Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

US proposes $154M in new autism research projects

1 Mar

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) is charged with creating the “Strategic Plan“. This document lays out research priorities for the US government to pursue in the upcoming years.

The full plan is available ether by html or pdf.

If you’ve watched IACC meetings, you know that a lot of time goes into word smithing. They work out the wording that will go into the document and convey the messages with the best balance of the various viewpoints represented by the committee. Not to belittle that effort, but when the rubber hits the road, what gets into the budget is what matters most to me.

With that in mind, I’ve summarized the new objectives (long-term and short-term) that were added in 2011.

I also went through and quickly summed up the new item budget amounts. Forgive me if I missed anything, but here is what I got. First as a brief summary:

Question 1: When Should I Be Concerned?:
2 new objectives. $9,635,000

Question 2: How Can I Understand What Is Happening?:
no new objectives. $0

Question 3: What Caused This To Happen And Can This Be Prevented?:
6 new objectives. $90,570,000

Question 4: Which Treatments and Interventions will Help?:
3 new objectives. $45,500,000

Question 5: Where Can I Turn for Services?: 3 new objectives.
$3,800,000

Question 6: What Does the Future Hold, Particularly for Adults?:
no new objectives. $0

Question 7: What Other Infrastructure and Surveillance Needs Must Be Met?:
3 new objectives. $4,950,000

Total: 17 new objectives. $154,455,000

And as a more detailed summary:

Question 1: When Should I Be Concerned?
Aspirational Goal: Children at Risk for ASD Will Be Identified Through Reliable Methods Before ASD Behavioral Characteristics Fully Manifest.

New Short-Term Objectives:

2011 E. Conduct at least one study to determine the positive predictive value and clinical utility (e.g., prediction of co-occurring conditions, family planning) of chromosomal microarray genetic testing for detecting genetic diagnoses for ASD in a clinical setting by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $9,600,000 over 5 years.

2011 F. Convene a workshop to examine the ethical, legal, and social implications of ASD research by 2011. The workshop should define possible approaches for conducting future studies of ethical, legal, and social implications of ASD research, taking into consideration how these types of issues have been approached in related medical conditions.IACC Recommended Budget: $35,000 over 1 year.

New Long-Term Objectives: None.

Question 2: How Can I Understand What Is Happening?
Aspirational Goal: Discover How ASD Affects Development, Which Will Lead To Targeted And Personalized Interventions.

New Short-Term Objectives: none.

New Long-Term Objectives: None.

Question 3: What Caused This To Happen And Can This Be Prevented?
Aspirational Goal: Causes Of ASD Will Be Discovered That Inform Prognosis And Treatments And Lead To Prevention/Preemption Of The Challenges And Disabilities Of ASD.

New Short Term Objectives:

2011 F. Initiate studies on at least 10 environmental factors identified in the recommendations from the 2007 IOM report “Autism and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities for Research” This link exits the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Web site as potential causes of ASD by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $56,000,000 over 2 years.

2011 G. Convene a workshop that explores the usefulness of bioinformatic approaches to identify environmental risks for ASD by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $35,000 over 1 year.

2011 H. Support at least three studies of special populations or use existing databases to inform our understanding of environmental risk factors for ASD in pregnancy and the early postnatal period by 2012. Such studies could include:

* Comparisons of populations differing in geography, gender, ethnic background, exposure history (e.g., prematurity, maternal infection, nutritional deficiencies, toxins), and migration patterns; and

* Comparisons of phenotype (e.g., cytokine profiles), in children with and without a history of autistic regression, adverse events following immunization (such as fever and seizures), and mitochondrial impairment. These studies may also include comparisons of phenotype between children with regressive ASD and their siblings.

Emphasis on environmental factors that influence prenatal and early postnatal development is particularly of high priority. Epidemiological studies should pay special attention to include racially and ethnically diverse populations. IACC Recommended Budget: $12,000,000 over 5 years.

2011 I. Support at least two studies that examine potential differences in the microbiome of individuals with ASD versus comparison groups by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $1,000,000 over 2 years.

2011 J. Support at least three studies that focus on the role of epigenetics in the etiology of ASD, including studies that include assays to measure DNA methylations and histone modifications and those exploring how exposures may act on maternal or paternal genomes via epigenetic mechanisms to alter gene expression, by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $20,000,000 over 5 years.

2011 K. Support two studies and a workshop that facilitate the development of vertebrate and invertebrate model systems for the exploration of environmental risks and their interaction with gender and genetic susceptibilities for ASD by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $1,535,000 over 3 years.

New Long Term Objectives: None.

Question 4: Which Treatments and Interventions will Help?
Aspirational Goal: Interventions Will Be Developed That Are Effective For Reducing Both Core And Associated Symptoms, For Building Adaptive Skills, And For Maximizing Quality Of Life And Health For People With ASD.

New Short Term Objectives:

2011 G. Support at least five studies on interventions for nonverbal individuals with ASD by 2012. Such studies may include:

* Projects examining service-provision models that enhance access to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) supports in both classroom and adult service-provision settings, such as residential service-provision and the impact of such access on quality of life, communication, and behavior;

* Studies of novel treatment approaches that facilitate communication skills in individuals who are nonverbal, including the components of effective AAC approaches for specific subpopulations of people with ASD; and

* Studies assessing access and use of AAC for children and adults with ASD who have limited or partially limited speech and the impact on functional outcomes and quality of life.

IACC Recommended Budget: $3,000,000 over 2 years.

2011 H. Support at least two studies that focus on research on health promotion and prevention of secondary conditions in people with ASD by 2012. Secondary conditions of interest include weight issues and obesity, injury, and co-occurring psychiatric and medical conditions. IACC Recommended Budget: $5,000,000 over 3 years.

New Long Term Objectives:

2011 D. Support at least five community-based studies that assess the effectiveness of interventions and services in broader community settings by 2015. Such studies may include comparative effectiveness research studies that assess the relative effectiveness of:

* Different and/or combined medical, pharmacological, nutritional, behavioral, service-provision, and parent- or caregiver-implemented treatments;

* Scalable early intervention programs for implementation in underserved, low-resource, and low-literacy populations; and

* Studies of widely used community intervention models for which extensive published data are not available.

Outcome measures should include assessment of potential harm as a result of autism treatments, as well as positive outcomes. IACC Recommended Budget: $37,500,000 over 5 years.

Question 5: Where Can I Turn for Services?
Aspirational Goal: Communities Will Access And Implement Necessary High-Quality, Evidence-Based Services And Supports That Maximize Quality Of Life And Health Across The Lifespan For All People With ASD.

New Short Term Objectives:

2011 D. Support two studies to examine health, safety, and mortality issues for people with ASD by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $4,500,000 over 3 years.

New Long Term Objectives:

2011 D. Evaluate at least two strategies or programs to increase the health and safety of people with ASD that simultaneously consider principles of self-determination and personal autonomy by 2015. IACC Recommended Budget: $2,000,000 over 2 years.

2011 E. Support three studies of dental health issues for people with ASD by 2015. This should include:

* One study on the cost-benefit of providing comprehensive dental services, including routine, non-emergency medical and surgical dental services, denture coverage, and sedation dentistry to adults with ASD as compared to emergency and/or no treatment. IACC Recommended Budget: $900,000 over 3 years.

* One study focusing on the provision of accessible, person-centered, equitable, effective, safe, and efficient dental services to people with ASD. IACC Recommended Budget: $900,000 over 3 years.

* One study evaluating pre-service and in-service training program to increase skill levels in oral health professionals to benefit people with ASD and promote interdisciplinary practice. IACC Recommended Budget: $900,000 over 3 years.

Question 6: What Does the Future Hold, Particularly for Adults?
Aspirational Goal: All People With ASD Will Have The Opportunity To Lead Self-Determined Lives In The Community Of Their Choice Through School, Work, Community Participation, Meaningful Relationships, And Access To Necessary And Individualized Services And Supports.

New Short-Term Objectives: none
New Long-Term Objectives: none

Question 7: What Other Infrastructure and Surveillance Needs Must Be Met?
Aspirational Goal: Develop And Support Infrastructure And Surveillance Systems That Advance The Speed, Efficacy, And Dissemination Of Autism Research.

New Short- and Long-Term Objectives

2011 N. Enhance networks of clinical research sites offering clinical care in real-world settings that can collect and coordinate standardized and comprehensive diagnostic, biological (e.g., DNA, plasma, fibroblasts, urine), medical, and treatment history data that would provide a platform for conducting comparative effectiveness research and clinical trials of novel autism treatments by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $1,850,000 over 1 year.

2011 O. Create an information resource for ASD researchers (e.g., PhenX Project This link exits the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Web site) to share information to facilitate data sharing and standardization of methods across projects by 2013.

* This includes common protocols, instruments, designs, and other procedural documents and should include updates on new technology and links to information on how to acquire and utilize technology in development.

* This can serve as a bidirectional information reference, with autism research driving the development of new resources and technologies, including new model systems, screening tools, and analytic techniques.

IACC Recommended Budget: $2,000,000 over 2 years.

2011 P. Provide resources to centers or facilities that develop promising vertebrate and invertebrate model systems, and make these models more easily available or expand the utility of current model systems, and support new approaches to develop high-throughput screening technologies to evaluate the validity of model systems by 2013. IACC Recommended Budget: $1,100,000 over 2 years.

Release of the 2011 IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research

28 Feb

The IACC has released the 2011 Strategic Plan. I have quoted the announcement below, which includes the links:

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) and the Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) are pleased to announce the release of the 2011 IACC Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research. The updated Strategic Plan contains 16 new research objectives covering a variety of issues, including use and accessibility of interventions for non-verbal people with ASD, health promotion for people with ASD, and issues related to safety for people on the spectrum. The HTML version of this year’s Strategic Plan is fully hyperlinked throughout to websites with information about funders, programs and over 180 ASD-related publications, which should make the Plan an especially useful resource for people with ASD, families, providers, research funders, researchers, policymakers, and the public. A formatted, downloadable PDF version of the Plan is also available. Links to the new Strategic Plan and related information, including a news update about the Plan, can be accessed from the IACC Home Page.

US plan for autism research: focus on environmental causation re-emphasized

28 Feb

The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee has released the 2011 Strategic Plan. This maps out the proposed directions that government funded research should take in regards to autism in the coming years.

The area that gets the most scrutiny is causation research, so I am blogging it first. Once again, the IACC has put forth a program with the major emphasis on environmental causation projects, with over 70% of funding going towards environmental causation:

Under short term objectives for “Question 3: What Caused This to Happen and Can It Be Prevented?” there are 6 new objectives for 2011. No new “long term” objectives.

Initiate studies on at least 10 environmental factors identified in the recommendations from the 2007 IOM report “Autism and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities for Research” as potential causes of ASD by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $56,000,000 over 2 years.

Convene a workshop that explores the usefulness of bioinformatic approaches to identify environmental risks for ASD by 2011. IACC Recommended Budget: $35,000 over 1 year.

Support at least three studies of special populations or use existing databases to inform our understanding of environmental risk factors for ASD in pregnancy and the early postnatal period by 2012. Such studies could include:
o Comparisons of populations differing in geography, gender, ethnic background, exposure history (e.g., prematurity, maternal infection, nutritional deficiencies, toxins), and migration patterns; and
o Comparisons of phenotype (e.g., cytokine profiles), in children with and without a history of autistic regression, adverse events following immunization (such as fever and seizures), and mitochondrial impairment. These studies may also include comparisons of phenotype between children with regressive ASD and their siblings.
Emphasis on environmental factors that influence prenatal and early postnatal development is particularly of high priority. Epidemiological studies should pay special attention to include racially and ethnically diverse populations. IACC Recommended Budget: $12,000,000 over 5 years.

Support at least two studies that examine potential differences in the microbiome of individuals with ASD versus comparison groups by 2012.
IACC Recommended Budget: $1,000,000 over 2 years.

Support at least three studies that focus on the role of epigenetics in the etiology of ASD, including studies that include assays to measure DNA methylations and histone modifications and those exploring how exposures may act on maternal or paternal genomes via epigenetic mechanisms to alter gene expression, by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $20,000,000 over 5 years.

Support two studies and a workshop that facilitate the development of vertebrate and invertebrate model systems for the exploration of environmental risks and their interaction with gender and genetic susceptibilities for ASD by 2012. IACC Recommended Budget: $1,535,000 over 3 years.

Many have claimed in the past that the IACC has not supported environmental causation. This is just not true, and it is not true going forward. Causation research in the past few Strategic Plans has focused the majority of funding on environmental and gene-environment causation.

Many have claimed that this blog is somehow against environmental causation research. Again, this is clearly not true.

I doubt either argument will go away. But, those are minor issues. What is important is what gets done. Causation research is important.

I would, and have, argued that research into supporting autistics alive today is also highly important. Research involving issues concerning autistic adults is vastly underfunded in my view. Total budget for new projects in the “WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD, PARTICULARLY FOR ADULTS?” is zero. That’s right. No new projects in this area.

Besides neglecting the needs of a large number of adults today, this is poor planning for the future of today’s children. A person will spend about 75% of his/her life as an adult. Much, if not most, of that time without the support of parents.

The Arc Action Alert – Do You Want “Congregate Care”?

25 Feb

The Arc sends out periodic Action Alerts. I just got this one in my email inbox. Do you think the government should go back to segregated living and institutions for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities? Now is your chance to add your comments and be heard.

Do You Want “Congregate Care”?
Then now is the time to counter calls for institutions and other segregated settings

institution for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) has just extended the deadline for submitting testimony for its national listening sessions. And people who support institutions are wasting no time in letting ADD know what they want. In fact, VOR is calling on its membership to “Tell ADD to support Choice” in residential settings for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Please take a minute to provide your comments to ADD and let them know that segregated, congregate living for people with disabilities should NOT be a choice. We know all too well that abuse, neglect and other forms of denigration are far more likely to occur in large congregate settings. Integrated, community based housing is the only policy the federal government should be supporting.

It’s critical that ADD hear from many people with intellectual and developmental disabilities or their family members. Please submit your comments before March 4 at:
http://www.envision2010.net/comment_submit.php

Thank you in advance for your advocacy.

Motor vehicle accidents, suicides, and assaults in epilepsy: A population-based study

24 Feb

I seem to be in epidemiology mode today, so I decided to post this abstract that I found interesting. Are people with epilepsy more prone to car accidents or suicide? Apparently not. Are they more prone to being assaulted? Assaulted as in resulting in injury? Yes.

I am unclear how many factors they were testing, so it is difficult to know how much these could be by chance.

Motor vehicle accidents, suicides, and assaults in epilepsy: A population-based study.

Kwon C, Liu M, Quan H, Thoo V, Wiebe S, Jetté N.

From the Departments of Clinical Neurosciences (C.K., S.W., N.J.) and Community Health Sciences (H.Q.), University of Calgary, Calgary; Alberta Health Services (M.L.), Calgary; Dalhousie University (V.T.), Halifax, Canada; and Harvard School of Public Health (C.K.), Boston, MA.
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goal of our study was to compare the incidence of motor vehicle accidents (MVA), attempted or completed suicides, and injuries inflicted by others between individuals with and without epilepsy.

METHODS: Individuals with and without epilepsy were identified using linked administrative databases between 1996 and 2003 in a Canadian health region with a 1.4 million population. We used a validated epilepsy case definition: anyone who had 2 physician claims, one hospitalization, or one emergency room visit coded with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9-CM or ICD-10 epilepsy code any time during a 2-year period. Four subjects without epilepsy were matched to one patient with epilepsy by age (within 1 year) and sex. The incidence of MVAs, attempted or completed suicides, and inflicted injuries was assessed in 2003-2004. Outcomes were adjusted using the Elixhauser comorbidity index.

RESULTS: A total of 10,240 individuals with epilepsy and 40,960 individuals without epilepsy were identified. Mean age was 39.0 ± 21.3 years (range 0.12-99.4) and 48.5% were female. One-year odds ratios before and after adjustment for comorbidity were 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-2.54) and 1.38 (95% CI 0.97-1.96) for MVAs, 4.32 (95% CI 2.79-6.69) and 1.32 (95% CI 0.81-2.15) for attempted or completed suicides, and 3.54 (95% CI 2.66-4.72) and 1.46 (95% CI 1.04-2.03) for injuries inflicted by others.

CONCLUSION: In this cohort-controlled population-based study, once important medical and psychiatric comorbidities were adjusted for, people with epilepsy were not more likely to attempt suicide or experience MVAs, but were still more likely to be assaulted compared to those without epilepsy.

California’s Specific Learning Disabilities Counter Epidemic

19 Feb

The U.S. and California Departments of Education recently released special education data (child counts) for the 2008-2009 school year. A particular focus in the media has been a tripling of the number of students who wear a special education label of “autism” in California.

Needless to say, some probably see this as confirmation of an “autism epidemic”. For a particularly myopic and emotional (anger and fear) interpretation of this recent news story, one need go no further than “Autism Epidemic” central (AoA) and read the data-free opinion piece by Anne Dachel.

For the bigger picture in California, a look at the actual data might be in order.

California Data

For those who may not be able to see the graph of the IDEA data that most closely represents the K-12 age group as a percentage of the resident population, receiving special education services for the last ten years in California: Autism has steadily increased from .13% to .64%, Specific Learning Disabilities has steadily decreased from 5.64% to 4.41%, and totals for all disabilities has remained flat at about 9.2%.

If you believe there’s been an “autism epidemic”, and that special education data from California proves that the schools are overwhelmed, here are a two questions for you:

1. What has caused the decrease in Specific Learning Disabilities (a decrease that more than offsets the increase in autism)?

2. If the special education totals remain unchanged, why are the schools “overwhelmed”?

Work stress, burnout, and social and personal resources among direct care workers.

18 Feb

No surprise, people who have jobs caring for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities face a lot of stress. A recent paper has looked into what causes and alleviates the stress for these workers.

Work stress, burnout, and social and personal resources among direct care workers.

Gray-Stanley JA, Muramatsu N.

School of Nursing and Health Studies, Northern Illinois University, 253 Wirtz Hall, DeKalb, IL 60115, United States.
Abstract

Work stress is endemic among direct care workers (DCWs) who serve people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Social resources, such as work social support, and personal resources, such as an internal locus of control, may help DCWs perceive work overload and other work-related stressors as less threatening and galvanize them to cope more effectively to prevent burnout. However, little is known about what resources are effective for coping with what types of work stress. Thus, we examined how work stress and social and personal resources are associated with burnout for DCWs. We conducted a survey of DCWs (n=323) from five community-based organizations that provide residential, vocational, and personal care services for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Participants completed a self-administered survey about their perceptions of work stress, work social support, locus of control, and burnout relative to their daily work routine. We conducted multiple regression analysis to test both the main and interaction effects of work stress and resources with respect to burnout. Work stress, specifically work overload, limited participation decision-making, and client disability care, was positively associated with burnout (p<.001). The association between work social support and burnout depended on the levels of work overload (p<.05), and the association between locus of control and burnout depended on the levels of work overload (p<.05) and participation in decision-making (p<.05). Whether work social support and locus of control make a difference depends on the kinds and the levels of work stressors. The findings underscore the importance of strong work-based social support networks and stress management resources for DCWs.

What adds to burnout? Work overload. Not being involved in decision making. Also, levels of client functioning, mobility, and intellectual abilities are a factor. If I read the paper correctly, levels of client functioning are a bigger factor than work overload.

Supervisor support and coworker support alleviated some of the stress and burnout.

The study concludes:

Policies or interventions developed as a result of this analysis might include strategies to foster work-based social support networks (i.e., team building efforts), as well as interventions to help workers develop personal stress management resources (Tierney, Quinlan, & Hastings, 2007). Successful protocols, once identified, can contribute to improved DCW job morale and ultimately better client care.

I don’t think stress and the sources of stress come as any great surprise. However, the more information available to make notions into supported facts, the better. If this can help caregivers and caregiver organizations support in reducing workload and adding methods to alleviate stress, so much the better for all. Especially the clients.

Arc major events this week: cuts in spending levels target disability programs

8 Feb

From this week’s “Capital Insider” email from The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy. The US Federal government is preparing the next year’s budget and cuts are on the way. The fewer people who contact their representatives, the deeper the cuts will be for their communities.

FY 2011 Appropriations – House Budget Committee announces spending levels; Targets for disability programs are more than 15% below current levels.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced the overall budget allocations for the Appropriations Committee to use to set spending levels for the remainder of the FY 2011. Currently the federal government is operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) which largely extended FY 2010 spending until March 4, 2011. Under the plan, non-security programs would be reduced by an average of 15.4% below the current funding levels. Using this amount, the House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) announced the specific levels for each of the 12 Appropriations Subcommittees. The Labor, Health Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee will need to produce a bill that is 12.7% below funding for the remainder of the year. The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee will have to cut funding by 26.1% to meet the target. This does not mean that the subcommittees will need to cut all programs by this amount, but that the total funding for all programs within their jurisdiction cannot be above this level. The Subcommittees will decide how much funding to cut from each program in the coming weeks.

Budget – New bill introduced to radically cut federal spending across all programs, including entitlements

Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced S. 245, The Commitment to American Prosperity (CAP) Act, which would cap all federal spending at a set level. This would include all entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and others) and all discretionary spending (education, housing, employment and others). The cap would be tied to a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of all goods and services produced by our economy. If the spending cap is exceeded, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would be authorized to make automatic spending cuts across all federal programs. A two-thirds vote in Congress would be needed to overturn any cuts. The amount of the cuts would be in proportion to how fast each program is growing. Unlike previous laws to control spending (Gramm Rudman Hollings, Pay As You Go) there are no protections for low income entitlement programs such as Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid. As a result, the impact of exceeding the cap would mean that the biggest cuts would come from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs make up a significant proportion of federal spending and are growing faster than many other programs due to the aging of the population and rising per-person health care costs.

Obama’s State of the Union Address 2011

26 Jan

Last night Barack Obama gave the annual “State of the Union” address to the American people. I have to admit, I missed it, so I waited for a transcript to come out. I searched for “autism”. I searched for “disability”. I found nothing. I searched for “education”. There was much on education, but nothing about special education. OK, there wasn’t anything on autism, disability or special education in 2010’s speech either. I don’t think it was in 2009 either.

Aside from my own interests, why would I look to these speeches for mention of autism or disability or special education? It’s because I remember the promises made on the campaign trail. I remember the disability plan that the Obama/Biden campaign had then.

I remember the promise to fully fund the federal government’s commitment to special education:

Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Barack Obama has been a strong and consistent advocate for fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Congress promised to shoulder 40 percent of each state’s “excess cost” of educating children with disabilities, but it has never lived up to this obligation. Currently, the federal government provides less than half of the promised funding (17 percent). Children are being shortchanged, and their parents are forced to fight with cash-strapped school districts to get the free and appropriate education the IDEA promises their children. Fully funding IDEA will provide students with disabilities the public education they have a right to, and school districts will be able to provide services without cutting into their general education budgets. In addition to fully funding IDEA, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure effective implementation and enforcement of the Act.

IDEA is still not fully funded. The economic stimulus funds did give a one-year boost to IDEA funding (not 100% funded, but a lot more than usual). No long term commitment to keep higher levels has come through.

I remember autism being prominent in the plan:

Supporting Americans Living with Autism Spectrum Disorders: More than one million Americans live with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of ASD have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we need to research treatments and search for the causes of ASD. Obama has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for ASD research on the root causes and treatments. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believes we must work to guarantee that Americans with ASD can live independent and fully productive lives and to assure that their families understand and are able to support a loved one with ASD. They will fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to ensure that no child with ASD or any other disability is left behind. They will also fight to assure that the government and our communities work together to provide a helping hand to people with ASD and their families.

Obama has a long record supporting people with ASD. In the state senate, Obama sponsored legislation that became law to create the ASD Program – a systems development initiative designed to promote the implementation of evidence-based practices. And in the U.S. Senate, Obama is also a cosponsor of a measure that would expand federal funding for life-long services for people with ASD, authorizing approximately $350 million in new federal funding for key programs related to treatments, interventions and services for both children and adults with ASD.

More money has gone into research, especially a big one-year boost from the economic stimulus funds.

The Obama/Biden campaign had an autism specific agenda document, which included an individual to oversee federal autism efforts:

Appoint Federal ASD Coordinator to Oversee All Federal ASD Efforts: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure all federal ASD activities occur in an efficient manner that prioritizes both research and supports for families affected by ASD. They will appoint a Federal ASD Coordinator to oversee federal ASD research and federal efforts to improve awareness of ASD and improve the training of medical professionals to identify and treat ASD. By establishing one top-level point person to coordinate ASD efforts in the White House, they will ensure that ASD receives the recognition and priority it deserves in the federal government. The Federal ASD Coordinator will also be tasked with eliminating bureaucratic obstacles that may be delaying implementation of important ASD measures and ensuring that all federal ASD dollars are being spent in a manner that prioritizes results. The Coordinator will work with state task forces on ASD to ensure effective communication and collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies.

I remember these things. I bet a lot of readers here do too. We remember. We vote.

Festivus isn’t over…

3 Jan

…until someone pins me.

Yes, in my listing of seasonal Holidays I neglected Festivus. (Festivus is a holiday invented by the family of one of the writers of the show Seinfeld and made known through that show). Festivus doesn’t end until the someone pins the host in the “feats of strength”. For the moment I’ll abscond with Kev’s rightful position as host of LeftBrainRightBrain and claim that since I have not been pinned, Festivus is still ongoing, I will use this opportunity to express another Festivus tradition: the airing of grievances.

The U.S. federal government was a major disappointment last year. There are many reasons, but today I will focus on the failure (once again) to fulfill their commitment to the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA).

Barack Obama set out this promise during his campaign:

Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Barack Obama has been a strong and consistent advocate for fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Congress promised to shoulder 40 percent of each state’s “excess cost” of educating children with disabilities, but it has never lived up to this obligation. Currently, the federal government provides less than half of the promised funding (17 percent). Children are being shortchanged, and their parents are forced to fight with cash-strapped school districts to get the free and appropriate education the IDEA promises their children. Fully funding IDEA will provide students with disabilities the public education they have a right to, and school districts will be able to provide services without cutting into their general education budgets. In addition to fully funding IDEA Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure effective implementation and enforcement of the Act.

Mr. Obama provided a big boost to IDEA funding, for one year. This was in the form of funding from the economic stimulus plan. Unfortunately, since this was a one-time-only boost, schools were unable to hire additional people or otherwise spend the money in ways that would require long-term investment.

In 35 years, the Federal government has never lived up to their promised contribution to IDEA. Fully funding the federal government’s commitment to special education is long overdue. Yes, it is focused on school age children and doesn’t apply to autistic adults. But, it would make a big difference especially in these tough economic times when districts are faced with big budget problems.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →