RSA-509 for FY-2016: Submission #115

State name Ohio

Report through date 9/30/2016

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

Name Disability Rights Ohio

Address 50 West Broad St, Suite 1400

Address 2 {Empty}

City Columbus

State {Empty}

Zip Code 43215

E-mail Address mkirkman@disabilityrightsohio.org

Website Address http://www.disabilityrightsohio.org/

Phone (614) 466-7264

TTY Phone (614) 728-2553

Toll-free Phone (800) 282-9181

Toll-free TTY Phone (800) 858-3542

Fax (614) 644-1888

Name of P&A Executive Director Michael Kirkman

Name of PAIR Director/Coordinator Michael Kirkman

Person to contact regarding report Debbie Higginson

Contact Person phone (614) 466-7264

Contact Person phone ext 175

Part I. Non-Case Services

A. Individual Information and Referral Services (I&R)

1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas 45

2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas 432

3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2) 477

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff 23

2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate) 999

Training (73422) (70 trained) (150 received information) A disability rights attorney provided a training to 70 individuals regarding fair housing and housing rights. The training was in a presentation style format and the audience included service providers, people with disabilities, property owners, and housing advocates.(76418) (80 trained) A disability rights attorney and a DRO board member provided a CLE training for legal services at the annual program wide meeting. Attendees received information regarding the ethical rules' application to clients with diminished capacity and practical strategies for facilitating communication with clients with certain disabilities.* People with disabilities are disproportionately represented in the low-income communities served by LSC-funded legal aid programs. This training should have an impact on this population via the legal aid attorneys who made up the audience for this presentation.(72481) (40 trained) (100 received information) DRO provided a training at the annual Home Choice conference attended by older adults, persons with disabilities, families, caregivers, service providers, and health care professionals from across the State of Ohio. Individuals attending the panel discussion were trained on the importance of transportation as a civil rights issue for people with disabilities and provide effective tools for self-advocacy in transportation.(76755) (20 trained) DRO collaborated with Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO) to provide a training to members of the Ohio Housing Finance Agency regarding the Fair Housing Amendments Act and the rights of people with disabilities in the housing context.(75583) (30 trained) DRO staff provided a training to the Federation of Families Support Group regarding special education rights and specific advocacy and remedy strategies. The support group members were composed of parents, foster parents, grandparents and education and social work professionals.(74743) (25 trained) A disability rights attorney and advocate provided a training to Social Work students from the Ohio State University about disability rights, advocacy for individuals across all disabilities and their responsibilities as social workers.(75536) (Five trained) A disability rights attorney trained new Long term Care Ombudsmen from Cleveland, Toledo and Dayton on the Protection and Advocacy system in Ohio, guardianship, Recovery Requires a Community, Home Choice and community resources for people with disabilities.* Educated advocates who serve individuals in nursing homes.(75893) (30 trained) A disability rights attorney provided a training to parents of children with disabilities. Attendees received training on behavior plans, functional behavior assessments and discipline. Additionally, the attorney provided a brief advice clinic to the families in attendance to assist with specific IEP issues and provide information to advocate for their children.* Training provided

testarea {Empty}

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff 0

2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles 0

3. PSAs/videos aired 0

4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website 491310

5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated 1

6. Other (specify separately) 0

Narrative Disability Rights Ohio, via its website, produces daily updates and a variety of publications. Additionally, Disability Rights Ohio maintains a Facebook page and a Twitter feed and uses these tools to reach additional audiences, post agency announcements and disability-related stories and news. Disability Rights Ohio also uses Constant Contact to deliver news updates, press releases and other disability-related information. In FY 2016 there have been 42 Constant Contact disseminations to 2813 individuals and organizations.

Part II. Individuals Served

A. Individuals Served

1. Individuals still served as of October 1 (carryover from prior FY) 69

2. Additional individuals served during the year 631

3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2) 700

4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.) 30

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 92

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility 52

2. Employment 101

3. Program access 9

4. Housing 88

5. Government benefits/services 84

6. Transportation 24

7. Education 173

8. Assistive technology 3

9. Voting 0

10. Health care 63

11. Insurance 1

12. Non-government services 2

13. Privacy rights 4

14. Access to records 0

15. Abuse 11

16. Neglect 37

17. Other 67

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor 556

2. Other representation found 22

3. Individual withdrew complaint 44

4. Appeals unsuccessful 5

5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc 3

6. PAIR withdrew from case 0

7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources 0

8. Individual case lacks legal merit 10

9. Other 0

Please explain na

E. Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy 82

2. Short-term assistance 500

3. Investigation/monitoring 19

4. Negotiation 25

5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution 3

6. Administrative hearings 1

7. Litigation 4

8. Systemic/policy activities 6

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

1. 0 - 4 4

2. 5 - 22 190

3. 23 - 59 349

4. 60 - 64 62

5. 65 and over 95

B. Gender of Individuals Served

1. Females 346

2. Males 354

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race 8

2. American Indian or Alaskan Native 0

3. Asian 1

4. Black or African American 88

5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1

6. White 347

7. Two or more races 4

8. Race/ethnicity unknown 245

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

1. Independent 368

2. Parental or other family home 194

3. Community residential home 2

4. Foster care 0

5. Nursing home 64

6. Public institutional living arrangement 2

7. Private institutional living arrangement 2

8. Jail/prison/detention center 39

9. Homeless 7

10. Other living arrangements 12

11. Living arrangements not known 10

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

2. Deaf/hard of hearing 37

4. Orthopedic impairment 139

5. Mental illness 42

6. Substance abuse 3

7. Mental retardation 16

8. Learning disability 70

9. Neurological impairment 117

10. Respiratory impairment 28

11. Heart/other circulatory impairment 25

12. Muscular/skeletal impairment 64

13. Speech impairment 12

14. AIDS/HIV 5

15. Traumatic brain injury 8

16. Other disability 80

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities 6

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes 716750

Describe your systemic activities. (65753) (10000 impacted) The Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) has, over the past several years, been revising its rules on the NF level of care. This year, ODM was revising its rules regarding LOC criteria, how LOC is determined, etc. for people seeking admission to a NF or enrollment on a ODM-administered waiver. DRO reviewed the changes to remain apprised of new changes to LOC rules and provided input on how these changes affect people with disabilities rights.(70235) (570,000) impacted) Managed care plans were not providing information on care management to families in a way that was accessible and allowed for them to enroll. Without access to information on their rights, children with special health care needs were receiving denials of services, were not able to access services and supports, and were not able to get the assistive technology that they needed to live in the community. DRO advocated for the rights of children with special health care needs to the Ohio Department of Medicaid, the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, and the managed care plans. DRO also collaborated with Advocates for Basic Legal Equity, Autism Society of Ohio, Ohio Center for Autism and Low Incidence and Voices for Ohios Children to conduct a comprehensive review of the plans' websites to ensure accessibility and that all content was provided in clear language to allow people with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities to understand their plan.DRO worked with care management plans and Medicaid to establish what a clear definition of care management and care management expectations are for children with special health care needs. The managed care plans have updated their websites and have provided clarified information on case management to clients. This change allows individuals to access information more easily and understand what their rights are and what services they can request from their managed care plan to assist in providing medical care for their child with special health care needs.(71875) (34500 impacted) This past FY, Ohio received initial approval of their transition plan to implement the new HCBS rules requirements. Throughout this process, DRO provided comments and feedback on the transition plan. The state incorporated a few suggestions of DRO, including that the transition plan now properly includes a commitment to consider input from people with disabilities who receive HCBS services and their families in determining a setting's compliance with the new CMS rules. Disability Rights Ohio continues to advocate, ensuring that the CMS rules are implemented in a timely manner, and that there are appropriate enforcement mechanisms for people to challenge any setting that is not in compliance with the new rules.(72091) (100,000 impacted) DRO monitored a bill that would establish a disability history awareness month. DRO staff and board worked to educate legislators about disability history and awareness and the importan

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts 451500

2. Number of individuals named in class actions 5

Describe your litigation/class action activities. (66540) (250,000 impacted) Class Action: Doe v State of Ohio-- --This class action suit alleges the state of Ohio does not provide adequate resources to school districts, denying children their federally mandated right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). In February 2012, U.S. District Judge Michael Watson upheld the right of students with disabilities to bring suit against the state of Ohio, the Governor and the Ohio Department of Education to enforce the plaintiffs' rights to appropriate resources for the provision of special education services under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This FY, the legal team is working with several experts who conducted data analyses, observed classrooms, and reviewed student records, and developed reports that demonstrate the inadequacies in the services students receive and how the State is violating the IDEA for students in Ohio.(70314) (200,000 impacted) An unnamed class member of Doe v. State of Ohio initiated a lawsuit against his school district and the State of Ohio for violations of the IDEA. The State argued the case should be dismissed because the action was barred, in part, due to the Doe Consent Order entered into in 2009. The State incorrectly interpreted the Consent Order and misapplied the doctrine of res judicata. DRO submitted amicus brief to inform the court of the correct meaning and terms of the Doe Consent Order and that res judicata does not bar claims of a class member that arise after entry of the Order. The plaintiff in the case submitted an amended complaint, and the State's second motion to dismiss did not include any arguments about the Doe Consent Order. A later motion for summary judgment by the state however continued to reference Consent Order. The court granted the motion to file the amicus brief. On Sept. 21, 2016, the court ruled on the motions for summary judgment and dismissed the case. In ruling on the motion, the court considered DRO's amicus brief, and appropriately construed the application of the consent order such that it was not the reason plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.(68239) (1500 impacted) Systemic Litigation- Legal Aid in Dayton (ABLE) requested DRO be co-counsel on a case against a privately held shopping mall which is refusing to allow the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) to construct a new bus bay so that people with disabilities will have better access to the mall entrance. This FY, the RTA has been added to the case as a necessary party. The parties are currently conducting discovery, and have also agreed to try to mediate with the federal magistrate.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

A. Priorities and Objectives for the Fiscal Year Covered by this Report

For each of your PAIR program priorities for the fiscal year covered by this report, please:

Identify and describe priority.
Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.
Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.
Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.
Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.
Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

Priorities and Objectives ISSUE AREA: COMMUNITY INTEGRATION-- 488 CasesProtect the rights of people where they live and to exercise their right to vote. Housing Discrimination Undue Segregation Program Accessibility-DRO received requests for assistance from two individuals with the same concern. The Department of Agriculture (ODA) notified residents in an Ohio county regarding pesticides to be sprayed to treat for gypsy moths. Both clients have severe sensitivities that would be triggered by the pesticide, endangering their lives or at the very least, causing serious illness and permanent damage. The clients requested waivers to not have their properties treated from ODA, but the requests were denied.DRO researched the program and other states' treatment of this issue and agreed to assist the clients. DRO attorneys participated in extensive negotiations for a reasonable accommodation/modification for the clients in the 2016 Slow the Spread Program under the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and the Fair Housing Amendments Act.As a result of DRO's efforts, the ODA agreed the clients could opt out" of the treatment for their respective properties, and the ODA agreed to refrain from treating any area within one mile of the clients property lines.-An individual who is deaf always requested an interpreter when she made appointment at her doctors office, but each time the office refused to provide the requested interpreter and would instead provide a Martti system for her to communicate with the doctor. The Martti provided at her first visit didnt work properly and at her second visit they provided two different Martti systems, neither of which worked. She cancelled her third appointment because the office staff again insisted on using the Martti system to communicate with her, rather than provide the interpreter. The client requested P&A assistance in receiving an interpreter at her doctor appointments.A disability rights attorney discussed the issue with the client and then with the clients permission and on her behalf, wrote a letter to the doctor and also spoke with medical staff. The attorney was assured the client would be provided with an in-person ASL interpreter for her future doctor appointments. DRO followed up with the client and she confirmed that the issue had been resolved to her satisfaction.ISSUE AREA: EMPLOYMENT-- 52 CasesProtect the rights of those who seek employment, training (including higher education), or to retain current employment Employment Discrimination Access to Secondary Education-An individual had been enrolled in the Medicaid Buy in program for years, but was recently told that because she didnt have a current medical determination her Medicaid buy-in would be cancelled. The client has a lifelong disability, her needs had not changed, and she was never informed that she needed an updated medical determination. She contacted Disability Rights Ohio to receive information about the need to have an updated determinat"

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year

Please include a statement of priorities and objectives for the current fiscal year (the fiscal year succeeding that covered by this report), which should contain the following information:

a statement of each prioirty;
the need addressed by each priority; and;
a description of the activities to be carried out under each priority.

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year ISSUE AREA: ADVOCATE FOR THE SELF DIRECTION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Continue work in coalition to effect the transition of Ohios Home and Community Based Waivers to a consumer directed model, Work with self-advocates to empower their voices Continue work in coalition to expand supported decision-making as an alternative to guardianship and to effect needed reforms in Ohios protective services and guardianship systemsISSUE AREA: COMMUNITY LIVING DECISIONS Housing discrimination in areas of systemic concern where policies or practices are a barrier to full integration into the community Address in partnership with legal services and others housing as a preeminent issue related to disability and poverty to promote access to decent, safe, accessible, affordable housing Undue segregation of people in nursing facilities or at risk of being placed in a nursing facility, including evaluation of the implementation of Recovery Requires a Community By working in coalition and by representation in individual cases, take steps to ensure that- the system of long term services and supports for people with disabilities has sufficient capacity to meet the needs of those with higher and more diverse service needs,- service providers are compensated at a rate that ensures recruitment and retention of qualified staff, and- that restrictions on overtime pay or other funding issues do not pose a threat to the health and safety of waiver recipients In partnership with Centers for Independent Living, the Developmental Disabilities Council, and other stakeholders, continue to advocate for access to transportation, both intra and interstateISSUE AREA: SPECIAL EDUCATION Take steps to address discrimination in post-secondary education and ensure that needed accommodations are provided to qualified individuals With a focus on implementation of section 511 of the Workforce Investment Opportunities Act, monitor implementation of new transition requirements and engage in direct legal advocacy in select cases to overcome barriers to transition Prosecute the case of Doe v. Ohio to ensure quality integrated education for students with disabilities in Ohio schools Continue in coalition with parent advocates and students to investigate implementation of state rules on restraint and seclusion of students; reporting by schools; and enforcement or other compliance efforts by the state Take action to address denials of education in institutional settings, including residential treatment facilities and juvenile detention facilities Monitor and provide information to state officials on implementation of the ESSA Engage with partners and the Ohio Department of Education to revise procedures in administrative due process hearingsISSUE AREA: EMPLOYMENT Continue activity to end discriminatory licensure and other practices that bar otherwise qualified applicants and professionals from employment Pursue representation where the person is part of a r

Part VI. Narrative

Narrative

At a minimum, you must include all of the information requested. You may include any other information, not otherwise collected on this reporting form that would be helpful in describing the extent of PAIR activities during the prior fiscal year. Please limit the narrative portion of this report, including attachments, to 20 pages or less.

The narrative should contain the following information. The instructions for this form outline the information that should be contained in each section.

Sources of funds received and expended
Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report
Outline the budget for the fiscal year covered by the report (prior fiscal year), as well as a projection for the current fiscal year. Be sure to include a breakdown of dollars expended/allotted for: administrative costs (i.e., personnel salaries, equipment, etc.); services to individuals; and other expenses (i.e., staff training, travel, etc.)
Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)
Involvement with advisory boards (if any)
Grievances filed under the grievance procedure
Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State long-term care program, if these programs are not part of the P&A agency

part_vi_rsn {Empty}

Certification

Signed

Signed? Yes

Signed by Michael Kirkman

Title Executive Director

Signed date Wed, 12/21/2016 - 00:00

OMB Notice

OMB Control Number: 1820-0627, approved for use through 07/31/2023

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 16 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit (Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended). Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4537 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1820-0627. Note: Please do not return the completed form to this address.