RSA-509 - Protection & Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Performance Report

California (Disability Rights California) - H240A110005 - FY2011

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights California
Address1831 K Street
Address Line 2
CitySacramento
StateCalifornia
Zip Code95811
E-mail AddressAndrew.Mudryk@disabilityrightsca.org
Website Addresshttp://www.disabilityrightsca.org
Phone916-504-5800
TTY 800-719-5798
Toll-free Phone800-776-5746
Toll-free TTY800-719-5798
Fax916-504-5802
Name of P&A Executive DirectorCatherine Blakemore
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorAndrew Mudryk
Person to contact regarding reportAndrew Mudryk
Contact Person phone916-504-5800
Ext.

Part I. Non-Case Services

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

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas92
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas20
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)112

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff124
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)5,379

1) 10/05/2010- SSA & Work Incentives Training in San Diego to 10 people

2) 10/05/2010- IEP Training to Latino Families at Northern Valley Catholic Social Services to 14 people

3) 10/06/2010- California Indian Legal Services-Tribal Law PL280 Presentation and Q&A Session in San Diego to 23 people

4) 10/06/2010- SSA & Work Incentives Training in San Diego to 11 people

5) 10/13/2010- Lighthouse for the Blind in San Francisco to 15 people

6) 10/13/2010- Service Dog Rights Training in San Diego to 12 people

7) 10/15/2010- Higher Education/Community College Rights Training in Bay Area to 200 people

8) 10/16/2010- Statewide Leadership Assembly, IHSS Training in Fresno to 20 people

9) 10/20/2010- IHSS Training in San Diego to 19 people

10) 10/21/2010- American Indian Disability Conference Redwood Valley Employment Rights in Sacramento to 65 people

11) 10/21/2010- American Indian Disability Conference Redwood Valley Advocacy Skills in Sacramento to 65 people

12) 10/21/2010- American Indian Disability Conference Redwood Valley Special Education in Sacramento to 65 people

13) 10/22/2010- Respectability Conference: Fair Housing in Burbank to 60 people

14) 10/22/2010- Orange County Fiesta Educativa Special Education Training in San Diego to 250 people

15) 10/26/2010- Braille Institute- Overview of ADA Training in San Diego to 20 people

16) 10/26/2010- Service Dog Rights Training in San Diego to 30 people

17) 10/26/2010- SSA & Work Incentives in San Diego to 13 people

18) 10/27/2010- How to Accommodate Individuals with ADHD in Prison in Sacramento to 14 people

19) 10/29/2010- Asians and Pacific Islanders with Disabilities of California- Training on Effective Outreach Strategies in Los Angeles to 50 people

20) 11/01/2010- Overview of ADA Rights in San Diego to 15 people

21) 11/03/2010- IEP and 504 Training at Cal State University in Los Angeles to 30 people

22) 11/04/2010- Reasonable Accommodation Training in Sacramento to 8 people

23) 11/05/2010- Foster, Kincare & Advocates/Spectrum Disabilities and Special Education in Sacramento to 40 people

24) 11/06/2010- Fiesta Educativa/Transition Training in San Diego to 15 people

25) 11/07/2010- Nuestros Ninos Radio Show in Bay Area to 1,000 people

26) 11/10/2010- ADA Overview with Current Law Interpretation- Title I Training in San Diego to 50 people

27) 11/12/2010- Big Sandy Rancheria, Special Education Training to Head Start staff in Fresno to 9 people

28) 11/15/2010- Overview of Medi-cal, IHSS and Social Security Training in San Diego to 11 people

29) 11/17/2010- Apoyo para padres IHSS Training to 30 people

30) 11/18/2010- How to Initiate Due Process Training in San Diego to 6 people

31) 11/22/2010- CAPI Training to Latino Families at NVCSS to 8 people

32) 12/01/2010- Overview of ADA Rights in San Diego to 10 people

33) 12/03/2010- Legal Services of Northern California IHSS Administrative Hearing Training to 20 people

34) 12/08/2010- Fresno City College Students with Disabilities Training to 25 people

35) 12/09/2010- Overview of ADA Rights Training in San Diego to 12 people

36) 12/09/2010- National Indian Nations Conference Justice for Victims of Crime to 100 people

37) 12/09/2010- IHSS/DRC Training in Los Angeles to 25 people 38) 12/15/2010- Cottonwood Head Start Special Ed Training in Fresno to 20 people

39) 01/04/2011- Northern Valley Catholic Social Services- Social Security Training to Spanish Speaking Families in Sacramento to 30 people

40) 01/12/2011- Introduction to DRC and Abuse Investigations in Los Angeles to 25 people

41) 01/24/2011- IHSS Appeals Training in Sacramento to 40 people

42) 01/26/2011- Share of Cost Training in San Diego to 10 people

43) 01/31/2011- IHSS Appeals Training to Spanish-speaking community in Sacramento to 30 people

44) 02/01/2011- San Diego Advocacy Training Part 1 in San Diego to 30 people

45) 02/08/2011- Immigrant Food Stamp-Eligibility for Immigrants with Disabilities in Sacramento to 60 people

46) 02/08/2011- Employment and Benefits Training in Bay Area to 5 people

47) 02/11/2011 - IHSS Appeals Training in Sacramento to 20 people

48) 02/16/2011- IHSS Appeals Training to Spanish-speaking community in Sacramento to 16 people

49) 02/22/2011- Recovery Innovations of California Assembly Bill 1421 (California state law that allows for court-ordered outpatient commitment of mental health clients) in San Diego to 45 people

50) 02/23/2011- Capitol Area Indian Resources Legal Clinic in Sacramento to 3 people

51) 02/23/2011- Capitol Area Indian Resources Special Education in Sacramento to 20 people

52) 02/23/2011- Service Animal Users: Title II & Title III Changes effective 3/15/2011 in Bay Area to 1,032 people

53) 02/24/2011- Spanish Speaking Baypoint Seniors Presentation and Benefits Training in Bay Area to 25 people

54) 03/01/2011- 9th Annual Health Summit in Los Angeles to 100 people

55) 03/02/2011- Positive Behavior Interventions Training in Bay Area to 12 people

56) 03/07/2011- Community Vocational Enterprises Outreach in Bay Area to 15 people

57) 03/08/2011- Childcare Links SSI and IHSS Training in Bay Area to 25 people

58) 03/10/2011- Representative Payee Training in Bay Area to 20 people

59) 03/17/2011- Exceptional Parents Unlimited- Spanish Speaking Parent Group Training in Fresno to 5 people

60) 03/19/2011- 2011 Information and Resource Conference Training on Functional Behavioral Assessments in Bay Area to 30 people

61) 03/19/2011- Foster Family Day Training on Special Education Suspension & Expulsion in Sacramento to 16 people

62) 03/19/2011- Foster Family Day Training on SSI for Youth in Sacramento to 13 people

63) 03/21/2011- ADA Presentation & Training at San Diego State University in San Diego to 4 people

64) 03/23/2011- Medicaid Waiver Training in San Diego to 25 people

65) 03/25/2011- SSI & IHSS Training to Exceptional Parents Unlimited and Firebaugh Padres in Fresno to 13 people

66) 03/28/2011- Tribal Advocate Training for Mechoopda in Sacramento to 30 people

67) 03/30/2011- Work Incentives Seminar Events PABSS Training in Sacramento to 20 people

68) 04/01/2011- The Importance of an IEP and Evaluations in San Diego to 15 people

69) 04/05/2011- Yurok Tribe Weitchpec, CA Special Education Training to 15 people

70) 04/06/2011- Yurok Tribe Bayside, CA Special Education Training in Sacramento to 40 people

71) 04/12/2011- Voices of Hope Training on Social Security in Sacramento to 8 people

72) 04/13/2011- AB 1421 (California state law that allows for court-ordered outpatient commitment of mental health clients) Training in San Diego to 10 people

73) 04/13/2011- Disability Rights for College Students at Fresno City College to 25 people

74) 04/14/2011- Medi-Cal Presentation and Budget Cut Awareness Training in Los Angeles to 20 people

75) 04/14/2011- Tribal Advocate Training II Connecting Circles of Care to 30 people

76) 04/18/2011- Alpha Project Service Dog Rights Training in San Diego to 10 people

77) 04/19/2011- WISE Crossroads DRC and PABSS Training in Sacramento to 15 people

78) 04/20/2011- Parent/Kinship Conference School Advocacy 2011 to 22 people

79) 04/26/2011- Center for Early Intervention on Deafness in Bay Area to 25 people

80) 04/27/2011- Apoyo Para Padres Medi-Cal Training in Sacramento to 33 people

81) 04/27/2011- Telecare Social Security Training in Sacramento to 20 people

82) 04/28/2011- Special Education Parent Advisory Council- Special Education/Discrimination Training in Sacramento to 9 people

83) 05/09/2011- Special Education Eligibility, Assessment and IEP Training Workshop in San Diego to 12 people

84) 05/11/2011- Care Parent Network Benefits Training on SSI & Children Transitioning into Adulthood in Bay Area to 30 people

85) 05/13/2011- Grupo de Padres a Hijos SSI Training in Sacramento to 11 people

86) 05/14/2011- California Council of the Blind (CCB) 2011 Spring Convention in Bay Area to 100 people

87) 05/21/2011- Sonoma Tribal TANF Parent Leadership Advocacy Skills Training to 20 people

88) 05/21/2011- Sonoma Tribal TANF Parent Leadership Special Education Training to 20 people

89) 05/24/2011- IHSS Public Authority IHSS Training in Sacramento to 60 people

90) 05/25/2011- Medi-Cal Cutbacks, How They Will Affect Persons with Disabilities in Bay Area to 20 people

91) 05/26/2011- Cahil Dehe Wintu Special Education Training to 35 people

92) 06/08/2011- Connecting Circles of Care Special Education to 55 people

93) 06/08/2011- IDEA Due Process Advanced Part Training in San Diego to 25 people

94) 06/10/2011- Work Incentives Seminar Events Garden Grove Training in San Diego to 16 people

95) 06/13/2011- Special Education Behavior Support Plans and Complaint Procedures Training in San Diego to 11 people

96) 06/15/2011- Abriendo Caminos Northern California Latino Conference in Sacramento to 15 people

97) 06/24/2011- Learn How to Read IEP Plan in San Diego to 23 people

98) 07/06/2011- SSI Work Incentives for Students Training in San Diego to 25 people

99) 07/11/2011- Owen’s Valley Career Development Center Staff Training on Advocacy in Fresno to 15 people

100) 07/14/2011- Voting Rights Panel in Los Angeles to 6 people

101) 07/15/2011- Behaviors and Information on Hughes Bill and Services Training in San Diego to 12 people

102) 07/19/2011- Voter and Employment Discrimination Training to Consumers of Resources for Independent Living Central Calif in Fresno to 32 people

103) 07/27/2011- Apoyo Para Padres Functional Behavioral Training in Sacramento to 30 people

104) 07/29/2011- Understand your Evaluations for an Excellent IEP to 8 people

105) 07/30/2011- Training on IDEA and Section 504 Plan to 13 people

106) 08/09/2011- Parent Training at Owen’s Valley Developmental Center in Fresno to 40 people

107) 08/13/2011- Litigation as a Means of Creating Social Change in Los Angeles to 7 people

108) 08/13/2011- Health Education and Career Conference Special Education Training in Sacramento to 18 people

109) 08/22/2011- Budget Cuts What you Need to Know Training in San Diego to 20 people

110) 08/24/2011- Disability Etiquette: Tips on Interacting with Persons with Disabilities in Los Angeles to 7 people

111) 09/07/2011- Sacramento Advocacy & Family Empowerment- SSI Training for Spanish Speaking Families in Sacramento to 10 people

112) 09/09/2011- Advocacy Skills Training to 20 people

113) 09/14/2011- How to Advocate for Services for Children in the Dependency System Training in San Diego to 25 people

114) 09/14/2011- Medi-Cal Programs for Persons with Disabilities Training in San Diego to 4 people

115) 09/14/2011- Owen’s Valley Career Development Center Bishop Advocacy Skills Training to 30 people

116) 09/14/2011- Owen’s Valley Career Development Center Bishop Special Education Training to 20 people

117) 09/14/2011- SSI/SSDI & Work Incentives Training in San Diego to 10 people

118) 09/14/2011- Owen’s Valley Career Development Center Bishop Special Education Training to 30 people

119) 09/15/2011- Home and Community Based Care Waiver Discussion and Training in San Diego to 11 people

120) 09/19/2011- Exceptional Parents Unlimited Parent Training on Medi-Cal in Fresno to 11 people

121) 09/22/2011- Social Security Work Incentives Training in San Diego to 50 people

122) 09/26/2011- Disability Sensitivity in Legal Advocacy in Los Angeles to 30 people

123) 09/27/2011- Sacramento Advocacy & Family Empowerment SSI For Children Training in Sacramento to 5 people

124) 09/29/2011- McGeorge Law School Access to Government Benefits Training in Sacramento to 31 people

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff2
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles1
3. PSAs/videos aired1
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website333,054
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated115
6. Other (specify separately)254

Narrative

We distributed 115 different publications to 29,523 individuals. We reached 15,446 individuals through 187 community clinics, events (booths and fairs), general presentations about DRC’s services, and network/collaboration events. DRC staff participated in the dissemination of information on disability-related issues to the public as follows: 1. Radio and TV Appearances by PAIR Staff: Advocates Fear More Cuts to In-Home Support Services, D. Doctor: http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-10-kpbs.html.

Advocates Fear More Cuts to Services for Most Vulnerable, D. Doctor: http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-10-cappubrad.mp3.

2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles: Panel comments on new nursing home payment plan, including legislative advocate, Deborah Doctor http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2010_newsaboutus/2010-12-6-cahealthline.htm and http://www.californiahealthline.org/think-tank/2010/payment-plan-for-nursing-homes-raises-concerns.aspxDeborah%20Doctor.

6. Other: In addition, we issued 4 press releases (see information below) posted on our website, and 63 articles referred to our attorneys, advocates, or work product (see below).

PRESS RELEASE (4), posted on our website: 1. Impassioned advocate for Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) dies, just days after after Budget Conference Committee votes to defund it, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/pressrelease%202011-03-08.htm 2. Governor’s May Revise: Some good news for people with disabilities, but leaves Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) clients stranded and raises questions about mental health services, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/pressrelease%202011-05-19.htm 3. 8th Annual Disability Capitol Action Day to Draw Thousands; Disability Activists, Legislators and over 2,000 participants to rally at the Capitol (no federal funding used for lobbying purposes), http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/pressrelease%202011-05-23.htm 4. People with disabilities sue to halt elimination of Adult Day Health Care, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/pressrelease%202011-06.09.htm

ARTICLES (63) referring to DRC attorneys, advocates, and/or work product or other media stories posted on our website: 1. Disability Rights California attorney critiques governor’s plan to eliminate senior health program, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-01-12sanjosemercury.html. 2. Senior advocates say Brown’s budget cuts could backfire, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-01-20healthline.html. 3. Nursing homes reach last-minute deal on Medi-Cal cut, 6/13/11, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-13%20CaWatch.html. 4. In California, home health care cuts face legal questions, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-01-28-kansascity.html 5. Seniors making noise over budget cuts, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-02-02-CaliforniaHealthline.html 6. California Adult Day Health Care on chopping block, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-02-07-sfgate.html 7. State whacks Adult Day Health Care system, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-03-26sfgate.html 8. State urged to unravel ’confusing maze’ of programs for seniors, disabled, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-04-30-sacbee.html 9. Cuts in day care for adults are forcing more into nursing homes, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-05-01-mercury.html 10. Justice Department reaches Americans with Disabilities Act settlement with Wells Fargo, 5/11/11, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-05-11-justicegov.html 11. Fraudulent use of disabled parking placards explodes in last decade, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-05-22-latimes.html 12. Lawsuit filed as two more ADHC centers close, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-10CAHleathline.html 13. Lawsuit filed to block budget cut, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-10-healthycal.html 14. Assembly passes SB48 requiring schools to include teach disability history, study of gay, lesbian, bisexual & transgender historical figures, sends measure to Governor Brown, 7/6/11 http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-6-lbreport.html 15. Questions are raised on restraint training, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-07-nytimes.html 16. Jerry Brown signs bill requiring schools to teach disability history http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-14-sacbee.html 17. Home, but not alone, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-23-pressenterprise.html 18. Teaching of Disability History Is Eminently Right - and FAIR, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-01-itoday.html 19. State slapped with suit over elimination of Adult Day Health Care, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-10-kpbs.html 20. Patients, families, staff say goodbye as Sacramento adult care center closes, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-11-sacbee.html 21. Health center closures could leave thousands without options, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-13- healthy.html 22. Nursing homes reach last-minute deal on Medi-Cal cut, 6/13/11, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-13%20CaWatch.html 23. Editorial: Adult health centers are well worth saving, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-15-sacbee.html 24. EDITORIAL: California can’t afford not to save its adult health centers, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-16-fresno.html 25. Overview of Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) crisis quotes Attorney Elissa Gershon, Disability Rights California, 6/30/11, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-06-30%20CaHealthline.html 26. Adult day health center suffers setback, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-06-half.html 27. Governor Axes Medi-Cal Adult Day Services, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-11-napapatch.html 28. State cuts threaten Adult Day Services, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-13-napavalleyreg.html 29. ADHC Lawsuit Gets Federal Support, California Healthline, 7/14/11, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-14-calhealth.html 30. ADHC Lawsuit Gets Federal Support, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-14-calhealth.html 31. State cuts could put more seniors in nursing homes, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-07-16-AP.html 32. Oakland’s frail seniors at risk due to Brown’s veto, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-17-oaklocal.html 33. S.F.’s Bayview institutions reflect past, future, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-17-sfgate.html 34. US states cut home health services for seniors, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-17-AP.html 35. Adult Day Health Care centers fight for life, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-17-sfgate2.html 36. US states cut home health services for seniors, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-17-sfgate2.html 37. Uncertainties surround fate of California’s Adult Day Health Care Centers, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-18-CALHEALTHLINE.HTML 38. Yolo center threatened by gov’s action to cut programs, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-26-dailydem.html 39. Brown rejects bill to establish replacement program for ADHC http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-26-cahealthline.html 40. Veto presents funding challenge for adult day services, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-26-napa.html 41. Cuts to adult day care funding troubling to Valley seniors, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-26-daily.html 42. Needy elderly will pay the price for cuts in Medi-Cal, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-30-latimes.html 43. Shaky funding closes Fresno adult day care center, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-02-fresno.html 44. Unkindest cuts: the de-funding of California’s Adult Day Health Care Program, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-08-kalw.html 45. State plans to provide managed care for Adult Day Health Care users, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-08-cahealthline.html 46. Legislators, Advocates, State Officials Attend ADHC Hearing, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-17-cahealthline.html 47. Insurers question plan to cover senior patients, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-31-cawatch.html 48. Michael Glueck: A common sense solution to frivolous ADA lawsuits http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-07-15-orange.html 49. DMV often sends disabled placards to the deceased http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-07-20-latimes.html 50. Middle-aged Sacramentans join ranks of unpaid caregivers for elderly relatives http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-07-22-sacbee.html 51. Yolo center threatened by gov’s action to cut programs http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-07-26-dailydem.html 52. Two minority groups with a lot in common http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-07-28-washingtonblade.html 53. California’s new budget already facing shortfall http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-08-10-SFGate.html 54. Report: In-home care program fractured, unsupervised and poorly managed http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-08-14-mercury.html. 55. Bruised by budget battle, Jerry Brown curbs ambitions http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-08-17-latimes.html. 56. Legislators, Advocates, State Officials Attend ADHC Hearing http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-17-cahealthline.html 57. California on the brink http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-08-28- dailybeast.html 58. Insurers question plan to cover senior patients http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-08-31-cawatch.html 59. People with disabilities sue to halt elimination of Adult Day Health Care http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/pressrelease%202011-06.09.htm 60. Governor’s May Revise: Some good news for people with disabilities, but leaves Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) clients stranded and raises questions about mental health services http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/pressrelease%202011-05-19.htm 05/19/11 news about us 61. California Adult Day Health Care on chopping block http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-02-07-sfgate.html 62. Cuts in day care for adults are forcing more into nursing homes http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-05-01-mercury.html 63. Disability Rights California attorney critiques governor’s plan to eliminate senior health program http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-01-12sanjosemercury.html.

Part II. Individuals Served

A. Individuals Served

Count individual once per FY. Multiple counts not permitted for lines A1 through A3.

1. Individuals still served as of October 1 (carryover from prior FY)200
2. Additional individuals served during the year1,644
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)1,844
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)28

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 212

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility39
2. Employment188
3. Program access87
4. Housing362
5. Government benefits/services822
6. Transportation67
7. Education70
8. Assistive technology15
9. Voting0
10. Health care263
11. Insurance4
12. Non-government services111
13. Privacy rights12
14. Access to records7
15. Abuse47
16. Neglect14
17. Other0

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor1,533
2. Other representation found42
3. Individual withdrew complaint169
4. Appeals unsuccessful36
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.3
6. PAIR withdrew from case16
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources54
8. Individual case lacks legal merit39
9. Other0

Please explain

E. Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.

1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy11
2. Short-term assistance1,832
3. Investigation/monitoring12
4. Negotiation20
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution0
6. Administrative hearings11
7. Litigation (including class actions)6
8. Systemic/policy activities0

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. 0 - 45
2. 5 - 2297
3. 23 - 591,123
4. 60 - 64245
5. 65 and over374

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females988
2. Males856

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race274
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native22
3. Asian65
4. Black or African American265
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander26
6. White1,082
7. Two or more races92
8. Race/ethnicity unknown18

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent1,396
2. Parental or other family home249
3. Community residential home18
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home51
6. Public institutional living arrangement5
7. Private institutional living arrangement5
8. Jail/prison/detention center52
9. Homeless55
10. Other living arrangements4
11. Living arrangements not known9

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

Identify the individual's primary disability, namely the one directly related to the issues/complaints

1. Blind/visual impairment100
2. Deaf/hard of hearing80
3. Deaf-blind5
4. Orthopedic impairment779
5. Mental illness46
6. Substance abuse1
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability88
9. Neurological impairment275
10. Respiratory impairment56
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment132
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment66
13. Speech impairment10
14. AIDS/HIV26
15. Traumatic brain injury13
16. Other disability167

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities19

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes1,800,000

Describe your systemic activities. Be sure to include information about the policies that were changed and how these changes benefit individuals with disabilities. Include case examples of how your systemic activities impacted individuals served.

Abuse and Neglect

(1) The Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging and Nadine Roisman v. Valerie West, et al.: The case involves a retaliation lawsuit against an 87 year-old woman with diabetes living at the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aged (LAJHA) residential care facility after the woman’s family filed complaints against LAJHA for neglecting and abusing her by, among other things, failing to provide her insulin and conduct medically necessary glucose monitoring. After the family had reported the neglect, the State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division (DSS) issued at least eight deficiency citations against LAJHA over issues such as LAJHA’s coercing her to sign legal documents without allowing her to read them despite her protests and without her family present, and not providing her a copy; pressuring her to sign an apparently blank form that turned out to have been an Address Change Request and Direct Deposit Authorization, as LAJHA attempted to redirect her pension and Social Security payments against her will; and failing to provide basic services as outlined in the admission agreement. LAJHA retaliated against the resident and her family by filing a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) action against them seeking to enjoin the resident’s family from visiting her.

On September 7, 2010, DRC filed an amicus letter on behalf of the defendant (the family member of the resident) in the Superior Court case in support of her motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order in place against her that restricted her ability to visit the resident, and to prevent California SLAPP laws from being used to chill or prevent individuals with disabilities and their families and friends from reporting abuse and neglect. The ultimate decision in the Superior Court case was appealed. DRC appeared as an amicus in the Appellate Court proceeding on its own behalf, receiving approval to join the amicus filed on behalf of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR). Oral argument was held October 4, 2011 and the appeal is still pending. (There is no estimated impact until the outcome of the decision is known. However, if successful, the decision would impact the 100,000+ individuals living in nursing homes.)

Benefits

(1) DRC worked with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) community stakeholders to develop IHSS Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention policies and tools for fraud risk assessment and fraud prevention and detection that would not have the effect of unnecessarily limiting IHSS services to recipients. DRC and other stakeholders provided input regarding topics that included a risk assessment training program for CDSS/IHSS staff and forms and notices regarding unannounced home visits. Estimated impact of 250,000 individuals with PAIR-eligible disabilities.

(2) In January and February of 2011, DRC started receiving calls from clients in San Diego and Orange Counties regarding due process issues as a result of legislative budget cuts to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS). Callers identified problems including failure to issue any Notice of Action on a 3.6% across-the-board cut, misapplication of the 3.6% cuts to individuals with unmet need hours, unreported or unknown unmet need hours, and refusal by county workers to process appeals based upon clients’ requests for reassessments. Many of these problems occurred on a statewide level, and DRC worked with the state agency and relevant counties to correct training of county staff and retrain or notify judges across the state. DRC exchanged letters with the California Department of Social Services Deputy Director explaining the problems and attempting resolution of the issues. No final outcome has been achieved at this time, but work continues in light of a probable 20% across-the-board cut to all IHSS recipients on January 1, 2012. Estimated impact of 130,000 individuals with PAIR-eligible disabilities.

(3) Seniors and people with disabilities who receive Medi-Cal (Medicaid) in a number of counties in California are being mandatorily enrolled in managed care. DRC participates in biweekly teleconferences with other advocacy organizations regarding this mandatory enrollment. DRC is also a member of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) Dual Eligibles Technical Workgroup. DRC presented at the DHCS Request for Information Dual Integration Conference on August 30, 2011. DRC prepared a fact sheet on mandatory enrollment into managed care. As a result of these efforts, individuals with disabilities were given information about mandatory enrollment into Medi-Cal managed care. We also provided the California Department of Health Care Services with information about challenges in integrating behavioral health services and long-term care services into managed care.

There are a total of 380,000 seniors and people with disabilities affected; 150,000 have mental illness, 50,000 have developmental disabilities, and 50,000 have PAIR-eligible disabilities.

(4) Beckwith v. Saenz: Legislation passed in 2009 bars people with certain felony convictions from working as IHSS attendants. This new rule limits the availability of providers, bars a spouse who was formerly incarcerated from serving as an IHSS provider to his or her spouse, and violates the principle of consumer control and direction at the heart of the IHSS program. The new eligibility standard greatly diminished the autonomy afforded to seniors and people with disabilities to select an IHSS provider of their choosing. DRC drafted and filed an amicus brief that addressed a question of statutory construction that had not been fully addressed by the parties. The court accepted our amicus and ruled in favor of the IHSS recipients, striking down the felony bar. The case is now successfully concluded, after a year of DRC staff monitoring the state’s All County Letters implementing the decision. (An estimated 1,000 people will benefit from this amicus submission)

(5) Clark v. Astrue: DRC is one of the counsel representing plaintiffs in the related case of Martinez v. Astrue, a nationwide class action lawsuit settled on behalf of persons whose Social Security benefits were denied or suspended because of an outstanding felony warrant. Martinez addressed Social Security’s failure to follow the statute and its own regulation requiring a determination that the person is “fleeing to avoid prosecution or custody or confinement after conviction” for a felony. However, warrants because of alleged violations of a condition of parole or probation are outside the scope of Martinez but addressed in Clark. The part of the statute addressed in Clark says that an applicant or recipient is not eligible for benefits in a month “the person is . . . violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law.”

Social Security takes action after the jurisdiction issuing the warrant has an opportunity to pick up the person and has declined to do so. Social Security’s practice is to presume there is a violation of a condition of probation or parole based solely on the existence of a warrant. This practice unfairly denies individuals their Social Security benefits even if there in fact is no probation or parole violation. The policy cuts off income and medical services, often leaving our clients homeless. Many of our clients, because of their disabilities, are not able to negotiate the system and bureaucracies to get warrants vacated. Two DRC individual cases contributed significantly to the amicus brief, including providing two of the case examples discussed in the brief. The work of counsel and amici lead to the reversal of the trial court decision. The Second Circuit’s decision in Clark reversing the trial court and requiring Social Security to follow the law means the case will be pursued as a nationwide class on remand. (Amicus submission affecting approximately 300 individuals with PAIR-eligible disabilities each year.)

Discrimination

(1) The City of Los Angeles has drafted an ordinance targeted at sober living homes that, if passed, would make it difficult for people with disabilities who need to live in shared or supported living situations from living in low-density residential neighborhoods. DRC has submitted public comments to the City explaining the effect that such an ordinance would have on housing options for people with disabilities and the laws that prohibit such discriminatory conduct by the City. DRC has also worked in coalition with other organizations to fight against the proposed ordinance. No ordinance has yet been passed by the City of Los Angeles targeting people in supported living situations. Estimated impact: 375,000 people with disabilities.

(2) The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and the Office of Systems Integration has agreed to change a number of its websites that serve public programs to remove significant barriers to use by people who are blind or have other significant vision impairments. These websites serve the public in several important ways. They furnish information about eligibility for and the scope of services under many public benefits programs. On June 2, 2011, DRC, along with other advocacy groups, sent a demand letter to the Director of CDSS about possible website accessibility barriers. We asked that the agencies remove the barriers identified and retain an independent expert to do a detailed analysis of their accessibility. We received a reply letter in late June 2011from Tom Lee, Deputy Director for Human Rights and Community Services Division, stating that the Office of Systems Integration (OSI) had forwarded our concerns to the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) Consortia. CDSS asked the Consortia to perform an assessment of its websites with respect to the issues noted in our demand letter since the Consortia has direct responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the websites. We received the assessments on September 28, 2011. The Consortia is going to consult with the Center for Assessable Technology in Berkeley with the goal of full compliance with Section 508 by May 2012. (This project will impact an estimated 10,000 individuals with disabilities statewide.)

(3) In June 2010, the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) instituted the Clipper card, which a passenger can use with all 7 transit agencies in the Bay Area. The MTC planned to replace all paper tickets with the Clipper card. However, there was no adequate provision for attendant travel under the new “Clipper Card” program. DRC staff testified in November 2010 and March 2011 before the MTC on this issue. The Commissioners noted our testimony, and asked the transit agencies to find a way to provide two RTC/Clipper cards for people with disabilities who require attendants while traveling.

As a result of DRC’s activities, the Transit Agencies agreed to issue “Clipper Attendant Cards.” For individuals who already have a discounted Clipper Card from the RTC, the whole process can be completed by mail with a $3.00 fee, by filling out an application which will be mailed to them. Those applying for the RTC disability discount Clipper Card can ask at the same time for the additional Attendant Discounted Card. There is a $3.00 fee for each card. MTC reports that they will monitor usage of the “Discounted Attendant Cards” and track discrepancies in usage between the main card holder and the attendant card. Approximately 1,500 people who have RTC cards need attendants when they travel on public transportation.

(4) Antoninetti v. Chipotle Grill: Plaintiff brought suit claiming that the restaurant violated the ADA because its counters were inaccessible, depriving people with disabilities of the experience of choosing their ingredients the same way that people without disabilities do at the restaurant. The restaurant claimed that its practice of bringing food to customers with disabilities constituted “equivalent facilitation” under the ADA and that it therefore did not have to comply with the ADA’s new construction requirements. The District Court agreed.

DRC filed an amicus submission to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the District Court’s decision on July 26, 2010, and held that Chipotle’s customer service policy did not relieve it of its obligation to comply with the ADA’s new construction requirements. The Ninth Circuit decision sets a precedent that alternative customer services policies cannot negate the obligation of a place of public accommodation to comply with the ADA’s new construction rules. (Approximately 500,000 people with mobility disabilities in California potentially affected by this decision.)

(5) American Nurses Association v. O’Connell: DRC, along with other groups, helped draft, research and signed onto an amicus submission (request for review) to the California Supreme Court, which was granted on September 28, 2010. On May 11, 2011, DRC joined school districts and other disability groups in filing an amicus brief supporting Intervenor and Appellant, The American Diabetes Association.

The case challenges application of the Nursing Practices Act to the administration of medication to children at school. If the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the Nursing Practice Act is affirmed, children will likely not receive needed medicine at school when a licensed nurse is not available to administer it, or children will be effectively prohibited from attending public school because parents cannot assure that their children will receive vitally needed medicine. The goal is to have the California Supreme Court reverse the lower court’s decision because of its impact on children with disabilities. (Approximately 30,408 children with disabilities potentially affected by this decision.)

(6) Carter v. City of Los Angeles: DRC became aware of a problematic proposed settlement in the consolidated cases of Carter v. L.A. and Fahmie v. L.A. regarding the accessibility of the City’s sidewalks. The two main problems with the proposed agreement are that it only requires the City to spend up to $4 million per year on curb cuts for 25 years, considerably less than what the City already spends, and that it waives statutory damages for class members. DRC, along with other legal advocacy groups, filed objections to the settlement arguing that it does not benefit the proposed class of individuals. (Approximately 90,000 individuals with disabilities affected by this proposed settlement):

(7) Harris v. City of Santa Monica: Plaintiff in this case alleged that her employer terminated her from her job because of her pregnancy. Plaintiff alleged that she was a person with a disability based upon her pregnancy, which entitled her to protected status. At trial, the jury found that pregnancy was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate her, and that therefore she had a claim for discrimination. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the trial court should have used a different legal standard in its instructions to the jury. The Court of Appeal, referring to a “same decision” defense, indicated that the jury should have been told that it was a defense to the claim of discrimination if the employer could show that it would have made the same termination decision even in the absence of the discriminating factor (even if she was not pregnant).

Plaintiff and amici contend that the Court of Appeal used the wrong legal standard. Amici urge the California Supreme Court to reject a "same decision" defense under state law, as such a defense is contrary to the language and purposes of the statute, and conflicts with precedential interpretation by California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC). The plain meaning, legislative intent, and FEHC’s interpretation of state law compel the conclusion that "a motivating factor" is the correct standard of causation under the Act; there is no “same-decision” defense. Approximately 875 individuals with disabilities potentially affected by this decision.)

(8) Jankey (Les) v. Lee (Song Koo): DRC, with other organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of California on behalf of plaintiff Les Jankey. After Mr. Jankey lost a discrimination claim based on various discrimination laws, the defendant was awarded his full attorneys’ fees based solely on state law. Amici are seeking review of the California Appellate Court’s decision, and seek to prevent imposition of attorneys’ fees on losing plaintiffs unless the lawsuit was frivolous, consistent with other civil rights fee shifting statutes. (Approximately 1.8 million people with disabilities could be affected by the outcome of the litigation.)

(9) King v. City and County of San Francisco: DRC filed objections to a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit involving sidewalks in San Francisco, which allowed the city to spend even less money than it already spends on repairing and installing curb ramps. It also had a very broad release, inhibiting class members’ right to sue for accessibility issues about the sidewalks. Based upon the objections raised, the court refused to approve the settlement. (Approximately 90,000 individuals with disabilities impacted by this decision.)

(10) A.J. Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co.: In the underlying case, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Ralphs Grocery Co. In so ruling, the court refused to consider access barriers that were not pled in the complaint. A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, in a holding that imposed a heightened pleading standard on plaintiffs bringing ADA access cases. DRC joined an amicus brief supporting the Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing en banc. If the panel’s decision is overturned, people with mobility or sensory impairments who encounter barriers in places of public accommodation will benefit. (Approximately 1.8 million individuals with disabilities could be impacted by this decision.)

(11) Pacific Shores v. City of Newport Beach; Newport Coast Recovery et al., v. City of Newport Beach: The City of Newport Beach enacted an ordinance targeting sober living homes by changes to the definitions used in its zoning ordinance. Under these new definitions, sober living homes — and other homes where people with disabilities share a supported living environment — were prohibited from locating in all zones but multifamily residential districts, and there only after surviving an onerous permitting process. As a result, the vast majority of sober living homes in Newport Beach disappeared. DRC joined an amicus brief asking the appellate court to overturn the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the lower court had applied an erroneous legal standard. (Approximately 1.8 million people with disabilities could be impacted by the outcome of this decision.)

(12) Stinnett v. Tam: DRC participated in the drafting of an amicus brief filed in the Court of Appeal on November 4, 2010 on behalf of Plaintiff Holly Stinnett challenging California’s medical malpractice caps under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (“MICRA”) arguing that they are unconstitutional or unlawful. Specifically, we argued that the caps discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Such caps on malpractice non-economic damages significantly impact people with disabilities who may not have other economic damages due to not working or having lower paying jobs or other less profitable work histories, and therefore they are unable to be fully compensated for their individual injuries caused by medical malpractice. We also argued that because of MICRA’s cap on noneconomic damages and the limitations on attorneys’ fees, members of those groups frequently cannot find representation for their claims and therefore are shut out of the justice system altogether.

Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal held on September 1, 2011 that MICRA was lawful. A petition for review of the appellate decision was filed October 12, 2011 and is pending. (Approximately 3,000 individuals with disabilities impacted by this decision.)

(13) Turner v. Association of American Medical Colleges (Turner II): Plaintiffs, individuals with disabilities, lost a reasonable accommodations case on appeal. The defendants filed a motion to recover over $1.6 million in attorneys’ fees and costs against the student plaintiffs and the nonprofit organizational plaintiff, under a provision in state law that has a “prevailing party” attorneys’ fees provision, contrary to most civil rights statutes that do not allow prevailing defendants to recover fees unless the lawsuit was frivolous. The application of this fee provision has a chilling effect on the ability of individuals with disabilities to enforce their rights under this statute.

The trial court denied the fee motion in August 2009, after briefing and argument by the parties and amici. On September 25, 2009, defendants filed a notice of appeal. The appeal was decided in favor of plaintiffs and amici in March 2011. (Potentially impacting 1.8 million individuals with disabilities.)

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts7
2. Number of individuals named in class actions96,941

Describe your litigation/class action activities. Explain how individuals with disabilities benefited from your litigation activities. Be sure to include case examples that demonstrate the impact of your litigation.

(1) Siebert v. Zangari (not a class action): MZ is a person with disabilities who uses a wheelchair, the services of a live-in caregiver, and a service dog. She lives in the downstairs unit in a duplex pursuant to a lifetime lease that is deeded with the property. The landlord has failed to maintain accessible features of the apartment (e.g. installing a shower with a six-inch lip where there had been a roll-in shower designed for MZ’s wheelchair), has placed disability-based conditions on MZ’s tenancy (such as requiring extra insurance for MZ’s service dog), and has attempted to evict MZ claiming MZ is “unable to live at the property” due to allegations that the exits are not appropriate for MZ’s wheelchair. The landlord has also filed civil damages and ejectment claims against MZ based on disputes about utility bills and the wording of her lifetime lease agreement. The landlord’s removal of accessible features to MZ’s apartment and her placement of disability-based conditions on the tenancy violate the disability discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act and related California laws. The landlord has also refused to allow MZ to modify the property on her own to restore the accessible features, in violation of the reasonable modification provisions of the Fair Housing Act and California laws.

A five-day bench trial was held on plaintiff’s declaratory relief cause of action and DRC obtained a favorable ruling on MZ’s behalf. A jury trial on additional issues is schedule for March 2012. (Estimated impact to 1 person with disabilities.)

(2) Esther Darling, et al. v. Toby Douglas, et al. (previously Harry Cota, et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, et al. & Brantley v. Maxwell-Jolly) (class action) (This litigation is currently funded with state contract funds and it affects PAIR-eligible individuals): DRC filed this class action lawsuit challenging 2 sets of cutbacks to Medi-Cal funded Adult Day Health Care services in California arising from 2009 legislation. DRC filed a request for a Preliminary Injunction on the first cut, an across the board cut to no more than 3 days per week of attendance, and the cut was enjoined by the Court. The claims related to the first cut were subsequently settled in May, 2010. The class was certified in August, 2010.

DRC then filed a request for a preliminary injunction against the second cut, which narrowed eligibility criteria in a way that would terminate services for up to 15,000 participants. This second cut was also enjoined by the court and is currently on appeal.

On April 21, 2011 Defendants and Plaintiffs filed a stipulation to lift the Stay in order for Plaintiffs to file a motion to amend the complaint to add additional claims challenging legislation which eliminates ADHC as an optional service under California’s State Plan. Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, which was granted on June 2, 2011 and the Second Amended Complaint was filed that same day, on June 2, 2011. The U.S. Department of Justice filed Statements of Interest regarding Plaintiffs’ third motion for preliminary injunction on July 12, 2011 and on October 31, 2011. While the hearing of this motion was ongoing in court, the parties continued settlement discussions.

On November 17, 2011, the Parties reached a proposed Settlement Agreement and have proposed a final fairness hearing date of January 24, 2012 to the Court. Under the Settlement, by March 1, 2012, the the ADHC program will convert from a Medi-Cal state plan optional benefit into a new service -- Community Based Adult Services or “CBAS” — which will be provided through a Medi-Cal 1115 Waiver program. “CBAS” will be substantially similar to ADHC services. CBAS is an outpatient, facility-based service program that delivers skilled nursing care, social services, therapies, personal care, family/caregiver training and support, meals and transportation to eligible Medi-Cal beneficiaries. CBAS will be available at former ADHC centers that are approved by DHCS as CBAS providers.

According to the Settlement, there will be no enrollment cap on the number of individuals who can be served under the CBAS program and services will be provided at no cost to recipients. CBAS will be provided through Medi-Cal managed care plans in most parts of the state. In counties where managed care is not available, and for people who are not eligible for managed care, CBAS will remain a fee-for-service Medi-Cal benefit. The approximately 35,000 current ADHC participants will be reassessed for CBAS eligibility and transitioned into the new program during November 2011 through February 2012. Current ADHC providers will be given the opportunity to apply to become CBAS providers as well. ADHC participants found to be not eligible for CBAS due to a relatively lower risk of institutionalization will receive Enhanced Case Management to assist them to transition to other community-based services. DRC will continue to monitor the implementation of the Settlement in the coming year. (An estimated 18,240 PAIR-eligible individuals will benefit from this lawsuit.)

(3) Johnson v. L.A. County (class action) (This litigation is currently funded with state contract funds and it affects PAIR-eligible individuals): Over the course of a year, as many as 9,000 people with disabilities are housed in the Los Angeles County Jail for weeks, months, or even longer. The LA Sheriff’s Department (LASD) often fails to provide accommodations for these detainees. For example, one of our clients had his wheelchair taken from him. This case addresses the lack of accommodations in jail for people with disabilities, in violation of the ADA, Section 504, and the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.

We have assisted individual prisoners in obtaining accommodations and taken their declarations for use in the case. After settlement efforts in 2010 were unsuccessful, we conducted discovery, which is nearly completed. We retained a medical expert, who submitted a report to the court. We submitted a class certification motion, which the court orally granted, although an order has not yet been issued. Defendants agreed to pay for mediation with a former judge and we have had one mediation session. We are preparing a summary judgment motion, which we hope to file before the end of 2011. (An estimated 1,000 people will benefit from this lawsuit.)

(4) V.L./Oster v. Wagner (class action): In October 2009, DRC (in conjunction with several law firms, advocacy groups, and agencies) filed a class action lawsuit to stop cuts in IHSS benefits to 130,000 people based on a legal argument that the State’s use of a “functional index” to terminate and reduce benefits was arbitrary and discriminated against children and people with psychiatric disabilities and did not reflect criticality of need. As a result, it violated the Medicaid Act, the ADA, and Section 504. The majority of IHSS recipients who would have been affected are non-English speakers; adequacy of the termination notices was a major issue in the case.

We filed dozens of declarations from clients, county officials and national experts. We obtained a preliminary injunction blocking the cuts. The state sought an emergency stay, which we successfully opposed. We briefed and argued the case in the 9th Circuit. Our 9th Circuit panel then withdrew the case from consideration pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Douglas v. Independent Living Center. The Douglas case, which could affect several of our Medicaid claims, was argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2011, and we expect a decision next spring. The preliminary injunction remains in effect and will remain so for the indefinite future. (An estimated 65,000 PAIR-eligible individuals will benefit from this lawsuit.)

(5) Stringfellow, et al. v. McGinness, et. al. (not a class action): The Sacramento County Jail (SCJ) had a blanket policy to restrain all inmates needing dialysis during the entire dialysis procedure. The lawsuit was filed to eliminate this policy and to require compliance with California Regulations prohibiting use of restraints except under limited factual circumstances. A Complaint was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. Following extensive settlement negotiations and mediation, a stipulated judgment was reached and approved by the Court. Pursuant to the stipulated judgment, Sacramento County agreed to remove its blanket policy of using restraints during dialysis unless specific factual circumstances occurred and were documented. The stipulated agreement also provides for a two-year monitoring by DRC staff to make sure staff at the Sacramento County Jail are implementing the stipulated judgment. The Court signed the stipulated judgment on December 17, 2010.

Monitoring began in late January of 2011. Staff at the Sacramento County Jail informed DRC that there has been no need for the use of restraints on an inmate during dialysis since the summer of 2010 until present. Staff also report that the new policies from the stipulated judgment resulted in a better environment for both inmates and staff. (Approximately 500 people with disabilities will be impacted.)

(6) Chambers, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco (class action): This lawsuit was filed by six residents of Laguna Honda Hospital and the Independent Living Resource Center (ILRCSF) in San Francisco alleging discrimination in the form of unnecessary institutionalization under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This action impacts an estimated 1,200 individuals with disabilities. The Parties reached a Settlement Agreement, which received final approval in federal court in September 2008. The Settlement Agreement will enhance community-based living options, through the provision of services and housing, to class members. Significantly, the named plaintiff in this lawsuit, Mark Chambers, moved out of Laguna Honda and continues to live in the community with sufficient supports. Plaintiffs continue to monitor implementation of the settlement through review of data, consultation with experts, individual advocacy, and reporting to the Court. In September 2011, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court regarding the aspects of the settlement that remain under the settlement term, and the parties’ plans for Plaintiffs to monitor implementation of the remaining aspects, the LHHRSP (rental subsidy program) through 2013.

(7) Martinez et al v. Astrue (class action): The “fleeing felon” provisions in the Social Security Act applied to SSI recipients as of 1996 and to Old Age, Survivors & Disability Insurance (OASDI) recipients as of 2005 and provide that anyone who is 1) “fleeing to avoid prosecution” for a felony, or 2) “fleeing to avoid … custody or confinement after conviction” for a felony” shall be ineligible for benefits. Social Security in 2000 issued final SSI regulations stating that it would deny or suspend benefits only “on the basis of an appropriate finding” that an individual “[i]s fleeing, or has fled to avoid prosecution” or “is fleeing, or has fled to avoid, custody or confinement after conviction” for a felony. Despite the clear language in the statute and 2000 regulations, Social Security’s policy was that the existence of a warrant was a conclusive presumption that the person was “fleeing” and therefore ineligible for benefits even where the recipient or applicant did not know about the warrant.

DRC, with co-counsel, brought suit and settled this case during the 2008-09 fiscal year, and continued to monitor the implementation of the settlement this past year. DRC/class counsel had an opportunity to review and comment on copies of all directions and instructions to field offices, and changes to the Program Operation Manual System (POMS) materials. Those comments and redrafts have resulted in significant improvements from the consumer’s point of view. There is a procedure for resolving problems in implementation both individually and systemically. These problems are brought to our attention by a special nationwide advocate’s listserv. (Approximately 11,000 PAIR-eligible individuals in California are entitled to some relief under this action.)

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:

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

PRIORITY 1: Abuse and Neglect

NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED: 66

PRIORITY DESCRIPTION: People with disabilities are at disproportionate risk of abuse and neglect. Caregivers are frequently the perpetrators of abuse. Yet, the abuse reporting and response system is complex and confusing. Investigators lack sufficient training and expertise in working with people with disabilities. There is inadequate oversight of the abuse system’s response to allegations of abuse and neglect, from initial report to investigation and response by the criminal justice system.

NEED, ISSUE AND/OR BARRIER: People with disabilities need information and representation with respect to abuse and neglect issues, both in facilities and in the community.

COLLABORATION: California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR), American Civil Liberties Union, Department of Public Health (DPH), the California Psychologists Association, Ombudsman Services, the Alzheimer’s Association, and skilled nursing facility providers and clinicians including geriatric psychiatrists and geriatric neuropsychologists.

INDICATOR 1: Reduce serious and life-threatening injuries caused by abuse and neglect in all facilities, including: Institutions, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, residential care facilities, and jails, prisons, and other correctional facilities. Improve how oversight agencies respond to reported abuse and neglect in these facilities. Provide technical assistance or investigate certain cases where someone died or was seriously injured because of abuse or neglect, for example, suicide, sexual assault, or prescriptions for multiple drugs. Investigations will include looking at inadequate and/or untimely investigations, and inadequate and/or untimely oversight, by responsible entities.

EXAMPLES: (1) The Investigations Unit (IU) previously reported its investigation into the abuse of seven residents at Valley View Skilled Nursing Facility (Valley View) by six Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). The CNAs, working the swing shift, lathered seven nursing home residents with ointment from head to toe as a prank for the oncoming night shift. The ointment had been described by one witness as “caked” onto the residents. All the resident victims had severe dementia. The CNA who instigated the incident said they intended to make the residents “slippery” to create extra work for the oncoming night-shift who would have to clean up the residents and change the sheets. The IU prompted the Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse (BMFEA) and the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office to criminally prosecute the offenders.

The IU had been in regular contact with the lead prosecutor in the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office and recently determined that the two ringleaders of the crime were sentenced to county jail. Another CNA was given probation, and ordered to perform 150 hours of community service. All three were convicted of misdemeanor elder abuse. Two other defendants were convicted of failure to report elder abuse and received two years probation and ordered to perform 100 hours of community services. Charges were dismissed against the remaining defendant.

This abuse investigation is part of the IU’s monitoring of the criminal justice system’s response to staff abuse cases in skilled nursing facilities. The IU also initiated a follow-up project to track how timely the CNA Licensing Board investigates and sanctions CNAs involved in physical or sexual abuse against skilled nursing facility residents.

(2) While monitoring conditions at a skilled nursing facility, the IU was notified by a confidential informant of the death of a resident. Although the facility initially denied that a death had occurred, it eventually disclosed the resident’s name after the IU asserted DRC’s access authority. The IU later obtained the resident’s clinical records and the coroner’s investigation and autopsy.

After reviewing the records, the IU determined that the resident, A.M., a thirty year old man who was paraplegic, had died from complications resulting from multiple, minimally treated, pressure ulcers. Except for a brief period when he was discharged for urgent care, A.M. was under the continuous care of the attending physician for many other residents at the facility. Despite the presence of these multiple severe pressure sores, the doctor only ordered daily wound care by nursing level staff and did not order a consultation with a wound care specialist until a few weeks before A.M.’s death. Over the following months, A.M.’s decubiti continued to deteriorate to the point that A.M. had gaping deep sores that festered down to the bone.

DRC consulted with a world renowned expert in the area of pressure ulcer management and plastic and reconstructive surgery who found that the treating physician was negligent in his failure to recognize the severity of A.M.’s ulcers and immediately refer him to a specialist in pressure ulcers and wound care. Based on this information, the IU filed a complaint with the California Medical Board, alleging that the treating physician had provided substandard care to A.M., and requesting a full investigation and necessary disciplinary sanctions. INDICATOR 2: Inform people with disabilities about their rights and give them the information and materials they need to advocate for themselves by providing training and/or outreach to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on abuse and neglect issues.

EXAMPLE: IU staff conducted quarterly trainings to veterans with disabilities regarding their rights to be free from abuse and neglect and how to recognize it. Training participants were advised about strategies to work with law enforcement to ensure that their complaints are taken as crime reports. There trainings are conducted on-site at a Veteran’s Hospital and participants are both current inpatients and outpatients.

INDICATOR 3: Provide counsel and advice to people with disabilities, their family members, and/or other relevant groups of people on abuse and neglect issues.

EXAMPLE: The daughter of MW, an 88-year-old woman with dementia and orthopedic disabilities, called DRC with concerns that MW was being abused in the nursing home where she was living. The caller, a registered nurse, reportedly visited MW at the nursing home and saw bed sores on her heels and a small bruise on her ear. The caller had contacted adult protective services, the long term care ombudsman, and the police, but was not satisfied with their responses. The caller reported seeing residents "laying over their food trays" because they were over-medicated. DRC made an unannounced visit to the facility and interviewed MW and care staff. MW did not report any complaints of abuse and appeared to be in good physical condition. The injury to MW’s ear that the caller observed was attributed to a fall, when MW attempted to rise out of her wheelchair unassisted. The caller was referred to the local police Elder Abuse advocate for additional assistance. INDICATOR 4: Monitor proposed state regulations regarding abuse and neglect, and identify those that impact people with disabilities. Comment on these proposed regulations as needed.

EXAMPLE: There were no regulations proposed that required DRC’s comments.

PRIORITY 2: Benefits

NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED: 973

PRIORITY DESCRIPTION: Establishing eligibility for benefits and maintaining continued eligibility require navigating extremely complicated, often counter-intuitive rules in systems where those administering the program or health plan themselves often have a tenuous grasp of the rules. In addition, state and local budget shortfalls create incentives to deny people with disabilities their necessities of life.

NEED, ISSUE AND/OR BARRIER: People with disabilities need information and representation with respect to benefits issues.

COLLABORATION: DRC collaborated with independent living centers and often with other private and public interest counsel in representing and advising clients under this priority, including the California IHSS Coalition and Western Center on Law and Poverty.

INDICATOR 1: Preserve, increase, expand, and improve access to financial benefits by representing people on benefits issues, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability benefits, Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), and Programs and services that maximize employment opportunities by representing people with disabilities on benefits issues.

EXAMPLE: R.R. was receiving Social Security disability benefits based on his deceased parent’s account. He eventually became ineligible for these benefits due to his earnings above the substantial gainful activity (SGA) threshold. He also received an overpayment notice, which he appealed.

After receiving the overpayment notice, R.R. went to his local Social Security office to try to get back on benefits. He was told to submit a new application. He did, and was denied. He appealed, and eventually requested a hearing with an ALJ.

Under a new application, R.R. has the burden to demonstrate that he has a disability. However, disabled adult children who lose their benefits due to SGA can have their benefits reinstated once they are no longer working at the SGA level by requesting expedited reinstatement of benefits (EXR). Under the EXR provisions, Social Security issues provisional benefits, conducts a medical review, and determines whether there has been any medical improvement since a person was last eligible for benefits. Under the reinstatement provisions, R.R. would not have had to prove that he had a disability, as he would with a new application.

R.R was advised of the re-entitlement and EXR provisions when he consulted with a DRC advocate. R.R decided to pursue EXR while he waited for his hearing on the denial of the new application.

The advocate facilitated communication between R.R., Social Security, and the Disability Determination Services, the entity that determines whether or not a person is disabled. R.R. then withdrew his hearing request and focused on the EXR application, which was eventually approved.

INDICATOR 2: Identify and take steps to address systemic benefits issues.

EXAMPLE: DRC made comments to Social Security’s proposed rulemaking - Docket No. SSA-2010- 0044. Federal law establishes the requirement to make “every reasonable effort” to obtain medical evidence from a claimant’s treating physician before relying on evidence from a consultative examination. Social Security’s proposed regulations undercut that obligation by eliminating the need to follow up with treating sources to fill in gaps or to get additional information before sending the person to a consultative examination. Instead, regulations would allow the disability determination service to bypass the treating sources by sending the person for a consultative examination to fill in any gaps. The regulations also authorize the adjudicators to not give the previously required evidentiary weight to the documented opinions of treating sources by referring the person to a specialist consultative examination.

DRC endorsed the comments and recommendations of the National Organization of Social Security Claims Representatives (NOSSCR). http://www.nosscr.org/pdfs/treater-comments.pdf. DRC also addressed the adverse impact the proposed regulations would have on Californians seeking Social Security disability or SSI benefits. The proposed regulations also run contrary to Ninth Circuit law on the weight and dispositive role of the documented opinion of the treating physician in the disability determination process. The proposed regulatory changes are still pending.

INDICATOR 3: Preserve, increase, expand, and improve access to healthcare of good quality no matter where people live, including: Medi-Cal, California Children’s Services (CCS), Genetically Handicapped Persons Program (GHPP), Medicare, Private health plans, and Managed care plans.

EXAMPLE: While visiting her son in another state, C.R. was admitted to a hospital for emergency services. C.R. informed the hospital that she had Medi-Cal. Hospital staff advised C.R. that it accepted Medi-Cal and agreed that she would only be seen by doctors who accepted Medi-Cal. Later, she contacted DRC seeking assistance because some of the out-of-state health care providers were billing her for services related to the hospital stay. Under federal law, health care providers cannot charge for services that Medi-Cal covers when the provider knows that the person has Medi-Cal and accepts the person as a Medi-Cal patient. DRC agreed to help C.R. by writing letters to the health care providers, coordinating with our sister Protection & Advocacy agency in that state, and calling health care providers as needed. As a result of this action, the providers agreed not to bill C.R. and to accept Medi-Cal’s payment as full and final payment for services rendered.

INDICATOR 4: Identify and address systemic advocacy issues by: Monitoring Medi-Cal managed care and other health care reform proposals, identifying the impact on people with disabilities, and commenting on any changes needed to protect people with disabilities; advocating for an increase in Medi-Cal’s allowed monthly living expenses before allocating the balance as the Medi-Cal share of cost obligation; and advocating for a realistic share-of-cost deduction for housing costs for six months for people going into a nursing facility.

EXAMPLE: Under the PADD grant DRC litigated the following case this past fiscal year: L.C. is a 4-year-old boy with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). The local school district referred L.C. to California Children’s Services (CCS) for physical therapy (PT). L.C.’s initial CCS PT plan (three months of active PT followed by monitoring only) was deemed inadequate by his treating specialists outside of CCS, and his parents appealed the decision. In March 2010, after an appeal process that raised significant due process concerns, CCS immediately switched L.C. to a PT plan that included only monitoring. L.C.’s parents made sure that he remained in some PT while they contested CCS’s decision. Following a more recent evaluation in December of 2010, CCS offered a slightly-modified version of the previous PT plan — three months of active PT interspersed among nine months of monitoring. L.C.’s parents again disagreed with this decision, and sought DRC’s assistance.

L.C.’s parents scheduled a pre-appeal meeting with the treating CCS physician and PT providers in the hope of coming to an agreement regarding their son’s PT plan. DRC agreed to attend this meeting and raised two issues: 1) CCS’s responsibility to apply the appropriate pediatric standards of medical necessity, which are broader than the standards applicable to adults; and 2) serious due process concerns raised by CCS’s appeal process for decisions made by CCS physicians. In L.C.’s case, there is some evidence suggesting that CCS may even have intervened in the appeal; the “second opinion” physician initially wrote a decision favorable to L.C., but completely reversed his opinion after conferring with CCS. Following a discussion of the issues at the pre-appeal meeting, CCS agreed to provide L.C. with six months of active PT, followed by a new evaluation. In the meantime, CCS asserted that it would communicate with L.C.’s physicians outside of CCS to gain a better understanding of why they believe he needs continued active PT.

The due process violations that occurred in this and other cases led DRC to prepare a memo analyzing all relevant statutes, regulations and informal policies associated with the California Children’s Services’ (CCS) administration of health care services and whether they meet due process requirements under federal and state law. Since CCS typically settles disputes of DRC’s clients without going to administrative hearing or court, we have not successfully challenged the due process laws as they apply to CCS. We convened a working group to further research and analyze potential CCS due process cases. In the coming year, the due process memo will be finalized and distributed both internally and externally to attorneys and advocates working with CCS appeals and denials. Also, in the coming year, a trainer will be brought in from outside the agency and we will work with him to create training materials that can be used by our staff to perform outreach and train outside agencies, advocates, and parents of children receiving CCS. Approximately 170,000 children between the ages of 0-21 are served by CCS (based upon the most recent data from 2004).

INDICATOR 5: Preserve, increase, expand, and improve access to programs in the community that will provide the services and supports people with disabilities need to live, work, and participate fully in the community by directly representing people on issues such as, In-Home Supportive Services and Medi-Cal Personal Care Services, Medi-Cal / Medicaid, and the Assistance Dog Allowance program.

EXAMPLE: E. L. is 81-year-old woman with multiple disabilities who lives alone in a one-bedroom trailer and has no one who can provide care or assistance other than her In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provider. At the time of E. L.’s annual IHSS reassessment by the County, E. L. could not stand for more than a few minutes at a time due to weakness and pain, could not walk unassisted or without holding onto walls, had limited ability to bend, reach, or stretch, had great difficulty carrying, lifting, pushing or pulling items, and had limited use of her left arm. She had no water heater in her unit, so that all water had to be heated in a microwave before use for bathing, cooking, and other activities of daily living.

E. L. filed for fair hearing after receiving a Notice of Action advising that her IHSS hours would be decreased from 102 to 95 hours per month. DRC agreed to represent at the hearing. E. L. contended that the reassessment by the County was not reflective of her needs and was conducted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, and that the County owed her an underpayment for miscalculating her IHSS needs. The County also refused to reassess E. L. based on her deteriorating medical condition and decreased overall functioning level. As a result of the hearing, the judge awarded E. L. 117.5 IHSS hours per month and retroactive benefits.

INDICATOR 6: Identify and take steps to preserve, increase, expand and improve access to programs and services in the community, by undertaking administrative advocacy to help people get out of or avoid going into nursing facilities; identifying and taking steps to improve and expand home and community based waiver programs; undertaking advocacy to establish a statewide policy or regulation that IHSS providers not be required to re-enroll when moving to a new county.

EXAMPLE: DRC worked with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and IHSS community stakeholders to develop IHSS Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention policies and tools for fraud risk assessment and fraud prevention and detection that would not have the effect of unnecessarily limiting IHSS services to recipients. DRC and other stakeholders provided input regarding topics that included a risk assessment training program for CDSS/IHSS staff and forms and notices regarding unannounced home visits.

INDICATOR 7: Make sure that people with disabilities are informed about their rights and have the information and materials they need to effectively advocate for themselves by developing, or revising, and distributing publications and/or training materials to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on benefits topics.

EXAMPLE: DRC updated "Public Benefits for People with Disabilities." This is an important resource for both people with disabilities and advocates. This publication provides an overview of all the major public benefits programs in California, including federal programs such as SSDI and SSI. The publication helps people better advocate by introducing them to basic concepts, where to get help, and how to deal with possible obstacles to getting benefits.

INDICATOR 8: Provide training and/or outreach to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on benefits issues.

EXAMPLE: DRC lawyers and advocates staff a monthly Benefits clinic with law students at a law school in San Diego. These clinics provide the law students an opportunity to gain legal experience while helping people who are homeless and other under-represented persons in the San Diego area.

INDICATOR 9: Provide counsel and advice to people with disabilities, their advocates, family members, and/or other relevant groups of people on benefits issues.

EXAMPLE: R.T. called DRC because she was in the process of getting SSI/Medi-Cal and/or SSDI and wanted to know how much time she had to sell her current home and purchase another one without the sale affecting her benefits. DRC provided her with the California regulation that addressed her question and allowed her to meet SSA requirements.

INDICATOR 10: Monitor proposed state regulations regarding benefits and identify those that impact people with disabilities. Comment on these proposed regulations as needed.

EXAMPLE: The Benefits Workgroup monitored regulations during the fiscal year, and determined that no proposed regulations necessitated comment by DRC.

PRIORITY 3: Discrimination

NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED: 966

PRIORITY DESCRIPTION: Discrimination against people with disabilities in California exists in many areas, including: attitudes, stigma, and stereotypes; discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of their disability and other protected categories; inadequate and inaccessible transportation; lack of affordable, accessible housing; barriers to a full range of employment and self-employment opportunities; inadequate training and supports necessary to enter and stay in the workforce; lack of access to supports needed to participate fully in the community; unnecessary segregation in institutions; lack of reasonable accommodations, including assistive technology; lack of education about their rights and how to enforce them; architectural and policy barriers; denials of rights to self-determination and choice; restrictions on parenting rights; and barriers to voting and civic participation.

NEED, ISSUE AND/OR BARRIER: People with disabilities in or at risk of placement in facilities need information and representation with respect to discrimination issues.

COLLABORATION: DRC collaborated with the Legal Aid Society Employment Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Disability Rights Legal Center, and Advocacy Inc.

INDICATOR 1: End institutionalization by working to change the policies and practices that unnecessarily segregate people with disabilities, and provide greater access and more options to live and participate in the community, and more information about these options by representing people or classes of people with disabilities in or at risk of placement in facilities.

EXAMPLE: Chambers v. City of San Francisco: This case was a class action filed by six residents of Laguna Honda Hospital and the Independent Living Resource Center (ILRCSF) in San Francisco alleging discrimination in the form of unnecessary institutionalization under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The parties reached a Settlement Agreement, which received final approval in federal court in September 2008. The Settlement Agreement will enhance community-based living options, through the provision of services and housing, to class members. One of the innovative aspects of the Agreement is the development of up to 500 housing subsidies, funded by San Francisco, that will enable class members to live in market rate, scattered site apartments. DRC continues to monitor implementation of the settlement through review of data, consultation with experts, individual advocacy, and reporting to the Court. In September 2011, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court regarding the aspects of the settlement that remain under the settlement term, and the parties’ plans for Plaintiffs to monitor implementation of the remaining aspects, the LHHRSP (rental subsidy program) through 2013.

INDICATOR 2: Identify and take steps to implement the Olmstead decision across the state by engaging in a variety of activities.

EXAMPLE: DRC attended all meetings of the Olmstead Advisory Committee, which is charged with advising the Secretary of Health and Human Services on Olmstead issues. At the meetings, DRC advocated to keep the focus of the meetings on deinstitutionalization of people with disabilities and urged the Secretary to take concrete steps towards the implementation of the Olmstead decision in California. A new Secretary started this year, adding an opportunity to educate her about the Olmstead decision, the history of the Committee, and the lack of progress made during the past several years. Policymakers are better informed about their obligations to implement Olmstead in California and the failures of the current system, and attention is given to expanding more effective Olmstead policies. This year, the Committee had vigorous discussions about the elimination of the Adult Day Health Care program, cuts to In-Home Supportive Services, and how they eroded Olmstead compliance. We also discussed the mandatory enrollment of persons with disabilities into Medi-Cal managed care and the difficulties people with disabilities encounter in obtaining accessible medical services. We pressed the Secretary to apply for all possible federal funding to support home and community based services.

INDICATOR 3: Expand housing options for people with disabilities by working to advance their rights to get, use, and keep housing, and keep and increase quality housing that is affordable and accessible by directly representing people with disabilities on housing issues.

EXAMPLES: (1) N.J. is a person with multiple sclerosis who resides in an apartment complex with over 150 units. His unit is located directly outside a gazebo in which apartment complex management allows residents to use a charcoal grill. N.J. had complained to apartment management staff that the smoke from the grill blew directly into his apartment window, making him ill. The management refused to accommodate his request for a new unit or to move the grilling area. Instead, management placed N. J. at the bottom of the waiting list for new units, and instructed him to keep his windows closed.

After N. J. contacted DRC, he formally requested a reasonable accommodation using forms from the Fair Housing Council of San Diego. As part of his request, N. J. also provided his management with a signed form from his doctor indicating his need for the accommodations. Management rejected N. J.’s request and stated he had to have his doctor fill out “their” doctor’s form in order to process his request.

DRC staff contacted N. J.’s apartment management on his behalf and spoke with the apartment manager, who was new on the job and had not previously dealt with reasonable accommodation requests. DRC staff explained N. J.’s request was in full compliance with requirements under the Fair Housing Act and reiterated the importance of the requested accommodations to allow N. J. to enjoy his housing. Following these discussions, the management company placed N. J. at the top of the waiting list for new units and temporarily ceased its practice of allowing tenants to grill outside N. J.’s unit.

(2) J.F. has a mobility impairment that prevents him from using the stairs to his apartment as he was once able to do. He repeatedly asked his landlord for permission to install a stairlift, at his own expense, that would enable him to come and go from his apartment. The landlord denied each request. As a result, J.F. was trapped in his apartment, unable to leave to attend critical medical appointments or to accomplish day-to-day tasks such as going to the bank, getting a haircut, or visiting his family.

DRC wrote a letter to J.F.’s landlord regarding his request for permission to install the stairlift. The letter explained that the federal Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities, which includes “a refusal to permit, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises.” The letter also explained that California state law likewise prohibits housing discrimination against people with disabilities. As a result, J.F. was entitled to make modifications that are reasonable and necessary to afford him equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling unit.

Upon receiving the letter, J.F.’s landlord agreed that he could install the stairlift. The stairlift was installed, freeing J.F. to once again leave his apartment to run errands, play with his granddaughter, attend medical appointments, and perform other tasks of daily life.

INDICATOR 4: Identify and take steps to change policies to expand quality, affordable, accessible housing. Steps may include: Commenting on public housing authority plans, investigating and developing approaches to actively evaluate and monitor new housing construction for fair housing compliance and conformance to universal design, and/or enforcing land use laws and changing local policies and procedures to preserve and increase affordable and accessible housing.

EXAMPLE: DRC staff members sit on HUD’s Disability Task Force, run by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), with advocates from across the nation. Over the past year, we discussed the following: (1) changes in the Section 811 program design and construction requirements in the Ninth Circuit (the Section 811 program has most often been used to fully fund group homes of six persons or less or condominium units that are part of a scattered site living facility, however, this has not been an effective way to bring the program to scale and address the full range of housing need for individuals with disabilities); (2) the Section 8 vouchers designated for people with disabilities moving from an institution to the community; and (3) reasonable accommodations in the Section 8 program. Also at these quarterly meetings, FHEO staff discusses recent pertinent voluntary compliance agreements.

INDICATOR 5: Fight discrimination and stereotypes about people with disabilities, and increase their rights and opportunities in the following areas: access to public, private and government programs and services, including transportation, higher education, restaurants, stores, and businesses; employment of their choice, with or without supports; and directing their own lives, including rights to privacy, making choices, parenting, and other personal autonomy rights, by representing people on discrimination issues.

EXAMPLE: J. T., who uses a manual wheelchair, contacted DRC regarding accessibility issues at a local jail visitation center. J. T. went to visit her son at the downtown jail. The only access to the visitation center is through two heavy doors and up two steps. J. T. attempted to get the attention of jail staff through a call box located along the side entrance for assistance into the visitation center. She received no response. She received assistance from a passerby to prop the door open and help her in. When she attempted to leave the visitation center, jail staff would not provide assistance in helping her navigate out of the visitation center. With nobody to assist her, J. T. attempted to navigate her way out of the visitation center. Going down the stairs, she fell out of her wheelchair and suffered a minor injury.

Shortly after the incident, the County paved over the steps to create a sloped entry. DRC began talking with the local Independent Living Center (ILC), which offered to view the accessibility issue and do measurements. The ILC reported the grade of the slope to enter the visitation center was 23.8%, well over the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) requirements for buildings and facilities.

DRC wrote a demand letter to the County Counsel advising him that the visitation center was not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ADAAG. DRC staff, County Counsel, two County special project staff, two County Sheriff’s deputies, and ILC staff attended a meeting at which the County agreed that the jail visitation center was not in compliance with the ADA and the ADAAG. The County indicated that it planned to fix the situation and suggestions by DRC would be provided to the architects. DRC will continue to work with the County and the ILC to finalize the plans and make the jail visitation center accessible.

INDICATOR 6: Identify and take steps to address systemic discrimination issues such as monitoring implementation of SB 1608 (a law passed in California to promote and increase compliance with laws providing equal public access in places of business to individuals with disabilities), evaluating ADA compliance by local governments especially in rural areas, developing a strategy for addressing personal autonomy rights and abuse issues for consumers in nursing facilities, and improving access to accommodations in higher education.

EXAMPLE: DRC submitted written comments to the California Building Standards Commission’s regulations on Building Standards regarding accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Overall, DRC supports the proposed regulations because the proposed regulations are in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008 and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accessibility guidelines. DRC pointed out a handful of sections from the proposed regulations that are either not in line with the ADA Amendments Act and the DOJ accessibility guidelines, or it is unclear if the proposed regulations follow the ADA Amendments Act and the DOJ accessibility guidelines. For example, pursuant to the new ADA standards, designated aisle seats should be located closest to accessible routes, however, the comments failed to state that designated aisle seats should be identified with signs that contrast and that are also photo luminescent, in accordance with U.S. Department of Justice ADA Standards. In another example, DRC pointed out that the unreasonable hardship exception, as identified in the proposed regulations, based upon “legal constraints” should be deleted since legal constraints are not a basis for exception from the requirements of the ADA. The final regulations are not available at this time.

INDICATOR 7: Make sure people with disabilities know their rights and have the materials and information they need to effectively advocate for themselves by developing, or revising, and distributing publications and/or training materials to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on discrimination topics.

EXAMPLE: PAIR staff developed 2 publications: 1) Your Rights to Choices Counseling and Discharge Planning Under Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Section Q -- March 2011: This publication helps Nursing facility residents understand their right to be asked about whether or not the they are interested in moving into the community (i.e. to be asked the MDS Section Q question) and steps a nursing facility should take to make sure the nursing facility resident receives information to do so. This includes a referral to a Local Contact Agency (LCA) within 10 days. The publication also provides nursing facility residents with information about what they can do if they are denied access to their MDS Section Q assessment information or discharge planning.

2) Enhanced Discharge Planning Rights For Nursing Facility Residents Under MDS 3.0 Section Q -- March 2011: This publication provides nursing facility residents with the legal requirements regarding their right to be asked about whether or not they are interested in moving into the community (i.e. to be asked the MDS Section Q question) and steps a nursing facility should take to make sure the nursing facility resident receives information to do so. This includes: background and legal authority for MDS Section Q, timeline and process for implementation, how California is implementing MDS Section Q, frequency of administration, how MDS Section Q works with Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessments, and resources for individuals who are denied their MDS Section Q assessment or denied discharge planning.

INDICATOR 8: Provide training and/or outreach to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on discrimination issues.

EXAMPLE: DRC and the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers presented a statewide training on the rights of students in college, entitled, “Yo! Disabled & Proud.” The training was presented throughout California using DRC’s video-conferencing systems in its regional offices. Approximately 100 students attended this training, which used captioning, American Sign Language (ASL), plain text, and CDs to ensure accessibility of the information presented.

Speakers, including Paul Grossman, Chief Regional Civil Rights Attorney for the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights in San Francisco, presented on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They discussed the process for obtaining accommodations, access to auxiliary aids and services, and the process of filing a complaint with the university or local city colleges.

INDICATOR 9: Provide counsel and advice to people with disabilities, their advocates, family members, and/or other relevant groups of people on discrimination issues.

EXAMPLE: DRC was contacted by an elder law attorney who was working with the daughter of woman with cancer. The daughter applied to DMV for a disability placard on behalf of her mother but was denied because she did not have a power of attorney or her mother’s signature. The daughter explained that her mother lacked capacity and was unable to sign for her placard. DRC provided information to the elder law attorney about the mother’s right to reasonable accommodation from the DMV. DRC suggested that the daughter make a written request on her mother’s behalf and submit medical documentation of the mother’s disability with request for accommodation.

INDICATOR 10: Monitor proposed state regulations regarding discrimination and identify those that impact people with disabilities. Comment on these proposed regulations as needed.

EXAMPLE: A significant set of regulations affecting all individuals with disabilities was proposed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) regarding new procedural regulations to govern how it will handle complaints of discrimination against employers, housing providers and entities that provide public accommodations. DRC, along with other non-profit organizations, submitted comments and testified at a public hearing on both the first and second draft during 2010. The second draft issued in December 2010 incorporated many of the suggestions that DRC had made in its original comments.

DFEH issued a third draft of the regulations in July 2011. DRC, along with other non-profit organizations, submitted comments once again focusing on the lack of reasonable accommodations in the complaint process and the lack of a policy to ensure that people with limited English proficiency have access to DFEH’s services. DRC’s comments further highlighted problems with the policies not protecting the confidentiality of complainants’ non-medical information, as well as problems with the Department’s intake procedure, which requires that complaints be filed in writing, instead of doing an intake by telephone.

PRIORITY 4: Education for Children and Youth

NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED: 58

PRIORITY DESCRIPTION: Children and youth with disabilities face many barriers to getting education services, including: failure to assess and address their intellectual, functional, academic, vocational, physical, mental health, sensory, and behavioral needs; excluding children and youth from natural environments; failure to provide supports and services, including assistive technology; lack of compliance with processes required by law; lack of information so that parents can participate in meetings and make informed decisions about their children’s education; lack of local and state agencies’ compliance with the law; and failure to include students in their own IEP meetings.

NEED, ISSUE AND/OR BARRIER: Children and youth with disabilities face many barriers to getting education services and need to be informed of their rights.

COLLABORATION: The Community Alliance for Special Education, The Exceptional Family Resource Center, Team of Advocates for Special Kids, Apoyo de Padres, Fiesta Educativa (in Northern and Southern California), and Inland Empire Disability Collaboration Project.

INDICATOR 1: Make sure that students with disabilities and their families are informed about their rights and have the information and materials they need to effectively advocate for themselves by developing or revising, and distributing publications, and/or training materials to children with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people.

EXAMPLE: In September 2011, DRC completed updates to the Special Education Rights and Responsibilities Manual, a comprehensive guide that discusses applicable Special Education laws in an easy format for parents and students. This new version is currently being translated into other languages such as Spanish.

INDICATOR 2: Provide training and/or outreach to children with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, school officials, and/or other relevant groups of people on education issues.

EXAMPLE: DRC staff provided information on DRC services and trainings in the areas of special education law and public benefits to parents of children with disabilities at the Orange County Fiesta Educativa 10th Annual Conference in October of 2010. Specifically, DRC staff provided training to about 250 attendees regarding behavioral support plans that are sometimes necessary when a child is having behaviors that impede his or her educational success. As a result of the conference, DRC staff were asked to train other groups of parents regarding public benefits and special education laws. DRC staff also received subsequent calls from parents seeking representation for their children in the special education arena. Many of these parents have difficulty expressing their concerns to school districts due to language barriers. In many cases, the parents do not trust the schools and the interpreters provided by them causing them to seek our assistance.

INDICATOR 3: Provide counsel and advice to children and youth with disabilities, their family members, advocates and service providers on the rights of students with disabilities to education and related services.

EXAMPLE: A.Z. is 12 years old and has a disability that causes her to be injured very easily. A.Z. cannot carry heavy items and repetitive movements such as writing can trigger an injury. She does not have physical education, but is required to do a certain amount of exercises at school. In meeting this requirement, she was injured. Her physical therapist advised that she should not walk unless necessary DRC staff provided A.Z.’s parents with information about her right to a Free Appropriate Public Education under IDEA and explained the differences between 504 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. DRC staff advised parents about the school’s responsibility to keep A.Z. safe; explained the parents’ right to file a complaint if the school insists on the child engaging in dangerous and unsafe activities; and advised them regarding their right to get assessments, including the right to get an independent educational assessment if they disagree with the school’s assessment. Finally, DRC staff provided a copy of DRC’s Special Education Rights and Responsibilities (SERR) manual on a disc.

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:

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

Abuse and Neglect

(1) Priority:

Abuse and Neglect

(2) Needs Statement:

People with disabilities are at disproportionate risk of abuse and neglect. Caregivers are frequently the perpetrators of abuse. Yet, the abuse reporting and response system is complex and confusing. Investigators lack sufficient training and expertise in working with people with disabilities. There is inadequate oversight of the abuse system’s response to allegations of abuse and neglect, from initial report to investigation and response by the criminal justice system.

(3) Description of Activities (activities are not sequential: work funded by other grants is not shown):

Goal 1: Reduce serious and life-threatening injuries caused by abuse and neglect in all facilities, including: institutions, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, residential care facilities, and jails, prisons, and other correctional facilities. Improve how oversight agencies respond to reported abuse and neglect in these facilities.

Objective A. Technical Assistance or Investigation: Provide technical assistance (including brief service) or conduct select investigations of serious injury or death related abuse or neglect. Investigations will include investigating the adequacy and timeliness of oversight and investigations by responsible entities.

Goal 4: Inform people with disabilities about their rights and give them the information and materials they need to advocate for themselves.

Objective A. Outreach and Training: Provide training and/or outreach to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on abuse and neglect issues.

Objective B. Publications: Develop, or revise, and distribute publications and/or training materials to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on abuse and neglect issues.

Objective C. Counsel & Advice: Provide counsel and advice to people with disabilities, their family members, and/or other relevant groups of people on abuse and neglect issues.

Goal 5: Monitor proposed state regulations about abuse and neglect, and identify those that impact people with disabilities. Comment on these proposed regulations as needed.

Benefits

(1) Priority:

Benefits

(2) Needs Statement:

Establishing eligibility for benefits and maintaining continued eligibility require navigating extremely complicated, often counterintuitive rules in systems where those administering the program or health plan themselves often have a tenuous grasp of the rules. In addition, state and local budget shortfalls create incentives to deny people with disabilities their necessities of life.

(3) Description of Activities (activities are not sequential: work funded by other grants is not shown):

Goal 1: Preserve, increase, expand, and improve access to financial benefits, including: Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability benefits, Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), and Programs and services that maximize employment opportunities.

Objective A. Direct Representation: Represent people with disabilities on benefits issues. For example: *Disability and work issues relating to Social Security benefits *Unlawful child and spousal support garnishment from Social Security Title II benefits of Medi-Cal recipients and illegal federal debt offsets *Suspension or termination of SSI or Social Security Title II benefits because of outstanding warrants for alleged probation/parole violations; monitor implementation of Martinez v. Astrue settlement regarding “fleeing” felon warrants *Barriers to establishing child SSI eligibility and barriers in transitioning from child SSI to adult SSI *Representative payee issues

Objective B. Other Systems change Advocacy: Identify and take steps to address systemic benefits issues. For example: Improving the SSI program for people with disabilities, and reducing problems and barriers in the disability determination process.

Goal 2: Preserve, increase, expand, and improve access to healthcare of good quality no matter where people live, including: Medi-Cal, California Children’s Services (CCS), Genetically Handicapped Persons Program (GHP), Medicare, Private health plans, and Managed care plans, private health plans and managed care.

Objective A. Direct Representation: Represent people with disabilities on health care issues. For example, enforcing their rights to: *Medi-Cal EPSDT services for children and youth. *Medi-Cal assistive technology. *Medi-Cal services and eligibility. *Notice and other due process for children and youth entitled to services under the California Children’s Services (CCS) program, and other programs case-managed by CCS *Health Care work incentives (such as 1619(b), 250% working disabled, extended Medicare).

Objective B. Other Systems Change Advocacy: Identify and take steps to expand and improve access to healthcare of good quality no matter where people live, for example by undertaking projects to: *Monitor Medi-Cal managed care and identify the impact on people with disabilities. Comment regarding any changes needed to protect people with disabilities, and participate in the transition process *Monitor the impact of federal health care reform and other reform proposals on people with disabilities. Comment regarding any changes needed to protect people with disabilities, and participate in the transition process *Identify and take steps to expand access to assistive technology for people with disabilities *Advocate for an increase in Medi-Cal’s allowed monthly living expenses before allocating the balance as the Medi-Cal share of cost obligation *Advocate for a realistic share-of-cost deduction for maintaining housing costs for six months for people going into a nursing facility

Goal 3: Preserve, increase, expand, and improve access to programs in the community that will provide the services and supports people with disabilities need to live, work, and participate fully in the community, including: *IHSS In-Home Supportive Services *Medi-Cal Personal Care Services *Medi-Cal/Medicaid, including Home and Community Based Services Waivers (HCBS) *Assistance Dog Allowance program.

Objective A. Direct Representation: Represent people with disabilities on benefits issues related to community supports. For example: *Enforce the right to Medi-Cal, IHSS, Adult Day Health Care (ADHC), Home and Community Based Services, and other support services that people need to move to less restrictive living arrangements or to avoid the risk of being placed in a medical facility *Enforce rights to IHSS services, including protective supervision services, reduction in hour cases, timely processing of applications and parent provider cases *Minimize or delay impact of proposed reduction in services or eligibility because of State budget

Objective B. Other Systems Change Advocacy: Identify and take steps to preserve, increase, expand and improve access to programs and services in the community, for example by undertaking projects to: *Undertake administrative advocacy to help people get out of or avoid going into nursing facilities and other institutions. *Identify and take steps to improve and expand home and community based waiver programs to help people live in the community which may include looking at ways to increase the cost caps. *Monitor “fraud” investigations that have a chilling or intimidating effect on consumers’ access to services in the community. *Maximize Medicaid waivers and waiver slots, and undertake other administrative strategies, to enable persons to remain in the community or return to the community from an institution.

Goal 4: Make sure that people with disabilities are informed about their rights and have the information and materials they need to effectively advocate for themselves.

Objective A. Publications: Develop, or revise, and distribute publications and/or training materials to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on benefits topics.

Objective B. Outreach and Training: Provide training and/or outreach to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on benefits issues. This may include: *Addressing budget reductions/cuts and their affect on services *Access to needed power or custom wheelchairs and other durable medical equipment and equipment to support care in the home *The right to equipment under the Nursing Home Reform Act Standard for persons in long-term care, and/or *Access to cash benefits, healthcare, IHSS, and other community support services

Objective C. Counsel and Advice: Provide counsel and advice to people with disabilities, their advocates, family members, and/or other relevant groups of people on benefits issues.

Goal 5: Monitor proposed state regulations regarding benefits and identify those that impact people with disabilities. Comment on these proposed regulations as needed.

Discrimination

(1) Priority:

Discrimination

(2) Needs Statement:

Discrimination Against people with disabilities in California exists in many areas, including: *Attitudes, stigma, and stereotypes *Discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of their disability and other protected categories *Inadequate and inaccessible transportation *Lack of affordable, accessible housing *Barriers to a full range of employment and self-employment opportunities *Inadequate training and supports necessary to enter and stay in the workforce *Lack of access to supports needed to participate fully in the community.

(3) Description of Activities (activities are not sequential: work funded by other grants is not shown):

Goal 1: End institutionalization by working to change the policies and practices that unnecessarily segregate people with disabilities, and provide greater access and more options to live and participate in the community, and more information about these options.

Objective A. Direct Representation: Represent people or classes of people with disabilities in or at risk of placement in facilities. For example: *Continue to litigate class action lawsuit challenging cuts to IHSS (Oster v. Wagner) *Continue to litigate class action lawsuit regarding ADHC cuts (Darling v. Douglas, previously entitled Cota/Brantley v. Wagner/Maxwell-Jolly) *Monitor settlement implementation of class action regarding LHH (Chambers v. City & County of San Francisco)

Objective B. Other Systems Change Advocacy: Identify and take steps to implement the Olmstead decision across the state by engaging in a variety of activities. Activities may include: *Education and outreach to people with disabilities and other interested people about the impact of budget cuts on people’s ability to live in the community *Education and outreach to legislators *Development of a DRC webpage on this topic *Advocacy with state agencies to improve the way they implement Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) *Developing a statewide strategy to utilize PASRR process multiple data set (MDs) and similar processes to promote community integration for people with disabilities, including those with psychiatric disabilities and developmental disorders in Nursing Facilities (NFs) and “Institutes for Mental Disease” (IMDs) *Work in coalition with other disability and public interest organizations and law firms to develop and implement strategies to challenge budget cuts which impact the right to live in the community for people with disabilities *Developing and implementing diversion and community re-integration strategies for people with disabilities in the criminal justice system

Goal 2: Expand housing options for people with disabilities by working to advance their rights to get, use, and keep housing, and keep and increase quality housing that is affordable and accessible.

Objective A. Direct Representation: Represent people with disabilities on housing issues. Issues may include: *Failure to provide reasonable accommodations and/or modifications, including in Section 8 program and/or homeless shelters *Zoning and land use policies that discriminate or create barriers to affordable accessible housing and housing with supportive services *Refusal to lend, sell, or rent, and other discriminatory practices *Failure to comply with accessibility requirements *Preserving and increasing the number of quality, affordable, accessible housing units for people with disabilities

Objective B. Other Systems Change Advocacy: Identify and take steps to change policies to expand quality, affordable, accessible housing. Steps may include: *Commenting on public housing authority plans and eliminating barriers to use of Section 8 vouchers for people with disabilities *Investigate and develop approaches to actively evaluate and monitor new housing construction for fair housing compliance and conformance to universal design *Enforcing land use laws and changing local policies and procedures to preserve and increase affordable and accessible housing and reduce barriers for people with disabilities

Goal 3: Fight discrimination and stereotypes about people with disabilities, and increase their rights and opportunities in the following areas: *Access to public, private and government programs and services, including transportation, higher education, restaurants, stores, and businesses, *Employment of their choice, with or without supports, and *Directing their own lives, including rights to privacy, making choices, parenting, and other personal autonomy rights.

Objective A. Direct Representation: Represent people with disabilities on discrimination issues. This may include: *Access to private and public entities *Access to private and public entities due to service animals *Discrimination and harassment in employment against people with disabilities, including discrimination in day treatment programs and sheltered employment *Right to be free from policies or practices of public or private entities that violate or interfere with legal rights or dignity, including seclusion, restraints or unwanted medical treatment *Continue to litigate class action lawsuits about enforcing rights to accessible programs and services while living in county jail (Johnson v. Rutherford) *Continue monitoring use of restraints for dialysis treatment in Sacramento County Jail (Stringfellow v. McGinnes)

Objective B. Other Systems Change Advocacy: Identify and take steps to address systemic discrimination issues. This may include: *Evaluating ADA compliance by local governments especially in rural areas *Developing strategy for addressing personal autonomy rights and abuse issues for consumers in NFs *Access to accommodations in higher education *Developing strategies for ensuring access to technology at public and private entities (e.g. policy advocacy, outreach and investigations, and working in collaboration with other advocacy groups)

Goal 5: Make sure people with disabilities know their rights and have the materials and information they need to effectively advocate for themselves.

Objective A. Publications: Develop, translate or revise, and distribute publications, including formats other than print and/or training materials to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on discrimination topics. Topics may include: *Employment manuals, including updates to employment publication to encompass new EEOC regulations *Voter rights *Civic Engagement *Technology Access *Options to help people with disabilities integrate into the community and/or avoid institutionalization

Objective B. Outreach and Training: Provide training and/or outreach to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on discrimination issues such as: *Housing *Employment *Olmstead *Access to and discrimination by public or private entities, including first responders *Voting Rights *Civic Empowerment and Participation *Voter Registration

Objective C. Counsel and Advice: Provide counsel and advice to people with disabilities, their advocates, family members, and/or other relevant groups of people on discrimination issues.

Goal 6: Monitor proposed state regulations regarding discrimination and identify those that impact people with disabilities. Comment on these proposed regulations as needed.

Children and Youth

(1) Priority:

Education for Children and Youth

(2) Needs Statement:

Children and youth with disabilities face many barriers to getting education services, including: *Failure to assess and address their intellectual, functional, academic, vocational, physical, mental health, sensory, and behavioral needs *Excluding children and youth from natural environment *Failure to provide supports and services, including assistive technology *Lack of compliance with processes required by law *Lack of information so that parents can participate in meetings and make informed decisions about their child’s education *Lack of local and state agencies compliance with the law *Failure to include students in their own IEP meetings.

(3) Description of Activities (activities are not sequential: work funded by other grants is not shown):

Goal 4: Make sure that students with disabilities and their families are informed about their rights and have the information and materials they need to effectively advocate for themselves.

Objective A. Publications: Develop or revise, and distribute publications, and/or training materials to children with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people. This may include: *Reviewing and updating DRC’s education-related publications as needed *Creating publications or videos directed towards students *Updating and translating DRC’s Special Education Rights and Responsibilities manual, including adding a new index and adding a new chapter on the rights of students with health care needs at school *Creating and disseminating updated information about budget changes affecting special education, including children’s mental health services

Objective B. Outreach and Training: Provide training and/or outreach to children with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, school officials, and/or other relevant groups of people on education issues. This may include: *Conducting trainings for students, parents, and other groups on the rights of students with disabilities in schools generally, including charter schools *Conduct trainings for stakeholders in the delinquency and dependency system (including but not limited to social workers, police officers, attorneys, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), bench officers, public defenders, and probation officers) about the rights of students under the IDEA *Creating a video presentation geared towards students with disabilities

Objective C. Counsel and Advice: Provide counsel and advice to children and youth with disabilities, their family members, advocates and service providers on the rights of students with disabilities to education and related services.

Part VI. 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.

  1. Sources of funds received and expended
  2. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report
  3. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)
  4. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)
  5. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure
  6. 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

A. SOURCES OF FUNDS RECEIVED AND EXPENDED

SOURCE OF FUNDING / AMOUNT RECEIVED / AMOUNT SPENT Federal (section 509) / $1,800,980 / $1,160,830 Federal (section 509) FY 2010 Carryover / $414,152 / $414,152 State / $0 / $0 Program Income - FY 2011 / $84,115 / $81,322 Program Income - FY 2010 Carryover / $54,913 / $54,913 Private / $0 / $0 All Other Funds **/ $0 / $0 Total (from all sources) / $2,354,160 / $1,711,217

(B) BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT

CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FY11 BUDGET W/ PAIR PROGRAM INCOME

Category / Administrative Budget / Program Budget Wages/Salaries / $162,943 / $845,320 Fringe Benefits (FICA, UI, etc.) / $45,396 / $329,779 Professional Services / $2,635 / $40,789 Legal Services / $5,339 / $38,786 Materials/Supplies / $1,889 / $13,726 Telephone / $3,013 / $21,887 Postage / $932 / $6,773 Rent / $27,708 / $201,285 Bonding/Insurance / $1,261 / $9,164 Equipment Rental/Purchase/Depreciation / $2,482 / $18,031 Equipment Maintenance / $408 / $2,967 Copying & Printing / $471 / $23,302 Subscriptions & Publications / $2,638 / $19,166 Legal Data Base Services / $689 / $5,007 Recruiting & Personnel Advertising / $407 / $2,953 Software & Software Maintenance / $798 / $5,797 Travel / $6,070 / $44,095 Staff Training & Registrations / $1,155 / $8,393 Sponsored Trainings & Events / $0 / $4,000 Dues / $1,448 / $10,516 Staff Disability Accommodations / $1,930 / $14,019 Indirect Costs / $0 / $0 Miscellaneous / $535 / $3,885 Total Budget / $270,149 / $1,669,638

C. Description of PAIR Staff (Duties and Person-Years)

Type of Position / FTE % of Yr Filled / Person Yrs

Professional Full -Time / 0.0000 / 0.0000 Part-Time / 15.2189 / 9.8346 Vacant

Clerical Full -Time / 0.0000 / 0.0000 Part-Time / 7.6173 / 6.1987 Vacant D. INVOLVEMENT WITH ADVISORY BOARDS

DRC has no separate Advisory Committee. However, a majority of DRC’s board members are persons with disabilities, including those with PAIR eligible disabilities.

E. GRIEVANCES FILED UNDER THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

C.W. was dissatisfied with services received from DRC staff related to several issues he wanted addressed dating back to 2004, including housing, damages lawsuits, discrimination, social security issues, his driver’s license, IHSS, and a breach of contract lawsuit. The Executive Director responded that we did not have resources to represent C.W. in each of his claims and the fact that several of the issues were outside of DRC’s priority areas. DRC staff provided additional resources that might help C.W. and remained willing to review information concerning a possible discrimination claim if he provided staff with additional information.

F.S. was dissatisfied with the services she received from DRC staff regarding an issue she was having with her landlord and neighbors about access to a community garden. F.S. inquired if she had rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that would enable her to have access to the garden. The Executive Director upheld staff’s decision to not represent F.S. because F.S. had entered into a signed agreement with a legal aid attorney.

F. 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

DRC continues to receive and provide support to requests from Client Assistance Program (CAP) advocates regarding rights under the Rehabilitation Act as well as other statutes. DRC staff provided technical assistance to CAP advocates regarding substantive legal issues and strategies for presenting their cases at the administrative hearing level. DRC was contracted to provide CAP services to CAP eligible clients in Region 1 in Northern California.

DRC routinely receives copies of discharge notices from long-term care facilities as required by OBRA and coordinates a response to these notices with the Long-Term Care Ombudsmen which are then referred to DRC Investigations Unit.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByAndrew Mudryk
TitleDeputy Director
Signed Date12/19/2011