RSA-227 - Annual Client Assistance Program (CAP) Report

Arizona (Arizona Center for Disability Law) - H161A160002 - FY2016

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameArizona Center for Disability Law
Address5025 East Washington Street
Address Line 2Suite 202
Zip Code85034
Website Address
TTY 602-274-6287
Toll-free Phone800-927-2260
Toll-free TTY800-927-2260

Operating Agency (if different from Designated Agency)

Address Line 2
Zip Code
E-mail Address
Website Address
Toll-free Phone
Toll-free TTY

Additional Information

Name of CAP Director/CoordinatorJohn Gutierrez
Person to contact regarding reportJohn Gutierrez
Contact Person Phone602-274-6287

Part I. Non-case Services

A. Information and Referral Services (I&R)

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Information regarding the vocational rehabilitation (VR) program100
2. Information regarding independent living programs13
3. Information regarding American Indian VR Service projects3
4. Information regarding Title I of the ADA74
5. Other information provided15
6. Information regarding CAP36
7. Total I&R services provided (Lines A1 through A6)241

B. Training Activities

1. January 28, 2016 Title: Client Assistance Program and VR Rights a) Topics Covered: Client Assistance Program, Vocational Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Act 501; b) Purpose of the training: To educate Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors of the CAP Program; c) Description of the trainees: 6 VR Counselors

2. February 12, 2016 Title: Your Rights as an Applicant or Client of Vocational Rehabilitation a) Topics Covered: VR Program and CAP b) Purpose of the training: Provide information on the services available to VR clients c) Description of the trainees: 14 VR clients, family members, counselors and potential VR clients

3. April 30, 2016 Title: Your Rights as an Applicant or Client of Vocational Rehabilitation a) Topics Covered: VR Program and CAP b) Purpose of the training: Provide information on the services available to VR clients c) Description of the trainees: 25 VR clients, family members, counselors and potential VR clients

4. May 2, 2016 Title: Client Assistance Program and VR Rights a) Topics Covered: Client Assistance Program, Vocational Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Act 501 b) Purpose of the training: To educate Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors of the CAP Program c) Description of the trainees: 15 VR Counselors and VR staff

5. May 17, 2016 Title: Your Rights as an Applicant or Client of Vocational Rehabilitation a) Topics Covered: VR Program and CAP b) Purpose of the training: Provide information on the services available to VR clients c) Description of the trainees: 12 VR clients and potential VR clients

6. June 10, 2016 Title: Client Assistance Program and VR Rights a) Topics Covered: Client Assistance Program, Vocational Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Act 501 b) Purpose of the training: To educate Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors of the CAP Program c) Description of the trainees: 85 VR Counselors and VR staff

7. September 17, 2016 Title: Your Rights as an Applicant or Client of Vocational Rehabilitation a) Topics Covered: VR Program and CAP b) Purpose of the training: Provide information on the services available to VR clients c) Description of the trainees: 20 VR clients and potential VR clients

1. Number of training sessions presented to community groups and public agencies.7
2. Number of individuals who attended these training sessions.177
3. Describe training presented by the staff. Include the following information:
  1. topics covered
  2. purpose of the training
  3. description of the attendees

C. Agency Outreach

Describe the agency's outreach efforts to previously un-served or underserved individuals including minority communities.

On October 17, 2015, a CAP Advocate provided information at a vendor table at the Sierra VisAbility Day in Sierra Vista, AZ, a rural area in Arizona. 25 individuals were provided information on CAP and ACDL services.

On February 12, 2016, CAP attended and provided information at a vendor table at the 5th Annual African American Conference on Disabilities in Phoenix, AZ. This conference was attended by approximately 235 individuals. At the Conference, a CAP Advocate also provided a presentation entitled, Your Rights as an Applicant or Client of VR.

On March 3, 2016, several Center staff provided information at a vendor table at the Native American Disability Summit held in Phoenix, AZ. Approximately 100 individuals were provided information on CAP and ACDL services.

In August 2016, the Center’s Executive Director traveled to several un-served, underserved areas in Arizona: Bullhead City and Flagstaff. The trainings on laws that apply to persons with disabilities were held in conjunction with public forums regarding our priorities for FY 17, including CAP. 19 individuals attended these two trainings.

On September 17, 2016, a CAP Advocate presented at the Latino Summit & Resource Fair. The presentation was entitled, Your Rights as an Applicant or Client of VR. 20 individuals attended the presentation.

Short-Team Assistance Team

The Center utilizes a centralized intake system known as the Short-Term Assistance Team (STAT). STAT staff initially receives all requests for assistance, including CAP issues. Our STAT is staffed by trained advocates under the direction and supervision of the Director of Information and Referral (I&R). CAP Advocates have provided training to STAT staff so they can provide callers with information and referral assistance, a brief service, or short-term technical assistance at the time of their initial call to the Center. Annually, CAP Advocates conduct training sessions for the STAT to acquaint them with new issues relating to the CAP program which will, in turn, assist them in conducting initial interviews. Once STAT staff has conducted these initial interviews, cases are assigned to CAP Advocates for further advocacy services.

Center Self-Advocacy Guides

The Center disseminates 19 Self-Advocacy Guides on topics related to vocational rehabilitation rights and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CAP callers can view or download the guides from the Center’s website. The guides are available on the Center’s website 24 hours a day, seven days a week, thus facilitating outreach to our clients statewide. The majority of our callers indicated that they have access to our website and prefer obtaining copies of our materials via the internet rather than through the mail.

In Fiscal Year 2016, Center staff added an additional guide entitled, Information on How Vocational Rehabilitation Determines Priority Category Placement for Order of Section (OSS). This guide explains the three Priority Categories and how VR staff determine functional limitations and service needs.

A new brochure entitled, Finding the Job Developer that Works for YOU! was also created for clients of Vocational Rehabilitation. This brochure provides some quick tips to choose the right job developer and how to handle disputes when VR does not provide you with a list of job developers or let you work with the one you chose.

The following guides relating to the CAP are available from the Center: — An Overview of the Employment Protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act — How to Enforce Employment Rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act — The ADA and the Job Applicant: Recruitment, Applications and Interviews — The ADA and the Reasonable Accommodations — Drug and Alcohol Testing under the Americans with Disabilities Act — The ADA and Medical Examinations — The ADA and Confidentiality of Medical Information — The ADA and Disability-Related Harassment — Summary of Vocational Rehabilitation Rights: Eligibility for Services — Summary of Vocational Rehabilitation Rights: Evaluations — Summary of Vocational Rehabilitation Rights: Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) — Summary of Vocational Rehabilitation Rights: Vocational Rehabilitation Services — Your Appeal Rights for Disputes about Vocational Rehabilitation Services — A Summary of Your Vocational Rehabilitation Rights: Assistive Technology and Services

The Center provides guides in alternate formats such as plain language to accommodate our clients who may have cognitive disabilities or a lower reading level or difficulty with English. The Center has a total of 17 self-advocacy guides written in plain language. The following guides relating to the CAP are listed below:

— How to File a Charge When You’ve Been Treated Unfairly — Making Your Job Work for You — Have You Been Treated Unfairly at Work? — Getting a Job When You Have a Disability — How the ADA Protects Your Medical Information at Work

The Center also has 16 of our guides translated into Spanish. All of our guides are available on our website and in additional alternative formats by request. All of our intake information materials have been translated into Spanish and are available at our conferences, trainings, and on our website. We have also translated surveys, training materials, and grievance procedures into Spanish.

D. Information Disseminated To The Public By Your Agency

For each method of dissemination, enter the total number of each method used by your agency during the reporting period to distribute information to the public. For publications/booklets/brochures (item 4), enter the total number of documents produced. Agencies should not include website hits. See instructions for details.

1) 10/17/2015 Booth/Table, Sierra VisAbility Day, Sierra Vista, AZ. 25 people attended. 2) 10/26-27/15 Booth/Table, "Evidence Based Conference”, Phoenix, AZ. 100 people attended. 3) 1/21/2016 Booth/Table, Vail Transition Open House, Vail, AZ. 40 people attended. 4) 2/10/2016 Booth/Table, Law School Public Interest Career Fair, Phoenix, AZ. 200 people attended. 5) 2/12/2016 Booth/Table, 5th Annual African American Conference on Disabilities, Phoenix, AZ. 235 people attended. 6) 3/17/2016 Booth/Table, Native American Disability Summit, Phoenix, AZ. 100 people attended. 7) 3/31/2016 Booth/Table, Working with Students with Challenging Behaviors, Phoenix, AZ. 50 people attended. 8) 3/31/2016 Booth/Table, I Want to Vote, Phoenix, AZ. 34 people attended. 9) 4/6/2016 Booth/Table, 2016 Tempe/Mesa Transition Expo, Tempe, AZ. 100 people attended. 10) 4/29/2016 Booth/Table, Health & Wellness Fair, Phoenix, AZ 66 people attended. 11) 4/30/2016 Booth/Table, Disability Resource & Transition Expo Tucson, AZ. 200 people attended. 12) 5/3/2016 Booth/Table, Working with Students with Challenging Behaviors, Flagstaff, AZ. 72 people attended. 13) 5/13/2016 Booth/Table, Rays of Hope Conference, Phoenix, AZ. 300 people attended. 14) 6/3/2016 Booth/Table, Overview of ACDL, Tempe, AZ. 30 people attended. 15) 7/7-9/2016 Booth/Table,53rd Biennial National Association for the Deaf Conference, Phoenix, AZ. 500 people attended. 16) 7/12/2016 Booth/Table, Rev Up the Vote, Phoenix, AZ. 13 people attended. 17) 7/27/2016 Booth/Table, All Votes Matter (HAVA), Phoenix, AZ. 250 people attended. 18) 8/18-19/2016 Booth/Table, Special Education and Section 504 Law, Tucson, AZ. 150 people attended. 19) 9/26/2016 Booth/Table, Glendale Union High School District - Next Step Program, Glendale, AZ 75 people attended. 20) 9/28/2016 Booth/Table, City of Phoenix 50th Street Light Rail Station Announcement: Plans for New Light Rail Station near Ability360; Phoenix, AZ. 7 people attended.

1. Agency Staff Interviewed or Featured on Radio and TV0
2. Articles about CAP Featured in Newspaper/Magazine/Journals0
3. PSAs/Videos Aired about the CAP Agency0
4. Publications/Booklets/Brochures Disseminated by the Agency3103
5. Number of Times CAP Exhibited at Conferences, Community Fairs, etc.20
6. Other (specify below)

E. Information Disseminated About Your Agency By External Media Coverage

Describe the various sources and information disseminated about your agency by an external source.


Part II. Individual Case Services

A. Individuals served

An individual is counted only once during a fiscal year. Multiple counts are not permitted for Lines A1-A3.

1. Individuals who are still being served as of October 1 (carryover from prior year)38
2. Additional individuals who were served during the year84
3. Total individuals served (Lines A1+A2)122
4. Individuals (from Line A3) who had multiple case files opened/closed this year (In unusual situations, an individual may have more than one case file opened/closed during a fiscal year. This number is not added to the total in Line A3 above.)2
5. Individual still being served as of September 30 (Carryover to next year. This total may not exceed Line A3.)56

B. Problem areas

Multiple responses permitted.

1. Individual requests information0
2. Communication problems between individual and VR counselor25
3. Conflict about VR services to be provided65
4. Related to VR application/eligibility process14
5. Related to assignment to order of selection priority category8
6. Related to IPE development/implementation
  1. Selection of vendors for provision of VR services
  2. Selection of training, post-secondary education
  3. Selection of employment outcome
  4. Transition services
7. Related to independent living services2
8. Other Rehabilitation Act-related problems0
9. Non-Rehabilitation Act related
  1. TANF
  3. Housing
  4. Other:
10. Related to Title I of the ADA0

C. Intervention Strategies for closed cases

(Choose one primary service the CAP provided for each closed case file. There may be more case files than actual individuals served.)

1. Short Term Technical Assistance33
2. Investigation/Monitoring1
3. Negotiation32
4. Mediation and other methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution1
5. Administrative / Informal Review1
6. Formal appeal / Fair Hearing0
7. Legal remedy / Litigation0
8. Total68

D. Reasons for closing individuals' case files

(Choose one primary reason for closing each case file. There may be more case files than the total number of individuals served.)

1. All issues resolved in individual's favor37
2. Some issues resolved in individual's favor (when there are multiple issues)18
3. CAP determines VR agency position/decision was appropriate for the individual1
4. Individual's case lacks legal merit; (inappropriate for CAP intervention)1
5. Individual chose alternative representation0
6. Individual withdrew complaint4
7. Issue not resolved in clients favor0
8. CAP services not needed due to individual's death, relocation, etc.0
9. Individual not responsive/cooperative with CAP4
10. CAP unable to take case due to lack of resources3
11. Conflict of interest0
12. Other (Please explain below)

E. Results achieved for individuals

(Choose one primary outcome for each closed case file. There may be more case files than the total number of individuals served.)

1. Controlling law/policy explained to individual31
2. Application for services completed0
3. Eligibility determination expedited2
4. Individual participated in evaluation1
5. IPE developed/implemented/Services Provided15
6. Communication re-established between individual and other party12
7. Individual assigned to new counselor/office4
8. Alternative resources identified for individual2
9. ADA/504/EEO/OCR complaint made0
10. Other (Please explain below)

Part III. Program Data

A. Age

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Up to 181
2. 19 - 2423
3. 25 - 4027
4. 41 - 6460
5. 65 and over11
6. Total (Sum of Lines A1 through A5. Total must equal Part II, Line A3.)122

B. Gender

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females71
2. Males51
3. Total (Lines B1+B2. Total must equal Part II, Line A3.)122

C. Race/ethnicity of Individuals Served

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race (for individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only)20
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native1
3. Asian1
4. Black or African American13
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White84
7. Two or more races3
8. Race/ethnicity unknown0

D. Primary disabling condition of individuals served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Acquired Brain Injury2
4. Amputations or Absence of Extremities1
5. Arthritis or Rheumatism0
6. Anxiety Disorder7
7. Autism Spectrum Disorder4
8. Autoimmune or Immune Deficiencies (excluding AIDS/HIV)0
9. Blindness (Both Eyes)6
10. Other Visual Impairments (Not Blind)7
11. Cancer1
12. Cerebral Palsy4
13. Deafness11
14. Hard of Hearing/Hearing Impaired (Not Deaf)5
15. Deaf-Blind0
16. Diabetes1
17. Digestive Disorders0
18. Epilepsy4
19. Heart & Other Circulatory Conditions1
20. Intellectual Disability7
21. Mental Illness32
22. Multiple Sclerosis0
23. Muscular Dystrophy0
24. Muscular/Skeletal Impairment6
25. Neurological Disorders/Impairment6
26. Orthopedic Impairments8
27. Personality Disorders0
28. Respiratory Disorders/Impairment1
29. Skin Conditions0
30. Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)1
31. Speech Impairments1
32. Spina Bifida1
33. Substance Abuse (Alcohol or Drugs)0
34. Other Disability1
35. Total (Sum of Lines D1through D34. Total must equal Part II, Line A3.)122

E. Types of Individual Served

Multiple responses permitted.

1. Applicant of VR12
2. Individual eligible for VR services currently on a wait list10
3. Individual eligible for VR services not currently on a wait list101
4. Applicant or individual eligible for Independent Living2
5. Transition student/High school student1
6. All other applicants or individuals eligible for other programs or projects funded unther Rehabilitation Act0

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Non-Litigation Systemic Activities

Lack of Client Informed Choice

CAP Advocates have noted that Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Counselors do not provide their clients with Informed Choice for any of the services available from VR. These services may include the selection of the employment outcome, the rehabilitation services that the client will be provided, and information explaining how best for a client to be able to make a determination on what services to utilize. CAP Advocates have participated in meetings where Counselors automatically assign clients to specific providers regardless of the service, without ever offering the clients a choice. CAP Advocates will often ask new clients if they were given a choice in the service they were provided; overwhelmingly, clients tell us that they are not given any type of choice.

CAP Advocates have also learned from co-presenting with VR Counselors that they themselves are not always aware that VR clients have a choice in services related to their VR plan. VR Counselors not providing clients with a choice in the services to be provided continues to be one of the most persistent problems.

CAP Advocates have discussed this lack of choice for services with Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). RSA agreed with CAP and, therefore, we are working on a strategic plan which would give a full explanation to Counselors in order for Counselors to be able to determine the true meaning of Client Informed Choice. A CAP Advocate from the Arizona Center for Disability Law (ACDL) volunteered to be part of this strategic planning committee. The CAP Advocate explained to RSA that clients must be provided with informed choice with any of the services described in the Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE). This committee is working on finalizing a document that will be provided to all of the VR Counselors, with a full explanation on Client Informed Choice.

Sweeping Changes in the Administration of the VR program

Unfortunately, there have been some rather detrimental staffing changes in the VR program in the last year. The Administrator that was terminated was the only Administrator to raise the VR rehabilitation rate. The rate rose last year to a record 54%. A new state Administration, which governs the VR program, is making widespread changes to the VR program. For example, the new Administration has made significant changes to the VR policy manual.

CAP Advocates met with the new VR Administrator to discuss the VR policy changes. The CAP Coordinator also sent a written request to the new VR Administrator asking why the policy manual was changed without following the mandate of the Rehabilitation Act. According to the Rehabilitation Act, policy changes need to be discussed with the State Rehabilitation Council (the SRC), CAP, and a public forum convened before changes are made.

Following our meeting, the new VR Administrator has agreed to work with CAP to resolve some of the current issues in the VR program. CAP Advocates will continue to monitor the VR program, any policy changes, and will meet with the new VR Administrator and her staff to discuss the future direction of the VR program.

VR Vendors Not Accommodating Clients

During the past year, Arizona CAP received complaints from several VR clients who have not been provided accommodations from VR vendors they are sent to for services. The complaints include: vision evaluators refusing to provide ASL interpreters to individuals who are deaf; habilitation specialists terminating services with individuals with more than one disability; and the failure to provide vocational evaluations in alternative format.

In one case, when the person who is deaf requested an interpreter, the vision evaluator asked her to lip read during the evaluation. This was unacceptable because lip reading is an ineffective form of communication especially since a significant part of the vision evaluation was done in the dark. Another client who requested an American Sign Language interpreter from another vision evaluator was denied the interpreter; the evaluation was cancelled and not rescheduled. The client remains without this evaluation because her VR counselor will not provide the interpreter, saying it is the evaluator’s responsibility. CAP Advocates are currently working with the VR Supervisor to resolve this issue based on VR’s responsibility to provide the comparable service if unavailable to the client and comply with its legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, thus delaying progress of achieving an employment goal.

The systemic issue we are aware of regarding Habilitation Specialists involves agencies who specialize in one disability, such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) or Autism. VR contracts with these agencies to provide services to their clients, but in several cases the vendor will refuse to work with clients who have more than one disability. For example, one VR client with a TBI and a visual impairment was declined services because the vendor asserted that they did not know how to accommodate the client’s blindness. Another individual with a TBI was turned down by the same vendor due to his “behavioral issues” related to his mental health diagnosis. VR has not required these vendors to accommodate these individuals stating their contracts allow them to reject a certain percentage of referred individuals.

Additionally, one of VR’s vendors used frequently for vocational evaluations has failed to accommodate multiple clients who use computer-assisted augmentative communication devices. This vendor stated that the tests would not be valid if the client is allowed to answer the questions using their communication devices. This same vendor required an individual with Cerebral Palsy to deactivate his augmentative communication device, to have his mother read the questions to him and have her interpret his answers. These cases have been discussed with Arizona RSA and the clients have been assisted by CAP Advocates and most have been able to receive their services from other vendors willing to provide accommodations. Unfortunately, the Administrator and Assistant Administrator who agreed to look into this issue further have been terminated. The current RSA Administrator has not provided CAP with a response. CAP will continue to advocate on behalf of its clients to ensure they receive the services from providers who will accommodate their disabilities.

Counselors not Knowledgeable of WIOA

In last year’s report, one of our reported systemic issues was the high number of VR Counselors with little knowledge of the federal regulations that pertain to the VR program, known as the Rehabilitation Act. Unfortunately, this issue remains and has been compounded by a lack of understanding by VR Counselors of the newly enacted Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). At trainings, presentations, and meetings with VR personnel, CAP Advocates ask the VR staff if they are familiar with WIOA and the regulations pertaining to VR services. By far the majority say no. The new Arizona State Administration overseeing RSA/VR did not provide training regarding WIOA. VR staff has informed CAP that they have not been trained in WIOA. At CAP conducted trainings with VR staff, the VR Counselors have been surprised when informed that WIOA specifically enhances services such as advanced training for clients.

Similarly, CAP Advocates are aware that VR Counselors lack the knowledge on trial work experiences (TWE) as defined by WIOA. VR staff does not know that TWEs must be of sufficient variety and over a sufficient period of time, instead of a one-time experience at a worksite chosen by the VR Counselor. VR Counselors also are unaware that under WIOA, extended evaluations are no longer an option if they believe the applicant cannot take advantage of a TWE. The emphasis WIOA adds to transition services for youth is still an unknown for most Arizona RSA staff. Many youths may not be receiving the services they are entitled to from VR. CAP Advocates have also informed VR staff about the WIOA definition of supported employment, employment outcome, and customized employment. Lack of knowledge of these terms likely means applicants and clients are not receiving the vocational rehabilitation services they may be entitled to as individuals with disabilities who have applied to VR to reach an employment goal.

CAP Advocates will continue to conduct trainings and presentations and will include WIOA information. CAP Advocates will also continue to provide individual advocacy to clients so they may benefit from the changes to the Rehabilitation Act through WIOA.

Member of a Strategic Planning Committee

One CAP Advocate was a member of a RSA’s Strategic Plan Committee that worked on defining client informed choice for all VR staff. This committee met quarterly with the purpose of defining informed choice and the best way to provide VR Counselors the information so that clients would be provided with true informed choice in every service they would be provided by VR. This committee was successful in producing a written document with a full explanation of informed choice, and is in the process of completing a PowerPoint presentation.

Participate in Quarterly Meetings with RSA

CAP Advocates meet quarterly with the staff of RSA to discuss some of the impending concerns and issues that CAP Advocates see happening with their clients. In these meetings, many topics have been covered: the dissolution of ILRS Program, RSA’s plan to implement Youth Transition Services under WIOA, removal of CAP information from VR’s Policy Manual, Counselors determining clients who receive SSI/SSDI do not meet economic need, VR vendors making decisions on client eligibility and on what services will be provided based on cost, as well as the lack of training of new counselors. RSA has acknowledged that CAP Advocates are a valuable source of information, and were unfamiliar with some of the issues that the CAP Advocates brought to their attention. The former Administration has done a good job of accepting the concerns CAP Advocates have discussed and had made positive changes, which then were distributed to VR Counselors.

CAP Advocates will continue to meet with the new RSA Administration on a quarterly basis to discuss any issues and concerns as they happen throughout the VR program.

Presenter at the National Disability Rights Network Conference

One of the CAP Advocates attended and presented at this year’s National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) Annual Conference. This presentation on Continuing VR Issues was done in a panel form that included Amy Scherer, staff attorney for NDRN, and Page Eastin, from the Iowa CAP. The CAP Advocate discussed Client Informed Choice, the order of selection and exceptions to the policy. The Conference was attended by CAP staff from around the country. The CAP Advocate who presented has been with Arizona CAP for many years so her knowledge of these VR issues was extremely valuable to newer CAP staff in advocating for clients in their respective states.

1. Number of non-litigation systemic activities not involving individual representation that resulted in the change of one or more policy or practice of an agency.7
2. Describe the systemic activities conducted by CAP during the fiscal year and its impact on other agency's policies or practices.

B. Litigation

There were no systemic litigation activities to report this fiscal year.

1. Total number of CAP cases requiring litigation involving individual representation resulting in, or with the potential for, systemic change.
a. Number of cases requiring litigation involving individual representation filed during fiscal year.0
b. Number of on-going cases pending at start of fiscal year (carryover from prior fiscal year).0
c. Number of cases resolved through litigation during fiscal year.0
2. Describe the agency's on-going and completed systemic litigation activities involving individual representation.

Part V. Agency Information

A. Designated Agency

1. Agency Type (select only one option) External-Protection and Advocacy agency
2. Name of designate agencyArizona Center for Disability Law
3. Is the designated agency contracting CAP services?No
4. If yes, name of contracting agency:N/A

B. Staff Employed

Provide a description of all CAP positions (see instructions)

Arizona Center for Disability Law

For the fiscal year ended 09/30/2016 Type of Position FTE % of year filled Person Years Professional

Full-time 1.78 100%1.78



Total Professional 1.78 100% 1.78


Full-time 0.64 100% 0.64



Total Clerical 0.64 100% 0.64

Total - Professional & Clerical 2.42 100% 2.42

Part VI. Case Examples

Provide some examples of some interesting cases during the past fiscal year.

The case of J.M.

When the CAP Advocate first worked with J.M., he was a transition student just completing high school in preparation to obtain VR services. At a meeting with the CAP Advocate in attendance, J.M. informed the VR Supervisor that he was interested in becoming an auto mechanic. At that time, the VR Supervisor informed J.M. that he should research the different mechanic schools and choose the one he thought would be the most appropriate for him.

J.M. lived in a rural community and therefore chose a school in another city. The reason J.M. chose this particular school was because it was a technical school with a smaller teacher to student ratio, which was more appropriate due to this client’s learning disabilities.

The VR Supervisor wrote an Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) for J.M. with the Vocational Goal of Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics in December 2013. The IPE included the school of J.M.’s choice which was located in another city, along with all the services he would require to complete the school.

J.M. was ready to start school in August of 2014. At that time, the VR Supervisor decided that she was not going to honor the IPE. The CAP Advocate became involved to determine if there was justification for denying the IPE. The VR Supervisor stated that since there was a school in J.M.’s area that offered auto mechanics classes, that would be sufficient for J.M. to complete and find employment in the auto mechanics field.

The CAP Advocate had multiple meetings in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 with various staff of VR’s Administration and explained that the IPE was written, approved, and therefore needed to be honored. VR’s Administration finally agreed with the CAP Advocate in January 2016, and Administration directed the Supervisor to honor J.M.’s IPE and allow him to attend the school of his choice, as per the already agreed to and signed IPE.

The CAP Advocate spoke with J.M. and he shared that he is more than ¾ of the way through his classes, has a 4.0 grade average, and has already been offered a position as a mechanic when he graduates in May 2017.

The case of R.H.

CAP Advocate represented client R.H. in a mediation with Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) over their decision to close his case. VR claimed R.H. had obtained a job in his chosen employment field and had maintained it successfully for over 90 days. R.H. disagreed with this decision and requested assistance from CAP in his appeal. R.H.’s identified employment goal on his Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) was “Sales and Related Worker.” R.H. had a long employment history of doing sales work for a national business services company. Due to complications of his disability, R.H. lost that job and spent several years recovering. He came to VR for assistance with finding employment where his sales experience could once again be used. VR provided him with dental services, car repairs, and Job Development before he found a job with a direct broadcast satellite service provider. VR and R.H. thought the job was in sales, but it turned out to be mostly a customer services job in which R.H. spent the day dealing with complaints. Shortly after R.H. started, the company moved its sales department to an office in another state.

VR still believed this was successful employment and sent R.H. a closing letter. He appealed and requested mediation with the Arizona Attorney General’s Conflict Resolution Department. CAP Advocate assisted R.H. in preparing for the mediation by gathering his paystubs showing he made no commissions from sales. He also provided a document that listed sales numbers and his name was not included. The mediation was successful. VR agreed to keep R.H.’s case open and provide him with additional dental work and a new job developer to assist him in securing a job in his chosen field.

The case of Y.G.

Client Y.G. came to CAP because Independent Living Rehabilitation Services (ILRS) would not provide her with home modifications. Y.G. is a double amputee due to vascular disease and diabetes. She lives in a home inherited from her parents in a small, rural town. Y.G. had been on the waiting list for ILRS funds for approximately three years. She was finally informed there were funds available, so a home modification assessment was done and an ILRS Plan was written and approved. Before work could be started on her home, Y.G. was hospitalized due to complications of her disabilities and she was unable to keep the appointments scheduled to begin the modification work. By the time Y.G. was discharged from the hospital and able to open her home to workers, she was informed by her ILRS Counselor that the funds were no longer available for her. When there is an interruption in services, or the ILRS client cannot participate, the funds are directed to the next person on the waiting list. Y.G. contacted CAP, who in turn, contacted the ILRS Administrator and home modification coordinator. ILRS were able to secure funding for the home modifications listed in Y.G.’s Plan of Service even though the ILRS program was changing the direction of service provisions. The services Y.G. required were bathroom modifications so she could access the toilet and shower. Also, ramps were installed so she could safely access her driveway and her front porch. Once Y.G. received the services and the modifications were completed, this case was closed successfully.


Reports are to be submitted to RSA within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report. Please be reminded that you can enter data directly into RSA's website via the internet. Information on transmittal of the form is found on pages 19 and 20 of the reporting instructions.

Name of Designated Agency OfficialJ.J. Rico
Title of Designated Agency OfficialExecutive Director
Date Signed11/10/2016