Introduction to the Special Issue on Disability Policy in a Time of Change.

Romero (2017) opens a special journal issue on U.S. disability policy. The paper is an editorial, not a new experiment.

It maps big policy shifts that affect kids and adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The author invites behavior analysts to step into policy debates instead of staying in clinic rooms.

No new data are given. The piece sums up calls from other authors in the issue: we need clearer policy tools, steady funding, and practitioner voices at the table.

Bottom line: if BCBAs stay silent, laws and budgets will be written without input from the people who know the science best.

Saloner et al. (2019) later showed that state autism insurance mandates can double outpatient service use. Their numbers back up the editorial’s plea for analyst involvement—policy choices directly change how much therapy kids receive.

Detrich et al. (2025) extends the argument further. They say an ABA procedure is not truly “applied” until it is widely used outside the lab. This reframing makes policy work part of the science itself, not an extra chore.

Campos et al. (2017) gives teams a ready-made tool: combine logic models with systems thinking to test if a disability law actually helps people. The editorial sets the stage; Claudia’s framework shows one way to act on it.

You write behavior plans, but lawmakers write the rules that decide if those plans get funded. Romero (2017) reminds us that commenting on proposed rules, joining state disability councils, or sharing data with legislators is practitioner work, not a hobby. When BCBAs bring graphs and client stories to public hearings, policies tilt toward evidence instead of politics. Start small: pick one pending bill that affects your clients and submit a one-page statement before the comment window closes.