Personal Services...Services of a Personal Nature
She is right. Refer to 28 CFR Part 35 and on white background, black font is used. And print it out…black toner fills the font on white paper.
But…is she wrong too? The issue of Services of a Personal Nature is complex. It includes simple things like putting a coat on the back of a kid this winter as he walks out of your facility, and complex decisions such as whether a nurse will be provided for a boy with autism who also has diabetes and needs an insulin injection.
This is a newsletter, not a novel, so we will focus on “dressing” as it applies to disability and Supports of a Personal Nature.
First, define the word “dressing”. A summer camp Site Director at a prominent northwest suburban Chicago parks and recreation agency told me “We can't touch the kids. Can't rub suntan lotion on them and certainly can't help them in the bathroom. So how can we help them change clothes?” So what is dressing? If I have rolled my ankle in a basketball game at your facility and your staff member takes my shoe and sock off to look at the ankle; then put chemical ice on my ankle and put my sock back on… is that dressing me? Is putting a coat on the back of a child running out of a gym in December really the act of “dressing” him? I don't think either of these examples are “dressing” that person. Dressing in this context ought to be limited to the entire act of clothing a person who, because of disability, cannot otherwise clothe himself. Included would be socks. underwear, pants, shirt, shoes, sweater, hat, gloves or coat.
Second, look at the second to the last clause in that definition above. Is this person’s inability to dress himself due to his disability? Look at the example above. If I roll my ankle does that make me a guy with a disability? No. Your staff just took my sock off and put it back on as an act of kindness (and perhaps proactive risk management). It stretches the imagination to describe this as a service of a personal nature.
Third, as the Department of Justice likes to say, let the principles of the ADA drive the outcome. The point of the ADA is to get people with disabilities into your door and using public facilities. If a registrant with Down Syndrome doesn't realize that it is 10 degrees below zero and is walking out of your building without his coat on, isn't it just an act of humanity or common sense to grab his coat and put his arms through the sleeves and then zip him up? Recreation staffs, preschool staffs, and after-school staffs must do this single act hundreds of times a month in the winter, and most of the time it is for kids without disabilities.
Fourth, let’s go back to defining the act of dressing or clothing someone else. Few, if any of us are opposed to helping someone put shoes on their feet. Few of us are opposed to putting someone’s sock on their foot. Few of us are opposed to helping someone get a shirt on their back. Perhaps a few more of us are opposed to helping someone pull their pants on. But bingo, most of us probably draw the comfort line at putting someone’s underwear on them. So is this really more about that one act, as opposed to all of the other things that constitute clothing a person? And if it is about that one act, are there protocols we can put in place that protect against indecent touching, embarrassment, and other subjects taboo for this newsletter?
So what’s the message here?
First, don't make this complex, unless it has to be. Medical supports, for example, are complex. But dressing isn't, in my opinion. Nor is “assistance in…toileting.” Nor is “assistance in eating.”
Second, remember the ADA title II regulation sets a floor, not a ceiling. Your agency can choose to provide Services of a Personal Nature when doing so is the right thing to do.
Third, the Department of Justice technical assistance paper for child care centers addresses personal services See questions 14, 15, and 16. While they don't answer every hypothetical, the message is clear.
See http://www.ada.gov/childq%26a.htm. By the way, just a reminder that this paper was written for private entities. Governments must meet a higher standard.