ASA Policy Statement on Facilitated Communication

Autism Society of America
7910 Woodmont Avenue Suite 300 •  Bethesda, MD 20814-3067 301.657.0881 •  fax: 301.657.0869 www.autism-society.org
FACILITATED COMMUNICATION

Extensive media coverage has chronicled facilitated communication. Early claims of high success rates have since been drastically toned down, and reckless talk of “miracles” is now muted. FC is a controversial subject. The advocates of FC are adamantly supportive of FC, while the opponents are just as adamantly opposed to it. There is little common ground. Here is what each side says: Facilitated communication is one of several communication options that may be appropriate for use with individuals with autism. Originated in Melbourne, Australia by Rosemary Crosley, the method was introduced to the United States in 1989 by Douglas Biklen, Ph.D., Director of Special Education at Syracuse University.

The technique involves a “facilitator” who supports the hand, arm, or shoulder of a communicatively impaired individual. This method assists the person with impairment to extend an index finger and either point to or press the keys of a typing or other communication device. If successful, the individual who was previously unable to communicate can then do so through typing or spelling out words. The level of communication ability expressed through “FC” varies from individual to individual, and not all persons with whom the technique is applied are successful in communicating.
The question of authorship remains a concern in light of research studies that indicate either conscious or unconscious facilitator influence. Scientific evidence favors the position that the words produced through FC invariable come from the facilitator and are not independent communication. Critics believe that if the individual is actually typing with out facilitator influence, any trained facilitator should achieve a comparable typing ability in that individual. Numerous carefully controlled experimental studies, some of which were performed by researchers who initially were believers in FC, show that it is not the individual who determines what is said. Advocates of facilitated communication reject articles citing these studies on the basis that a controlled testing environment negates the trust level required in FC. Advocates counter the argument of facilitator influence with arguments of improper testing conditions and report evidence of individuals typing information of which facilitators had no prior

knowledge, or with individualized communication-styles differing from that of the facilitator.
Proponents tell of remarkable gains in academic achievement and social acceptance by individuals with disabilities in the school systems, while critics are concerned that schools are using tax dollars for a technique that is not scientifically validated.
Advocates cite cases of individuals with autism achieving independent typing status as a rationale for continued support the technique, and argue that denying an individual “FC” is denying him the dignity of communicating his own thoughts, feelings and ideas. Critics question authorship in light of research studies which suggest either conscious or unconscious facilitator influence, they argue that the thoughts and ideas believed to be that of the individual typing may in fact be those of the facilitator.

Thus the denial of communication is compounded by manipulation. Critics argue that further research should be conducted before the use of FC spreads.
The Autism Society of America supports a policy of parent choice when determining the appropriateness of all treatment options currently available to the autism community. The ASA Board of Directors believes that every family should be allowed the opportunity to investigate and select treatment options they believe are most appropriate for their family member with autism. Since autism varies widely in its manifestation from individual to individual, no one therapy or method will work for all individuals with autism. ASA attempts to provide parents with information on all aspects of a treatment or procedure, to help them become educated in order to make a decision based on the unique and individualized needs of the person with autism.

Rather than endorsing one treatment over another, thereby characterizing methods as “best” or “worst”, “good” or “bad”, ASA chooses to let the decision remain in the hands of those who know the individual with autism best. Parents, siblings, the individual with autism himself and other primary caregivers are much more knowledgeable about their child or adult with autism than anyone else. The Society believes that our function is to distribute current information from which decisions can be made, provide guidance as to the decision making process, but not make those decisions on behalf of the total autism community. The autism professional community currently disagrees about the validity of facilitated communication. As we expect this controversy to continue while more research and a variety of newer testing methods are devised to further define the procedure, the Autism Society of America neither condemns nor condones facilitated communication. However, as with any treatment option, we urge interested individuals to thoroughly investigate this technique and the situations in which it may be applied, to educate themselves to the pros and cons of the treatment option, before making a decision on the appropriateness of the use of “FC” with a son, daughter, sibling or patient. We hope the enclosed materials aid you in that effort.