Early Intervention Behavior Treatment ("EIBT")
What Is It?
What is EIBT?
EIBT is a program and phrase coined by Valley Mountain Regional Center (VMRC) located in the San Joaquin Valley of California that serves 5 counties (Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Calaveras, Amador, and Tuolumne). The EIBT program is a clearly-defined program that offers Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) to young children with autism. EIBT does have some stringent guidelines for entrance to and exiting from the program. A large document is part of the EIBT program. This document used to be called the 4-way agreement and is now called the Programs, Procedures and Guidelines (or PP&G). This 53 page document is automatically required if you accept the EIBT program for your child. Therefore, you must be fully-informed before you consent to it and the EIBT program. Remember that being fully-informed means that you have been told not only the positives of agreeing to the program, but any possible negatives. You can access the government policy/PP&G HERE and an amended version HERE.
Does my child need EIBT and/or VMRC to receive ABA treatment and therapy?
No. According to the federal law called the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act or IDEA, if your child is over the age of three years old, he or she must be provided with a Free and Appropriate Public Education or FAPE. If your child needs ABA, then the school district is responsible for providing it. EIBT is merely a funding model whereby VMRC will foot half the bill of the cost of ABA therapy in exchange for the parents to agree for their child to be a part of the EIBT program and adhere to the PP&G. There are many children that receive 35-40+ hours of ABA therapy per week that are not part of EIBT. In fact, there are children that are receiving this level of treatment that are not even VMRC clients. The fact is, your school district is responsible for your child after the age of three. If your child is under the age of three, he or she is covered under the Lanterman Act.
Is the EIBT 4-Way Agreement/Program Procedures and Guidelines legal?
While the question of legality is left up to attorneys and courts, you should be aware that a 2008 due process decision found the EIBT 4-Way/PP&G in conflict with the federal law IDEA on several points. You can read the full due process decision HERE. You should also know that a class-action lawsuit has been filed in the Eastern District of the Federal Court regarding EIBT and how it has harmed children. Many children have been harmed by the criteria and politics of the EIBT program. You can read the federal lawsuit complaint HERE and the appellate brief for this lawsuit HERE. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact us. Again, your child can receive EIBT-type services (known throughout the industry as Applied Behavioral Analysis or "ABA" ) without the criteria of the EIBT policy.
You should also know that some providers and VMRC have attached additional criteria such as Therapeutic Pathways/Kendall School observation policy released in July 2009 which includes a policy that, on its face, is retaliatory in nature. Specifically it states that if a parent has made a complaint about the program, Therapeutic Pathways/Kendall school can have their attorney present for your parental observation. Some parents have reported they are no longer allowed inside the Kendall School building and must pick up and drop off their children outside the classroom. Parents may wish to explore their feelings about leaving their children in a place they are not allowed to observe and/or observe under very strict guidelines. The rest of the Therapeutic Pathways/Kendall School Visitation and Observation Policy and Procedures can be found HERE. Parents whose children receive Therapeutic Pathways/Kendall School or other providers on a school campus and are subject to these policies that differ from the policies of general education students are encouraged to ask the providers to rescind the policies. If they refuse, we strongly recommend filing a complaint of discrimination with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR). More information on how to file a complaint with OCR can be found HERE under "Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act" or you may contact us. Update August 2009: After posting this information, we received many phone calls and emails including THIS letter from a parent.
Is EIBT a research project?
YES. Although on page 19 of 53 of the PP&G (see above), question number 33 indicates participating in research is not a requirement to participate in EIBT. We suggest specifically stating that you do not consent to your child being a part of any research project on the signature page of the IEP. There are several studies that have used EIBT children. Read CVAP's correspondence with the State of California Committee for the Protection of Human Studies HERE. These studies have come under scrutiny in professional journals. You can read about two of the studies HERE (Central Valley Autism Project or CVAP) and HERE(The Kendall School and Therapeutic Pathways).
Even though your child may not be in an ABA program provided by CVAP, Therapeutic Pathways/Kendall School, BEST, ABC or Genesis Behavior Center, your child's information may still be used for the research project. You may want to write a letter or email asking if your child is part of the research project...particularly if your child is in one of the Autism Matrix placements which you can read about HERE. This document was provided by Tara Sisemore of VMRC.
The Howard et al study prompted an ongoing debate and defense of the study. The first scrutiny of the study can be found HERE followed by the first rebuttal by Tristam Smith which can be found HERE. A special education attorney wrote a rebuttal which can be found HERE. The professional journal was compelled to publish an interesting editorial note HERE along with Howard et al's rebuttal which can be found HERE. Finally, currently the last page in this hot debate can be found HERE.
While for some, it may be a considerable amount of reading, the mission of Autism Reform is to fully-inform parents and the general public of the truth, so that people can decide for themselves what is appropriate or not appropriate regarding "criteria" that, according to lawsuits and a SEHO Judge's opinion, interfere with their child's access to EIBT ABA services. In the Howard et al rebuttal, some key points to think about if your child is or has been in EIBT:
"* The nonpublic agency that provided intensive behavior analytic treatment to the experimental group in our study has never refused to serve a child with autism who was referred to its in-home or center-based programs from any of its 17 different funding sources (Special Education Local Planning Agencies, Regional Centers, and school districts), as long as there were adequate resources to staff and supervise the programming."
We know of many children and their parents who were refused entrance into EIBT for many reasons. Some examples include: child is non-verbal, absence of english-speaking supervision in the home, child is too low-functioning, child is too high-functioning, and many more.
"* Neither the staff of the nonpublic agency nor any Regional Center staff person ever directed a child to be placed in any particular intervention program."
We know of many children and their parents who were not even told about the existence of EIBT. We know of parents that were talked out of the program ("Oh, that program is a much more restrictive program than the county autism program" or "It is very intensive!" , "Your child doesn't qualify for this program," "There is a waiting list (or "interest list")", "Your child doesn't talk. EIBT is for kids who talk," etc. One VMRC staff person has repeatedly indicated she decides who gets EIBT and who doesn't.
"* All 61 IEP/IFSP teams responsible for the educational placements of the children in the study acted in accordance with state and federal laws governing special education placement and procedures. That is, those teams--not the authors of the study or any other single individuals--decided which type of intervention children would receive."
This statement is misleading. Many parents stated that they were never told about EIBT. Some who asked about it were told similar versions of the same rejections. This all flies directly in the face of this comment. Additionally, many parents have reported that they were not given the full continuum of NPA placement options to consider . By not informing families of the "types of intervention children would receive" parents are denied relevant information and options to make fully-informed decisions about their children's choices, and ultimately, the outcome of those lives.
You should also be aware that if your child is in EIBT, they are bound to the provisions in the EIBT 4-Way/PP&G. One of these provisions is that your child may be assessed at any time. You should also be aware that your child must continually meet the 80% acquisition criteria or could face exiting from the program. If your child is facing exiting (or "transition") from EIBT, please contact us. If your child is over the age of three, the federal law called IDEA contains certain safeguards, including stay-put, that might be very important to your child.
The Point
The point of providing you with all this information is not to overwhelm parents or the public but to insure that parents and caregivers have access to all the information necessary to make a fully-informed decision regarding their children Additionally, the public is to know that when the lawsuit in defense of children's rights was filed against government agencies including Valley Mountain Regional Center, VMRC and Tara Sizemore-Hester filed a counter-suit against the parents alleging defamation, slander, libel, and malicious prosecution.
What is important to note is that parents spoke out against a government policy that discriminates against autistic children, and spoke out against the people responsible for that discrimination. Those parents spoke out to protect children and now, a counter-suit is leveled by VMRC against them for revealing the truth about a Central Valley program and the people running it.
(Original content of www.valleysnafu.com.)