Position Statement on Facilitated Communication

The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (NDIS Commission) acknowledges 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.
There is no research evidence that Facilitated Communication (FC) 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). Many peak national and international organisations do not support the use of FC.

The NDIS Commission does not support the use of FC as it is considered by AAC experts to be an unethical technique that is potentially harmful to people with complex communication needs.

The NDIS Commission recommends that NDIS participants with complex communication needs access services that provide evidence-based interventions and AAC systems that enable them to communicate independently.

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).

Evidence

A recent systematic review of research literature on FC 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).
Scientific literature implies that FC 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).
Peak national and international organisations that promote evidence-based practices in AAC recommend that FC 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).
There are many evidence-based 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 FC.

Note: References to be finalised

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission