DOCUMENT 3 FOI 23/24 - 0809
Position Statement on Facilitated Communication
Overview
• The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) Commission and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) do not support the use of Facilitated Communication as it is considered by AAC experts to be an unethical technique that is potentially harmful to people with complex communication needs. • Renowned national peak and international organisations who are experts in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) do not support the use of Facilitated Communication. • The NDIS Commission and NDIA recommend that NDIS participants with complex communication needs access services that provide evidence-based interventions and AAC systems that enable them to communicate independently. • There is no research evidence that Facilitated Communication is a valid form of communication for people with severe communication disabilities (Hemsley, et al., 2018) and it has implications regarding the human rights of people with disability (Chan & Nankervis, 2015). • There is also research evidence to indicate that there is facilitator influence on the messages communicated using Facilitated Communication (Schlosser, et al., 2014). • The NDIS Commission and the NDIA acknowledge that NDIS participants with complex communication needs may choose to use services that provide a range of communication interventions, and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems. It is an underlying principle of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) that NDIS participants have choice and control of their Reasonable and Necessary* Supports.
Position
The NDIS Commission and NDIA do not support the use of NDIS funds for accessing Facilitated Communication.
Description
Facilitated Communication describes a technique “whereby individuals with disabilities and communication impairments allegedly select letters by typing on a keyboard while receiving physical support, emotional encouragement, and other communication supports from facilitators” (International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2014, p357). The person with disability may receive physical support by having their elbow, shoulder, body, keyboard or communication board touched or assisted by a facilitator so that they can point, type, or select messages to communicate (Speech Pathology Australia, 2012). Facilitated communication is also referred to as ‘supported typing’ and ‘assisted typing’.
Rationale
• Systematic reviews of research literature on Facilitated Communication concluded that there is no evidence that it is a valid form of communication or that messages generated are authored by people with severe communication disabilities (Hemsley, et al., 2018, Schlosser, et al., 2014). • Scientific literature implies that Facilitated Communication contravenes a number of articles of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), of which Australia is a signatory (e.g., Chan & Nankervis, 2015).
Page 28 of 92
FOI 23/24 - 0809
• Renowned peak national and international organisations that promote evidence-based practices in AAC recommend that Facilitated Communication should not be used and that it may harm people with disabilities due to potential facilitator influence, manipulation or exploitation (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2018; International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2014; Speech Pathology Australia, 2012; Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals and Disabilities Inc.; 2014).
Recommendations
• There are many evidence-based augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems (i.e., techniques, communication devices or equipment) available to support people with complex communication support needs that are more appropriate and effective than Facilitated Communication. • NDIS participants should be supported to transition from the use of Facilitated Communication to evidence-based interventions and AAC systems. • NDIS participants should obtain an assessment by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in evidence-based interventions and AAC systems. The AAC assessment should focus on the participant’s communication and cognitive competence, optimal positioning and access methods to promote independent communication.
Reference list
(To be finalised)
Page 29 of 92