To Whom it May Concern, 

My name is Leticia Garcia, I am an Indigenous Latinx Autistic woman, disability advocate and Director of Neurodiversity and Autistic Health at a local nonprofit (views expressed are my own). I have a Master’s Degree in Psychology/Translational Neuroscience from the University of Oregon. I have supported neurodivergent children and families through education, skill-building and advocacy efforts over the past ten years, including by supporting individuals and families through the DDS application process. At the time of this letter, I have been involved in four DDS applications in various capacities. Sometimes clients request that I attend DDS meetings and evaluations with them. My role is to provide clients with emotional support and provide an outside perspective that can help bridge the gap between clients and professionals. I believe in person-centered care and encourage clients to take the lead in the process. Often, I limit my interactions to asking clarifying questions and encouraging clients to consider aspects of their experience they take for granted or otherwise view as irrelevant, but may provide important contextual information. It has been my experience generally that DDS professionals welcome my presence and are receptive to my feedback. As a result, I have until recently held high regard for the DDS process, felt that it is fair, effective and beneficial. 

My previous experiences rendered me completely unprepared for my experience with evaluator on 11/22/2023 while supporting the application of an adolescent, S.L. I was so shocked by the evaluator’s behavior that I began keeping detailed notes in real time. I then debriefed with S.L.’s parents immediately after the evaluation to ensure that my notes were unbiased according to our shared recollections. The contents of this letter were written within days of the evaluation and approved by all parties. I am sending this letter at a later date out of respect for the family who needed time to make sense of their traumatic experience and focus on next steps in the DDS process before taking on the mental load of this process. All the information included in this letter has been reviewed by myself and both of S.L.’s parents and represents, to the best of our shared recollection, an unbiased and accurate account. In this letter I will directly quote the evaluator. Quotes that appear in italicized text are paraphrased from memory, while those in quotation marks are direct quotes recorded verbatim and in real time. I will also include information about the evaluator’s prejudicial and discriminatory behaviors and assumptions.

I have worked extensively with S.L. and his family over the past three years. Like S.L., both parents identify as Autistic and requested I attend the evaluation for emotional support and to provide an outside perspective. The attitude was generally positive and we looked forward to the evaluation. The evaluation took place at S.L.’s home. Upon his arrival, the parents introduced me to the evaluator as their disability advocate. I greeted the evaluator, briefly shared the context of my work and disclosed that I am Autistic. He did not reciprocate the greeting and instead with a stern and dismissive tone asked, Why are you here? It’s not that serious. It was clear to the three of us that the evaluator was agitated about my presence from the onset. I was surprised because this reaction was unprofessional and unprecedented. In an attempt to assuage his reactivity, I maintained a friendly disposition and explained again the context of my work and involvement. While this did not improve the situation, I was committed to centering my clients and maintaining a positive and collaborative attitude. 

The evaluator then began to explain his role, stating that his job was to confirm whether or not S.L. has Autism. Immediately, S.L.’s parents began to panic. They, like many parents of children with Level 1 Autism, have experienced invalidation by people who question their child’s Autism diagnosis because he is labeled ‘high-functioning.’ Noticing this, I asked the evaluator to please clarify and shared my understanding that his role was not to question an existing diagnosis, but to confirm or deny eligibility for services based on that diagnosis. He was visibly upset that I questioned him and became short with me, but he did backtrack and reluctantly agreed. In my opinion, it is a basic necessity that DDS evaluators know how to accurately explain the scope of their work to clients.

During the narrative, the evaluator made several prejudicial and discriminatory comments that were irrelevant to our objective and his role in that context. For instance, when the mother explained that S.L.’s Autistic behaviors were present since preschool, the evaluator asked, Do you think he struggled in that environment because you were too involved as a mother? She was visibly affected by his question as she hunched her shoulders and broke eye contact, then became silent. Extensive research contradicts outdated and sexist assumptions that a child’s Autistic behaviors and traits result from bad parenting, specifically bad mothering. I believe that the evaluator may be demonstrating a pattern of unconscious bias wherein he may consciously agree with the aforementioned statement, but unconsciously harbor unexamined and contradictory opinions and assumptions. Whatever the case, it is entirely inappropriate, unprofessional and irrelevant to the DDS evaluation to pose such a question. It is noteworthy that this and all future criticisms of parenting style were directed solely at the mother and not at all at the father. When we debriefed after the evaluation, the father shared that he felt excluded from the process and that the evaluator addressed most questions to the mother.

When asking about family history, both parents disclosed that they believe themselves to be Autistic. The evaluator scoffed and dismissed their self-disclosure by stating sarcastically, Don’t you think that’s heavy representation? After an uncomfortable pause, the evaluator asked if S.L.’s younger sibling had Autism and then interrupted the mother in the midst of her response to ask if the sibling’s development was normal. Due to the fact that the evaluator was in the habit of interrupting and not providing ample time for responses, there was a miscommunication. The mother communicated that yes, she believed S.L.’s sibling to be Autistic and as recommended by teachers was considering a formal assessment. However, the evaluator misheard her as stating that yes, her daughter’s development was normal. In response to this miscommunication, he sighed in relief and stated in an exaggerated tone, Oh good! Implying that being Autistic was somehow bad or undesirable; an outdated, dehumanizing and ableist attitude toward disability. This was made all the more stigmatizing by the fact that all four of the people in the room had disclosed that we were Autistic. 

During the ABAS assessment, the evaluator continued to interrupt and rush both parents. I grew increasingly concerned because I felt that parents were not given enough time to voice their opinion. Once the evaluator interrupted the parents and indicated out loud that he would score S.L. higher than parents preferred because, He seems fine. This was alarming to me because the evaluator only met S.L. for fifteen minutes and was undervaluing the input of parents who know him best. I then encouraged the parents to clearly state their feedback and be sure to include how they would rate their child’s skills because their input was valuable in the decision making process. At this the evaluator became completely unhinged. He raised his voice and shouted at me saying, I am the deciding factor. It is my decision how I rate S.L.! I clarified that I understood this, but that surely it would be okay for the parents to voice their opinion and be given more time to share their reasoning. The evaluator, with his voice continually raised, stated, they could just be lying and it’s my job to decide if they are being truthful. I was completely shocked by this response. I have known S.L. and his family for four years and felt that their responses were completely honest and reasonable. Further, the evaluator wasn’t giving the parents time to fully share their feedback nor listen to specific ratings, thus not having enough information to make an informed opinion either way. His paranoia and the perceived threat he felt I posed to his authority and expertise were clearly clouding his judgment and overriding his ethical responsibility and professionalism. However, I was worried that my continued protestations might anger him and result in further harm to S.L. and his family. So, I asked if we could simply move on to the next question and decided internally to let the matter go. The evaluator stared aggressively at me for several silent seconds, wordlessly refusing to continue the assessment. I asked again if we could move forward and after several more moments, he rolled his eyes at me, scoffed and continued. To his credit, and despite his lack of professionalism, the evaluator did begin to offer the parents more time to speak, solicit their feedback and rate fairly after his emotional outburst.

It was at this moment that I began writing the evaluator’s statements verbatim on my cell phone. The evaluator posed several ableist and racist statements and questions during the remaining time. At one point when the evaluator was soliciting information about S.L.’s social skills, he stated, “I have an Autistic family friend, so I know that Autistic people are hard to be around. Is your child hard to be around?” His question was vague in that it didn’t ask about specific behavior traits or characteristics, but drew from and reinforced ableist stereotypes that stigmatize Autistic people as being socially undesirable and views them from a deficit perspective. As a result it did not lead to meaningful discussion that was relevant to the assessment. Once the evaluator solicited information about S.L.’s social skills using the following example: “Does S.L. ever do awkward things like point to a Black person and say, ‘why is his skin so Black?’” I understand the need to provide examples that may help clarify a question, but this example is inappropriate for a White or White adjacent person to use casually in a professional context. I question how the use of such an example would have affected the process or outcome of a similar evaluation within a Black family. Certainly, it would carry the risk of being racially traumatizing. As a woman of color, I was deeply offended and affected by this question. Later when the parents shared S.L.’s bathing schedule and how it is affected by extreme avoidance and sensory issues, the evaluator asked in a judgemental tone why they did not bathe their child more often. His affect indicated disgust. He then asked them how often they as parents bathe. This question was offensive, violating and intrusive. The mother also expressed concerns about the fact that the evaluator asked several times about her religion and what holidays they celebrate. She wasn’t sure how that related to the assessment. These questions were posed during that actual assessment itself and not in the beginning or end of the process as you might expect during small talk. 

To conclude the assessment, the evaluator stated, “If I don’t send paperwork right away, I’ll forget who the hell you are,” explained the next steps in the process and packed his belongings. I was sitting in a chair and he came near me, bent over and spoke to me in the most condescending tone with which I’ve ever been addressed. It was almost as if he was talking to a toddler. He apologized for being rude to me earlier. I did not feel it was a genuine apology and recognized that the damage to myself and my clients had already been done. I also questioned internally if he felt the need to speak condescendingly to me because I had disclosed that I am Autistic and sometimes people harbor unconscious biases that cause them to infantilize people with disabilities.Upon debriefing the experience with parents after the evaluator left, they expressed feelings of deep discomfort and felt the need to “go compliant” during the evaluation for fear of retribution. As you may know, this form of dissociative obedience is a trauma response to abuse, whether interpersonal or systemic. 

In my ten years of working with the IDD community, I have never experienced such blatant prejudice and abuse of power as I have with the evaluator on 11/22/2023 during S.L.’s DDS evaluation. While it is my opinion that the results of the evaluation are accurate and I am pleased that S.L. is receiving the support he requires and deserves, I have concerns that the evaluator’s toxic behavior has the potential to traumatize families with less privilege, while limiting their access to services. Many marginalized families cannot afford to hire an independent disability advocate who will provide oversight, report concerning instances and emotionally support them through a traumatizing evaluation process. Those families are vulnerable to evaluators like him. This letter is for us and it is for them. 

I would like to receive any and all updates regarding the outcome of this incident report, and will be in contact in the absence of such updates. 

Thank you, 

Leticia Garcia