S. 392 is a concurrent resolution that recognizes South Carolina as a “Technology First” state. The resolution states that the General Assembly supports exploring and understanding enabling and assistive technology as a way to help people with disabilities live more independently and participate more fully in their homes, communities, workplaces, education, transportation, and daily life.
The resolution describes assistive and enabling technology broadly, including devices, systems, methodologies, and modified or self-made tools that improve or maintain a person’s functional ability. It emphasizes that technology can reduce barriers faced by people with physical, intellectual, developmental, and other disabilities, including those in rural areas with limited transportation options. It also links technology use to supporting direct support professionals and addressing workforce pressures in disability services.
Impact
Because S. 392 is a concurrent resolution rather than a statutory bill, it does not amend the South Carolina Code or create enforceable legal requirements. Its practical effect is to express legislative support for a statewide “Technology First” approach and to encourage state agencies and disability-service partners to consider enabling and assistive technology when planning services and supports for people with disabilities. The resolution specifically references collaboration among the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, the Developmental Disabilities Council, Able South Carolina, and other organizations.
Sentiment
The available record shows a strongly supportive and noncontroversial posture toward the resolution. The committee report recommends that it pass, and the text itself is framed in affirmative, aspirational terms about independence, inclusion, and improved quality of life for South Carolinians with disabilities. No votes or committee debate transcripts are provided, but the resolution’s language suggests broad consensus around expanding access to assistive technology.
Contention
No explicit opposition or substantive controversy appears in the provided materials. The only potentially debatable policy point is the resolution’s emphasis on technology as a primary strategy for service delivery and workforce support, which could raise questions in other settings about funding, implementation, or whether technology should supplement rather than replace direct human support. However, no member, agency, or stakeholder is identified as objecting in the record provided.