Donate

August 1, 2006: BIN is calling for a system of regulation, review and standards nationwide for utilization in college disability programs.

Regulation, Review and Standards for College-Level Disability Programs Are Needed

REGULATION OF COLLEGE DISABILITY PROGRAMS:
There needs to be regulation of college disability programs. If someone is mistreated at a hospital or nursing home, in California there is a state agency regulator that can be contacted so that an investigation will be launched and conducted. There needs to be such a system for college disability programs, so that if there is a criminal event or harm or even death comes to a student when they are at a college, the student or the victim’s family, or other concerned citizens can make a complaint that will be investigated, and appropriate corrective action will be undertaken. As it is now, who even has the authority to investigate a college’s disability programming or order a college to improve the quality of its disability related programming?
REVIEW OF COLLEGE DISABILITY PROGRAMS:
Who reviews these college disability programs to determine if they are up to standard? What is the standard they must meet? Has anyone set down a standard that they must meet to qualify as a good disability program? We don’t think so. Sometimes we have self-promoting service providers who work at colleges announcing to the world via conferences, web sites, etc. that they have instigated model programs, or that they have created the best programs around. Who is to say that that is true without sophisticated, theoretical review? And sometimes there will be crackerjack programs, but how can they stand out when they have to compete with lesser quality programs if there is no independent, critical review that establishes what truly is a good or even exceptional program. Such review will also help consumers make educated choices regarding their college disability program selections. Statewide and even nationwide standards, along the lines of CARF standards and methods of review, are needed in these college disability programs.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT COLLEGE DISABILITY PROGRAMS:
Further, in California members of the public may review the statistics about hospitals, nursing homes, etc. Where is any record about the efficacy of a college disability program maintained, that the public can research in order to decide which college disability programs are good programs? Information is maintained regarding whether or not hospitals and nursing homes meet standards to properly care for their patients. Deficiencies are reported. It is our understanding that no such statewide regulatory system exists regarding college disability programs. If and when regulations are formulated regarding college disability programs, there will need to be a database the public can access to read about the quality of a college’s disability related programming, the deficiencies of any program and the corrective actions required to meet basic standards.
Although our experience is in California, BINSCI invites residents of other states to pursue similar legislation in their own states.
CONCLUSION:
What goes on in Santa Rosa, California, is just a microcosm of the whole United States. So we invite people reading this in other states to share in their own environment this material with survivors of brain injury, family members of survivors, and service professionals. We invite institutions, agencies and governments to study this material. We invite college and school boards; local and state level departments, hospital and medical care systems, state and federal political entities, professional organizations, nonprofit entities, and regulatory and policing agencies, to study these materials. We would like international, national, state and local agencies that represent people with brain injuries to incorporate our recommendations in their public policy mandates.
We also invite individuals such as ADA specialists; attorneys specializing in civil rights, benefits or personal injury; specialists and coordinators (community reintegrative, family, information and resource, prevention, respite, technology, and recreation); disability advocates; disability counselors; disability service providers; legislators; medical specialists (including neurologists, neurosurgeons, neuropsychiatrists, nurses, physiatrists, clinical psychologists, rehabilitation psychologists, and neuropsychologists); policemen; private practitioners; program administrators and ombudsmen; psychiatric technicians; rehabilitation specialists; social workers; special education teachers; and therapists (cognitive, occupational, movement and orientation, physical, speech, etc.); and the press to review and act upon this material.
Frankly, we would like any caregiver (anyone who cares for these people) or anyone who flat out cares about these people, to digest this material. We would like anyone who supervises programs for people with brain injuries; or treats, rehabilitates, educates, counsels, or job coaches people with brain injuries, to reflect on this material. We would also like anyone who claims to represent people with brain injuries to read and act upon this material. Sometimes I feel as though there is a big bus carrying all of you down the road on your missions in the service of the brain injury community, but the survivor of brain injury was accidentally left off the bus at the side of the road
And now there is one last category of people, survivors of brain injury, like me, who run brain injury agencies or support groups. If you are someone like that, I would very much like to make your acquaintance via the Internet. Would you like to interact? Please email me. We should network more.
Thank you for reading.
Sue Hultberg, M.A., J.D.
Thesis: Traumatic Brain Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation: Survivors’ Perspectives (1996)
Brain Injury Survivor (1985)
See also: Cautionary Tale