the appropriate medical, educational, mental health and community supports in place. The IACC strongly supports the development and expansion of those services and believes that more research is needed to identify predictors of violence, and to develop appropriate prevention and treatment strategies.

References
1 Ghaziuddin M, et al. Brief Report: Violence in Asperger Syndrome, A Critique. J Autism Dev Disorders. 1991 Sep; 21(3): 349-54. [PMID 1938780]

2 Mouridsen SE, et al. Pervasive Developmental Disorders and Criminal Behavior: A Case Control Study. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2008 Apr; 52 (2): 196. [PMID 17615427]

3 Mouridsen SE. Current status of research on autism spectrum disorders and offending. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012 Jan-Mar; 6 (1): 79-86.

Resources
If you are concerned about violence or possible symptoms of mental illness in a family member or yourself, contact a health care provider or your local health department. You can also contact the treatment referral line at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Call 1-800-662-HELP (4357) or visit the online treatment locator.

Information about coping with stress after a traumatic event can be found at

•Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) “Coping with Violence and Traumatic Events”

•National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) “Children and Violence”
•Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “Coping with Stress”
•American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) “Talking to Children About Disasters”
•American Red Cross “Recovering Emotionally”
•American Red Cross “Helping Children Cope with Disaster” (PDF – 472 KB)
Other Resources
•American Psychological Association
•American Psychiatric Association
•American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Here is a statement about what the IACC is:

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee is an independent Federal advisory committee that provides advice to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on activities related to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Members of the committee include representatives of Federal agencies involved in ASD research and services, as well as members of the public who are on the autism spectrum, parents of children with ASD, representatives of leading research, service and advocacy organizations, and other community stakeholders. The IACC develops and annually updates a Strategic Plan to guide ASD research efforts and publishes an annual Summary of Advances in ASD Research and the ASD Research Portfolio Analysis Report. More information about the membership and activities of the IACC is available at: http://iacc.hhs.gov/.

Please note that the IACC is an independent Federal advisory committee, and as such, the views expressed by the IACC do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or other Federal agencies and Departments.

IACC conference call this week

21 Dec

Earlier this week the IACC met via conference call to finalize the Strategic Plan updates for 2012.  A 2-day workshop on the updates had to be cancelled due to hurricane Sandy.  Below are just a few fragments of discussions that occurred during the meeting.

Drafts of the updates can be found on the IACC’s website. And final versions will be posted as soon as they are completed.

The meeting started with a discussion of whether the IACC should issue a statement following the speculation that the shooter at Newtown Connecticut was autistic.  Such a statement has been prepared and will be released shortly.

One public comment noted the lack of support for a family trying to navigate the extra hurdles a family with disabilities faced following Sandy.  Some of the federal members noted that there are resources specifically focused on vulnerable populations. I am trying to get more specifics on that now.

Each question of the Plan was discussed and modified, sometimes with word smithing and sometimes with more extensive edits.  The question on treatments in particular had a great deal of discussion and edits were prepared real-time by OARC staff. There is a good team supporting IACC and it was impressive to see them continue to keep making notes on the discussion while preparing significant edits for approval during the call.

One question that came up during the discussions was that of immigrant populations and autism prevalence. There has been much discussion of the Somali-American community and autism and Idil Abdul spoke of the concerns of that community. Two studies had come out in then past year, one from Sweden and one from the Netherlands, suggesting higher autism prevalence for immigrant communities in those countries.  This highlights the fact that we don’t have autism prevalence data for most of the world.  To my knowledge there are a few from northern Africa, possibly none from sub-Saharan Africa and South America, little or none from south Asia.

The UK adult autism prevalence study was discussed and the fact that little is known about the adult population in the U.S..

Obviously much more was discussed in the whole day meeting.  Much of that can be found in the draft documents linked to above.

—
By Matt Carey

Note: I serve as a public member to the IACC but my comments here and elsewhere are my own.

Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee’s (IACC) Conference Call

11 Dec

The U.S. Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) will be holding their final meeting of 2012 next week via conference call. Details, including how to submit comments, are below.

Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee’s (IACC) Conference Call
 
Please join us for a conference call of the IACC Full Committee on Tuesday, December 18, 2012 from 10:00a.m. to 4:00p.m. ET. The committee will review and approve the final 2012 update of the IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research.
 
The committee will be meeting via conference call, but oral public comments may be made in person at the location specified below and will be webcast live so that the committee members and members of the public can view the session. The other portions of the meeting will be conducted via conference call only.
 
Individuals and representatives of organizations interested in providing public comments must submit a written/electronic copy of the oral statement/comments including a brief description of the organization represented by 12:00 PM ET on Friday, December 14, 2012. Statements submitted will become a part of the public record. Only one representative of an organization will be allowed to present oral comments, and presentations will be limited to three to five minutes per speaker, depending on the number of speakers to be accommodated within the allotted time. Speakers will be assigned a time to speak in the order of the date and time when their request to speak is received, along with the required submission of the written/electronic statement by the specified deadline.
 
In addition, any interested person may submit written comments to the IACC prior to the meeting by sending the comments to the Contact Person listed on this notice by 12:00 PM ET, Friday, December 14, 2012. The comments should include the name and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. All written comments received by the deadlines for both oral and written public comments will be provided to the IACC for their consideration and will become part of the public record.
 
The conference call and in-person oral public comment session will be open to the public. The phone number and access code for the call is provided below.  Members of the public who participate using the conference call phone number will be able to listen to the meeting, but will not be heard. 
 
Conference Call Access
USA/Canada Phone Number: 800-369-1881
Access code: 9976437
 
Individuals who participate using this service and who need special assistance, such as captioning of the conference call or other reasonable accommodations, should submit a request to the contact person listed above prior to the meeting.  If you experience any technical problems with the conference call, please e-mail iacchelpdesk2012@gmail.com or call 301-339-3840 for assistance.
 
Please visit the IACC Events page for the latest information about the meeting, remote access information, the agenda and information about other upcoming IACC events.
 
Contact Person for this meeting is:
Ms. Lina Perez
Office of Autism Research Coordination
National Institute of Mental Health, NIH
6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC
Room 6182A
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301-443-6040
IACCpublicinquiries@mail.nih.gov

Which Congressman Is Blocking Bill That Would Protect Kids with Autism?

11 Dec

ABC News and a few other sources have had stories recently on the Seclusion and Restraint bill that is currently in the U.S. Congress. One can gather a great deal from the title of the ABC News story: Which Congressman Is Blocking Bill That Would Protect Kids with Autism?

The story starts out:

Legislation aimed at protecting children with autism and other disabilities from being injured in school has stalled in the House of Representatives at the hands of a single member who objects to federal intervention.

Minnesota Republican Rep. John Kline, who chairs the House’s education committee, has frozen action in the House on a proposal to institute national standards for how teachers and school staff can safely restrain students.

“Chairman Kline believes state officials and school leaders are best equipped to determine appropriate policies that should be in place to protect students and to hold those who violate those policies accountable,” said Alexandra Haynes Sollberger, the communications director for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. “For this reason, the committee has not scheduled any action on seclusion and restraint legislation at this time.”

The “Latest Major Action” for this bill was on 4/15/2011 when it was “Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education” where it has stalled.

Congressman Miller, the sponsor of the bill is quoted by ABC News:

“There is no excuse for inaction,” Miller said. “In the past, this Committee has worked tirelessly on behalf of children’s safety. Our investigations made clear that a federal law is necessary to protect all children across the country and ensure that children’s safety does not depend on the state in which they live. I hope that we can put aside politics and ideologies, tackle these issues together, and do what we can legislatively to save children from abuse.”

This has not been a great month for the U.S. legislature and autism/disability issues. We had the Senate vote not ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) a hearing which tried to revive the old failed vaccine-epidemic and now this. I admit, the seclusion and restraint bill has been stalled for 8 months, but it’s coming to a head now with congress about to depart. At that point, this bill will die and the process will have to start all over again. Because one person won’t let it go to a vote.

Here is the text of H.R. 1381.:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the `Keeping All Students Safe Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Physical restraint and seclusion have resulted in physical injury, psychological trauma, and death to children in public and private schools. National research shows students have been subjected to physical restraint and seclusion in schools as a means of discipline, to force compliance, or as a substitute for appropriate educational support.
(2) Behavioral interventions for children must promote the right of all children to be treated with dignity. All children have the right to be free from physical or mental abuse, aversive behavioral interventions that compromise health and safety, and any physical restraint or seclusion imposed solely for purposes of discipline or convenience.
(3) Safe, effective, evidence-based strategies are available to support children who display challenging behaviors in school settings. Staff training focused on the dangers of physical restraint and seclusion as well as training in evidence-based positive behavior supports, de-escalation techniques, and physical restraint and seclusion prevention, can reduce the incidence of injury, trauma, and death.
(4) School personnel have the right to work in a safe environment and should be provided training and support to prevent injury and trauma to themselves and others.
(5) Despite the widely recognized risks of physical restraint and seclusion, a substantial disparity exists among many States and localities with regard to the protection and oversight of the rights of children and school personnel to a safe learning environment.
(6) Children are subjected to physical restraint and seclusion at higher rates than adults. Physical restraint which restricts breathing or causes other body trauma, as well as seclusion in the absence of continuous face-to-face monitoring, have resulted in the deaths of children in schools.
(7) Children are protected from inappropriate physical restraint and seclusion in other settings, such as hospitals, health facilities, and non-medical community-based facilities. Similar protections are needed in schools, yet such protections must acknowledge the differences of the school environment.
(8) Research confirms that physical restraint and seclusion are not therapeutic, nor are these practices effective means to calm or teach children, and may have an opposite effect while simultaneously decreasing a child’s ability to learn.
(9) The effective implementation of school-wide positive behavior supports is linked to greater academic achievement, significantly fewer disciplinary problems, increased instruction time, and staff perception of a safer teaching environment.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are to–
(1) prevent and reduce the use of physical restraint and seclusion in schools;
(2) ensure the safety of all students and school personnel in schools and promote a positive school culture and climate;
(3) protect students from–
(A) physical or mental abuse;
(B) aversive behavioral interventions that compromise health and safety; and
(C) any physical restraint or seclusion imposed solely for purposes of discipline or convenience;
(4) ensure that physical restraint and seclusion are imposed in school only when a student’s behavior poses an imminent danger of physical injury to the student, school personnel, or others; and
(5) assist States, local educational agencies, and schools in–
(A) establishing policies and procedures to keep all students, including students with the most complex and intensive behavioral needs, and school personnel safe;
(B) providing school personnel with the necessary tools, training, and support to ensure the safety of all students and school personnel;
(C) collecting and analyzing data on physical restraint and seclusion in schools; and
(D) identifying and implementing effective evidence-based models to prevent and reduce physical restraint and seclusion in schools.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) CHEMICAL RESTRAINT- The term `chemical restraint’ means a drug or medication used on a student to control behavior or restrict freedom of movement that is not–
(A) prescribed by a licensed physician, or other qualified health professional acting under the scope of the professional’s authority under State law, for the standard treatment of a student’s medical or psychiatric condition; and
(B) administered as prescribed by the licensed physician or other qualified health professional acting under the scope of the professional’s authority under State law.
(2) EDUCATIONAL SERVICE AGENCY- The term `educational service agency’ has the meaning given such term in section 9101(17) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(17)).
(3) ELEMENTARY SCHOOL- The term `elementary school’ has the meaning given the term in section 9101(18) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(18)).
(4) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY- The term `local educational agency’ has the meaning given the term in section 9101(26) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(26)).
(5) MECHANICAL RESTRAINT- The term `mechanical restraint’ has the meaning given the term in section 595(d)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(1)), except that the meaning shall be applied by substituting `student’s’ for `resident’s’.
(6) PARENT- The term `parent’ has the meaning given the term in section 9101(31) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(31)).
(7) PHYSICAL ESCORT- The term `physical escort’ has the meaning given the term in section 595(d)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(2)), except that the meaning shall be applied by substituting `student’ for `resident’.
(8) PHYSICAL RESTRAINT- The term `physical restraint’ has the meaning given the term in section 595(d)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(3)).
(9) POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORTS- The term `positive behavior supports’ means a systematic approach to embed evidence-based practices and data-driven decisionmaking to improve school climate and culture, including a range of systemic and individualized strategies to reinforce desired behaviors and diminish reoccurrence of problem behaviors, in order to achieve improved academic and social outcomes and increase learning for all students, including those with the most complex and intensive behavioral needs.
(10) PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEM- The term `protection and advocacy system’ means a protection and advocacy system established under section 143 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15043).
(11) SCHOOL- The term `school’ means an entity–
(A) that–
(i) is a public or private–
(I) day or residential elementary school or secondary school; or
(II) early childhood, elementary school, or secondary school program that is under the jurisdiction of a school, local educational agency, educational service agency, or other educational institution or program; and
(ii) receives, or serves students who receive, support in any form from any program supported, in whole or in part, with funds appropriated to the Department of Education; or
(B) that is a school funded or operated by the Department of the Interior.
(12) SCHOOL PERSONNEL- The term `school personnel’ has the meaning–
(A) given the term in section 4151(10) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7161(10)); and
(B) given the term `school resource officer’ in section 4151(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7161(11)).
(13) SECONDARY SCHOOL- The term `secondary school’ has the meaning given the term in section 9101(38) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(38)).
(14) SECLUSION- The term `seclusion’ has the meaning given the term in section 595(d)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(4)).
(15) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary’ means the Secretary of Education.
(16) STATE-APPROVED CRISIS INTERVENTION TRAINING PROGRAM- The term `State-approved crisis intervention training program’ means a training program approved by a State and the Secretary that, at a minimum, provides–
(A) training in evidence-based techniques shown to be effective in the prevention of physical restraint and seclusion;
(B) training in evidence-based techniques shown to be effective in keeping both school personnel and students safe when imposing physical restraint or seclusion;
(C) evidence-based skills training related to positive behavior supports, safe physical escort, conflict prevention, understanding antecedents, de-escalation, and conflict management;
(D) training in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
(E) information describing State policies and procedures that meet the minimum standards established by regulations promulgated pursuant to section 5(a); and
(F) certification for school personnel in the techniques and skills described in subparagraphs (A) through (D), which shall be required to be renewed on a periodic basis.
(17) STATE- The term `State’ has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(18) STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY- The term `State educational agency’ has the meaning given the term in section 9101(41) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(41)).
(19) STUDENT- The term `student’ means a student enrolled in a school defined in paragraph (11), except that in the case of a student enrolled in a private school or private program, such term means a student who receives support in any form from any program supported, in whole or in part, with funds appropriated to the Department of Education.
(20) TIME OUT- The term `time out’ has the meaning given the term in section 595(d)(5) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290jj(d)(5)), except that the meaning shall be applied by substituting `student’ for `resident’.
SEC. 5. MINIMUM STANDARDS; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Minimum Standards- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, in order to protect each student from physical or mental abuse, aversive behavioral interventions that compromise student health and safety, or any physical restraint or seclusion imposed solely for purposes of discipline or convenience or in a manner otherwise inconsistent with this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations establishing the following minimum standards:
(1) School personnel shall be prohibited from imposing on any student the following:
(A) Mechanical restraints.
(B) Chemical restraints.
(C) Physical restraint or physical escort that restricts breathing.
(D) Aversive behavioral interventions that compromise health and safety.
(2) School personnel shall be prohibited from imposing physical restraint or seclusion on a student unless–
(A) the student’s behavior poses an imminent danger of physical injury to the student, school personnel, or others;
(B) less restrictive interventions would be ineffective in stopping such imminent danger of physical injury;
(C) such physical restraint or seclusion is imposed by school personnel who–
(i) continuously monitor the student face-to-face; or
(ii) if school personnel safety is significantly compromised by such face-to-face monitoring, are in continuous direct visual contact with the student;
(D) such physical restraint or seclusion is imposed by–
(i) school personnel trained and certified by a State-approved crisis intervention training program (as defined in section 4(16)); or
(ii) other school personnel in the case of a rare and clearly unavoidable emergency circumstance when school personnel trained and certified as described in clause (i) are not immediately available due to the unforeseeable nature of the emergency circumstance; and
(E) such physical restraint or seclusion ends immediately upon the cessation of the conditions described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(3) States, in consultation with local educational agencies and private school officials, shall ensure that a sufficient number of personnel are trained and certified by a State-approved crisis intervention training program (as defined in section 4(16)) to meet the needs of the specific student population in each school.
(4) The use of physical restraint or seclusion as a planned intervention shall not be written into a student’s education plan, individual safety plan, behavioral plan, or individualized education program (as defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401)). Local educational agencies or schools may establish policies and procedures for use of physical restraint or seclusion in school safety or crisis plans, provided that such school plans are not specific to any individual student.
(5) Schools shall establish procedures to be followed after each incident involving the imposition of physical restraint or seclusion upon a student, including–
(A) procedures to provide to the parent of the student, with respect to each such incident–
(i) an immediate verbal or electronic communication on the same day as each such incident; and
(ii) within 24 hours of each such incident, written notification; and
(B) any other procedures the Secretary determines appropriate.
(b) Secretary of the Interior- The Secretary of the Interior shall ensure that schools operated or funded by the Department of the Interior comply with the regulations promulgated by the Secretary under subsection (a).
(c) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations prohibiting the use of–
(1) time out (as defined in section 4(20)); or
(2) devices implemented by trained school personnel, or utilized by a student, for the specific and approved therapeutic or safety purposes for which such devices were designed and, if applicable, prescribed, including–
(A) restraints for medical immobilization;
(B) adaptive devices or mechanical supports used to achieve proper body position, balance, or alignment to allow greater freedom of mobility than would be possible without the use of such devices or mechanical supports; or
(C) vehicle safety restraints when used as intended during the transport of a student in a moving vehicle; or
(3) handcuffs by school resource officers (as such term is defined in section 4151(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7161(11)))–
(A) in the–
(i) case when a student’s behavior poses an imminent danger of physical injury to the student, school personnel, or others; or
(ii) lawful exercise of law enforcement duties; and
(B) less restrictive interventions would be ineffective.
SEC. 6. STATE PLAN AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT.

(a) State Plan- Not later than 2 years after the Secretary promulgates regulations pursuant to section 5(a), and each year thereafter, each State educational agency shall submit to the Secretary a State plan that provides–
(1) assurances to the Secretary that the State has in effect–
(A) State policies and procedures that meet the minimum standards, including the standards with respect to State-approved crisis intervention training programs, established by regulations promulgated pursuant to section 5(a); and
(B) a State mechanism to effectively monitor and enforce the minimum standards;
(2) a description of the State policies and procedures, including a description of the State-approved crisis intervention training programs in such State; and
(3) a description of the State plans to ensure school personnel and parents, including private school personnel and parents, are aware of the State policies and procedures.
(b) Reporting-
(1) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS- Not later than 2 years after the date the Secretary promulgates regulations pursuant to section 5(a), and each year thereafter, each State educational agency shall (in compliance with the requirements of section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (commonly known as the `Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974′) (20 U.S.C. 1232g)) prepare and submit to the Secretary, and make available to the public, a report that includes the information described in paragraph (2), with respect to each local educational agency, and each school not under the jurisdiction of a local educational agency, located in the same State as such State educational agency.
(2) INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS-
(A) GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS- The report described in paragraph (1) shall include information on–
(i) the total number of incidents in the preceding full-academic year in which physical restraint was imposed upon a student; and
(ii) the total number of incidents in the preceding full-academic year in which seclusion was imposed upon a student.
(B) DISAGGREGATION-
(i) GENERAL DISAGGREGATION REQUIREMENTS- The information described in subparagraph (A) shall be disaggregated by–
(I) the total number of incidents in which physical restraint or seclusion was imposed upon a student–
(aa) that resulted in injury;

(bb) that resulted in death; and

(cc) in which the school personnel imposing physical restraint or seclusion were not trained and certified as described in section 5(a)(2)(D)(i); and

(II) the demographic characteristics of all students upon whom physical restraint or seclusion was imposed, including–
(aa) the categories identified in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.

—
By Matt Carey

NCD Statement on Failed CRPD Ratification Vote in the Senate

7 Dec

The National Council on Disability (NCD) has released a statement about the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify the CRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). The text of the Convention can be found online.

WASHINGTON, DC – The Chairman of the National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency, expressed his deep disappointment that the United States Senate fell short of the votes needed to pass the resolution for ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

“Yesterday, the United States had an opportunity to join more than 120 countries in a unified commitment to protect the rights of people with disabilities around the globe. It is deeply disappointing the Senate chose not to do so at this time. The CRPD was conceived with the same goals as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society,” said Jonathan Young, NCD Chairman. “Through the development phase of the treaty and our support throughout the process, NCD has proudly encouraged the adoption of the same protections Americans with disabilities enjoy because of the ADA to other nations worldwide.

Almost one decade ago, the National Council on Disability kicked off U.S. disability community consideration of an international treaty by publishing a White Paper titled “Understanding the Role of an International Convention on the Human Rights of People with Disabilities.” Since that time, NCD has published numerous documents and reports in support of the development, signature and ratification of the CRPD.

“It is devastating that the Senate did not take this leap forward with the same bipartisan effort the community had with the ADA in advancing the quality of life for people with disabilities in the U.S. and worldwide, but NCD will continue to recommend ratification of this historic treaty to the 113th Congress,” added Joan Durocher, NCD’s General Counsel and Director of Policy.

About the National Council on Disability: NCD is an independent federal agency of 15 Presidentially-appointed Council Members and full-time professional staff, who advise the President, Congress and other federal agencies on disability policy, programs, and practices.

—
By Matt Carey

Ari Ne’eman on CSPAN’s Washington Journal

1 Dec

Ari Ne’eman of the Autsitic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) participated in a call-in show, Washington Journal, on C-Span today. Here is that video.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Washington-Journal-for-Saturday-December-1/10737436230/

As of now, this seem to work only on “desktop/laptop” computers, not mobile devices. Also, I can not get the video to embed in this article.

—
By Matt Carey

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →