Hawai'i Association for Behavior Analysis

To educate, advocate for, and support both providers and consumers 
of Applied Behavior Analysis.


Chapter 465-D Licensure of Behavior Analysts

Licensure for Behavior Analysts (Chapter 465-D) requires licensure for those who practice behavior analysis, with seven carefully crafted exemptions. The majority of the exemptions allow for students, parents/guardians, individuals pursuing practicum, etc. to practice, under the oversight of a licensed behavior analyst (LBA). 

Applied behavior analysis in the HI DOE

The Hawai'i Department of Education (HIDOE) Stance on Applied behavior analysis (ABA)

The Hawai'i Department of Education does not currently provide applied behavior analysis (ABA) services by licensed behavior analysts (LBA). The HIDOE was given until 1/1/2019 for all direct support workers (DSW) to become credentialed as Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs). 


10/2/2017

  • Oct 2, 2017 Letter - In a letter to Senator Dela Cruz, Dr. Kishimoto essentially said, "anyone can do ABA" and that "everyone is exempt in the DOE". 

11/21/2017


12/5/2017

Pending class-action lawsuit

Learn more about the pending class-action lawsuit, brought by families against the HIDOE, for failure to provide FAPE as part of IDEA. Additionally, there are ADA violations for discrimination against a protected class of US citizens, namely those with an autism diagnosis. 


R.E.B. vs. State of Hawai'i
September 13, 2017 - The panel held that the Department of Education violated the IDEA by failing to specify Applied Behavior Analysis as a teaching methodology in the IEP because this methodology was integral to the student’s education. When a particular methodology plays a critical role in the student’s educational plan, it must be specified in the IEP (Individualized Education Plan) rather than left up to individual teachers’ discretion (R.E.B vs State of Hawai'i)". LEARN MORE

Endrew F v. Douglas County

Endrew’s parents contended that the final IEP proposed by the school district was not “reasonably calculated to enable [Endrew] to receive educational benefits” and that Endrew had therefore been denied a FAPE. Rowley, 458 U. S., at 207. Endrew’s IEPs largely carried over the same basic goals and objectives from one year to the next, indicating that he was failing to make meaningful progress toward his aims. LEARN MORE Instruction Must be 'Specially Designed' to Meet 'Child's Unique Needs' Through an IEP Later, the Court returned to these concepts: “A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be ‘specially designed’ to meet a child’s ‘unique needs’ through an “[i]ndividualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) 


Justices Nix Exclusion Barring In-School Coverage for Autism Treatment

October 5, 2017 - “Ultimately, we simply do not believe that the legislature intended to permit insurers to exclude coverage in the sensory-laden educational environment where children spend large portions of their days, or to require families to litigate the issue of medical necessity discretely in individual cases to secure such location-specific coverage for the treatment,” Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, who wrote the 22-page majority opinion, said. LEARN MORE


This page was updated 1/19/2018.