S. 2424 Letter

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
478 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) submits this letter to discuss a bill that you are sponsoring, Senate Bill 2424, the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2015. The NAD appreciates your commitment to ensuring quality services for deaf and hard of hearing babies and their families, and we offer recommendations for changes to the bill.

Founded in 1880, National Association of the Deaf represents 48 million deaf and hard of hearing people by being the nation’s premier civil rights organization of, by, and for deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the United States. The advocacy scope of the NAD is broad, covering the full lifespan and impacting future generations in the areas of early intervention, education, employment, health care, technology, telecommunications, youth leadership, and more –improving the lives of millions of deaf and hard of hearing Americans. The NAD also carries out its federal advocacy work through coalition efforts with specialized national deaf and hard of hearing organizations, as well as coalitions representing national cross-disability organizations.

We recognize and commend the effectiveness of universal newborn hearing screening, which through the hard work of many has reached a success rate of 95% identification of deaf and hard of hearing newborns.1 However, while screenings have proven extremely effective, the same cannot be said of follow-up practices to provide early intervention services to deaf and hard of hearing infants and their families. Studies show that only 56%-68% of infants receive early intervention services after being identified as deaf or hard of hearing.2 The NAD is extremely concerned that the appropriate services are not being provided to these families.

Current research, including that of Dr. Yoshinaga-Itano, shows that appropriate early intervention for deaf and hard of hearing babies by qualified service providers results in age-appropriate language development in the first five years of life for 80% of these infants.3 This research emphasizes the importance of early intervention services following universal newborn hearing screening. The NAD supports new language in the current proposed Senate Bill 2424 that seeks to add “sign language” (Sec. 399M(a)(1)(B)), and “mechanisms that foster family-to-family and deaf and hard-of-hearing consumer-to-family supports” (Sec. 399M(a)(1)(C)). However, those changes will not be enough. To ensure that families of deaf and hard of hearing infants receive the full range of services they need, the bill should emphasize an educational approach. Specifically, the bill should include language that mandates deaf and hard of hearing infants and their families receive family-centered educational services pursuant to Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The NAD asks that the bill recognize the benefits of American Sign Language and English for all deaf and hard of hearing infants. According to the Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2), a research center funded by the National Science Foundation and recognized by the White House for its innovative applications to education, early exposure to American Sign Language confers significant, lasting benefits on the young deaf child, including cognitive processing, language, and reading advantages, and supports the acquisition of spoken and written English.4, 5 Studies show that families are not given sufficient information about ASL and its ability to support language acquisition — whether signed, spoken, or written — by their deaf or hard of hearing child.6 It is essential that families of newly identified deaf and hard of hearing infants receive this information.

The NAD recommends renaming this bill the “Early Family Support Act,” given that the words “detection” and “intervention” have negative connotations. In addition to changing the title, the NAD proposes incorporating theattached amendments, which were developed by the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and the California Association of the Deaf. These amendments focus on monitoring language access, establishing quality indicators, and mandating that service providers possess specialized knowledge and skills. Our proposed amendments also focus on removing redundancy in government-operated programs. For instance, the current bill funds the Health Resources and Services Agency (HRSA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to handle duties that the U.S. Department of Education (ChildFind) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HeadStart) already perform. Premier national advocacy and education-related organizations, including the Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf (CEASD), American Society for Deaf Children(ASDC), and the Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf, Inc. along with National Association of the Deaf (NAD) support those amendments and urge you to incorporate them.

In addition, the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH), comprised of a diverse range of organizations that support quality services for deaf and hard of hearing infants has developed comprehensive guidelines for EHDI programs to establish strong early intervention systems and to emphasize the importance of language access and family support, which is parallel with the proposed amendments.7 It is time to make the most efficient use of our federal resources by redirecting the follow up services to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Education and begin to focus on the quality of services families receive.

Thank you for your consideration and support. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to contact Tawny Holmes, the NAD Education Policy Counsel, at [email protected] or by phone at (240) 450-2626.

Sincerely,
Howard A. Rosenblum, Esq.
Chief Executive Officer
1 Summary of 2012 National CDC EHDI Data,” September 2014, http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hearingloss/2012– data/2012_ehdi_hsfs_summary_b.pdf

2 Shulman, Shanna, et al. “Evaluation of the universal newborn hearing screening and intervention program.” Pediatrics 126. Supplement 1 (2010): S19-S27.

3 Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2006). Early Identification, Communication Modality, and the Development of Speech and Spoken Language Skills: Patterns and Considerations. In M. Marschark & P.E. Spencer, Advances in the spoken language of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 298-327.

4 Snoddon, K. (2008). American Sign Language and early intervention. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 581-604. See more at http://videocatalog.gallaudet.edu/?video=16830.

5 Kovelman, I., Berens, M., & Petitto, L. A. (2013). Learning to read in two languages: Should bilingual children learn reading in two languages at the same time or in sequence? Evidence of a bilingual reading advantage in children in bilingual schools from monolingual English-only homes. Bilingual Research Journal. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2013.779618.

6 Mellon et al. Should All Deaf Children Learn Sign Language? Pediatrics. 2015;136(1):170–176 7 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, (JCIH), www.jcih.org. 

7 Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, (JCIH), www.jcih.org.