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

Arkansas (Disability Rights Arkansas, Inc) - H240A120004 - FY2012

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights Center of Arkansas
Address1100 N. University Suite 201
Address Line 2
CityLittle Rock
StateArkansas
Zip Code72207
E-mail Addresssusanpierce@arkdisabilityrights.org
Website Addresshttp://arkdisabilityrights.org
Phone501-296-1775
TTY 501-296-1775
Toll-free Phone800-482-1774
Toll-free TTY800-482-1774
Fax501-296-1779
Name of P&A Executive DirectorNan Ellen D. East
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorSusan Pierce
Person to contact regarding reportSusan Pierce
Contact Person phone501-296-1775
Ext.112

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 areas343
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas342
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)685

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff27
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)1,457

October 5, 2011 Can Do/UAMS/12:00 PM Lecture/Power Point/Handouts Training Topic: People First Language Audience: Staff Total Trained: 3+ Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Tim Minnie Funding Source: PAIR Collaboration: Arkansas Can Do

October 5, 2011 Can Do/UAMS/1:00 PM Lecture/Power Point/Handouts Training Topic: People First Language Audience: Staff Total Trained: 8+ Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Tim Minnie Funding Source: PAIR Collaboration: Arkansas Can Do

October 26, 2011 Can Do/UAMS/12:00 PM Lecture/Power Point/Handouts Training Topic: Invisible Barriers/Unconscious Biases Audience: Staff Total Trained: 8 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Billy Altom Funding Source: PAIR Collaboration: Arkansas Can Do

January 17, 2012 New Member Orientation Power Point/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: Overview Audience: New Attorney Total Trained: 1 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers Funding Source: PAIR

January 19, 2012 Secretary of State’s Office Lecture/Handouts Training Topic: Title I/ADA/Sensitivity in the Workplace Audience: SOS Staff Total Trained: 36 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Denise Reid Hoggard, Esq. Funding Source: PAIR

January 23, 2012 Conway County Center for Exceptional Children Lecture/Handouts Training Topic: Overview and Rights Training Audience: PWD 33 Staff 6 Total Trained: 39 Staff: Elizabeth Eskew Funding Source: PAIR

January 24, 2012 Professional Association for Innkeepers International Lecture/Handouts Training Topic: Title III/ADA/Sensitivity Audience: B&B owners Total Trained: 8 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers, Gwenn Eyer, Barry Vuletich, and Eddie Schmeckenbecher Funding Source: PAIR

January 30, 2012 Friendship Community Care Lecture/Handouts Training Topic: Overview and Rights Training Audience: PWD and Staff Total Trained: 14 Staff: Elizabeth Eskew Funding Source: PAIR

January 31, 2012 Secretary of State’s Office Lecture/Handouts Training Topic: Title I/ADA/Sensitivity in the Workplace Audience: SOS Staff Total Trained: 36 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Denise Reid Hoggard, Esq. Funding Source: PAIR

February 24, 2012 Developmental Disability Services Licensure and Certification Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview/Rights Training Audience: Licensure and Certification Administrators Total Trained: 12 Staff: Nan Ellen East and Lamar Richmond Funding Source: PAIR

March 2, 2012 DDC Family Leadership Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: Service Providers and People w/Disabilities Total Trained: 25 Staff: Vincent McKinney and Barry Vuletich Funding Source: PAIR

March 22, 2012 World Services for the Blind (formerly Lion’s World) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: DRC Overview Audience: People with Visual Impairments Total Trained: 8 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers Funding Source: PAIR

March 28, 2012 Arkansas Rehabilitation Services (ACTI-Hot Springs) Lecture Training Topic: Clients Rights, P&A Programs Audience: People and Students with Disabilities and Parents Total Trained: 400 Staff: Eddie Miller Funding Source: PAIR

March 29, 2012 DDC Leadership Train the Trainer Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: DRC Overview Audience: DDC Council Member Total Trained: 1 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers Funding Source: PAIR

May 18, 2012 Abilities Unlimited (Magnolia, AR) Lecture/ Q&A Training Topic: Rights Training Audience: Clients and Staff Total Trained: 54 Staff: Elizabeth Eskew/Vincent McKinney Funding Source: PAIR

June 12, 2012 Central Arkansas Disability Services Lecture/QA Training Topic: DRC and Education Audience: APSE Members Total Trained: 13 Staff: Latisha McClendon Funding Source: PAIR

July 16, 2012 Arkansas Association of Alternative Education Handouts/panel discussion/lecture/overhead/Q&A Training Topic: Helping One Student at a Time Audience: Education Administrators and Education Staff Total Trained: 500 Staff: Darla Freeman Funding Source: PAIR

September 7, 2012 Arkansas Support Network (Springdale) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: People w/ Developmental Disabilities Total Trained: 1 Staff: Vincent McKinney and Elizabeth Eskew Funding Source: PAIR September 7, 2012 Abilities Unlimited, Inc. (Van Buren) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: People w/ Developmental Disabilities Total Trained: 84 Staff: Vincent McKinney and Elizabeth Eskew Funding Source: PAIR

September 7, 2012 Benton County Sunshine School (Rogers) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: People w/ Developmental Disabilities Total Trained: 6 Staff: Vincent McKinney and Elizabeth Eskew Funding Source: PAIR

September 7, 2012 Bost, Inc. (Ft. Smith) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: People w/ Developmental Disabilities Total Trained: 2 Staff: Vincent McKinney and Elizabeth Eskew Funding Source:PAIR

September 7, 2012 Elizabeth Richardson Center (Springdale) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: People w/ Developmental Disabilities Total Trained: 34 Staff: Vincent McKinney and Elizabeth Eskew Funding Source:PAIR

September 10, 2012 Get to Know DRC (Paragould) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: People w/Disabilities/Family Members/PAC Members Total Trained: 9 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers, Rodney Farley and Brandy Marks Funding Source: PAIR

September 11, 2012 Get to Know DRC (Bryant) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: People w/Disabilities/Family Members/PAC Members Total Trained: 9 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers, Rodney Farley and Brandy Marks Funding Source: PAIR

September 14, 2012 DD Conference Lecture/Handouts/Power Point/Q&A Training Topic: People First Language Audience: People w/Disabilities/Family Members/Care Givers/Service Providers Total Trained: 75 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Bryan Cozart Funding Source:PAIR

September 14, 2012 DD Conference Handouts/Power Point Training Topic: IEP and Transition Audience: People w/Disabilities/Family Members/Care Givers/Service Providers Total Trained: 35 Staff: Darla Freeman Funding Source: PAIR

September 17, 2012 Get to Know DRC (Ft. Smith) Lecture/Handouts/Q&A Training Topic: P&A/DRC Overview Audience: People w/Disabilities/Family Members/PAC Members Total Trained: 36 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Rodney Farley Funding Source: PAIR

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff1
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles0
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website0
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated3
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

Three P&A Briefs were done in Fiscal Year 2012.

May PANDA Brief, HAVA/PAAT/PATBI/PAIR articles, mailed to 3000, emailed, posted on Facebook and website- GEOP

August PANDA Brief, New Attorneys, Education and PAIR, 3300 mailed, emailed, posted on Facebook and website- GEOP

September PANDA Brief, End of an Era, PAIMI AC, PAIR article 3300 mailed, emailed, posted on Facebook and website- GEOP

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)11
2. Additional individuals served during the year59
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)70
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)7

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 15

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility19
2. Employment5
3. Program access3
4. Housing21
5. Government benefits/services2
6. Transportation3
7. Education10
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting0
10. Health care5
11. Insurance1
12. Non-government services0
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records1
15. Abuse1
16. Neglect0
17. Other6

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor41
2. Other representation found0
3. Individual withdrew complaint12
4. Appeals unsuccessful0
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case0
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit6
9. Other3

Please explain

One listed as "other" showed information requested was provided to client, i.e. ADA Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal. Two were closed as not resolved in client’s favor; one, DRC attorneys determined was a losing battle due to AR Game & Fish being federally mandated to protect wildlife, and in the other a DRC attorney determined removing the barriers was not readily achieveable.

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-advocacy17
2. Short-term assistance36
3. Investigation/monitoring0
4. Negotiation6
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution2
6. Administrative hearings0
7. Litigation (including class actions)1
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 - 41
2. 5 - 2215
3. 23 - 5934
4. 60 - 646
5. 65 and over14

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females42
2. Males28

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race1
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian0
4. Black or African American13
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White55
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown1

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent49
2. Parental or other family home17
3. Community residential home1
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home1
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center0
9. Homeless0
10. Other living arrangements2
11. Living arrangements not known0

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

1. Blind/visual impairment5
2. Deaf/hard of hearing8
3. Deaf-blind1
4. Orthopedic impairment24
5. Mental illness1
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation1
8. Learning disability10
9. Neurological impairment5
10. Respiratory impairment2
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment3
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment3
13. Speech impairment0
14. AIDS/HIV2
15. Traumatic brain injury0
16. Other disability5

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities6

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes1,625

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.

1) Three individuals called to complain about a lack of accessible parking spaces at their apartment building. The DRC housing advocate met with the onsite manager of the complex and worked out an agreement with the manager that residents who have a placard or license plate for accessible parking can utilize several spaces marked “reserved” if the accessible parking spaces are all taken, and manager will inform the towing company they are not to tow cars from the “reserved” spaces if they have a resident sticker and a placard or license plate designating them as disabled. All residents of the highrise complex were also notified of the change. Each client agreed they were satisfied with this agreement, since the reserved spaces are close to the building as well, and, combined with the accessible spaces, should allow for plenty of accessible parking. One policy change, with approximately 15 residents impacted at any one time (since people move in and move out of complex).

2) An individual who uses a wheelchair for mobility contacted DRC to complain about the inaccessibility of the restrooms in the Hoxie City Hall. He said he went to a city council meeting recently and expressed his concerns about the restrooms and was told by the Mayor he would have someone look into it, which he did; however, that someone informed the Mayor the restrooms were accessible. He said he wanted DRC to make the City of Hoxie comply with the ADA so that he and others can get in and out of the restrooms. This is a carry-over case which started out with DRC conducting an ADA access survey, documenting numerous barriers, having the client sign a DRC legal representation agreement and sending a 10-day demand letter to the then-Mayor of Hoxie, who did absolutely nothing but delay, delay, delay. Fortunately, that Mayor did not get re-elected in November 2011 and DRC negotiations with the current Mayor (Tinker) have been very positive. In fact, Mayor Tinker pushed for more than removing the barriers in the restroom. He not only renovated the restrooms with new ADA accessories, including sinks, toilets, levers, grab bars, doors, tactile signage etc. but he also rearranged the front lobby to accommodate individuals with disabilites, relocated the City Court to the accessible Lawrence County Courthouse and gutted the former City Court space to be used as an accessible small conference room, replacing all public doors with 36" doors and lowering the service window to the police department. The changes which were made to the Hoxie City Hall benefit not just our client, but all people with disabilities who need to do business at the Hoxie City Hall. The population of Hoxie is currently estimated at 2780; assuming 10% mobility impairment and a quarter visiting city government, this would be 70 people impacted by an accessible city government.

3) Strip mall/Department of Motor Vehicles in Conway— Title II & III. Issue was no above-ground signage and no designated van accessible parking spaces anywhere in the mall. Additionally, there was no designated accessible parking located directly in front of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). A PAIR advocate conducted an ADA access survey, then a DRC attorney sent the owner of the strip mall a demand letter. After receiving the demand letter, the owner contacted DRC. He agreed to erect above-ground signage at the six designated accessible parking spaces in the mall and to designate a van accessible space close to the entrance of the Department of Motor Vehicles. All work was completed in August (owner sent pictures of the work completed). The changes made at this mall will benefit all people with disabilities who either shop at the mall or have to do business with the DMV. One policy/practice changed in making the mall and the DMV accessible. The population of Conway is currently estimated at 60,470; assuming 10% disability in population, with 20% visiting the mall and/or the DMV, this would be 1,209 people impacted.

4) PAIR eligible caller contacted DRC complaining about two restaurants she and her mother, a person who uses a mobility device, had recently visited for lunch in Camden, Arkansas: Bentley’s Grill and Chelle’s Restaurant. A PAIR advocate conducted ADA access surveys of both restaurants and documented numerous ADA violations at both places. A DRC attorney sent demand letters to the owners of both restaurants, neither of whom agreed to comply with the ADA and remove the identified barriers. After consulting with our client, the DRC attorney filed Title III complaints against both restaurants with the U.S. Department of Justice. DOJ sent both complaints to the Key Bridge Foundation as good candidates for mediation. The client and both restaurants agreed to try and resolve the issues through mediation. Mediation telephone conference calls were conducted between the Key Bridge mediator, a DRC attorney, our client and the manager(s) of each restaurant. Chelle’s Restaurant — although the owner stated during the initial teleconference call that he would remove the identified barriers, prior to signing the mediation agreement, the owner contacted the Key Bridge mediator and explained that he couldn’t afford to remove the barriers in the women’s bathroom. The Complaint was sent back to DOJ for possible DOJ investigation; however, DOJ did not pursue the issue further. Bentley’s Grill- during the initial mediation telephone conference call, the owners agreed to remove the identified barriers, which were extensive, particularly in the men and women’s bathrooms. Both parties entered into a written mediation agreement and after many further discussions with the Key Bridge mediator and the owners, all identified barriers were removed, per the written mediation agreement and to the satisfaction of our client. One policy change at one restaurant (to be accessible). the population of Camden is currently estimated at 12,072; assuming 10% mobility impaired and maybe 20% of that population patronizing Bentley’s grille, number of individuals impacted would be 241.

5) A PAIR eligible caller contacted DRC to complain about the inaccessible parking lot and front entrance at the law office of Hood & Stacy, Bentonville. A PAIR advocate conducted an ADA access survey and documented barriers in the parking lot and the need for signage to direct people to the accessible entrance. A DRC attorney sent a demand letter to the managing partner and after several subsequent conversations between the DRC attorney and the managing partner, the barriers were removed and the client informed. One policy change effected. The current population of Bentonville is approximately 36,295; assuming 10% mobility impairment and maybe 2% clients/potential clients of this law firm, the number of individuals impacted is 72.

6) A PAIR eligible client’s mother contacted DRC due to the client being at a hospital where he was not able to communicate due to the client being deaf. She stated he was discharged from one hospital due to a lack of effective communication devices, and when he got to the next hospital, he found they did not have any effective communication devices for client either. She stated the client can read and write and that was how he was communicating with the staff at the hospital. A DRC advocate met with the client’s case manager (Ms. Suit), who stated the client does not have a full time interpreter, but one staff member who works there knows sign language and is able to translate when he is there. She stated the client would be discharged soon, and that she was unaware of a specific ADA policy at the hospital, but she knows there is a list of interpreters they can call if needed. The DRC advocate informed her that although the client may be discharged soon, there still needs to be a policy addressing effective communication for all patients who are unable to communicate effectively, i.e. there needs to be methods of communicating other than writing notes, and interpreters need to be accessible at all times for patient access. The client, meanwhile, related (through an interpreter) that he does not see very well and has a hard time seeing signs, unless very close. He stated he was upset that no one is there to interpret for him at all times. The hospital’s CEO called DRC director Nan Ellen East inquiring about DRC’s visit and wanted to know why DRC considered their current policies ineffective, as he believed the client was writing notes in group therapy and that was sufficient. The DRC director explained the importance of effective communication to the CEO and let him know the advocate would be sending him information about the ADA. The hospital’s first draft of a new policy was not sufficient, in that it stated they would put their best effort into addressing effective communication. A DRC attorney sent the CEO a letter explaining the deficiencies of the policy along with specific codes from the ADA to ensure they understood their obligation to adhere to the ADA guidelines. The hospital’s CEO sent out another policy addressing the deficiencies in the first policy. The policy specifically addresses adherence to all ADA guidelines and effective communication for patients at Levi hospital and that this is mandatory and not optional. This policy evolved from a list of interpreters that could be called and used if available to having a specific policy that mandates adherence to all ADA guidelines. The client was informed of the policy change and the case closed successfully. One policy was changed at the hospital. The current population of Hot Springs is 35,587; assuming 1% of the population is deaf and assuming 5% might be patients at this hospital at any given time, the number of individuals impacted is 18.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts1
2. Number of individuals named in class actions0

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.

Issues presented to PAIR this fiscal year were resolved without having to resort to litigation or class action remedies, with the exception of one employment case. A PAIR eligible client had been working for Truservice Federal Credit Union for almost a year to the day when he was terminated for insubordination. Client is HIV+ and feels he was discriminated against because of his disability. The client stated he was asked by his supervisor to provide a doctor’s notice after missing work; at that time, he disclosed he was HIV+. The supervisor asked client to provide proof from his doctor that he is HIV+. He refused, and was terminated two business days later. A DRC attorney represented the client in an EEOC mediation with his former employer; parties to the mediation reached an agreement which was memorialized and signed by all present. Originals were given to both parties. The client was awarded $7,500 ($4,500 back pay and $3,000 for emotional distress), the employer is to provide a neutral job reference for the client, and the employer will not contest unemployment benefits. The client expressed his appreciation with the representation and was happy with the results.

All other PAIR cases were resolved for individuals through technical assistance, short-term assistance, and mediation/negotiation.

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.

PAIR- 2012 PLAN

I. AREA OF EMPHASIS: Formal and Informal Community Supports — People with disabilities are provided services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. DRC Priority 1. Community Integration — Services and supports for people with disabilities should be integrated within the community to the maximum extent possible, as required by state and federal law.

Need, Issue, or Barrier: Arkansas continues to maintain a service system for people with disabilities which is institutionally biased making it difficult for people to move into the community and receive appropriate supports and services

Priority 1. Goal 1: DRC will assist people with disabilities in advocating access to the services and supports, including assistive technology, needed to live in the community.

P 1. Goal 1. (Indicator) Objective 1. Provide technical assistance or representation to 16 people with disabilities to receive services or supports or assistive technology to live in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. [PAIMI 5, PADD 4, PAAT 5, PAIR 1] Legal Team & Employment Team [PATBI 1]

Collaboration by other entities for Priority one was in the area of outreach and training to inform groups serving individals with disablities and the general public about DRC/PAIR services so they would refer to DRC.

MET/EXCEEDED

Twenty-four cases were opened under this priority, four of which were PAIR cases (plus one carryover case from FY2011).

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE: The PAIR client is a woman with MS who receives Medicaid Waiver services under the Division of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS). Client had had problems with a caseworker assigned to her, so another was assigned, but that person left and the original worker was reassigned to the case. This caseworker visited more often than necessary, and would not call to say she is coming (as client had requested); client said this caseworker made her uncomfortable in other ways. The DRC advocate provided client with info on how to contact the director at DAAS to self-advocate, but when the client tried, she was prevented from talking to the director. With the client’s consent, the DRC advocate contacted the director, and was assured that if DRC could provide the client’s name and number, she would be contacted. With client consent, DRC provided the DAAS director with the name and phone number of the client. The client reported back to the DRC advocate that she was contacted by someone directly under the director, who was very polite and accommodating, and who assured the client that this worker would not come out anymore and a new caseworker would be assigned.

DRC Priority 2. Housing and Access — People with disabilities should have full programmatic and physical access to programs and services of local and state government, to housing, jobs and to places of public accommodation as provided by state and federal law.

Need, Issue, or Barrier: People with disabilities continue to encounter barriers in obtaining accessible and affordable housing, accessing goods and services from local businesses, applying for employment and/or seeking reasonable accommodations and participating in the programs, services and activities of state and local government

Priority 2. Goal 1. DRC will assist people with disabilities to advocate removal of barriers to housing, places of public accommodation, and state and local government in order for them to have equal access under the law.

Collaboration by other entities for Priority two was with the disability Housing community and housing coalition, disablity groups and work at the Disability Resource Center for people who are homeless.

P2. Goal 1. (Indicator) Objective 1. Represent or provide technical assistance to 10 people with disabilities regarding failure to accommodate their disabilities in housing. [PAIR 6, PAIMI 3, PADD 1] Legal Team

MET/EXCEEDED

There were 16 cases opened under this objective, 12 of which were PAIR cases.

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE:

1) A PAIR eligible client needed a reasonable accommodation to have her packages that were delivered to the apartment complex’s office to be brought to her apartment. Client is blind and already had an accommodation to have her mail delivered to her door; however, the complex manager informed client that any packages delivered to the office (Fed Ex, UPS) would have to be picked up at the office by the client. The DRC housing advocate told the client how to formally request an accommodation, and she requested the advocate assist her with writing it. The accommodation request was submitted, and the complex responded back in writing (as requested) that the accommodation would be granted.

2) Three PAIR eligible individuals called separately to complain about a lack of accessible parking spaces at their apartment building. The DRC housing advocate met with the onsite manager of the complex and worked out an agreement with the manager that residents who have a placard or license plate for accessible parking can utilize several spaces marked “reserved” if the accessible parking spaces are all taken, and manager will inform the towing company they are not to tow cars from the “reserved” spaces if they have a resident sticker and a placard or license plate designating them as disabled. Each client agreed they were satisfied with this agreement, since the reserved spaces are close to the building as well, and, combined with the accessible spaces, should allow for plenty of accessible parking. NOTE: this case example is offered as a systemic advocacy example because in addition to these individuals, the policy change impacted all individuals with a mobility impairment in the highrise complex.

P2. Goal 1. (Indicator) Objective 2. Represent or provide technical assistance to 6 people with disabilities regarding rental denial, eviction, or retaliation for exercising their legal rights in housing. [PAIR 3, PAIMI 3] Legal Team

MET

Of the six cases opened under this objective, three were PAIR.

Unfortunately, there is no good PAIR closed case example; of the three PAIR cases, one did not have merit, in another, the client withdrew, and the third was unsuccessul for preventing eviction (although we DID help client get a reasonable accommodation to have more time to move out).

P2. Goal 1. Objective 3. Represent or provide technical assistance to 2 people with disabilities regarding problems with subsidized housing. [PAIR 1, PAIMI 1] Legal Team

MET/EXCEEDED

Of the six cases opened under this objective, five were PAIR.

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE: A PAIR eligible client was hit with a $20 increase in his rent recently, even though rent is figured by income and his income had not increased. When the client inquired why there was an increase in his rent, he was told that the building rent had increased. The DRC housing advocate provided technical assistance to this client on how to address the rental increase, with the understanding that if self-advocacy did not work, the advocate would intervene. The client addressed the issue with management in the way the advocate advised, and the rent dispute was resolved in his favor, with his rent being decreased back to the original amount.

P2. Goal 1. Objective 4. Represent 7 clients alleging that architectural barriers prevent them from having equal access to government services, programs and activities. [PAIR 4, PADD 2, PATBI 1] Legal Team & ERE

MET/EXCEEDED

Of the 13 cases opened under this objective, 11 were PAIR cases (plus one carryover from FY2011)

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE:

A nineteen-year-old PAIR eligible client was denied a reasonable accommodation when he went to take his (written) driver’s test at the State Police Headquarters. The client is deaf and needs an interpreter to assist him during the process. A DRC attorney contacted the officer in charge of the driver’s test and he assured the DRC attorney that the client was given incorrect information and that he could have an interpreter during the written portion of the test. The client was informed and the case closed.

NOTE: Two other successful closed case examples are offered under systemic activities: Hoxie City Hall office and the DMV in Conway.

P2. Goal 1. Objective 5. Represent 11 clients alleging that architectural barriers prevent them from having equal access to businesses. [PAIR 8, PADD 2, PATBI 1] Legal Team & ERE

MET/EXCEEDED

Twelve case opened under this objective, all PAIR.

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE:

A PAIR eligible caller contacted DRC regarding her recent shopping trip to Cleo’s Furniture in Little Rock. There was no accessible entrance anywhere. The caller said she confronted the manager and he admitted there had been no effort to make the building comply with the ADA. A PAIR advocate conducted an ADA access survey and documented no accessible parking and no accessible entrance — the front entrance had six steps. A DRC attorney sent a demand letter with the survey and pictures to the manager of Cleo’s, who after receiving the letter called their attorney, who then called DRC. After several discussions with Cleo’s attorney about what needed to be done to make the front entrance accessible — ramp, accessible parking spaces with access aisles, above-ground signage, etc. Cleo’s agreed to make all required changes. After the work was completed and pictures taken of the completed work, the client was informed and the service request was closed successfully.

NOTE: Two other successful closed case examples are offered as examples of systemic activities: the law offices in Bentonville and a restaurant in Camden.

P2. Goal 1. Objective 6. Represent or provide technical assistance to four clients who are deaf or hard of hearing alleging that a medical service provider has failed to provide effective communication so that client can participate knowledgeably in the treatment process and provide informed consent.[PAIR 3, PAAT 1] Legal Team

MET

Four cases were opened under this objective, all PAIR.

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE: A PAIR eligible client’s mother contacted DRC due to the client being at a hospital where he was not able to communicate due to the client being deaf. She stated he was discharged from one hospital due to a lack of effective communication devices, and when he got to the next hospital, he found they did not have any effective communication devices for the client either. She stated the client can read and write and that was how he was communicating with the staff at the hospital. A DRC advocate met with the client’s case manager (Ms. Suit), who stated the client does not have a full time interpreter, but one staff member who works there knows sign language and is able to translate when he is there. She stated the client would be discharged soon, and that she was unaware of a specific ADA policy at the hospital, but she knows there is a list of interpreters they can call if needed. The DRC advocate informed her that although the client may be discharged soon, there still needs to be a policy addressing effective communication for all patients who are unable to communicate effectively, i.e. there needs to be methods of communicating other than writing notes, and interpreters need to be accessible at all times for patient access. The client, meanwhile, related (through an interpreter) that he does not see very well and has a hard time seeing signs, unless very close. He stated he was upset that no one is there to interpret for him at all times. The hospital’s CEO called DRC director Nan Ellen East inquiring about DRC’s visit and wanted to know why DRC considered their current policies ineffective, as he believed the client was writing notes in group therapy and that was sufficient. The DRC director explained the importance of effective communication to the CEO and let him know the advocate would be sending him information about the ADA. The hospital’s first draft of a new policy was not sufficient, in that it stated they would put their best effort into addressing effective communication. A DRC attorney sent the CEO a letter explaining the deficiencies of the policy along with specific codes from the ADA to ensure they understood their obligation to adhere to the ADA guidelines. The hospital’s CEO sent out another policy addressing the deficiencies in the first policy. The policy specifically addresses adherence to all ADA guidelines and effective communication for patients at Levi hospital and that this is mandatory and not optional. This policy evolved from a list of interpreters that could be called and used if available to having a specific policy that mandates adherence to all ADA guidelines. The client was informed of the policy change and the case closed successfully. NOTE: this example was also offered as an example of successful systemic activities.

P2. Goal 1. Objective 7. Review and investigate complaints of employment discrimination in regard to harassment, reasonable accommodations, wages, and other employment discrimination against 5 individuals with disabilities. [PAIR 4, PAAT 1] Employment/Education Team

MET

Five cases were opened under this objective, all PAIR.

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE:

A PAIR eligible client had been working for Truservice Federal Credit Union for almost a year to the day when he was terminated for insubordination. Client is HIV+ and feels he was discriminated against because of his disability. The client stated he was asked by his supervisor to provide a doctor’s notice after missing work; at that time, he disclosed he was HIV+. The supervisor asked client to provide proof from his doctor that he is HIV+. He refused, and was terminated two business days later. A DRC attorney represented the client in an EEOC mediation with his former employer; parties to the mediation reached an agreement which was memorialized and signed by all present. Originals were given to both parties. The client was awarded $7,500 ($4,500 back pay and $3,000 for emotional distress), the employer is to provide a neutral job reference for the client, and the employer will not contest unemployment benefits. The client expressed his appreciation with the representation and was happy with the results. NOTE: this client was successfully represented in both an EEOC mediation and in a hearing for unemployment benefits (which had been denied), and this case is the example for the one litigation case summarized in Part IV under Litigation/class action activities.

II. AREA OF EMPHASIS: Education: Students with disabilities reach their education potential.

DRC Priority 3. Education - Disability rights advocacy will be provided for infants and toddlers/students with disabilities to enforce and protect their rights to special education and related services through Early Intervention Services, Part C, and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Section 504 through individual and systemic advocacy, state complaints, due process and collaboration with organizations and agencies. Need, Issue, or Barrier: Students with disabilities continue to encounter barriers to their access to a free appropriate public education in Arkansas. Issues of timely, appropriate evaluations, (including assistive technology), denial of access to a continuum of placement in the least restrictive environment and a general lack of understanding of IDEA and students’ rights, demonstrate the need to continue work in this area. Students with multiple, intellectual, emotional/behavioral disorders have been seen to be especially challenging to schools and, as a result, are often subjected to unlawful exclusion or even referral to juvenile court.

Collaborative efforts involved work with the AR Parent Information Exchange (ARPIE) through an annual meeting and listserve that includes a group of parent support groups and agencies focused on children with disabilities and their parents and education. DRC has a contract with the AR Disability Coalition/AR Parent Training and Information Center to represent students at IEP meetings, and DRC/PAIR is a participant of the FYAN, Family and Youth Assistance Network that works toward wrap around services throughout the state.

Priority 3. Goal 1. DRC will assist students with disabilities to advocate access to a continuum of placement options in the least restrictive environment.

P3. Goal 1. (Indicator) Objective 1. Investigate 35 claims of denial of access to a continuum of placement options, including suspension, expulsion and manifestation determination, which result in a change of placement due to disability related behaviors. [PADD 22, PAIMI 11, PAIR 1, PATBI 1] Education Team

MET

There was one PAIR case opened under this objective.

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE:

The PAIR eligible client was expelled at the end of the last school year and at the Manifestation Determination Review it appears that it was brought up that the client may have a disability, so he was referred for an evaluation. An evaluation was conducted and he was identified as having ADHD as well as deficits in areas of math calculation, applied problems and fluency. He also has deficits in spelling, writing and reading comprehension. An annual review was held on 5-22-12 and he was returned to school for this current school year. The client will be going to vocational training part of the day and directed studies in special ed the rest of the day. He is receiving transportation and speech services. The client is 19 years old and he stated he is happy with his services at this time. Mother is also OK with his situation at this time. This case was worked as a document review.

P3. Goal 1. Objective 2. Represent 14 students with disabilities who are referred and/or placed inappropriately into an alternative learning environment. [PADD 5, PAIMI 5, PAIR 4] Education Team

PARTIALLY MET, one PAIR case opened

The majority of calls DRC received related to this objective involved students with an MI diagnosis (eight of the ten cases opened were PAIMI cases).

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLE:

This PAIR eligible client is a 14 y/o male student with learning disabilities and ADHD. He had a 504 plan but no behavior plan. The parent indicated that the school district had never tested her child even though she had requested it several times and when she talked to the school Principal he informed her that he was waiting on the LEA to give him paperwork. Her son gets services at Regional Mental Health. Her son had been suspended several times this year and was placed in ALE for his behaviors. Mom needed help in getting her son evaluated and getting him out of ALE. After receiving records for review, a DRC advocate attended a conference to determine whether this student was eligible for special education services. He was identified as OHI because of Math. An IEP was developed, and modifications are: use of a calculator to solve math problems, shorter assignments in class and on homework, and if he is unable to complete the task in class he should have extra time. He was placed in resource for Math and mainstreamed in other classes. DRC assisted in getting this student out of ALE and identified as OHI, with appropriate services provided.

P3. Goal 1. Objective 3. DRC will contract with Arkansas Disability Coalition to represent 25 students with disabilities in the public school system receiving special education services that are in need of representation at IEP conferences related to suspension or other issues as referred. [PADD 16, PAIMI 8, PAIR 1] Education Team

MET FOR PAIR

Two PAIR cases were opened under this objective.

CLOSED CASE EXAMPLES:

1) This PAIR eligible client is a 7 y/o male not identified for IDEA or 504 and recently diagnosed with Dyslexia. This student was to be discharged from Methodist Day Treatment the following week and needed an advocate to attend a conference to assist with placement and programming. As a result of the conference the student will be placed in an Alternative Learning Environment program to achieve a low number in the classroom and increase the ability to work on possible negative behaviors. The team may need to reconvene and develop a behavior plan. A point sheet will be provided to the parents. The IEP setting is a temporary placement, and on-site counseling at school will be provided as needed, with outside therapy to continue for now. Touch-point math was demonstrated with the parents, who are continuing on the waiting list for a diagnostic evaluation at the Dennis Developmental Center. The advocate emailed the parent the Arkansas Special Education website and stressed the suggestion to view the section regarding specific learning disability/dyslexia. 2) This PAIR eligible client is a 7 y/o male student with a diagnosis of Learning Disabilities. The parent felt that she did not know the IEP process and the school is taking advantage of that fact. Mom stated that there was not a year-end conference. She further stated that when she inquired about the IEP she was told by the teacher that she (the teacher) was to meet with the special education coordinator to make needed changes to the student’s IEP. Mom wanted an advocate to attend the upcoming meeting. A DRC advocate advised the parent that an IEP meeting should not occur without her presence, and changes should not be made to the IEP without her involvement. When she stated that she had provided the school with documentation from an independent evaluation, the advocate suggested a review conference to discuss any possible recommendations and/or implementation of an IEP. At the conference it was determined that the student was not receiving services determined from the previous meeting. A new IEP was developed to include math resource and for tutoring after school with a regular education teacher to continue.

III. AREA OF EMPHASIS: Information Strategies: People with disabilities will have access to information that would enable them to lead valued, proactive lives.

DRC Priority 4. Outreach, training, information and policy advocacy — People with disabilities, their families, support networks, providers, and the community at large should be informed about relevant rights and about the services of Disability Rights Center. Additionally, policy-makers should be educated about issues of importance to individuals with disabilities.

Need, Issue, or Barrier: Because of the rural nature of our state, hard to reach diverse cultural and racial populations, high illiteracy rate, and high poverty rate people with disabilities continue to be uninformed of their rights. The lack of public awareness of disability rights, and services prevents people with disabilities from leading valued, proactive lives. Collaborative approaches improve success of informing policy makers and people with disabilities about rights and services.

Collaborative efforts are a large part of this priority since its focus is outreach, training and public policy efforts. DRC/PAIR is part of numerous coalitions and groups with a disability rights focus and so we can clarify referrals and services of each, focusing on our common goals together such as CAN Do, Inc, and the AR Disability Policy Consortium, and the AR Justice Foundation.

Priority 4. Goal 1. DRC will inform people with disabilities of their legal rights at trainings conducted by DRC and other organizations. Training may also be provided to service providers and other organizations.

P4. Goal 1. (Indicator) Objective 1. Conduct 16 community trainings on the services DRC provides, sensitivity awareness and on specific topics related to DRC priorities as requested by other agencies. [GEOP] O&E Team 8, Education Team 4, Legal 4

PARTIALLY MET- 11 trainings were conducted

(1) PAIMI AC Orientation/DRC Overview-Trained 1 attorney (2) World Services for the Blind-Trained 8 people w/disabilities (3) Developmental Disabilities Council Family Leadership Train the Trainer-trained 1 Council Member (4) Developmental Disabilities Council Family Leadership (Barry Vuletich and Vincent McKinney)-trained 25 Service Providers and People w/Disabilities (5-6) Two trainings on Sensitivity to Secretary of State’s Office-trained 72 SOS staffers-PAIR (7) Professional Association for Innkeepers International (Gwenn Eyer-B&B Owner), Barry Vuletich, SeRonna Rodgers, Eddie Schmeckenbecher-ICAN) (8) Trained 8 B&B Owners on ADA requirements on Bed and Breakfasts and sensitivity-PAIR (9) Get to Know DRC-Paragould (SeRonna Rodgers, Rodney Farley, Brandy Marks)- trained 9 (10) Get to Know DRC-Bryant (SeRonna Rodgers, Rodney Farley, Brandy Marks)- trained 9 (11) Get to Know DRC-Ft. Smith (SeRonna Rodgers and Rodney Farley)- trained 36

P4. Goal 1. Objective 2. Conduct 5 trainings and/or other activities in collaboration with AR Can Do, Inc. AR Can Do is made up of other non-profits, state agencies and people with disabilities to change perceptions of how society perceives people with disabilities and educate on appropriate ways to communicate and interact with people who have disabilities. [GEOP 5] O&E Team

PARTIALLY MET

Four trainings were conducted

October 5, 2011 Can Do/UAMS/12:00 PM Lecture/Power Point/Handouts Training Topic: People First Language Audience: Staff Total Trained: 3+ Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Tim Minnie Funding Source: PAIR Collaboration: Arkansas Can Do/University of Arkansas Medical Sciences October 5, 2011 Can Do/UAMS/1:00 PM Lecture/Power Point/Handouts Training Topic: People First Language Audience: Staff Total Trained: 8+ Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Tim Minnie Funding Source: PAIR Collaboration: Arkansas Can Do/University of Arkansas Medical Sciences October 26, 2011 Can Do/UAMS/12:00 PM Lecture/Power Point/Handouts Training Topic: Invisible Barriers/Unconscious Biases Audience: Staff Total Trained: 8 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Billy Altom Funding Source: PAIR Collaboration: Arkansas Can Do/University of Arkansas Medical Sciences

September 14, 2012 DD Conference Lecture/Handouts/Power Point/Q&A Training Topic: People First Language Audience: People w/Disabilities/Family Members/Care Givers/Service Providers Total Trained: 75 Staff: SeRonna Rodgers and Bryan Cozart Collaboration: Developmental Disabilities Council

Priority 4. Goal 2. DRC will raise issues that affect the lives of people with disabilities at meetings attended by policy makers and/or people with disabilities.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 1. Attend 10 meetings of the Arkansas Homeless Coalition to advocate for homeless people with disabilities. [PAIR, PAIMI, PADD, PATBI] Legal Team

PARTIALLY MET, DISCONTINUED

DRC housing advocate attended the two meetings in the first quarter (AHC did not hold a December meeting), but did not attend any other meetings.

The housing advocate quit attending meetings due to a change in direction by the Coalition, with new co-chairs and new members who took the Coalition in a direction that DRC felt was not in sync with our goals and would not benefit the population we serve. This objective is NOT being continued into FY2013 and the project has been closed out. The housing advocate continues to get the meeting minutes to keep abreast of issues that come up, but the primary objectives of the Coalition have been met (a Day Resource Center has been created by the City and complaints about treatment of the homeless by the City have greatly diminished) and the Coalition is conducting more social activities and focusing their energies on very minor issues that are not substantive in any way and are not really impacting the homeless population in any meaningful way.

These meetings have been a collaborative effort of people and agencies who banded together to address deficiencies and problems with how the City met the needs of the homeless. Other members include representatives from various churches, the City of Little Rock Homeless Services Coordinator, representatives from various homeless service provider agencies (homeless shelters) and individuals who are interested in helping the homeless and are volunteers.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 2. Attend bimonthly meetings of the Interagency Council on Homelessness to provide information to service providers of homeless people about disability issues. [PAIR, PAIMI, PADD] Legal Team

MET

DRC housing advocate attended 8 (of 10) IAC meetings held this year.

Clarification: the objective says will "attend bimonthly meetings"; the IAC meets monthly, but the housing advocate was able to attend meetings only every other month (at the time this objective was written) because DRC held a staff meeting every other month at the same time (3rd Fridays in the a.m.) The advocate was able to attend eight meetings due to some staff meetings not being held. The IAC did not meet in November and December.

The IAC is a collaborative group whose purpose is to get regular reports from the state about the HUD grants that fund homeless services, as well as share information about everyone’s respective programs. The DRC advocate attends as a way of keeping abreast of the HUD homeless grants, the various activities of the homeless service providers who attend the meetings, and to keep those providers and the state abreast of DRC activities. The group primarily consists of homeless services providers like shelters, the state agency through which HUD homeless funds are funneled, the City of Little Rock’s Homeless Services Coordinator, and representatives from HUD and the VA.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 3. DRC will serve on the Division of Youth Services (DYS) Oversight Committee at its quarterly meetings to ensure that DYS is meeting the deadlines of the DYS Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Reform Plan 2009-2014. [PADD, PAIMI, PAIR, PAAT, PATBI, CAP] Legal Team

MET

The oversight committee is still working on the DYS Strategic Plan and the timeline to complete the goals and objectives set for this year. So far DYS has started dialogues with various school leaders and the AR Dept. of Education on keeping more students in schools and achieving higher graduate rates. They’ve published and released in a press conference their first annual report on the state of juvenile justice in Arkansas to promote public education. Kay Carpenter is overseeing the life skills training for youth in all parts of the state. Kids who pass this key training program will receive a certificate from the Governor. They also set up a virtual high school within the juvenile justice system this fall. DYS is getting local and state agencies involved to be part of a taskforce, as well such as law enforcement, public defenders, teachers and judges. There will be three tiers to this taskforce: Government, eg. law enforcement and judges, core working groups, eg. us or DYS, and "doers", eg. teachers and direct care staff. Those are just some of the goals and objectives the DYS oversight Committee are working on for this year. Some have been met and the others are still in the beginning stages.

DRC also serves on the Reentry Planning Task Force, which this year is working on developing a strategic plan for their new grant, the Second Chance Act Juvenile Offender Reentry Program for Planning and Demonstration Project. It targets moderate to high risk male and female juvenile offenders, ages 14 to 21 and recognized as serious and violent offenders (rape, homicide, arson, aggravate robbery, aggravated assault).

P4. Goal 2. Objective 4. DRC, a partner and founding organization in the Family and Youth Assistance Network (FYAN) will attend meetings, including 1 family training. [PAIR, PADD, PAIMI] Legal Team

MET

Attended eight meetings of the FYAN

The Mission Statement for Family and Youth Assistance Network (FYAN) is a family-led coalition organized to ensure the children’s behavioral healthcare system of Arkansas is family driven, youth guided, and child centered. The purpose of FYAN is to impact and (or) facilitate changes in the children’s behavioral health care system of Arkansas. It is also the intention of FYAN to develop an advocacy network of families and organizations that are active at local, regional, and state levels. The meeting discussions began this FY attempting to get dollars to hold a fall conference. The total amount for that conference would be $34,600.00. The FYAN had a small amount of money left over from last year and placed $1800.00 as a deposit for the 4-H Center in Little Rock. It was decided to write a grant to utilize Centers for Youth and Families as the fudiciary agent. After reading attachments to the grant proposal and talking with SAMSHA it was determined that FYAN was unable to apply. Pam Marshall, Youth MOVE, and her organization were the only group that was able to make the application. There were conversations about Pam taking the lead on the grant and partnering with the FYAN to accomplish several statewide goals for the network. After reviewing the outline and abstract of the new grant it was decided to release Pam from any partnering obligations FYAN had asked for in the writing of the grant. There were concerns about what work was done and who did the work and the decision was made that her grant be written as a stand alone project without any references to FYAN. Meetings continued where there was discussion around family-led versus Family support groups. FYAN decided it should focus the expertise from the steering committee members to those groups requesting assistance, and perhaps change the focus of the conference or offering more tracks. What would be the best way for FYAN to use their limited funds? Discussion was held regarding the possibility of other agency conferences (NAMI, DBHS)allowing FYAN to provide tracks in the conference. It was believed that the System of Care (SOC) budget for 2012 allocated $65,000.00 in their budget for FYAN and Youth MOVE. Because FYAN waited so long to formally decide a request for dollars, the money was otherwise allocated; therefore, no money is available for a FYAN conference. Moving forward, FYAN will offer the $1800.00 reservation fee to the 4-H Center as a contribution to the Youth MOVE conference. FYAN will refocus on becoming a coalition, identifying other organizations that should be involved and identifying family needs and how the organizations can fill those needs.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 5. DRC serves on the Arkansas Advisory Council for the Education of Individuals with Disabilities at its quarterly meetings to advise the Council on ways to stop discrimination against children with disabilities in public schools. [PADD, PAIMI, PAIR, PAAT, PATBI] Education Team

MET

The Advisory Council consists of members appointed by the Director of the Department of Education. Membership includes: parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, teachers, representatives of institutions of higher education, representatives of private schools, state and local education officials, representatives of a vocational or business organization concerned with the provision of transition services to children with disabilities and others. The council meets quarterly and advises the Department of Special Education of unmet needs within the state in the education of children with disabilities. The council is to provide comments on any rules or regulations proposed by the State regarding the education of children with disabilities. The council receives quarterly reports from the various programs within the Department of Special Education, and the council reviews and advises the State Department in developing any corrective action plans to address any reports from federal monitoring.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 6. DRC will continue the Arkansas Parent Information Exchange (ArPIE) list serve to share information with parent advocacy groups/Parent Training Information Centers about education advocacy, rights issues and training. [GEOP] Executive Director

MET

DRC convened a meeting of the ArPIE groups February 15 at DRC. ArPIE distributed information on the parent satisfaction form used by the State for each child in special education to parents to make sure parents knew about it and to encourage them to respond and complete the form. DRC provided the AR Dept of Ed form and ArPIE groups distributed it to families with an explanation of its importance. DRC found that the Spec Ed Advisory Board and State Dept. of Ed heard only good things from parents on these forms, so DRC questioned if things are so great then why does DRC hear all the problems? In anticipation of the US Dept of Education/Office of Special Education Progams (OSEP) 2013 Monitoring of Arkansas, DRC and ArPIE planned to use several strategies to identify issues, get Parent Training and Info (PTI) Centers’ surveys to parents and get the information to OSEP prior to its visit in hopes that problems can be addressed in the visit and corrections to systemic problems made for the state. DRC would be working with OSEP on a monitoring protocol for its visit. Planning for the OSEP visit was discussed in August and will be an emerging system ArPIE activity. There were 27 ARPIE listserve notices sent from the DRC Exec Director, and 58 ARPIE messages received. Groups that came to the meetings: PTI, DRC, DDC, FYAN, PArtners, DDC, Transition, Title 5 Special Health Care needs, ASN, Autism groups, AR Hands & Voices, Family2Family Health Information Centers, etc.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 7. DRC will finalize the Legislative Interim Study Committee Report on Coordinated Services for Children with Hearing Loss and submit to policy makers and AR Early Intervention Services. [PAIR, PADD, PAAT] Executive Director

MET

On February 29 Nan Ellen East met with Dr. Nannette Nicholson, Director of Audiology at UALR and they reviewed the plan. Dr. Nicholson completed the draft and reviewed it with other subcommittee members. There was agreement on the draft and it will be submitted to the Interim Committee on Coordinated Services for Children with Hearing Loss, and the AR Coalition for the Education of Students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing (ACED) for feedback in order to finalize the report. Collaborators include: AR Hands & Voices, Audiology & Speech Pathology/Arkansas Children’s Hospital, UAMS, AR Headstart, Disability Rights Center of AR, AR Registry of Interpreters of the Deaf, AR Rehabilitation Services, DDS-First Connections (EI Program), Dept of Health/ Infant Hearing Screening Program, UALR Audiology and Speed Path Dept., Private Speech Pathologist, DDTCS Centers, AR School for the Deaf, AR Transition Services, LR Public Schools, State Dept of Education/Special Education, Parents, Services Coordinator Telecommunications ACCESS Program (TAP)/ARS, Public Pre-K (ABC) Program Coordinator/Division of Child Care & Early Childhood Education, Arkansas Rehabilitation Services Office for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, U of A Research & Training Center for Persons who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Clinical Programs Manager, Division of Behavioral Health Services, DDS Training/Therapy Consultant, Social Marketing and Training Division of Behavioral Health Services, Interpreter Educator/Dept of Counseling, AR Association of the Deaf, Adult and Rehabilitation Education UALR, ICAN/ARS.

Further information about this objective: Early Intervention for children with hearing loss. Infants are identified through the ADH Infant Hearing program by all AR hospitals, and then theoretically the infants and toddlers would be referred to First Connections at DDS/DHS (IDEA Part C) by all groups and assessed and fitted for assistive technology aids and referred for appropriate child and family intervention. After the study committee researched data in AR and in the country, it found that the babies were not all being referred to DDS since there were no consistent qualified professionals providing service facilitation, information and referrals there. Large providers like AR Children’s Hospital did not refer their children with hearing loss (90 % of all children with hearing loss) to DDS. Other children were inappropriately referred to DDTCS (Developmental Disabilities Day Service Centers) that are structured to serve children with developmental disabilities in a segregated program without experience in deafness. Deafness is not a developmental disability in Arkansas. These hearing impaired infants were sometimes served or not served in their home communities and those referred to DDS were referred to the state School for the Deaf outreach program or DD Centers (not appropriate for children who were only D/HH). Many children were falling behind and their parents remained uninformed about communication such as spoken communication options, audition and other service options. DDS implemented the committee’s plan proposal and assigned a qualified and experienced EI Case facilitator who also was a parent of a hard of hearing young adult to serve all the D/HOH infants and children within the EI program. Soon after the program was underway, AR Children’s Hospital (ACH) and other groups and providers started referring to the DDS EI program where they had not done so before (acording to the DDS EI Case Facilitator). Since more infants were now referred to DDS EI program, the experienced case facilitator said she intended to and was serving only them as the committee hoped. DDS contended that with the addition of more children who were D/HOH than anticipated, DDS would have to hire more staff since this meant the D/HOH case facilitator could not also serve other children with disabilities in addition to the D/HOH children, so there were not enough staff. This was a problem on many levels including budget and DDS organization. ACH stopped referring and the system went back to the way it was other than the program was much better informed about the needs of hearing impaired infants. The system effort resulted in a shortlived plan, improved communication and relationships of the D/HOH Arkansas providers and supporters of infants and children who are deaf and hard of hearing, increased understanding of the childrens’ needs and of parents’ needs, and a better working relationship among the Committee members.

Priority 4. Goal 3. DRC will inform people with disabilities of their rights through the publication and dissemination of pertinent information.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 1. DRC will print and distribute 1000 "A Parent’s Guide, Civil Rights/Education" Bluebooks to inform persons how to stop discrimination against students with disabilities. [PADD, PAIMI, PAAT, PATBI, PAIR] Education Team

MET

401 Bluebooks were disseminated for this fiscal year through Intake requests. There were 13 boxes of 40 bluebooks each taken to conferences and given to the AR Disability Coalition/Parent Training and Information Centers and other parent groups and agencies totalling more than 1000 bue books distributed in FY 2012.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 2. DRC will distribute 500 "IDEA, a Parent’s Booklet" (companion to the Bluebook) to inform persons how to stop discrimination against students with disabilities. [PADD, PAIMI, PAAT, PATBI, PAIR] Education Team

MET

503 booklets were disseminated for this FY. Booklets are distributed upon request. Collaboration: DRC met with Partners for Inclusive Communities and the Governor’s Developmental Disabilities Council to jointly update and print and split the cost of more Booklets in FY 2013.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 3. DRC will maximize its electronic outreach by continuing a weblog. [GEOP] Legal Team

MET

Weblog stats for FY2012:

2,358 visitors 4,041 visits 7,512 pageviews

P4. Goal 3. Objective 4. Provide the DRC display and materials in at least 8 conferences to inform the public about DRC activities to stop discrimination against people with disabilities. [GEOP] O&E Team

MET

12 Exhibits:

1) October 19, 2011 Disability Awareness Day Attendance: 150 Participants: Disability Related Groups and PWD Staff: SeRonna Rodgers Funding Source: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI 2) November 17-18, 2011 Welcome the Children Conference Attendance: 148 Participants: Disability Agencies/PWD/Cultural Diversity Groups Staff: SeRonna Rodgers Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PAAT

3) March 2, 2012 Mental Health Public Forum Attendance: 52 Participants: MH Service Providers and People with Psychiatric Disabilities Staff: SeRonna Rodgers Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI

4) March 6-7, 2012 APSE Employment conference Attendance: 200 people Participants: PWD, families, providers and state agencies Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI

5) May 5, 2012 Hola’ Arkansas Health & Safety Fair Attendance: approx. 150 Participants: General Public Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI

6) May 23-24, 2012 Arkansas Rehabilitation Association Conference Attendance: approx. 125 Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI

(7) July 18-20, 2012 Arkansas Waiver Association Conference Attendance: 300 Participants: individuals on Waiver, family member, provider agencies, DDS staff Funding: PADD

8) August 8, 2012 Behavioral Health Institute Attendance: 800 Participants: individuals receiving service, family members, provider agency staff, MH professionals, DBHS staff Funding: PAIMI

9) September 10, 2012 Get to Know DRC (Paragould) Attendance: 9 Participants: general public Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI

10) Get to Know DRC (Bryant) Attendance: 9 Participants: general public Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI

11) September 13-14, 2012 DD Conference Attendance: 600 Participants: people with DD, family member, provider agency staff, DDS staff Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI

12) Get to Know DRC (Paragould) Attendance: 36 Participants: general public Funding: PAIR/PADD/PAIMI/PAAT/CAP/PABSS/HAVA/PATBI

P4. Goal 3. Objective 5. DRC will maximize its electronic outreach by improving DRC Facebook with timely posts and pictures. [GEOP] O&E & Web Teams

MET

In fy 2012 DRC maximized its electronic outreach through Facebook by using RSS (really simple syndication) feeds from the DRC blog and the DRC (Website) Alerts. By February, DRC completed its new website and logo and by June staff had been assigned to enter information twice a week. June to September 30, 764 items had been added to Facebook including photos, shared information, status updates and video. Unique visitors for the year totaled 2052.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 6. DRC will produce three P&A Newsletters and one 2010 Annual Report. [GEOP] O&E Team

PARTIALLY MET

A 2010 Annual Report did not get published due to lack of resources.

Three newsletters: the first newsletter was published in May.

The second newsletter was published in August: the Education Team provided articles for the DRC August Newsletter. The articles included Education IEPs and 504 Plans, Collaboration, closed case examples and Standards-Based Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). The third newsletter consisted of articles on Nan Ellen and Jan Baker retiring and on the PAIMI AC membership drive and was written in September.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 7. DRC will review its current publications and information materials for relevance and accuracy, then inventory and update the publications and materials to the extent budget allows. [GEOP] O&E Team

MET

DRC has a new brochure, newsletter and display with a new logo and name and business cards, letterhead, checks, and all materials that resources could fund were changed. The Outreach staff will work with other employees to better maintain outreach materials for easy and effective distribution by all staff and board members.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 8. Timely information will be posted on the DRC website on each DRC program, upcoming events, cases, investigations, legislation, etc. [GEOP] All Teams

MET

The DRC website is constantly updated with timely information about upcoming events, legislation, and disability rights. The figures for the website for FY2012 are: Page Hits: 110,824 Visitors: 46,428

P4. Goal 3. Objective 9. DRC will attend six transition conferences/fairs to inform students and staff about DRC transition services and disseminate DRC information, brochures, posters, etc. [GEOP] Employment/Education Team

PARTIALLY MET

1) December 1, 2011 Springdale Public School Transition Conference — Springdale, AR Attendance: 500 Participants: high school students with disabilities, teachers and parents

2) March 9, 2012 Jefferson Co. Transition Fair, White Hall, AR Attendance: 150 (lym) Participants: high school students with disabilities, teachers and parents

3) March 15, 2012 North Little Rock High School Transition Fair Attendance: 100 Participants: high school students with disabilities, teachers and parents 4) March 27, 2012 McClellan High School Transition Fair, Little Rock Attendance: 70 Participants: high school students with disabilities, teachers and parents

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.

DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER OF ARKANSAS FY 2013 PRIORITIES-GOALS-OBJECTIVES

PAIR

DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER OF ARKANSAS MISSION

To passionately assist the lives of people with disabilities through education, empowerment and protection of their legal rights

PRIORITIES

DRC Priority 1. Housing and Access — People with disabilities should have full programmatic and physical access to programs and services of local, state and federal government, to housing, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and to places of public accommodation as provided by state and federal law.

Need, Issue, or Barrier: People with disabilities continue to encounter barriers in obtaining accessible and affordable housing, accessing goods and services from local businesses, applying for employment and/or seeking reasonable accommodations and participating in the programs, services and activities of state and local government

Priority 1. Goal 1. DRC will assist people with disabilities to advocate removal of barriers to housing, places of public accommodation, and local, state and federal government in order for them to have equal access under the law.

P1. Goal 1. Objective 1. Represent or provide technical assistance to 9 people with disabilities regarding failure to accommodate their disabilities in housing.

P1. Goal 1. Objective 2. Represent or provide technical assistance to 2 people with disabilities regarding rental denial, eviction, or retaliation for exercising their legal rights in housing.

P1. Goal 1. Objective 3. Represent or provide technical assistance to 3 people with disabilities regarding problems with subsidized housing.

P1. Goal 1. Objective 4. Represent 2 clients alleging that architectural barriers prevent them from having equal access to government services, programs and activities.

P1. Goal 1. Objective 5. Represent 4 clients alleging that architectural barriers prevent them from having equal access to businesses.

P1. Goal 1. Objective 6. Represent or provide technical assistance to 3 clients who are deaf or hard of hearing alleging that a medical service provider has failed to provide effective communication so that client can participate knowledgeably in the treatment process and provide informed consent.

P1. Goal 1. Objective 7. Represent 2 individuals with disabilities who have been denied SSDI.

DRC Priority 2. Employment — People with disabilities, including SSA beneficiaries and individuals who are eligible for services under the federal Rehabilitation Act should not face discrimination and difficulties obtaining and maintaining employment.

Need, Issue, or Barrier: People with disabilities continue to have difficulty obtaining and maintaining employment.

Priority 2. Goal 1. DRC will assist people with disabilities to advocate removal of barriers to employment in order for them to have equal access under the law.

P2. Goal 2. Objective 1. Review and investigate 4 complaints of employment discrimination in regard to harassment, reasonable accommodations, wages, and other employment discrimination against 6individuals with disabilities.

DRC Priority 3. Education - Disability rights advocacy will be provided for infants and toddlers/students with disabilities to enforce and protect their rights to special education and related services through Early Intervention Services, Part C, and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Section 504 through individual and systemic advocacy, state complaints, due process and collaboration with organizations and agencies. Need, Issue, or Barrier: Students with disabilities continue to encounter barriers to their access to a free appropriate public education in Arkansas. Issues of timely, appropriate evaluations, (including assistive technology), denial of access to a continuum of placement in the least restrictive environment and a general lack of understanding of IDEA and students’ rights, demonstrate the need to continue work in this area. Students with multiple, intellectual, emotional/behavioral disorders have been seen to be especially challenging to schools and, as a result, are often subjected to unlawful exclusion or even referral to juvenile court.

Priority 3. Goal 1. DRC will assist students with disabilities to advocate access to a continuum of placement options in the least restrictive environment.

P3. Goal 1. Objective 1. Investigate 2 claims of denial of access to a continuum of placement options, including suspension, expulsion, manifestation determination, and inappropriate referrals to an alternative learning environment (ALE) which result in a change of placement due to disability related behaviors.

P3. Goal 1. Objective 2. DRC will assist to improve the quality and effectiveness of the transition plans for 1 student with disabilities. P3. Goal 1. Objective 3. DRC will contract with Arkansas Disability Coalition to represent 3 students with disabilities in the public school system receiving special education services that are in need of representation at IEP conferences related to suspension or other issues as referred. This would include students with a significant emotional impairment.

DRC Priority 4. Outreach, training, information and policy advocacy — People with disabilities, their families, support networks, providers, and the community at large should be informed about relevant rights and about the services of Disability Rights Center of Arkansas. Additionally, policy-makers should be educated about issues of importance to individuals with disabilities.

Need, Issue, or Barrier: Because of the rural nature of our state, hard to reach diverse cultural and racial populations, high illiteracy rate, and high poverty rate people with disabilities continue to be uninformed of their rights. The lack of public awareness of disability rights, and services prevents people with disabilities from leading valued, proactive lives. Collaborative approaches improve success of informing policy makers and people with disabilities about rights and services.

Priority 4. Goal 1. DRC will inform people with disabilities of their legal rights at trainings conducted by DRC and other organizations. Training may also be provided to service providers and other organizations.

P4. Goal 1. Objective 1. Conduct 8 community trainings on the services DRC provides, sensitivity awareness and on specific topics related to DRC priorities as requested by other agencies.

P4. Goal 1. Objective 2. Conduct 5 trainings and/or other activities in collaboration with AR Can Do, Inc. AR Can Do is made up of other non-profits, state agencies and people with disabilities to change perceptions of how society perceives people with disabilities and educate on appropriate ways to communicate and interact with people who have disabilities.

Priority 4. Goal 2. DRC will raise issues that affect the lives of people with disabilities at meetings attended by policy makers and/or people with disabilities.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 1. Attend monthly meetings of the Interagency Council on Homelessness to provide information to service providers of homeless people about disability issues.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 2. DRC will serve on the Division of Youth Services (DYS) Oversight Committee at its quarterly meetings to ensure that DYS is meeting the deadlines of the DYS Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Reform Plan 2009-2014.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 3. DRC, a partner and founding organization in the Family and Youth Assistance Network (FYAN) will attend meetings.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 4. DRC serves on the Arkansas Advisory Council for the Education of Individuals with Disabilities at its quarterly meetings to advise the Council on ways to stop discrimination against children with disabilities in public schools.

P4. Goal 2. Objective 5. DRC will facilitate the Arkansas Parent Information Exchange (ArPIE) list serve to share information with parent advocacy groups/Parent Training Information Centers about education advocacy, rights issues and training.

Priority 4. Goal 3. DRC will inform people with disabilities of their rights through the publication and dissemination of pertinent information.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 1. DRC will print and distribute 1000 A Parent’s Guide, Civil Rights/Education Bluebooks to inform persons how to stop discrimination against students with disabilities.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 2. DRC will distribute 500 IDEA, a Parent’s Booklet (companion to the Bluebook) to inform persons how to stop discrimination against students with disabilities.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 3. DRC will maximize its electronic outreach by continuing a weblog. P4. Goal 3. Objective 4. Provide the DRC display and materials in at least 8 conferences to inform the public about DRC activities to stop discrimination against people with disabilities.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 5. DRC will maximize its electronic outreach by improving DRC’s Facebook page with timely posts and pictures.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 6. Timely information will be posted on the DRC website on each DRC program, upcoming events, cases, investigations, legislation, etc.

P4. Goal 3. Objective 7. DRC will produce three P&A Newsletters.

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: Provide the amount of funds the PAIR program received from each of the sources indicated during the fiscal year covered by this report. In addition, specify the total amount expended, from each of the sources of funds, in providing services to PAIR-eligible individuals. Provide this information even if the PAIR’s only source of funding is the Federal formula grant under section 509 of the Act. The following chart is recommended when providing this information:

Source of Funding Amount Received Amount Spent Federal (Section 509) $175,300.00 $140,977.34 State $- $- Program Income $102.43 $102.43 Private $- $- All other funds (carry over from previous FY) $44,830.00 $44,830.00 Total (from all sources) $220,232.43 $185,909.77 The "all other" category above is broad. It includes funds from local governments, earned income (i.e., legal fees), charitable contributions, and other grants or contracts. This category does not include in-kind donations. However, it is hoped that PAIR will collect this information separately if appropriate.

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by the report: Outline the budget for the fiscal year covered by the report (prior fiscal year), as well as a projection for the current fiscal year. Be sure to include a breakdown of dollars expended/alloted for: administrative costs (i.e., personnel salaries, equipment, etc.); services to individuals; and other expenses (i.e., staff training, travel, etc.).

ACTUAL BUDGET CODE DESCRIPTION PRIOR FY12 CURRENT FY13 WAGES/SALARIES 100-00-601 GROSS WAGES $117,540.48 $130,315.25 FRINGE BENEFITS 100-01-605 AGENCY FICA/MED MATCH $8,978.04 $9,969.12 100-04-615 HEALTH INSURANCE $14,663.90 $13,401.70 100-04-616 HEALTH INSURANCE REIMBURSMENT 100-04-620 DENTAL INSURANCE $791.98 $752.86 100-04-630 ADD/LTD/STD/LIFE (UNUM) $2,730.03 $3,080.74 100-04-635 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE $597.81 $647.40 100-01-605 AGENCY CONTRIBUTION TO 403B $5,403.20 $4,319.01 100-03-600 SW (EAP) EMPLOYMENT ASSIST. PRO. $240.00 $260.00 100-04-813 WORKER’S COMP INSURANCE $271.31 $271.31 TOTAL FRINGE: $33,676.27 $32,702.14 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES 100-05-703 OFFICE SUPPLIES $804.44 $1,040.00 POSTAGE 100-09-709 OFFICE POSTAGE $1,298.17 $990.00 TELEPHONE 100-10-701 GENERAL PHONE CHARGES $1,260.17 $780.00 100-11-701 NEW PHONE SYSTEM LEASE $349.98 $390.00 TOTAL PHONE: $1,610.15 $1,170.00 RENT 100-09-705 OFFICE RENT $8,659.42 $9,321.87 TRAVEL 100-06-660 STAFF PROF. DEV. REGISTRATION $1,173.66 $700.00 100-06-661 STAFF PROF. DEV. TRAVEL $940.62 $910.00 100-06-662 STAFF PROF. DEV. LODGING $2,325.25 $1,560.00 100-06-664 STAFF PROF. DEV. MEALS $327.85 $280.00 100-07-667 BOARD REGISTRATION $111.60 $117.00 100-07-668 BOARD TRAVEL $562.14 $600.60 100-07-669 BOARD LODGING $415.78 $390.00 100-07-670 BOARD MEALS $368.94 $325.00 100-07-673 BOARD CONFERENCE CALLS $23.27 $13.00 100-06-702 GENERAL TRAVEL AND LODGING $917.26 $1,700.00 TOTAL TRAVEL: $7,166.37 $6,595.60 COPYING 100-05-708 PRINTING EXPENSE $471.47 $600.00 BONDING/INSURANCE 100-07-801 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INS $1,170.17 $1,272.10 100-07-802 PROPERTY AND COMMERCIAL INS $385.02 $206.70 TOTAL INSURANCE: $1,555.19 $1,478.80 EQUIPMENT (RENTAL.PURCHASE) 100-05-804 EQUIPMENT MAINT/SERV COSTS $426.61 $403.00 100-05-805 100-00-805 EQUIPMENT LEASE $1,192.18 $988.00 100-08-806 COMPUTER PURCHASES $230.64 $650.00 100-08-807 FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT COSTS $87.98 $130.00 100-08-814 COMPUTER SOFTWARE PURCHASES $555.51 $338.00 TOTAL EQUIPMENT: $2,492.92 $2,509.00 LEGAL SERVICES 100-05-803 ANNUAL AUDIT FEE $660.47 $715.26 100-05-812 MISC LEGAL EXPENSES $- $26.00 TOTAL LEGAL SERVICES: $660.47 $741.26 MISCELLANEOUS 100-05-666 HIRING EXPENSES $233.65 $109.33 100-05-706 SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS/DUES $2,861.46 $3,900.00 100-07-672 BOARD GENERAL EXPENSES $233.94 $260.00 100-05-707 EXHIBIT/OUTREACH $133.99 $351.00 100-05-808 CONTRACT LABOR $4,633.77 $6,810.00 100-05-809 GENERAL SERVICES $1,615.72 $1,950.00 100-05-704 ONLINE/WEB HOSTING SERVICES $136.89 $156.00 100-05-810 DRC ACCOMMODATIONS $- $30.00 100-05-811 DRC SPONSORED EVENTS $125.00 $- TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS: $9,974.42 $13,566.33 TOTAL EXPENSES: $185,909.77 $201,030.25

C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)

STAFF NAME JOB TITLE FY2012 WAGES % PAIR % OF YEAR FILLED PERSON/ YEARS PAIR WAGES AMT BAKER MANAGING ATTORNEY $81,305.31 36% 100% 1.00 $28,905.28 BANKS ADMIN ASST $27,831.74 13% 100% 1.00 $3,505.64 BROWN INFO SYSTEMS ADMIN $36,681.16 12% 100% 1.00 $4,221.37 DAVIDSON ATTORNEY $24,230.79 12% 25% 0.25 $2,907.72 EAST EX DIR $81,355.55 9% 100% 1.00 $7,386.67 ESKEW ADVOCATE $38,541.69 3% 100% 1.00 $1,132.89 FREEMAN ADVOCATE $51,375.32 7% 100% 1.00 $3,440.89 HOLLOWAY FINANCIAL ASST $28,973.63 12% 100% 1.00 $3,476.78 MARKS INFO SRVCS TEAM $34,647.81 31% 100% 1.00 $10,892.62 MCCLAIN ATTORNEY $18,307.68 10% 25% 0.25 $1,830.80 MILBURN OFFICE MANAGER $41,829.43 11% 100% 1.00 $4,801.28 MORRISON FINANCIAL MGR $39,557.05 12% 100% 1.00 $4,626.99 PIERCE ADVOCATE $44,837.34 57% 100% 1.00 $25,474.56 RAYFORD ED TEAM INTAKE $32,825.14 19% 100% 1.00 $6,103.59 RODGERS OUTREACH $38,003.69 7% 100% 1.00 $2,673.87 VULETICH ADVOCATE $36,592.49 8% 100% 1.00 $3,014.15 WHIPPS ADVOCATE $41,334.52 0.38% 100% 1.00 $156.90 WINSTANLEY ATTORNEY $24,230.79 12% 25% 1.00 $2,988.48 TOTALS: $722,461.13 16.27% 82.89% 16.50 $117,540.48 CLERICAL TOTAL $207,698.15 13% 140% 6.00 $26,735.65 PROFESSIONAL TOTAL $514,762.98 18% 73% 12.00 $90,804.83 $722,461.13 16.27% 107% 18.00 $117,540.48

Type of Position FTE % of year filled Person-years Professional: 9.50 Full-time 16.00% 80% 9.50 Part-time 0.00% 0% 0.00 Vacant 0.00% 0% 0.00 Clerical 8.00 Full-time 25.00% 100% 8.00 Part-time 0.00% 0% 0.00 Vacant 0.00% 0% 0.00 19.28% 90% 17.50 D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any): PAIR does not have an Advisory Board. E. Grievances filed: The Act requires that PAIR establish a grievance procedure to handle any complaints by clients regarding the services received/not received from PAIR. Provide a description of the issues involved in any grievances filed against PAIR during the last fiscal year covered by this report. Explain why the individual filed the grievance and describe the outcome of the grievance process for each complaint. You should not include personally identifying information regarding the individual served. PAIR had no grievances in FY 2012. F. Coordination with the CAP and the State long-term care (OLTC) program if these programs are not part of the P&A agency The State long-term care program is not a part of the P&A; however, PAIR makes referrals to and receives referrals from the State’s long-term care program. In DRC’s monitoring of Long Term Care facilities, DRC and OLTC work together as appropriate.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByNan Ellen East
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/28/2012