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

Arizona (Arizona Center for Disability Law) - H240A120003 - FY2012

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameArizona Center for Disability Law
Address5025 E. Washington Street
Address Line 2Suite 202
CityPhoenix
StateArizona
Zip Code85034
E-mail Addresscenter@azdisabilitylaw.org
Website Addresshttp://www.azdisabilitylaw.org
Phone602-274-6287
TTY 602-274-6287
Toll-free Phone800-927-2260
Toll-free TTY800-927-2260
Fax602-274-6779
Name of P&A Executive DirectorPeri Jude Radecic
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorCathleen Dooley
Person to contact regarding reportCathleen Dooley
Contact Person phone800-922-1447
Ext.326

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 areas174
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas355
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)529

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff36
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)1,440

1) 04-Oct-11. Presentation. “Assistive Technology in the Post-Secondary Environment.” Topics included AT devices and ACDL’s services. Talking Stick Resort, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, 15 people attended. 2) 19-Oct-11. Presentation. “Mobility Boarding School.” Topics included transportation for persons with disabilities. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 7 people attended. 3) 18-Feb-12. Presentation. “Levels of Advocacy.” Topics included services provided by ACDL., Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 33 people attended. 4) 22-Feb-12. Training. “Overview of Medicaid and AHCCCS Services and Appeal Rights.” Topics included AZ’s budget cuts to AHCCCS services. Scottsdale Training and Rehabilitation Services. 21 people attended. 5) 28-Feb-12. Presentation. “ADA and Employment.” Topics included ADA Amendment Act and how it affects employment of people with disabilities. 1st. Annual African-American Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 25 people attended. 6) 28-Feb-12. Presentation. “IEP Development and Section 504.” Topics included special education, IEP’s and Rehab Act Section 504. 1st Annual African-American Conference, Phoenix. 40 people attended. 7) 28-Feb-12. Presentation. “Legal Options to Guardianship.” Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health and mental health care, powers of attorney. 1st Annual African-American Conference, Phoenix. 20 people attended. 8) 12-Apr-12. Training. “Independent Living: Fair Housing Law and Landlord/Tenant Law.” Topics included FHA and state laws. Beacon Group, Tucson. 20 people attended. 9) 24-Apr-12. Presentation. East Valley Transition Fair. Topics included ACDL’s services and programs. Mountain View High School, Mesa. 60 people attended. 10) 25-Apr-12. Presentation. Coyote Collaborative for Emergency Preparedness. Topics included emergency planning for individuals with disabilities. Willow Conference Center, Tempe. 140 people attended. 11) 25-Apr-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship. Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Hilton Garden, Yuma. 16 people attended. 12) 25-Apr-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship (Spanish). Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Hilton Garden, Yuma, 8 people attended. 13) 27-Apr-12. Training. Medicaid Appeals. Topics included Medicaid cuts in AZ. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 7 people attended. 14) 01-May-12. Presentation. ‘Making a Difference.” Topics included ACDL’s services and programs. Aurora Foundation Law Day, Tucson, 20 people attended. 15) 02-May-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship. Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Windmill Suites, Tucson, 50 people attended. 16) 09-May-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship. Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Holiday Inn, Casa Grande, 14 people attended. 17) 09-may-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship (Spanish). Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Holiday Inn, Casa Grande, 5 people attended. 18) 10-May-12. Presentation. Arizona Center for Disability Law Services and Programs. Topics included Center’s services. Maricopa County Bar Association/Foundation Meeting, Phoenix, 40 people attended. 19) 11-May-12. Training, Hotels, Tour Buses and the ADA. Topics included accommodations in ADA for people with disabilities. Grand Canyon Resort, 80 people attended. 20) 13-Jun-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship. Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 42 people attended. 21) 13-Jun-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship (Spanish). Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 13 people attended. 22) 13-Jun-12. Training. Law Firm’s Duty to Provide Interpreters. Topics included ADA, accommodations, ASL interpreters. Lerner & Rowe Law Office, Phoenix, 30 people attended. 23) 18-Jun-12. Training. Overview of Medicaid and AHCCCS Services and Appeal Rights. Topics included update on state budget cuts and AHCCCS services for those receiving AHCCCS. Autism Society of Greater Tucson, 15 people attended. 24) 19-Jun-12. Training. Overview of Title I ADA. Topics included ADA accommodations under Title I. Douglas, Arizona, 10 people attended. 25) 27-June-12. Alexander Graham Bell Assoc. for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Leadership Opportunities for Teens. Topics included ACDL’s programs. Westin Kierland Resort, Scottsdale, 25 people attended. 26) 12-Jul-12. Presentation. Assistive Technology Jeopardy Game! Topics included AT devices, accommodations, special education, voting. 14th Annual Assistive Technology Conference, Glendale, 200 people attended. 27) 25-Jul-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship. Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Radisson Woodlands, Flagstaff, 22 people attended. 28) 26-Jul-12. Presentation. ADA 22nd Birthday Celebration. Topics included ACDL’s programs. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 73 people attended. 29) 01-Aug-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship. Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 15 people attended. 30) 01-Aug-12. Presentation. Priorities Forum FY2013. Topics included ACDL’s proposed priorities for next fiscal year. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix. 4 people attended. 31) 02-Aug-12. Training. Legal Options to Guardianship (Spanish). Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 4 people attended. 32) 08-Aug-12. Presentation. Priorities Forum FY2013. Topics included ACDL’s proposed priorities for next fiscal year. DIRECT Center for Independence, Tucson, 16 people attended. 33) 15-Aug-12. Presentation. Priorities Forum FY2013. Topics included ACDL’s proposed priorities for next fiscal year. Radisson Woodlands Resort, Flagstaff, 16 people attended. 34) 15-Aug-12. Training. Title I of ADA and Confidentiality, Topics included ADA, patient’s rights to confidentiality for health care. Southern AZ Aids Foundation. Tucson, 30 people attended. 35) 24-Aug-12. Presentation. Assistive Technology Jeopardy Game. Topics included AT devices, accommodations, special education, voting. Talking Stick Resort — Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, 300 people attended. 36) 18-Sep-12. Presentation. Legal Options to Guardianship. Topics included guardianship, living wills, designated representative for health care and mental health care, powers of attorney. Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 4 people attended.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff1
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles3
3. PSAs/videos aired8
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website122,476
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated8,069
6. Other (specify separately)18

Narrative

1) 08-Oct-11. Booth/Table. Mobility Boarding School Outreach. Special Education Mini-Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 15 people attended. 2) 11-Oct-11. Booth/Table. Independent Living Fair. Disability Empowerment Center. Phoenix, 100 people attended. 3) 26-Oct-11. General Outreach. “City of Tucson Fails to Comply with Federal Disability Laws.” Associated Press, Howard Fischer, KUGN, KOLD, KVOA, Arizona Republic, Arizona Daily Star and John C. Scott Show, Tucson, 583,348 individuals reached. 4) 16-Feb-12. Booth/Table. ASU Law School Career Day, Arizona State University, Tempe, 15 people attended. 5) 28-Feb-12. Booth/Table. 1st Annual African-American Conference, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 150 people attended. 6) 02-Mar-12. Booth/Table. Southern Arizona Military/Veteran Regional Symposium, Tucson, 42 people attended. 7) 31-Mar-12. Booth/Table. City of Sierra VistAbility Day, Sierra Vista, 70 people attended. 8) 06-Apr-12. Booth/Table. 8th Annual American Indian Disability Summit, Embassy Suites Hotel, Paradise Valley, 80 people attended. 9) 14-Apr-12. Booth/Table. Connecting Tucson-Special Needs Resource and Transition Fair, Tucson, 500 people attended. 10) 27-Apr-12. Booth/Table. Health and Wellness Fair, Spofit Fitness Center, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 500 people attended. 11) 28-Apr-12. Booth/Table, Health and Wellness Fair, Spofit Fitness Center, Disability Empowerment Center, Phoenix, 1,000 people attended. 12) 25-Jun-12. General Outreach. Sheltered Workshop Site Visit, Safford. 15 people reached. 13) 27-Jun-12. General Outreach. Sheltered Workshop Site Visit, Tempe, 13 people reached. 14) 11-Jul-12. Booth/Table. 14th Annual Assistive Technology Summer Institute, Glendale Civic Center, 100 people attended. 15) 29-Jul-12. Booth/Table, Arizona Diamondbacks Disability Expo, Chase Field, Phoenix, 31,400 people attended. 16) 24-Aug-12. Booth/Table. 5th Annual Disabilities Conference, Talking Stick Resort — Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, 200 people attended. 17) 14-Sep-12. General Outreach. Arizona Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Organization of the Year Award Dinner, Tempe Mission Palms, 70 people attended. 18) 15-Sept-12. Booth/Table. Arizona Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Conference, Tempe Mission Palms, 250 people attended.

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)20
2. Additional individuals served during the year475
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)495
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)30

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 23

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility12
2. Employment200
3. Program access26
4. Housing93
5. Government benefits/services56
6. Transportation13
7. Education25
8. Assistive technology3
9. Voting0
10. Health care78
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services1
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse2
16. Neglect5
17. Other11

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor469
2. Other representation found1
3. Individual withdrew complaint0
4. Appeals unsuccessful7
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.9
6. PAIR withdrew from case3
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources7
8. Individual case lacks legal merit3
9. Other3

Please explain

No further contact from client (2) and Client did not require any more assistance with grievance (1)

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-advocacy485
2. Short-term assistance11
3. Investigation/monitoring0
4. Negotiation2
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution4
6. Administrative hearings0
7. Litigation (including class actions)0
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 - 40
2. 5 - 2214
3. 23 - 59371
4. 60 - 6448
5. 65 and over62

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females284
2. Males211

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race54
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native8
3. Asian3
4. Black or African American31
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander1
6. White391
7. Two or more races7
8. Race/ethnicity unknown0

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent419
2. Parental or other family home39
3. Community residential home12
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home5
6. Public institutional living arrangement1
7. Private institutional living arrangement2
8. Jail/prison/detention center14
9. Homeless2
10. Other living arrangements1
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 impairment21
2. Deaf/hard of hearing62
3. Deaf-blind2
4. Orthopedic impairment111
5. Mental illness28
6. Substance abuse2
7. Mental retardation6
8. Learning disability36
9. Neurological impairment64
10. Respiratory impairment10
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment16
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment88
13. Speech impairment0
14. AIDS/HIV6
15. Traumatic brain injury1
16. Other disability42

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities2

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes400,000

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.

Availability of Auxiliary Aids and Services:

The Center negotiated a settlement agreement in a case involving a local movie theater chain. At the time the complaint was filed, the movie theater chain did not provide any devices that enable individuals with visual impairments to hear audio descriptions of movies. As a result of the settlement agreement, the movie theater company agreed to provide a significant number of auxiliary aid devices to enable patrons with visual impairments to listen to audio descriptions. The movie theater company also agreed to provide training to its employees on the use of the devices and on effective communication with individuals who are visually impaired. The movie theater company agreed to distribute over 100 free movie passes to organizations in Arizona that serve visually impaired individuals.

Training on Service Animal Regulations:

The Center represented an individual during mediation at the Department of Justice when the local police department had arrested an individual with a service animal for refusing to leave a doctor’s office when the doctor told him he could not remain on the premise because of the animal. The police department also issued a citation that denied the individual the ability to be at the doctor’s office for one year. The Center negotiated a settlement that included training the police department on the Americans with Disabilities Act and service animal regulations. The City was also required to post information on service animal regulations.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts39,319
2. Number of individuals named in class actions7

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.

Ball v. Rodgers:

This federal class action lawsuit was filed in 2000 against the Arizona Medicaid program (AHCCCS) on behalf of individuals from around the state who receive home and community based services (HCBS), particularly attendant care, personal care and respite. HCBS is provided to plaintiffs under the Arizona Long Term Care Services (ALTCS) program as an alternative to institutionalization. The suit challenged the failure of AHCCCS to provide adequate attendant care workers to meet the needs of plaintiffs, as prescribed in their HCBS care plans.

Judgment was issued in favor of the plaintiffs on August 13, 2004 after a four-day trial. The judge found that the Arizona Medicaid program had failed to assure that recipients of HCBS receive their prescribed services and ordered the program to make extensive reforms to assure that it “provide[s] each individual who qualifies for its services with those services for which the individual qualifies without gaps in service” and to fill any gaps in services within two hours. Defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In FY 07, the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the “free choice” provisions of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396n(c) & (d), which provide beneficiaries with the right to choose to receive care in a nursing home or in the community, are privately enforceable by Medicaid beneficiaries under § 1983. This decision is the first appellate court decision in country, post-Gonzaga, to rule that such provisions are privately enforceable.

The case was remanded to the District Court for determination of the following issues: (1) whether Arizona has waived its defense that the Freedom of Choice provisions do not apply to the Arizona Medicaid program; (2) if Arizona has not waived this defense, whether the Freedom of Choice provisions apply to the Arizona Medicaid program; (3) appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Plaintiffs’ ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims; and (4) modification of the terms of the injunction pursuant to any statutory or regulatory violations found on remand.

The parties concluded fully briefing the remanded issue in February 2008 and obtained an order extending the injunction for six months pending Court’s final ruling. In April 2009, the District Court again ruled in the Plaintiffs’ favor, finding that the Medicaid freedom of choice provisions apply to Arizona and that AHCCCS violated the freedom of choice provisions, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide all authorized attendant care services. The ruling also included order for attorneys’ fees and costs. After filing multiple pleadings on issue of compliance, including numerous class member declarations and extensive analysis of the gap reports and AHCCCS policies, plaintiffs obtained a ruling that injunction is permanent. The Plaintiffs also secured an expert witness to write a report on compliance issues, which was submitted to the Court.

The state again appealed the case to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 24, 2010. The state filed a Preliminary Injunction Appeal per Ninth Cir. Rule 3-3, rather than a regular appeal under FRAP 3 and 4. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal on May 30, 2009 because the injunction is not preliminary; this stayed the expedited briefing schedule. On September 17, 2009, Ninth Circuit converted the appeal to a regular appeal and set briefing schedule. The defendant’s Opening brief was filed on Oct. 14; the plaintiff’s response brief was filed on Nov. 20; and defendant’s reply brief was filed on Dec. 12. On February 9, 2010, the 9th Circuit notified us that the original panel who heard the first appeal will hear this appeal as well. On December 10, 2010, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments. Following the oral argument, the parties were contacted by the 9th Circuit Mediation Department. All parties agreed to participate in mediation. On April 8, 2011, the parties exchanged initial settlement demands.

As of December 20, 2011, the parties had reached an agreement in principle. The parties reached a settlement agreement on March 30, 2012. The Parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the 9th Circuit Appeal without prejudice. On June 11, 2012, the Parties presented the settlement agreement to the Arizona District Court for its approval. On July 12, 2012, the Judge granted our Stipulation for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Approval of Proposed Notice to Class. The matter was set for a fairness hearing on Monday, October 22, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson. On that day Judge Jorgenson approved the settlement and the order was filed on October 30, 2012. Plaintiffs, including ACDL, expect the award of attorneys’ fees within 45 days of the signed order.

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.

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

PRIORITY NO. 1: Increase access by persons with disabilities to services, programs and facilities open to the public. Participate in Arizona Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities that relate to issues involving persons with disabilities

1. Ensure that places of public accommodation, including state and local governmental entities, do not refuse services or treatment on the basis of disability, auxiliary aids and services are provided when needed for effective communication, and governmental entities and public accommodations remove physical barriers to accessibility and make reasonable modifications in policies to avoid discrimination. The focus for FY2012 was on Southern Arizona.

2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that places of public accommodation, including state and local governmental entities, do not refuse access to programs or services on the basis of disability, that auxiliary aids and services are provided when needed, and governmental entities and public accommodations remove physical barriers to accessibility and make reasonable modifications in their policies to avoid discrimination. Furthermore, this priority will ensure that individuals with disabilities will have the necessary information and are involved with Arizona’s Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities.

3. Center staff used four indicators to judge the successful outcome of their activities in this priority area: a) File two (2) administrative complaints with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights and/or the U.S. Department of Justice to challenge discrimination by places of public accommodations including state and local governmental entities, which refuse to modify its policies/procedures or refuse to provide auxiliary aids or services; b) Provide representation at mediation or conciliation with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for cases which present systemic issues and where the legal issues promise to be far-reaching and have high-impact; c) Monitor and provide rights information on transportation issues for individuals with disabilities when applicable federal regulations apply; d) Develop and provide training on the Revised ADA Regulations implementing Title II and Title III of the ADA.

4. Collaborative Effort: Pursuing this priority in regards to the Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities involved collaboration with the Arizona Developmental Disability Council and the Statewide Independent Living Counsel.

5. Center staff handled 92 cases under Priority No. 1.

6. The following (3) case summaries demonstrates the impact of this priority.

The Center represented JP, who is a person who is blind. JP sought a remedy against a local movie theater that failed to provide an auxiliary aid (video description) so that JP could enjoy and understand a movie. The Center assisted JP in filing a civil rights complaint with the Arizona Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division. Following the investigation of the complaint, the Civil Right Division issued a Reasonable Cause Determination finding that the movie theater chain discriminated against JP and similarly situated individuals. JP and the movie theater chain engaged in settlement discussions. As a result of the settlement agreement, the movie theater company agreed to provide 50 video description units to be distributed among each of its theater locations in Arizona. The movie theater company also agreed to provide training to its employees on the use of the devices and on effective communication with individuals who are visually impaired. The movie theater company also agreed to promote the availability of video description and distribute 125 free movie passes to organizations in southern Arizona that serve visually impaired individuals.

The Center represented LL. LL is a person with a physical disability who has a service animal. LL was attending a medical appointment when he was asked to leave the premises because of his service animal. The doctor informed LL that he would call the local police department if he did not leave. LL tried to explain to the doctor that his dog was a service animal and that it could remain at the office according to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The doctor refused to listen to LL and contacted the local police department. The police department arrived at the doctor’s office and ordered that LL leave the doctor’s office immediately. The police department also issued a citation which disallowed LL from being on the doctor’s property for one year. LL filed a Department of Justice complaint against the police department. The Department of Justice contacted LL and the police department and invited them to participate in mediation. LL agreed and the Center represented LL at mediation. As a result of mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement. The settlement included ADA and service animal regulations training. The City was required to post information on the service animal provisions. The City was also required to pay LL $2000.

The Center assisted the Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC) in obtaining access to an emergency planning exercise at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport. The City of Phoenix refused to allow individuals with disabilities who were from SILC to observe the exercise so that they could give meaningful and valuable input into emergency planning. After the Center notified that City that restricting the SILC observers from observing and providing input into emergency preparedness for the City of Phoenix was a possible violation of the law, the City agreed to allow the SILC staff to participate in the exercise.

PRIORITY NO. 2: Ensure access to comprehensive and medically necessary healthcare

1. Ensure comprehensive and medically necessary health care services for individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare.

2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare have access to appropriate healthcare services which is often the key to living independently at home and in their communities. When seeking healthcare services, individuals with disabilities are often denied critical healthcare services that allow them to be as healthy and independent as possible.

3. Center staff used four indicators to judge the successful outcome of their activities in this priority area: a) Litigation that promotes systemic change aimed at increasing access to medically necessary services and/or challenging restrictions to AHCCCS/ALTCS; b) Conduct four outreach events and four trainings of individuals with disabilities and advocates in the various steps involved in accessing publicly funded health care services, including how to initiate requests for medically necessary services and how to challenge denials of requested services. Two of the trainings and two of the outreach events must occur in Southern Arizona per ACDL’s strategic plan; c) Develop direct representation in four administrative appeals and/or judicial review actions in state court of AHCCCS denials, terminations, or reductions in services; d)Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals and their guardians on AHCCCS/ALTCS/DDD. 4. Collaborative effort — Pursuing this priority did not involve collaboration with other entities.

5. Center staff handled 78 cases under Priority No. 2. 6. The following (2) case summaries demonstrates the impact of this priority.

AA is an individual with cerebral palsy whose mother called us to assist in regards to the Department of Economic Security’s drastic reduction in habilitation and attendant care hours for her son. The Center, representing AA, and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, representing the Department of Economic Security, negotiated a settlement agreement that allowed AA to recover many of the cut hours. The agreement provided that AA would get 309 additional attendant care hours and 278 additional habilitation hours from the date of the agreement and throughout his 2013 service plan. The agreement also included the additional of several important goals/outcomes to AA’s Individual Support Plan.

SM is an individual with a neurological impairment, dysarthria, who needs an augmentative communication device. The device had been prescribed by a doctor as medically necessary, yet Medicare denied approval for the device. The Center provided technical assistance to SM, including information about how to make a request through the Arizona Medicaid program, AHCCCS, since Medicare denied the device. As a result of the Center’s technical assistance, SM ultimately received a Dynavox communication device.

PRIORITY NO. 3: Promote equal employment opportunities

1. People with disabilities continue to face barriers to employment, including but not limited to, physical obstacles in the workplace, communication barriers, discriminatory policies and procedures and attitudinal barriers based on stereotypes, misconceptions and fears. This objective addresses the discrimination caused by these barriers by providing advocacy and legal services in order to promote: (1) the provision of reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants, and (2) the prevention and redress of unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and termination.

2. This priority addresses employment discrimination by providing advocacy and legal services in order to promote: (1) non-discriminatory hiring procedures; (2) the provision of reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants; (3) non-discriminatory policies and procedures; and (4) the prevention and redress of unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and termination.

3. Center staff used four indicators to judge the successful outcome of their activities in this priority area: a) Provide representation at mediation or conciliation with the EEOC or Arizona Attorney General’s Office for cases that deal with the prevention and redress of unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and/or termination; b) Litigation which presents systemic issues and where litigation promises to be far-reaching and have high impact; c) Provide four outreach and four training activities to persons with disabilities about employment rights protected under federal and state law. Two of the trainings and two of the outreach events must occur in Southern Arizona per ACDL’s strategic plan; d) Provide timely and accurate rights information.

4. Pursuing this priority did not involve collaborative efforts with other entities.

5. Center staff handled 193 cases under Priority No. 3.

6. The following (2) case summaries demonstrates the impact of this priority.

The Center represented AT. AT was employed by a food service company. AT worked for this company for almost a year until he was unlawfully terminated after AT disclosed his disability to his supervisor and requested accommodations. Following his termination, AT filed a charge of discrimination with the Arizona Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division (Civil Rights Division). The Civil Rights Division contacted AT and the company to ask if the parties were interested in mediation. Both parties agreed to participate in mediation. The Center agreed to represent AT during mediation. The parties exchanged offers of settlement with the company and were able to reach an agreement. The company agreed to provide AT with a monetary settlement ($2000) and injunctive relief (ADA training).

DG is a person who had a leg amputated due to a motor vehicle accident. At that time of the accident, he was a mechanic at the Walmart Distribution Center in Buckeye, Arizona. When he was medically cleared to return to work, Walmart refused to grant him reasonable accommodations and demoted him to a lower paid position. The Center represented DG and negotiated with Walmart to obtain necessary reasonable accommodations, and DG was allowed to return to work.

PRIORITY NO. 4: Promote equal housing under the Fair Housing Act

1. People with disabilities continue to face barriers to equal opportunity in housing. Housing providers discriminate against people with disabilities by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and physically accessible housing and by failing to reasonably modify discriminatory policies and practices. Housing providers also discriminate by including discriminatory terms and conditions in housing agreements.

2. This priority addresses the discriminatory housing practices which: (1) affect the amount of available and accessible housing for people with disabilities, and (2) ensure that these individuals and their housing providers are aware and trained on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act as it applies to people with disabilities.

3. Center staff used two indicators to judge the successful outcome of their activities in this priority area: a) Provide at least two outreach activities about rights protected by the FHA and how to enforce them; b) Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals about their rights under the FHA.

4. Pursuing this priority did not involve collaborative efforts with other entities. 5. Center staff handled 93 cases under this Priority.

6. The following (2) case summaries demonstrates the impact of this priority.

RE is a student at Grand Canyon University (GCU). In her spring semester 2012, RE received a notice from GCU that she no longer could have a single room apartment due to a change in a housing policy. RE needed a reasonable accommodation (single room) due to her disability. RE contacted our office for assistance. The Center was able to resolve RE’s need for an accommodation. The Center wrote a letter to GCU asking for a reasonable modification of its new housing policy for RE and her disability. RE received the requested accommodation from the Disability Resource Center. Specifically, she received a single room apartment for the 2012 summer session.

DG is a person with rheumatoid arthritis who utilizes a service dog. She and her spouse identified a ground-set mobile home that suited their needs and though they successfully negotiated a purchase contract with the home’s owner, the management of the mobile home park in which the home is located refused to approve her application for residency due to the service animal. The mobile home park demanded that the service animal be certified and licensed as a service animal, though there is no procedure for such certification/licensing in Arizona. DG filed a complaint with HUD. The Center provided legal advice regarding the housing discrimination investigation. Once HUD and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Division issued a Reasonable Cause Determination finding that the mobile home park had discriminated against DG due to her service animal, the Center began representing DG in conciliation efforts. Those efforts are ongoing, and if a conciliation agreement is not entered into, the Center may continue its representation of DG in a lawsuit against the mobile home park.

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.

The following objectives and priorities will be followed by the Center in conducting our PAIR activities during the fiscal year 2013.

PRIORITY NO. 1: Increase access by persons with disabilities to services, programs and facilities open to the public. Participate in Arizona Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities that relate to issues involving persons with disabilities.

1. Ensure that places of public accommodation, including state and local governmental entities, do not refuse services or treatment on the basis of disability, auxiliary aids and services are provided when needed for effective communication, and governmental entities and public accommodations remove physical barriers to accessibility and make reasonable modifications in policies to avoid discrimination. The focus for FY2013 will be on Eastern Arizona.

2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that places of public accommodation, including state and local governmental entities, do not refuse access to programs or services on the basis of disability, that auxiliary aids and services are provided when needed, and governmental entities and public accommodations remove physical barriers to accessibility and make reasonable modifications in their policies to avoid discrimination. Furthermore, this priority will ensure that individuals with disabilities will have the necessary information and are involved with Arizona’s Emergency Planning and Preparedness activities.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. File four (4) administrative complaints with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights and/or the U.S. Department of Justice/Secretary of State’s Office to challenge discrimination by places of public accommodations including state and local governmental entities, which refuse to modify its policies/procedures or refuse to provide auxiliary aids or services.

b. Provide representation at mediation or conciliation with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for cases which present systemic issues and where the legal issues promise to be far-reaching and have high-impact.

c. Monitor and provide rights information on transportation issues for individuals with disabilities when applicable federal regulations apply.

d. Develop and provide training on the Revised ADA Regulations implementing Title II and Title III of the ADA.

PRIORITY NO. 2: Ensure access to comprehensive and medically necessary healthcare services for individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare

1. Ensure comprehensive and medically necessary health care services for individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare.

2. The need addressed by this priority is to ensure that individuals with disabilities who are beneficiaries of Medicaid and/or Medicare have access to appropriate healthcare services which is often the key to living independently at home and in their communities. When seeking healthcare services, individuals with disabilities are often denied critical healthcare services that allow them to be as healthy and independent as possible.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. Conduct litigation that promotes systemic change aimed at increasing access to medically necessary services and/or challenging restrictions to AHCCCS/ALTCS.

b. Conduct four (4) outreach events and four (4) trainings of individuals with disabilities and advocates in the various steps involved in accessing publicly funded health care services, including how to initiate requests for medically necessary services and how to challenge denials of requested services. Two (2) of the trainings and two (2) of the outreach events must occur in Eastern Arizona per ACDL’s strategic plan.

c. Provide direct representation in four (4) administrative appeals and/or judicial review actions in state court of AHCCCS denials, terminations, or reductions in services.

d. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals and their guardians on AHCCCS/ALTCS/DDD.

PRIORITY NO. 3: Promote equal employment opportunities.

1. People with disabilities continue to face barriers to employment, including but not limited to, physical obstacles in the workplace, communication barriers, discriminatory policies and procedures and attitudinal barriers based on stereotypes, misconceptions and fears. This objective addresses the discrimination caused by these barriers by providing advocacy and legal services in order to promote: (1) the provision of reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants, and (2) the prevention and redress of unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and termination.

2. This priority addresses employment discrimination by providing advocacy and legal services in order to promote: (1) non-discriminatory hiring procedures; (2) the provision of reasonable accommodations to employees and job applicants; (3) non-discriminatory policies and procedures; and (4) the prevention and redress of unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and termination.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. Provide representation at mediation or conciliation with the EEOC or Arizona Attorney General’s Office for cases that will have a systemic impact toward the prevention and redress of failure to accommodate, unlawful harassment, retaliation, intimidation and/or termination.

b. Monitor the cases accepted for representation under activity “a” above and other service requests for potential litigation that presents systemic issues and where litigation will be far-reaching and have high impact.

c. Provide four (4) outreach and four (4) training activities to persons with disabilities about employment rights protected under federal and state law. Two (2) of the trainings and two (2) of the outreach events must occur in Eastern Arizona per ACDL’s strategic plan.

d. Provide timely and accurate rights information.

PRIORITY NO. 4: Promote equal housing opportunities for people with disabilities under the Fair Housing Act.

1. People with disabilities continue to face barriers to equal opportunity in housing. Housing providers discriminate against people with disabilities by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and physically accessible housing and by failing to reasonably modify discriminatory policies and practices. Housing providers also discriminate by including discriminatory terms and conditions in housing agreements.

2. This priority addresses the discriminatory housing practices which: (1) affect the amount of available and accessible housing for people with disabilities, and (2) ensure that these individuals and their housing providers are aware and trained on the provisions of the Fair Housing Act as it applies to people with disabilities.

3. The Center plans to engage in the following activities to accomplish this goal:

a. Provide at least two (2) outreach activities about rights protected by the FHA and how to enforce them. b. Provide timely and accurate rights information to individuals about their rights under the FHA.

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

Federal Funds Received: $375,307 Funds Spent: $375,307 Interest Income Funds Received: $10 Funds Spent: $10 Program Income Funds Received: $12,540 Funds Spent: $12,540 (Attorney Fees) B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report Income Federal Grant Income: $373,653 Interest Income: $ 0 Attorney Fees: $ 30,870 Other: $ 2,482 Total Income: $407,015

Expenses

Accommodations $2,580 Accounting/Legal Fees $3,913 Advertising $78 Bank Charges $38 Board, Staff & Other Meetings $1,609 Computer Consulting $1,998 Consultant Fees $4,530 Copying/Printing $491 Equipment Maintenance $1,193 Equipment Purchase $1,434 Equipment Rental $2,172 FICA — Employer $19,040 Health Insurance $38,478 Insurance — General Liability $385 Insurance — Professional Liability $2,130 Litigation Expense $969 Long-Term Disability Insurance $1,833 LRAP Expenses $2,314 NDRN Database $964 Office Supplies $4,414 Payroll Processing Fees $1,187 Pension Plan Expense $3,620 Postage $1,965 Professional Development/Seminars $1,363 Professional Dues $1,669 Property Tax $39 Reference Materials $5,999 Rent/Parking $27,449 Salaries $260,050 State Unemployment $846 Telephone $4,055 Temporary Staff $386 Trainings — Facilities & Supplies $1,152 Travel In-State $2,952 Travel Out-of-State $3,247 Work. Compensation Insurance $473 Total $407,015

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

Description of Pair Staff Person Years Total Hours Percentage

Attorneys Alewelt 0.02 38.47 1.85% Dooley 0.15 320.10 15.39% Kader 0.44 923.58 44.40% Myers 0.12 254.80 12.25% Radecic 0.10 199.25 9.58% Rico 0.76 1586.68 76.28% Szanto 0.06 131.59 6.33% Varma 0.00 0.00 0.00% Total Attorneys 1.66 3,454.48 1.66% Advocates Dumouchel 0.08 160.20 7.70% Fischer 0.01 12.69 0.61% Goldsand 0.12 436.53 20.99% Gutierrez 0.00 1.85 0.09% Haas 0.00 0.68 0.03% Leon 0.12 242.66 11.67% Powers 0.41 852.67 40.99% Roberts 0.27 563.94 27.11% Total Advocates 1.09 2,271.22 1.09% Clerical Davis 0.18 369.14 17.75% Dedrick 0.17 363.93 17.50% Freyer 0.16 332.60 15.99% Goyette 0.24 490.07 23.56% Lauritzen 0.16 334.48 16.08% Starling 0.18 383.14 18.42% Stocking 0.15 309.55 14.88% Timmins 0.17 354.49 17.04% Van Horne 0.20 420.21 20.20% Vasquez 0.20 406.93 19.54% Total Clerical 1.81 3,764.01 1.81% Total Hours for PAIR Staff 4.56 9,489.71 4.56%

Description of PAIR Staff

Attorneys

ACDL attorneys provided direct representation, technical assistance, and short-term assistance to PAIR clients in fiscal year 2012. Two of the attorneys, Peri Jude Radecic and Edward Myers III, are key managers of the organization and provided project supervision for the PAIR program and staff. Peri Jude Radecic serves as the Executive Director, and Edward Myers III serves as the Deputy Executive Director. J.J. Rico serves as Managing Attorney, and Cathleen Dooley serves as the PAIR program coordinator. The attorneys working in the PAIR program are responsible for providing legal services and determining eligibility for ACDL client services within the agency policies and priorities. The duties may include interviewing clients, reviewing records, conducting legal research, negotiating outcomes and representing clients in administrative hearings and in state and federal judicial proceedings.

Advocates

ACDL advocates provide information and referral, intake of new cases in PAIR priority areas and technical assistance and short-term advocacy service to PAIR callers. The PAIR advocates are under the direct supervision of an attorney. Advocacy services include information and referral and direct advocacy services on behalf of the client. Support and Administrative Staff

Numerous support staff employees provide clerical assistance to the attorneys and advocates assigned to the PAIR program. Additionally, the financial staff is responsible for budgeting, accounting, securing and working with auditors, cash management, financial reporting, grant and tax accounting, ensuring compliance with all ACDL financial policies, state and federal reporting requirements and ACDL’s funding sources. Administrative staff also includes the Information Systems and Grant Manager charged with managing ACDL’s information and data systems, including computer software. This position monitors contract and grant compliance and ensures that ACDL’s information systems are maintained in good working order and that the data and reporting functions necessary to comply with federal and other grants as well as internal reporting needs are in place.

D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)

The PAIR program is not involved with any advisory boards.

E. Grievances Filed Under the Grievance Procedure: _2___

Caller: T.A. Primary Disability: Muscular/Skeletal Impairment

Issue: Caller wanted representation for an Arizona Long-Term Care Services (ALTCS) eligibility appeal hearing. Center staff explained to her that the Center could not provide representation in an ALTCS eligibility case and sent her resources to represent herself during the appeal process. Resources were mailed to her on July 2, 2012. On July 11, 2012, caller filed a grievance with the Center because of our denial of representation in her case.

Grievance Filed with Litigation Director: Letter was sent to client on July 24, 2012 explaining that we were upholding the original decision not to provide representation because her issue was not one of the approved Center’s priorities for FY2012.

Caller: J.W.

Primary Disability: Mental Illness, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)

Issue: Caller has contacted the Center since 2002 with various issues. This latest issue pertained to her wanting representation because the City of Phoenix was discriminating against her when they refused to provide accommodations in their rental and utility assistance programs, which state that applicants must have a face-to-face interview. Caller claimed that the face-to-face policy was implemented as retaliation because of her complaints, and she was unable to comply due to MCS. Caller stated that locations and staff are toxic, and she required e-mail correspondence only, which is the accommodation that the City was refusing. The caller requested that ACDL speak with the City of Phoenix regarding their legal obligation to provide accommodations under Title II. Center staff provided caller with resources to represent herself with the City of Phoenix. She filed a grievance on October 12, 2011 because we e-mailed her a decline to represent letter.

Grievance Filed with Litigation Director: Another letter was sent to the client on December 5, 2011 by the Deputy Executive Director to uphold the original decision not to represent her. JW did not dispute the letter sent to her, and for that reason, her case was closed on January 12, 2012.

F. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program and the State Long-Term Care program, if these programs are not part of the P&A agency.

CAP is part of our P&A agency.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByPeri Jude Radecic
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date11/20/2012