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

California (Disability Rights California) - H240A120005 - FY2012

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights California
Address1831 K Street
Address Line 2
CitySacramento
StateCalifornia
Zip Code95811
E-mail AddressAndrew.Mudryk@disabilityrightsca.org
Website Addresshttp://www.disabilityrightsca.org
Phone916-504-5800
TTY 800-719-5798
Toll-free Phone800-776-5746
Toll-free TTY800-719-5798
Fax916-504-5802
Name of P&A Executive DirectorCatherine Blakemore
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorAndrew Mudryk
Person to contact regarding reportAndrew Mudryk
Contact Person phone916-504-5800
Ext.5915

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 areas108
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas6
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)114

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff81
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)3,054

1) 10/4/2011 - Effective Individualized Education Program (IEP) (4 people) 2) 10/06/2011 - Strategies for a Successful IEP (2 people) 3) 10/06/2011 - Kids First Special Educational (6 people) 4) 10/07/2011 - Leadership Assembly Workshop, In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Hearings training (10 people) 5) 10/7/2011 - Big Sandy Rancheria Special Education (7 people) 6) 10/08/2011 - Understanding Special Education Assessments Process (25 people) 7) 10/10/2011 - Responsibilities of Childcare Providers under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) training (50 people) 8) 10/11/2011 - Social Security Administration (SSA) & Work Incentives (10 people) 9) 10/12/2011 - Special Education - You Can Do It! (25 people) 10) 10/12/2011 - Benefits training at Rio Hondo Mental Health (15 people) 11) 10/12/2011 - Family Soup Social Security Income (SSI) training in Spanish (12 people) 12) 10/15/2011 - Fiesta Familiar de la Costa Central training(200 people) 13) 10/19/2011 - Special Education You Can Do It! (25 people) 14) 10/21/2011 - Smith River Special Education (50 people) 15) 10/27/2011 - Disability History training (100 people) 16) 10/27/2011 - California State University, Chico Special Education (55 people) 17) 10/28/2011 - Fiesta Educativa-Orange County (OC) Panel (300 people) 18) 10/28/2011 — California State University, Chico Special Education (30 people) 19) 10/29/2011 — California State University, Chico Special Education (80 people) 20) 11/01/2011 - Overview of Disability Rights Issues (20 people) 21) 11/03/2011 - Employment Rights (15 people) 22) 11/03/2011 - Youth Transition Conference (10 people) 23) 11/04/2011 - Voting Rights (20 people) 24) 11/04/2011 - Tri-County Fair Housing (30 people) 25) 11/05/2011 - Special Education training to Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) in Placer County (30 people) 26) 11/08/2011 - Overview of Disability Rights and DRC Services Presentation (20 people) 27) 11/10/2011 - Foster & Kinship Care/Special Education (35 people) 28) 11/16/2011 - Solano Diversified Services Social Security & Overview of DRC Services (20 people) 29) 11/29/2011 - In Home Supportive Service (IHSS) and Proposed 20% Cut (10 people) 30) 12/06/2011 - Individual Transition Program and Beyond (15 people) 31) 12/06/2011 - 20% IHSS Trigger Cut (50 people) 32) 12/07/2011 - 20% IHSS Trigger Cut (300 people) 33) 12/10/2011 - Youth Empowerment Summit (YES!) Youth Empowerment Conference (50 people) 34) 12/12/2011 - Youth Transition Plan Workshop (25 people) 35) 01/10/2012 - Medi-cal/Medicare Overview training (30 people) 36) 01/14/2012 - Overview of Benefits and Services available to people with Traumatic Brain Injury (15 people) 37) 01/23/2012 - Mesa Community College Overview of Benefits and Services available to people with Traumatic Brain Injury and Presentation about DRC Services (51 people) 38) 01/25/2012 - Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) to Asian and Pacific Islanders (API) community (5 people) 39) 02/02/2012 - Medi-cal Overview (8 people) 40) 02/07/2012 - Medi-cal / IHSS Overview in Spanish (30 people) 41) 02/08/2012 - Special Education to Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) in Placer County (21 people) 42) 02/08/2012 - Native Domestic Violence Prevention (35 people) 43) 02/27/2012 - SOAR! Adult Transition Parents of Exceptional Parents Unlimited (EPU): IHSS Cuts (12 people) 44) 03/13/2012 — Assistive Technology (AT) Advocacy for Nursing Facility Residents (24 people) 45) 03/13/2012 - Social Security Work Incentives to San Diego Community College Students (13 people) 46) 03/20/2012 - Capitol Area Indian Resources (2 people) 47) 03/31/2012 - Spanish Special Education training (13 people) 48) 04/04/2012 - Fair Housing at Westside Center for Independent Living (WCIL) (15 people) 49) 04/20/2012 - Special Education Basic Rights (12 people) 50) 04/24/2012 - IEP Process to AspiraNet (10 people) 51) 04/24/2012 - Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance Inc. Fair Housing Conference (60 people) 52) 04/25/2012 - Special Education at Blind Center for Children (14 people) 53) 05/06/2012 - Special Education to Spanish speaking parents in Salinas County (18 people) 54) 05/01/2012 - Apoyo de padres para padres (Parent Support Group) Special Education (30 people) 55) 05/17/2012 - Care Parent Network Special Education in Brentwood (12 people) 56) 05/18/2012 - Medi-Cal Working Disabled Program (10 people) 57) 06/04/2012 - Investigating Deaths Institute (50 people) 58) 06/08/2012 - T-PREP Youth Leadership Self Advocacy (10 people) 59) 06/09/2012 - Junior blind of America Social Security Income (SSI) (8 people) 60) 06/13/2012 - Social Security Income (SSI) Overview at Mercy Sacramento Support Group (8 people) 61) 06/19/2012 - Social Security Benefits Workshop (3 people) 62) 06/21/2012 - IHSS training at Café (6 people) 63) 06/23/2012 - Southern California Latino Conference Benefits (100 people) 64) 06/23/2012 - California Latino Conference for People with Disabilities (150 people) 65) 06/23/2012 - Voting Rights and Civic Engagement for Latino Conference (10 people) 66) 06/27/2012 - Exceptional Parents Unlimited (Spanish Speaking Parent Group) IHSS (10 people) 67) 07/13/2012 - Special Education (20 people) 68) 07/28/2012 - IHSS Protective Supervision (200 people) 69) 08/02/2012 - New Emerging Topics in Special Education Law (60 people) 70) 08/08/2012 - Washoe Native TANF (20 people) 71) 08/10/2012 - Advocating for a Bully-Free World webinar (25 people) 72) 08/16/2012 - Social Security Benefits training (19 people) 73) 08/17/2012 - Voting Rights & Civic Participation training (16 people) 74) 09/13/2012 - Special Education Process training (15 people) 75) 09/13/2012 - San Bernardino Juvenile Hall - Family Resource Center Outreach (3 people) 76) 09/20/2012 - California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. Fair Housing (40 people) 77) 09/24/2012 - Eastlake Juvenile Hall - Family Resource Center Outreach (10 people) 78) 09/25/2012 - Rights and Services of People with Disabilities to Fresno county Public Defenders (3 people) 79) 09/25/2012 - Elk Grove Indian Education Program (15 people) 80) 09/25/2012 - Barry J Nidorf Juvenile Hall - Family Resource Center Outreach (7 people) 81) 09/27/2012 - Current Developments/Legal Advocacy & Culture Change training (150 people)

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff3
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles1
3. PSAs/videos aired1
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website318,958
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated126
6. Other (specify separately)485

Narrative

We distributed 126 different publications to 18,509 individuals. We reached 17,974 individuals through 317 community clinics, events (booths and fairs), general presentations about DRC’s services, and network/collaboration events. DRC staff participated in the dissemination of information on disability-related issues to the public as follows: 1. Radio and TV Appearances by PAIR Staff: 1. 11/17/11 -- Adult Day Health Care Centers to Stay Open Following Settlement, http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/11/17/adult-day-health-care-centers-to-stay-open-following-settlement/ 2. 11/17/11-- Skilled Day Care for Frail Seniors and Disabled Adults Will Continue http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/nov/17/skilled-day-care-fragile-seniors-and-disabled-adul/ 3. 11/17/11 -- State reverses course, will keep Adult Day Health Care, http://www.kqed.org/a/kqednews/RN201111171804

2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles: 1. 05/24/2012 — “L.A.’s Community Care Facilities Ordinance is overkill- A far better approach to problems with sober-living homes would be to use the city’s existing ’nuisance abatement procedure,’” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hunter-housing-city-ordinance-20120516,0,4518360.story

3. PSA/videos aired: 1. Throughout fiscal year 2012, DRC aired a 5.5 minute video featuring an array of advocacy and legal services, training in disability rights and self-advocacy, investigations, outreach events and publications offered by DRC, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/ In addition, the video received 892 views on You Tube in fiscal year 2012.

6. Other: In addition, we issued 9 press releases (see information below) posted on our website, and 168 articles referred to our attorneys, advocates, or work product (see below).

PRESS RELEASES (9), posted on our website: 1. 11/17/11 — Adult Day Health Care Center to Stay Open Following Settlement, http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/11/17/adult-day-health-care-centers-to-stay-open-following-settlement/ 2. 11/17/11 — Skilled Day Care for Frail Seniors and Disabled Adults Will Continue, http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/nov/17/skilled-day-care-fragile-seniors-and-disabled-adul/ 3. 11/17/11 — State Reverses Course, will Keep Adult Day Health Care, http://www.kqed.org/a/kqednews/RN201111171804 4. 12/15/11 -- Fresno Jail Prisoners Sue Over Dangerous Conditions Prisoners Are Suffering Daily from Serious and Unnecessary Harm and Injuries, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/pressrelease%202011-12-15%20FresnoJail.htm 5. 01/18/12 -- January 18 Press Advisory: January 19 Federal Court Hearing to Determine if 20% Cuts of In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) will go Forward—Press Opportunities for Interviews Immediately Following Hearing, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2012_newsabout%20us/pressrelease%202012-01-18%20IHSS.htm 6. 04/24/12 -- Join our Southern California Latino Conference, June 23, 2012 - 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 701 South Mount Vernon Avenue, San Bernardino, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2012_newsabout%20us/pressrelease%202012-04-24%20latino.htm 7. 05/14/12 -- Governor’s Revised Budget: Mixed Effects on People with Disabilities - Takes Bold Steps Forward on Institutions, but Doubles Down on IHHS Recipients, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2012_newsabout%20us/pressrelease%202012-05-14%20govrevisedbud.pdf 8. 05/25/12 -- Over 1600 Registered for May 30 Capitol Action Day -- California’s Largest Disability Advocacy Event, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2012_newsabout%20us/pressrelease%202012-05-25%20capactionday.htm 9. 05/31/12 -- Trouble-Shooting on June 5: DRC Operates Hotline for Primary Voters with Disabilities, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2012_newsabout%20us/pressrelease%202012-05-31%20Hotline.htm

ARTICLES (168) referring to DRC attorneys, advocates, and/or work product or other media stories posted on our website: 1. 10/07/11 -- Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Project Curbs Wheelchair Access: DRC and Other Advocates Comment, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/03/BA941LCV8P.DTLixzz1Zq3v8dSd 2. 10/24/11 -- Modesto Care Center is Planning Meeting on Halt of Funds, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-10-24-modbee.html 3. 10/24/11 -- A Hearing Aid That Cuts Out All the Clatter, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-10-24-nytimes.html 4. 10/24/11 -- Braille Type, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-10-24-rollingrains.html 5. 10/26/11 -- A Need for Care, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-10-26-sbsun.html 6. 10/26/11 -- Clock Ticks On State-Funded Adult Day Health Centers, Where Elderly, Disabled People Find Comfort and Community, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011_newsaboutus/2011-10-26-EGPnews.html 7. 10/27/11 -- Blind Law School Grad Wins Case for Tech Aids to Take Bar Exam, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-10-27-sfappeal.html 8. 10/27/11 -- Armstrong Place Offers New Approach to Independent Living, http://www.healthycal.org/archives/6057 9. 10/27/11 -- Home Alone: Adult Health Center Cuts Devastate Elders, Disabled, http://www.oncentral.org/news/2011/10/27/home-alone-adult-health-center-cuts-devastate-elde/ 10. 11/03/11 -- California Orders United Parcel Services to Pay Over $96,000 for Firing Disabled Employee, file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/billota/Local%20Settings/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/OLK8/www.dfeh.ca.gov 11. 11/04/11 -- Strong Love, Movie Film Screening, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2011/2011-11-02-movie.html 12. 11/06/11 -- Blindness Not Enough To Sideline California Teen, http://www.npr.org/2011/11/06/142031957/blindness-not-enough-to-sideline-california-teen?ft=3&f=1001&sc=nl&cc=nh-20111106 13. 11/09/11 -- City of LA to Review Emergency Plan for People with Disabilities, http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/09/4043593/city-of-la-to-review-emergency.html 14. 11/09/11 -- Task force Takes on Disabled Parking Placard Fraud, http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/59844/Task_force_takes_on_disabled_parking_placard_fraud 15. 11/14/11 -- GLBT and Disability History to be Introduced into Schools, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/14/schools-required-to-ramp-up-teaching-of-gay/ 16. 11/15/11 -- Settlement Expected in ADHC Lawsuit, http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2011/11/adhc-settlement-being-finalized.aspx 17. 11/17/11 -- Initiatives Target California Law Requiring Gay History in Schools, http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/11/california-law-requiring-gay-lgbt-history-public-schools-ballot-initiatives.htmldisqus_thread 18. 11/17/11 -- Deal In Adult Day Health Care Lawsuit Could Be Announced Thursday, http://egpnews.com/?p=32549 19. 11/17/11 -- Settlement Saves Services for Senior Citizens and Disabled, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/legal-settlement-saves-services-for-many-seniors-and-disabled.html 20. 11/17/11 -- Adult Day Care Settlement Reached, http://voiceofoc.org/healthy_communities/health_blog/article_f6787b58-1191-11e1-8868-001cc4c03286.html 21. 11/17/11 -- Adult Day Health Care-like Services will Continue under Settlement, http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/11/17/adult-day-health-care-service-settlement.html 22. 11/17/11 -- Services to Continue for ADHC Patients and Families - Federal Court Settlement Reached in Darling v. Douglas Case, http://www.caads.org/ 23. 11/17/11 -- CAADS and California’s Nearly 300 Adult Day Health Care Centers Applaud Federal Court Settlement Reached in Lawsuit over Fight to Save Adult Day Health Care from Closure on December 1st, http://www.caads.org/pdf/pdf/media_statement_caads_darling_v_douglas_2011_11_17.pdf 24. 11/17/11 -- State Settles Suit over Adult Day Health Care, http://www.healthycal.org/archives/6672 25. 11/17/11 -- State Settles Suit over Adult Day Health Care, http://www.healthycal.org/archives/6678 26. 11/17/11 -- California Health Centers for Seniors to Stay Open, http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19358870 27. 11/17/11 -- Closures Averted for Center that Serve Poor, Elderly, http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_1936136 28. 11/17/11 -- State Settlement Spares Adult Day Health, http://www.ocregister.com/articles/services-327570-state-adult.html 29. 11/17/11 -- California Health Care Centers for Seniors to Stay Open, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/17/state/n145131S77.DTL 30. 11/17/11 -- California Health Care Centers for Seniors to Stay Open, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/17/calif-health-care-centers-for-seniors-to-stay-open/ 31. 11/17/11 -- Settlement Delivers Reprieve for Adult Day Health Care, http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/nov/17/settlement-delivers-reprieve-for-adult-day-care/ 32. 11/17/11 -- With State Revenues Falling Well Short of Projections the Current State Budget is in Trouble, http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/State-Revenue-Woes-Could-Trigger-Cuts/GquST4PgiEG_5kg8DF-yVA.cspx 33. 11/18/11 -- Blumenfield Praises Adult Day Health Care Settlement, http://encino.patch.com/articles/blumenfield-praises-adult-day-health-care-settlement 34. 11/18/11 -- California Settles Lawsuit over Adult Day Care Program, http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/11/18/2619008/california-settles-lawsuit-over.html 35. 11/18/11 -- Good News for Adult Day Health Care, http://www.hhsnetworkca.org/blog/2011/11/21/good-news-for-adult-day-health-care/ 36. 11/18/11 -- Settlement Means Poway Adult Health Care will Stay Open, http://www.pomeradonews.com/2011/11/18/settlement-means-poway-adult-health-care-will-stay-open/ 37. 11/18/11 -- California Settles Lawsuit over Adult Day Care Program, http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/18/4063718/california-settles-lawsuit-over.htmlixzz1eCxdtD00 38. 11/18/11 -- Settlement Saves Services for Disabled, Elderly, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/18/MNOR1M0JEH.DTL&type=politics 39. 11 /19/11 -- Victory for Seniors: California Adult Day Health Care Center Lawsuit Resolved, http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111119/Victory-for-seniors-Calif-Adult-Day-Health-Care-center-lawsuit-resolved.aspx 40. 11/20/11 -- Humboldt County Braces itself for Midyear Budget Cuts; Health Services Continue to be Negatively Impacted, http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_19377890 41. 11/21/11 -- Settlement Sets New Course for Adult Day Health Care, http://www.californiahealthline.org/features/2011/questions-remain-after-adhc-lawsuit-settlement.aspx 42. 11/22/11 -- Services Preserved for Disabled Adults, http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/services-preserved-for-disabled-adults/article_87e2d66e-14c2-11e1-8d71-001cc4c03286.html 43. 11/23/11 -- California Negotiates Community Support Settlement, http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2011/11/23/california-negotiates-community-support-settlement 44. 11/23/11 -- REGION: Adult Day Care Providers Relieved at Settlement, http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/region-adult-day-care-providers-relieved-at-settlement/article_67fc4923-b456-5ee2-b269-1240533f4410.html 45. 11/25/11 -- Settlement Brings New Adult Health Services Program for Shasta County; Current Patients Should Qualify, http://healthforservices.com/health-services/settlement-brings-new-adult-health-services-program-for-shasta-county-current-patients-should-qualify/ 46. 11/27/11 -- Modesto-Based Adult Day Care Program gets Reprieve, http://www.modbee.com/2011/11/27/1964867/adult-day-care-program-gets-funding.html 47. 11/28/11 -- As In-Home Caregivers Throughout California are Honored for Their Work, Vital Support Programs Face Detrimental Cuts, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/as-in-home-caregivers-throughout-california-are-honored-for-their-work-vital-support-programs-face-detrimental-cuts-134630013.html 48. 11/29/11 -- State-Funded Elderly In-Home Care Threatened by Budget Cuts, http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_19434825 49. 12/01/11 -- Judge Grants Reprieve to 372,000 on Cuts in In-Home Care, http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2011/12/01/judge-grants-reprieve-to-372000-on-cuts-in-in-home-care/.TtkcRHd2zmk.email 50. 12/01/11 -- Judge Issues Temporary Order to Halt IHSS Cuts, http://www.calhospital.org/daily-news-article/judge-issues-temporary-order-halt-ihss-cuts 51. 12/01/11 -- Judge Issues Temporary Order to Halt IHSS Cuts, http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2011/12/01/judge-issues-temporary-order-to-halt-ihss-cuts/?utm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DFeed:+PoliticalBlotter+%28Political+Blotter%29 52. 12/02/11 -- Judge Halts Hours-Reduction Notices, http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2011/12/02/judge-halts-hours-reduction-notices.html?surround=etf&ana=e_article 53. 12/02/11 -- Temporary Restraining Order Issued To Stop 20% Reduction in In-Home Supportive Services, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/temporary-restraining-order-issued-stop-20-reduction-home-supportive-services 54. 12/02/11 -- Judge Issues Temporary Order Against State - Potentially Stopping $100 Million Cuts to the In-home Supportive Services Program, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/judge-issues-temporary-order-against-state---potentially-stopping-100-million-cuts-to-the-in-home-supportive-services-program-134924703.html 55. 12/02/11 -- Judge Issues Temporary Order Against State - Potentially Stopping $100 Million Cuts to the In-home Supportive Services Program, http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/02/4095803/judge-issues-temporary-order-against.htmlixzz1fa2pBRZq 56. 12/02/11 -- Judge Issues Temporary Order Against State - Potentially Stopping $100 Million Cuts to the In-home Supportive Services Program, http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/02/4095803/judge-issues-temporary-order-against.htmlixzz1fZziTkzY 57. 12/03/11 -- A Win in Support of Elderly, http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/mailbag/a-win-in-support-of-elderly/article_f3ef5ab2-1d6e-11e1-8360-0019bb2963f4.html 58. 12/05/11 -- Judge Temporarily Stops IHSS Cuts, http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2011/12/judge-halts-20-cut-in-ihss-for-now.aspx 59. 12/05/11 -- Calif. Judge Suspends Cuts to Senior Services, http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2011/December/05/states-seniors-supportive-services.aspx 60. 12/06/11 -- American Bar Association Seeks Better Disability Accommodations by LSAT Administrator, http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202534684014&ABA_seeks_better_treatment_of_the_disabled_by_LSAT_administrator&slreturn=1 61. 12/06/11 -- Agencies Consider Future with Senior Services Cuts, http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111206/A_LIFE/112060302/-1/NEWSMAP 62. 12/08/11 -- Behind Budget Jargon, Numbers, Real Pain Lurks, http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=107evavjw58dpun&1=1&xid=106zgl1xzazx37p&done=.10717ye5fnv3xil&_credir=1323745720&_c=107evavjw58dpun 63. 12/08/11 -- Plan to Boost Employment for Disabled Workers, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9RGDDU02.htm 64. 12/08/11 -- Update: Anti-Gay Groups Target Legislation Requiring Schools to Include LGBT or Disabled Historic Figures, http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=6269 65. 12/10/11 -- Cuts to Homecare Examined, http://homebuilderinfohere.info/cuts-to-homecare-examined-the-desert-sun/ 66. 12/10/11 -- In-Home Support Services to Hold Public Forum, http://www.independent.com/news/2011/dec/10/-home-support-services-hold-public-forum/ 67. 12/10/11 -- State Cuts to IHSS Programs Have Been Halted; Families Still Concerned About Possible Reductions, http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_19516180 68. 12/13/11 -- Gov. Brown to Impose $1 billion in Cuts, http://www.ivpressonline.com/news/quicknews/ivp-gov-brown-to-impose-1-billion-in-cuts-20111213,0,2077344.story 69. 12/14/11 -- Trigger Cuts Not the Only Worry for Disabled http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2011/12/disabled-programs-face-2-years-of-cuts.aspxixzz1ggEewiSK 70. 12/14/11 -- Low Revenue Triggers $980M in Deeper State Spending Reductions, http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2011/12/14/low-revenue-triggers-980m-in-deeper-state-spending-reductions.aspxixzz1gZhdoQNh 71. 12/14/11 -- Gov. Jerry Brown Pulls ’Trigger’: Colleges, Schools and Services, http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_19538724 72. 12/14/11 -- Jerry Brown Announces New Cuts to State Spending, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/13/BAI81MBUEJ.DTL&tsp=1 73. 12/14/11 -- KQED California Report Focuses on Impact of Trigger Cuts on Human Services, http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201112140850/b 74. 12/15/11 -- Obama Calls for Better Pay For Disability Caregivers, http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2011/12/15/obama-better-pay-caregivers/14652/ 75. 12/15/11 -- Massive Cuts to In-Home Care Blocked. For Now., http://centerforhealthreporting.org/blog/massive-cuts-home-care-blocked-now717 76. 12/15/11 -- Disability-Benefits System Faces Review, http://www.npr.org/2011/12/14/143659449/florida-charter-schools-failing-disabled-students 77. 12/15/11 -- Budget Cuts will Hurt Schools, In-Home Care in SLO, County, http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2011/12/14/1872097/budget-cuts-will-hurt-schools.html 78. 12/16/11 -- Hearing on IHSS Cuts Delayed until January; Restraining Order on Cuts Still in Effect, http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_19561095 79. 12/16/11 -- How Lawsuits can Stymie Some Automatic Cuts, http://gantdaily.com/2011/12/16/how-lawsuits-can-stymie-some-automatic-cuts/ 80. 12/17/11 -- Joy, Gratitude, Thanks, http://www.times-standard.com/guest_opinion/ci_19561140 81. 12/28/11 -- County Priority to Shield Funding, http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_19635073 82. 12/29/11 -- Study: Testing Firms not Complying, http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-28/disabilities-justice-testing/52260590/1 83. 01/05/12 -- Deaf Couple Launch Pizza Place in the Mission, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/01/05/DD2U1MKA7S.DTL 84. 01/07/12 -- Violinist Sophia Hummell Keeps a Steady Hand, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/06/DD271ML7UD.DTL 85. 01/07/12 -- California in Retreat on Social Service Spending, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20120107,0,746147.story?track=rss 86. 01/07/12 -- Disabled, Seniors Worry about Cuts to In-Home Care, http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19695770 87. 01/08/12 -- State Convicts Arrive in L.A. County with Costly Mental Illnesses, http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-prisoners-mentalhealth-20120109,0,4970554.story 88. 01/09/12 -- Could New Not-for-Profit Requirement Limit Patient Access? http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2012/1/state-sets-limitations-in-adhc-settlement.aspx 89. 01/10/12 -- San Francisco Looks at Charging for Disabled Placard Use at Meters, http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/01/san-francisco-looks-charging-disabled-placard-use-meters 90. 01/12/12 -- Union is Unsure when IHSS Decision will Come, http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_19726246 91. 01/17/12 -- Court settlement Makes More Vets with PTSD Eligible for Health Benefits, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/17/4192416/court-settlement-make-more-vets.htmlstorylink=cpy 92. 01/18/12 -- Calif. Clinic Brings Free Dental Care to Developmentally Disabled, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Dental/calif-clinic-brings-free-dental-care-developmentally-disabled/story?id=15347032 93. 01/19/12 -- Judge Again Blocks California from Cutting In-Home Care to Disabled, Elderly, http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/19/3380501/judge-again-blocks-california.html 94. 01/19/12 -- Federal Judge Says she’ll Stop IHSS cuts, http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_19779311 95. 01/19/12 -- Cuts to In-Home Support Program Blocked, http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/jan/19/cuts-to-in-home-support-program-blocked/ 96. 01/19/12 -- Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction to Continue Blocking 20% Across-The-Board IHSS Cuts, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/federal-judge-issues-preliminary-injunction-continue-blocking-20-across-board-ihss-cuts 97. 01/20/12 -- Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction, Stopping IHSS Across-The-Board Cuts from Going Forward, http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/news/2012_newsabout%20us/pressrelease%202012-01-20%20IHSS.htm 98. 01/20/12 -- In-Home Care Back in Budget, http://calcoastnews.com/2012/01/in-home-care-back-in-budget/ 99. 01/20/12 -- Federal Judge Continues To Block In-Home Supportive Services Cuts, http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2012/1/20/federal-judge-continues-to-block-in-home-supportive-services-cuts.aspx 100. 01/20/12 -- Federal Judge Renews Her Order Blocking Calif. Cuts to In-Home Care, http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/January/20/Calif-in-home-care-funding.aspx 101. 01/20/12 -- Federal Judge Blocks Budget Cuts to California In-Home Care Program, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4201434/federal-judge-blocks-budget-cuts.html 102. 01/20/12 -- Court Blocks In-Home-Care Cuts for Disabled, Aged, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2012/01/20/BAKL1MRUF0.DTL 103. 01/24/12 -- Community Celebrates Ed Roberts Day, http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/01/24/ed-roberts-day-2012/ 104. 01/25/12 -- The Battle Against IHSS Budget Cuts, http://www.sdentertainer.com/news/ihss-budget-cuts-in-home-supportive-services/ 105. 01/25/12 -- Sterilized by North Carolina, she Felt Raped Once More, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-forced-sterilization-20120126,0,2398463.story?page=1 106. 01/26/12 -- Judge Approves Substitute for Adult Day Health Care Services, http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/blog/morning-roundup/2012/01/judge-settlement-disability-services.html 107. 01/26/12 -- Court Blocks California From Closing Health Centers, http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-01-2012/adult-day-health-care-case.html?intcmp=HP-spot3 108. 02/05/12 -- New Help for Wounded Warriors, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/05/4238081/new-help-for-our-wounded-warriors.html 109. 02/12/12 -- U.S. Deals Favoring Blind Draw Scrutiny as Rivals Struggle, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/us-deals-favoring-blind-draw-scrutiny-as-rivals-struggle/2012/02/02/gIQA9z2hsQ_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines 110. 02/17/12 -- Former UCLA Student Fights Budget Cuts to Disabled and Elderly, http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/health/Former-UCLA-Student-Fight-Budget-Cuts-to-Disabled-and-Elderly-139551683.html 111. 02/23/12 -- Adult Day Health Care End to Cut Off Frail Seniors, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/18/BA9N1N7L9Q.DTL 112. 02/24/12 -- California Gov. Jerry Brown Takes Case for Medi-Cal Cuts to Washington, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/25/local/la-me-jerry-brown-20120225 113. 02/24/12 -- In Home Support Services Program Face Proposed Budget Cuts, http://www.kswt.com/story/17015074/in-home-support-services-program-face-proposed-budget-cuts 114. 02/27/12 -- HUD: Bank of America Violated Fair Housing Act, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57386100/hud-bank-of-america-violated-fair-housing-act/ 115. 03/06/12 -- National Schools Survey Shows Students with Disabilities Suspended Twice as Often as Peers, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/department-of-education-data-show-urgent-need-to-address-racial-disparities-in-school-discipline-141645343.html 116. 03/08/12 -- Sen. Tom Harkin: Fixing Economy Starts With Early Education, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/senator-tom-harkin-early-childhood-education_n_1333215.html?ref=education 117. 03/08/12 -- New Rules: Hotel Pools Must have Disabled Access, http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120308/BUSINESS/120309581/1350 118. 03/10/12 -- Activists Seek to Curtail Restraining Students, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/10/activists-seek-to-curtail-restraining-students/ 119. 03/12/12 -- More People may be Eligible for Adult Day Services, http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2012/3/emotions-run-high-over-transition-plans.aspx 120. 03/28/12 -- Changes to Adult Day Health Care Coming this Weekend, http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201203280850/a 121. 03/29/12 -- Transition of Adult Day Health Care program is ’Down To The Wire’, http://centerforhealthreporting.org/blog/transition-adult-day-health-care-program-down-wire833 122. 04/03/12 -- Feinstein Seeks End to Abusive Suits Against Firms, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/02/BUAJ1NSQRE.DTLixzz1r8f9oUE6 123. 04/03/12 -- State Launches Smaller Program for Adult Day Health Care, http://www.healthycal.org/archives/8357 124. 04/03/12 -- Skilled Daycare Services Continue For Fragile Seniors & Disabled Adults, http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/apr/03/skilled-day-care-services-continue-fragile-seniors/ 125. 04/04/12 -- Prosthetics get the Personal Touch, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prosthetics-20120402,0,6632922.story?track=ud 126. 04/05/12 -- State takes Step to Shift Some of Poorest, Sickest to Managed Care, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/05/local/la-me-duals-20120405 127. 04/06/12 -- Team gets Info at Sheltered Workshop, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/04/06/team-gets-info-at-sheltered-workshop.html 128. 04/09/12 — California Suits on Inmate Health Care likely to Rise, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/08/BAOS1NN277.DTLixzz1sBP0thc4 129. 04/10/12 -- In-Home Services Cuts Would Hit 13,460 People in Sacramento Region, http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2012/04/10/calif-in-home-services-cuts-sacramento.html 130. 04/11/12 -- CA Study Shows Much Higher Suspension Rates of Students with Disabilities, http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/suspensions-more-common-minority-disabled-students-15707 131. 04/11/12 -- Letters: School Funding, Child Safety and More, http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/11/letters-school-funding-child-safety-and-more/?page=2article 132. 05/08/12 -- Editorial: Find Balance on Disabled Access, Excess, Litigation http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/08/4473205/find-balance-on-disabled-access.html 133. 05/11/12 -- Calif. Bill Targeting ADA Lawsuit Reform Clears Committee, http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/236127-calif.-bill-targeting-ada-lawsuit-reform-clears-committee 134. 05/12/12 -- Personal Data for Home Care Workers, Recipients Lost in the Mail, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0513-homecare-workers-20120513,0,1683191.story 135. 05/22/12 -- Immigrants Rally at CA Capitol for Rights of Domestic Workers, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/22/4506924/immigrants-rally-at-california.html 136. 05/24/12 -- States Encounter Obstacles Moving Elderly and Disabled Into Community, http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/May/24/states-obstacles-moving-elderly-disabled.aspx 137. 05/24/12 -- L.A.’s Community Care Facilities Ordinance is Overkill, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hunter-housing-city-ordinance-20120516,0,4518360.storytugs_story_display 138. 05/26/12 -- Fighting for Others, http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=235073&title=Fighting for others 139. 05/28/12 -- California Children’s Medical Therapy Facing Cuts, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/28/MNVJ1ONAEA.DTL&feed=rss.pageone 140. 05/29/12 -- California Senate Passes Compromise on Disabled Access, Suits http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_swarm/2012/05/california-senate-passes-compr.htmlmi_rss=The%20Swarmstorylink=misearch 141. 06/01/12 -- Fighting for Domestic Workers in California, http://www.thenation.com/blog/168195/fighting-domestic-workers-california 142. 06/11/12 -- Are Disability Access Lawsuits Getting Out of Control? http://rosemont.patch.com/articles/are-disability-access-lawsuits-getting-out-of-control 143. 06/12/12 -- Proposed L.A. Group Homes Law Needs Work, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez-vets-20120613,0,6502930.column 144. 06/12/12 -- Frail Seniors Program’s Launch Brings Confusion, Delays for Californians, http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_20839326/frail-seniors-programs-launch-brings-confusion-delays-californians 145. 06/13/12 -- Dozens Arrested in Capitol Protest Over Proposed Budget Cuts, http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/06/dozens-arrested-in-capitol-protest-over-proposed-budget-cuts.html 146. 06/14/12 -- State Under Fire for Adult Service Denials, Appeals, http://www.californiahealthline.org/capitol-desk/2012/6/adult-service-denials-appeals-spark-criticism.aspx 147. 06/15/12 -- Thousands in Sacramento for June 13 Protest Against IHSS Cuts, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/comment/reply/10219 148. 06/18/12 -- Federal Government Awards California Long-Term Care Education Center With $11.8 Million Grant, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/federal-government-awards-california-long-term-care-education-center-with-118-million-grant-159461205.html 149. 06/27/12 -- CA Budget Deal Would Create Board to Oversee In-Home Care Wages, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/27/4591741/california-budget-deal-would-create.htmlstorylink=cpy 150. 07/10/12 -- ADA Changes on the Horizon, http://www.beac.com/news/ada-changes-horizon 151. 07/10/12 -- Disability-Care Provider Accused of Bias, http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Disability-care-provider-accused-of-bias-3703752.php 152. 07/10/12 — California Many Ineligible for New Adult Day Care, http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Calif-many-ineligible-for-new-adult-day-care-3694751.php 153. 07/10/12 -- State Must Address Adult-Care Issues, http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/State-must-address-adult-care-issues-3700640.php 154. 07/11/12 -- State Lawmakers Grapple with Essential Health Benefits, http://www.baycitizen.org/health/story/essential-health-benefits-benefits/ 155. 07/13/12 -- CMS: No Deadline for States to Launch Medicaid Expansion, http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2012/Jul/July-16-2012.aspx?view=newsletter_print 156. 07/14/12 -- IHHS Clients’ Providers Escape the Budget Ax, http://www.willitsnews.com/ci_21005728/ihss-clients-providers-escape-budget-ax 157. 07/15/12 -- Disney must let Disabled Mom use Segway, http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Disney-must-let-disabled-mom-use-Segway-3718174.php 158. 07/17/12 -- Fraud, Neglect Cited in Report on California Nursing Homes, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/california-attorney-general-reports-cite-neglect-fraud-in-nursing-homes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lanowblog+%28L.A.+Now%29 159. 07/18/12 -- VA Fix-It Funds Help Modify Home for Vietnam Veteran, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/18/4638222/country-he-served-now-gives-back.htmlstorylink=cpy 160. 07/22/12 -- Proposed L.A. Group Homes Law Needs Work, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez-vets-20120613,0,6502930.column 161. 08/08/12 -- Sacramento Grapples with more Drivers Parking Free with Disabled Placards, http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/08/4703771/sacramento-grapples-with-more.html 162. 09/08/12 -- State Fights Disabled Access ’Shakedowns’, http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/State-fights-disabled-access-shakedowns-3850040.php 163. 09/13/12 -- Poll: Most Middle-Aged Voters couldn’t Afford Nursing Home Care, http://www.healthycal.org/archives/9720 164. 09/19/12 -- Jerry Brown Signs Bill Targeting Abuses of Disability Access Law, http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/09/jerry-brown-signs-bill-targeting-abuses-of-disability-access-law.html 165. 09/19/12 -- New Law Ends Disability Suit Shakedowns, http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/New-law-ends-disability-suit-shakedowns-3878658.php 166. 09/20/12 -- San Gabriel Valley Businesses to get Relief from Disabled Access Lawsuits, http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_21596101/san-gabriel-valley-businesses-get-relief-from-disabled 167. 09/20/12 -- Brown Signs Bill Targeting Disability Access Lawsuits, http://www.metnews.com/articles/2012/bill092012.htm 168. 09/21/12 -- Avoiding Danger when Hiring a Caregiver, http://www.cbs8.com/story/19610078/avoiding-danger-when-hiring-a-caregiver

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)212
2. Additional individuals served during the year1,575
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)1,787
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)151

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 282

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility29
2. Employment141
3. Program access127
4. Housing277
5. Government benefits/services677
6. Transportation68
7. Education63
8. Assistive technology30
9. Voting0
10. Health care402
11. Insurance8
12. Non-government services79
13. Privacy rights4
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse47
16. Neglect20
17. Other0

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor1,422
2. Other representation found24
3. Individual withdrew complaint141
4. Appeals unsuccessful13
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.4
6. PAIR withdrew from case7
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources46
8. Individual case lacks legal merit25
9. Other0

Please explain

N/A

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-advocacy8
2. Short-term assistance1,651
3. Investigation/monitoring8
4. Negotiation4
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution0
6. Administrative hearings7
7. Litigation (including class actions)4
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 - 42
2. 5 - 2296
3. 23 - 59968
4. 60 - 64203
5. 65 and over518

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females1,041
2. Males746

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race290
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native18
3. Asian92
4. Black or African American256
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander36
6. White1,009
7. Two or more races53
8. Race/ethnicity unknown33

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent1,318
2. Parental or other family home280
3. Community residential home25
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home47
6. Public institutional living arrangement12
7. Private institutional living arrangement6
8. Jail/prison/detention center49
9. Homeless33
10. Other living arrangements13
11. Living arrangements not known4

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

1. Blind/visual impairment117
2. Deaf/hard of hearing71
3. Deaf-blind1
4. Orthopedic impairment704
5. Mental illness29
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation2
8. Learning disability91
9. Neurological impairment252
10. Respiratory impairment53
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment158
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment48
13. Speech impairment11
14. AIDS/HIV28
15. Traumatic brain injury13
16. Other disability209

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities18

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes12,649,256

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

Abuse and Neglect

(1) In August 2012, DRC joined a new collaborative initiative, lead by representatives from the Department of Public Health and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services addressing the inappropriate use of antipsychotic medication for residents with dementia residing in skilled nursing facilities. This interagency project brings together representatives from the provider industry, state and federal licensing, long term care ombudsmen, and advocates for seniors and people with disabilities. Five key focus areas have been identified, including behavioral alternatives to dementia care, informed consent for the use of antipsychotics, and consumer awareness. The group has set the goal of reducing the use of antipsychotics among this population by 15% by the end of 2012, and 30% by June 30, 2013. Policies regarding the use of antipsychotic medications in nursing facilities will be changed, benefiting individuals with disabilities who reside in these facilities by protecting them from the unwarranted and potentially harmful use of antipsychotic medications. (Approximately 100,000 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities are impacted by this collaborative initiative).

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

On September 7, 2010, DRC filed an amicus letter on behalf of the defendant (the family member of the resident) in the Superior Court case in support of her motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order in place against her that restricted her ability to visit the resident, and to prevent California SLAPP laws from being used to prevent individuals with disabilities and their families and friends from reporting abuse and neglect. The ultimate decision in the Superior Court case was appealed. DRC appeared as an amicus in the Appellate Court proceeding on its own behalf, receiving approval to join the amicus filed on behalf of California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (CANHR). Oral argument was held October 4, 2011. In November 2011, the Appellate Court’s decision affirmed the Superior Court ruling regarding the motion to strike the temporary restraining order preventing the defendant from seeing her mother at LAJHA. (This case impacts the one PAIR-eligible individual.)

Benefits

(1) California is developing a uniform, online application process for health care benefits under the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA). This online process is called the California Healthcare Eligibility, Enrollment, and Retention System (CalHEERS). CalHEERS is being developed by the state agency implementing the ACA private insurance mandate, the California Health Benefit Exchange (Exchange), in collaboration with the state Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid agency), California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), and the state Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) agency, California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB). The application form will determine eligibility for the following programs: -Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) determinations for various health care programs -Medi-Cal -Healthy Families (CHIP) -Access for Infants and Mothers -Advance Premium Tax Credit under the ACA -Cost Sharing Reductions under the ACA

DRC submitted comments regarding accessibility of the CalHEERS system for people with disabilities as part of comments developed by California Pan Ethnic Health Network (CPEHN), Consumers Union (CU), Greenlining Institute, Health Access, National Health Law Program (NHeLP), The California Budget Project (CBP), The Children’s Partnership (TCP), and Western Center on Law & Poverty (WCLP). Specifically, DRC requested that notices be provided in accessible formats. The provisions recommended by DRC were not amended. However, the solicitation does require that the contractor follow all federal and state disability access requirements. (Approximately 250,000 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities were impacted by these policies)

(2) The Department of Labor (DOL) proposed to revise the current Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations pertaining to the exemption for companionship services and live-in domestic services.

Companionship service employees are exempt from FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements. Companionship services are defined as services for individuals who because of “age or infirmity” are “unable to care for themselves”. In addition, domestic service employees who reside in the employer’s household are exempt from FLSA overtime requirements, but not minimum wage requirements.

DOL proposes to amend the regulations to narrow the exemptions from the FLSA to potentially eliminate the overtime exemption for live-in attendant care providers, which would create a hardship for individuals with severe impairments who need someone to be with them 24-hours per day, particularly at night, but do not need for the person to be working all of that time. California’s Medicaid-funded attendant care program, the In-Home Supportive Services Program, does not provide overtime pay for live-in providers.

DRC commented on the regulation changes, and recommended the following: -Carve out an exception to the changes that would authorize continued coverage under the old regulations for consumer-directed personal care/attendant services. -Alternatively, delay the implementation of the change of regulations for this group so that states like California that have used the exemption from overtime as the infrastructure for their attendant care programs, including for attendant care services delivered through Medicaid Home and Community Based waivers, can review existing state laws and regulations which may extend additional overtime rights to domestic workers not otherwise exempt under the federal regulations. -Ensure that the amendments to the federal regulations do not exclude entities that act as fiscal intermediaries for attendant care programs where the person with a disability or representative is the one to hire, fire and direct the services provided. -Ensure that creative means for pairing persons with disabilities with roommates providing assistance at night would not be barred by the proposed federal regulations.

The final version of these regulations has not been released. In addition, (without using federal funding) DRC opposed and provided comments on a related Assembly Bill that would have provided for overtime for personal assistance workers, excluding IHSS, only impacting those people with disabilities who pay privately. While DRC supports the concept of fair wages and benefits for personal assistants, we opposed the bill because it would not alleviate the financial burden on people with disabilities. Ultimately, the governor vetoed the bill. (Approximately 225,000 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities impacted.)

(3) Seniors and people with disabilities who receive Medi-Cal in a number of counties in California are being mandatorily enrolled in managed care. DRC participates in biweekly teleconferences with other advocacy organizations regarding this mandatory enrollment, discussing issues such as medical exemption requests (MERs) that would provide an exception to mandatory enrollment.

DRC is also a member of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) Dual Eligible Technical Workgroup, the Behavioral Health Integration workgroup, the Beneficiary Protections workgroup, the Long-Term Services and Supports workgroup, and the Rural Expansion workgroup. As part of the workgroup, DRC has provided information to DHCS about challenges with integration of behavioral health services and long-term care services into managed care.

In addition to participation in the workgroups mentioned above, DRC staff also prepared comments regarding DHCS Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI) implementation documents. CCI is California’s program to integrate managed care benefits for individuals who are eligible for both Medi-Cal (Medicaid) and Medicare. DRC commented on proposed Managed Care plan readiness standards stating that the standards should include, among other things, provisions for physical accessibility of health care facilities, adequate assessment instruments for determining the need for home and community-based services, and policies and procedures to insure training of assessors in how to determine functional limitations.

Since the program is being developed, our comments have not been implemented to date, however DRC staff will continue to participate in the workgroups related to CCI implementation and provide comments to relevant documents in an effort to ensure that the rights of people with disabilities are protected throughout the changes to the Medi-Cal/Medicare system.

There are a total of 1,120,000 seniors and people with disabilities affected. 740,000 are dual eligible and will be enrolled in the CCI program, which includes both Medi-Cal and Medicare managed care. 380,000 have Medi-Cal only and will be enrolled in Medi-Cal managed care, only. (Approximately 225,000 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities will be impacted.)

(4) DRC reviewed, commented and provided recommendations regarding a new state law that addresses the Affordable Care Act’s provision on essential health benefits. This bill implements a portion of the federal Affordable Care Act by defining essential health benefits for health care policies offered both inside and outside the California Health Benefits Exchange for individual and small group markets, and for Medi-Cal benchmark plans. DRC helped draft amendments to the definitions of habilitation and mental health to insure adequate coverage and mental health parity. We did not use federal funds for lobbying efforts. (Approximately 225,000 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities will be impacted.)

Discrimination

(1) Carter v. City of Los Angeles: DRC became aware of a problematic proposed settlement in the consolidated cases of Carter v. L.A. and Fahmie v. L.A. regarding the accessibility of the City’s sidewalks. The two main problems with the proposed agreement are that it only requires the City to spend up to $4 million per year on curb cuts for 25 years, considerably less than what the City already spends, and that it waives statutory damages for class members.

DRC, along with other legal advocacy groups, filed objections to the settlement arguing that it does not benefit the proposed class of individuals. DRC, along with other legal services programs, filed objections to the settlement arguing that it does not benefit the proposed class of individuals. Ultimately, in January 2012, the court approved the settlement. However, the plaintiffs in a similar case in Los Angeles with a certified class also objected to the settlement and have filed a notice of appeal of the settlement decision which is pending. (Approximately 200,000 PAIR-eligible people will be impacted by the decision)

(2)Harris v. City of Santa Monica: DRC appeared as an amicus in support of Wynona Harris, the plaintiff in this case who alleged that her employer terminated her from her job because of her pregnancy. At trial, the jury found that pregnancy was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate her, and that therefore she had a claim for discrimination. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the trial court should have used a different legal standard in its instructions to the jury. The Court of Appeal, referring to a “same decision” defense, indicated that the jury should have been told that it was a defense to the claim of discrimination if the employer could show that it would have made the same termination decision even in the absence of the discriminating factor (even if she was not pregnant). This decision has the potential to negatively impact disability discrimination cases since it creates a new defense for discrimination cases that previously has not existed under California law.

DRC appeared as one of the amici before the California Supreme Court. The court has not yet rendered a decision. (An estimated 210,667 individuals with PAIR-eligible disabilities are potentially affected by this decision.)

(3) Jankey (Les) v. Lee (Song Koo): On January 14, 2011 DRC, with other organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of California on behalf of plaintiff Les Jankey. After Mr. Jankey lost a discrimination claim based on various discrimination laws, the defendant was awarded his full attorneys’ fees based solely on state law. Amici are seeking review of the California Appellate Court’s decision, and seek to prevent imposition of attorneys’ fees on losing plaintiffs unless the lawsuit was frivolous, which is consistent with other civil rights fee shifting statutes. An amicus brief was filed on January 14, 2011. Oral argument regarding the matter was held on October 2, 2012 and DRC is currently waiting for the decision. (Approximately 2.3 million PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities are estimated to be impacted by this case.)

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

(5) A.J. Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co.: In the underlying case, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Ralphs Grocery Co. In so ruling, the court refused to consider access barriers that were not pled in the complaint. A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, in a holding that imposed a heightened pleading standard on plaintiffs bringing ADA access cases. DRC joined an amicus brief filed October 5, 2011 supporting the Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing en banc, when a panel of the court (generally consisting of only three judges) reconsiders a case that concerns a matter of public importance. The amicus brief discusses the right to include all access barriers that are related to any given complaint claim, including those revealed by timely discovery, so that all reasonably related accessibility barriers are addressed in a single lawsuit. The Court of Appeals did not decide to rehear the case en banc. If the panel’s decision was overturned, people with mobility or sensory impairments who encounter barriers in places of public accommodation would have benefited. The judges and others at the Court who reviewed the amicus briefing were nonetheless educated on accessibility issues facings people with mobility and sensory impairments. (Approximately 2.1 million PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities could have been impacted by this decision.)

(6) Pacific Shores v. City of Newport Beach; Newport Coast Recovery et al., v. City of Newport Beach: The City of Newport Beach enacted an ordinance targeting sober living homes by changes to the definitions used in its zoning ordinance. Under these new definitions, sober living homes — and other homes where people with PAIR-eligible disabilities share a supported living environment — were prohibited from locating in all zones but multifamily residential districts, and there only after surviving an onerous permitting process. As a result, the vast majority of sober living homes in Newport Beach disappeared. DRC joined an amicus brief asking the appellate court to overturn the lower court’s grant of summary judgment because the lower court had applied an erroneous legal standard. The amicus brief was filed October 11, 2011. Oral argument was held before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 6, 2012. The case is waiting for a decision. (Approximately 3.7 million PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities could be impacted by the outcome of this decision.)

(7) During fiscal year 2012, DRC joined with other disability legal services organizations to continue to provide extensive comments on disability non-discrimination regulations proposed by the state anti-discrimination enforcement agency, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Commission (DFEH). The regulations addressed how it would handle complaints of discrimination against employers, housing providers, and entities that provide public accommodations. DFEH issued a third draft of the regulations in July 2011. DRC, along with other non-profit organizations, submitted comments once again focusing on the lack of reasonable accommodations in the regulations and a policy to ensure that people with limited English proficiency have access to DFEH’s services. DRC’s comments further highlighted problems with the policies not protecting the confidentiality of complainants’ non-medical information, as well as with the Department’s intake procedure, which requires that complaints be filed in writing, instead of allowing intakes by telephone. In June 2012, DFEH issued a last draft for comment. Once again, DRC, with other non-profit organizations submitted comments requesting clarity of the elements of claims for disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The regulations have been adopted with our proposed changes. (These regulations impact an estimated 3,095 Californians with disabilities.)

(8) DRC collaborated with other disability legal services organizations to review revisions to policies, procedures, and forms related to reasonable accommodations developed by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) and to meet with HACLA staff. DRC staff provided extensive written commentary on those documents, including suggesting that they have a flexible reasonable accommodations policy, that the primary point of contact on an accommodation request be the person with the disability, that their forms be simplified so they were more understandable and that they ensure their staff is fully trained on the reasonable accommodation process. HACLA made some revisions in response to our feedback. DRC staff held an in-person meeting with senior HACLA staff to discuss the remaining areas that still needed improvement. HACLA promised to make additional changes. DRC staff are waiting to see the final draft from HACLA before it goes to their board for public comment and approval. (Approximately 10,000 people with disabilities impacted)

(9) Navarro and Ms. Wheelchair California Pageant, Inc. v. Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.: DRC joined an amicus brief in a case filed on behalf of people who use wheelchairs and who were not allowed to ride a tour bus. The staff of the tour bus company told the plaintiffs that the bus was inaccessible, but gave them no specific information about the barriers to access. In March 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal court. Relying on a recent decision in Oliver v. Ralphs (see description of case in 5 above), the U.S. District Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the pleadings did not specifically plead all accessibility barriers. DRC joined with other legal services organizations to file an amicus brief in August 2012 challenging the dismissal. We are awaiting a decision. (Approximately 3 million PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility would be impacted by this decision.)

(10) DRC staff negotiated with the City of Pasadena regarding its policy of moving PAIR-eligible individuals with over-subsidized housing vouchers into smaller apartments, despite their need for larger apartments as reasonable accommodations. As a result of the negotiation, the City’s Housing Authority reviewed more than 150 cases of voucher recipients who were over-subsidized to make sure they were being subsidized at the correct rate. As a result of our advocacy, 8 people’s subsidies were restored to a higher level. (This project will impact approximately 158 PAIR-eligible individuals with housing vouchers in the City of Pasadena.)

(11) DRC, along with other advocacy groups, sent a demand letter to the Director of CDSS about possible website accessibility barriers. See description of work under Section V, Priority 3 (Discrimination), Indicator 6. (This project will impact an estimated 10,000 individuals with disabilities statewide.)

Education

(1) LAUSD v. Garcia: Most jails in California do not provide special education services to youth with disabilities, including PAIR-eligible disabilities, between the ages of 18 and 22. In the underlying lawsuit, a young prisoner, M.G. sought special education services while he was detained in the Los Angeles County Jail. M.G. had been eligible for and received special education services from early childhood through his detention in the jail at age 18. Under state and federal special education law, M.G. has a right to special education services until he reaches age 22. M.G. filed requests for special education services, which the jail and local school districts ignored. Disability Rights Legal Center represented M.G. in a successful special education hearing, which held that Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was responsible for providing his special education pursuant to California Education Code section 56041. The school district appealed, and the issue is now before the Supreme Court of California. The suit seeks to clearly and finally establish the education agency responsible for providing special education services to eligible youth while they are in jail, consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and corresponding state laws. DRC has joined five other public interest law groups in an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court in support of the incarcerated student in this case. The case is considered a landmark special education case that will impact the rights of approximately 335 youth with PAIR-eligible disabilities ages 18-22 who are incarcerated in jails and prisons statewide.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts9
2. Number of individuals named in class actions640,959

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

(1) Esther Darling, et al. v. Toby Douglas, et al. (previously Harry Cota, et al. v. David Maxwell-Jolly, et al. & Brantley v. Maxwell-Jolly): (class action)

DRC filed this class action lawsuit challenging 2 sets of cutbacks to Medi-Cal funded Adult Day Health Care services in California arising from 2009 legislation. DRC filed a request for a Preliminary Injunction on the first cut, an across the board cut to no more than 3 days per week of attendance, and the cut was enjoined by the Court. The claims related to the first cut were subsequently settled in May, 2010. The class was certified in August, 2010.

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

In April 2011, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to challenge a proposed elimination of the program. The Parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court approved. Under the Settlement, on April 1, 2012, the ADHC program converted from a Medi-Cal state plan optional benefit into a new service -- Community Based Adult Services or “CBAS” — which is provided through a Medi-Cal 1115 Waiver program. There is no enrollment cap on the number of individuals who can be served under the CBAS program and services will be provided at no cost to recipients. CBAS will be provided through Medi-Cal managed care plans in most parts of the state. In counties where managed care is not available, and for people who are not eligible for managed care, CBAS will remain a fee-for-service Medi-Cal benefit.

The approximately 35,000 current ADHC participants were reassessed for CBAS eligibility during November 2011 through February 2012. Although approximately 80% of ADHC participants were found eligible for CBAS and transitioned to the new program, approximately 2,400 class members were found ineligible. Plaintiffs have worked intensively to assist the 2,400 class members who filed for administrative hearings challenging denial of CBAS, but representing some and coordinating a network of over 40 pro bono attorneys to represent others, developing training materials, and conducting numerous trainings for attorneys, advocates, and CBAS providers.

Under the settlement, the Court will retain jurisdiction and Plaintiffs’ counsel will monitor implementation for 30 months. Plaintiffs have filed two compliance motions with the trial court. The first, in March 2012, was partially settled and the remainder withdrawn without prejudice. The second, filed in September 2012, is pending. DRC will continue to monitor the implementation of the Settlement in the coming year. (An estimated 19,000 PAIR-eligible individuals will benefit from this lawsuit.)

(2) V.L./Oster v. Wagner: (class action) In October 2009, DRC and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit to stop cuts in IHSS benefits to 130,000 people based upon a legal argument that the State’s use of a “functional index” to terminate and reduce benefits was arbitrary and discriminated against children, and people with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, and did not reflect criticality of need. As a result, it violated the Medicaid Act, the ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The majority of IHSS recipients who would have been affected are non-English speakers; adequacy of the termination notices was a major issue in the case. DRC obtained a preliminary injunction blocking the cuts. The state sought an emergency stay which we successfully opposed. DRC briefed and argued the case in the 9th Circuit.

Pursuant to state law changes, a 20% across the board cut to IHSS services was to go into effect on January 1, 2012. State notices regarding the cuts were to be sent to IHSS recipients by December 15, 2011. On December 1, 2011, DRC filed a motion to amend the complaint to add claims regarding the new 20% cuts and requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which was granted. On January 19, 2012, the court issued a preliminary injunction and certified subclasses for the 2009 and 2011 cuts. The state appealed this second injunction to the 9th circuit, and DRC filed an answering brief. Oral argument is now set for March 2013. DRC staff have also been actively pursuing settlement options with the state defendants.

In 2009, with a subclass of 130,000 IHSS recipients, an estimated 65,000 PAIR-eligible individuals will benefit from this lawsuit. In 2011, the subclass grew to 320,000 IHSS recipients, with approximately 160,000 determined to be PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities.

(3) Carranza v. Maxwell-Jolly: (not a class action) R.C. is a Medi-Cal recipient whose Medi-Cal-funded nursing hours were reduced by almost half when he turned 21 years of age. The lower level of nursing care puts him at risk of institutionalization and possible death due to his need for around the clock nursing care. In addition, the reduced services have forced him to drop out of college at the University of California, Los Angeles. In June 2012, DRC filed suit challenging the denial of necessary nursing services under the Medi-Cal nursing facility waiver. DRC is also representing the client’s younger brother and two other youth whose nursing hours were cut when they turned age 21. We have initiated settlement discussions with the state to try to resolve all four cases, plus those of other similarly situated youth. R.C.’s case is especially critical because he is not a recipient of regional center services for people with developmental disabilities and therefore has no alternative when waiver services are denied. We estimate that several hundred youth are potentially affected by this issue each year. At present DRC is representing R.C. and his brother who are both PAIR eligible individuals, as well as two regional center clients funded by other federal funds whose nursing services were also cut at age 21. (Approximately 100 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities are impacted by this issue)

(4) Independent Living Center of Southern California v. City of Los Angeles: (not a class action) The City of Los Angeles and the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) have done little to nothing to ensure that housing funded through the CRA/LA is accessible to people who use wheelchairs and those who are vision or hearing impaired. As a result, housing built with assistance from the CRA/LA is inaccessible. Under federal and state law, apartments and condominiums funded by state funds and by federal housing and community development funds must be accessible. The entities that receive federal financial assistance, including the City and the CRA/LA, must ensure that people with disabilities have meaningful access to their programs, services, and activities pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In addition to the government defendants, a large number of building owners are included in the litigation to ensure that their building can be brought into compliance. After unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issues, the Complaint was filed on January 13, 2012. The parties engaged in settlement discussions with all defendants, and a number of the apartment complexes involved in the complaint have already begun to make units accessible as required. The case continues with discovery and motions to dismiss filed by the government defendants. (Approximately 389,158 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities that need accessible housing in the City of Los Angeles could be impacted by this case.)

(5) Siebert v. Zangari: (not a class action) M.Z. is a person with disabilities who uses a wheelchair, the services of a live-in caregiver, and a service dog. She lives in the downstairs unit in a duplex pursuant to a lifetime lease that is deeded with the property. Since 2009, M.Z. has been in a lawsuit with the landlord for failing to maintain accessible features of the apartment (e.g. installing a shower with a six-inch lip where there had been a roll-in shower designed for M.Z.’s wheelchair). In addition, the landlord has placed disability-based conditions on M.Z.’s tenancy (such as requiring extra insurance for M.Z.’s service dog), and has attempted to evict M.Z., claiming that M.Z. is “unable to live at the property” due to allegations that the exits are not appropriate for M.Z.’s wheelchair. The landlord has also filed civil damages and ejectment claims against M.Z. based on disputes about utility bills and the wording of her lifetime lease agreement. The landlord’s removal of accessible features to M.Z.’s apartment and her placement of disability-based conditions on the tenancy violate the disability discrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act and related California laws. The landlord has also refused to allow M.Z. to modify the property on her own to restore the accessible features, in violation of the reasonable modification provisions of the Fair Housing Act and California laws.

A five-day bench trial was held on plaintiff’s declaratory relief cause of action and DRC obtained a favorable ruling on M.Z.’s behalf. The landlord took no action to comply with the Court’s order. The landlord claimed she could not install the shower because it was impossible to obtain the necessary zoning permits. The court later granted a motion for preliminary injunction requiring the landlord to provide a wheelchair accessible roll-in shower for M.Z. A jury trial on the remaining issues is scheduled for March 2013. (This case impacts 1 PAIR-eligible individual with a disability.)

(6) Stringfellow, et al. v. McGinness, et. al.: (not a class action) The Sacramento County Jail (SCJ) had a blanket policy to restrain all inmates needing dialysis during the entire dialysis procedure. DRC filed suit to eliminate this policy and to require compliance with California Regulations prohibiting use of restraints except under limited factual circumstances. The parties settled the case in December 2010 and Sacramento County agreed to remove its blanket policy of using restraints during dialysis unless specific factual circumstances occurred and were documented. The stipulated agreement also provides for a two-year monitoring by DRC staff to make sure staff at the Sacramento County Jail are implementing the stipulated judgment. Our monitoring has shown that there has been no need for the use of restraints on an inmate during dialysis since the summer of 2010 until present, due to the changes made pursuant to the Stipulated Judgment. Monitoring by DRC will conclude on December 17, 2012. (Approximately 500 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities will be impacted.)

(7) Chambers, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco: (class action) This lawsuit was filed by six residents of Laguna Honda Hospital and the Independent Living Resource Center (ILRCSF) in San Francisco alleging discrimination in the form of unnecessary institutionalization under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Parties reached a Settlement Agreement, which received final approval in federal court in September 2008. The Settlement Agreement will enhance community-based living options, through the provision of services and housing, to class members. Significantly, the named plaintiff in this lawsuit, Mark Chambers, moved out of Laguna Honda and continues to live in the community with sufficient supports.

Plaintiffs continue to monitor implementation of the settlement through review of data, consultation with experts, individual advocacy, and reporting to the Court. In September 2011, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court regarding the aspects of the settlement that remain under the settlement term, and the parties’ plans for Plaintiffs to monitor implementation of the remaining aspects, the LHHRSP (rental subsidy program) through 2013. This part of the settlement requires San Francisco to secure housing for 500 individuals at Laguna Honda who prefer to live in the community by leasing and subsidizing housing units with supports and accessible modifications. San Francisco has provided subsidies for 236 Class Members since 2008 to date. Monitoring is set to end in September 2013 but could continue depending on progress regarding the 500 subsidies. (The certified class is approximately 2,000 individuals with disabilities. This settlement impacts an estimated 1,200 PAIR-eligible individuals with disabilities.)

(8) Martinez et al v. Astrue: (class action) The “fleeing felon” provisions in the Social Security Act provide that the Social Security benefits of an individual with an outstanding warrant should only be terminated if the recipient is fleeing the state to avoid persecution or conviction. Despite the clear language of its regulations, Social Security’s policy was that the existence of a warrant was a conclusive presumption that the person was “fleeing” and therefore ineligible for benefits even where the recipient or applicant did not know about the warrant. Although the policy of denying or suspending benefits based on the existence of a warrant alone was successfully challenged in multiple trial courts, Social Security Administration continued to follow its internal policy. The Martinez case was filed in October 2008 to require SSA to follow the law and their regulations.

The case was settled in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. DRC continued to monitor compliance with the implementation of the settlement which seeks to make sure persons with disabilities are no longer denied Social Security or SSI benefits or at risk of having their benefits suspended because of a warrant except under the limited circumstances set forth in the settlement. DRC/class counsel had an opportunity to review and comment on copies of all directions and instructions to field offices, and changes to the Program Operation Manual System (POMS) materials. Those comments and redrafts have resulted in significant improvements from the consumer’s point of view. There is a procedure for resolving problems in implementation both individually and systemically. These problems are brought to our attention by a special nationwide advocate’s listserv.

DRC and class counsel continued to assist class members with obtaining relief under the settlement, including provided assistance to individuals regarding following up on delays in implementing retroactive relief and reinstatement for class members who were receiving or had applied for Social Security. The monitoring of this settlement has now ended, and DRC completed work regarding the last disputed case member with whom the Martinez team was involved in August 2012. (Approximately 68,000 PAIR-eligible individuals in California are entitled to some relief under this action.)

(9) Northern California ADAPT v. CA Department of Social Services: (not a class action) California’s In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program historically provided that individuals whose countable income was above the Social Security Income (SSI)/SSP grant level and who were not eligible for no-share-of-cost Medi-Cal, would pay a share of cost measured by the difference between countable income and the applicable SSI/SSP grant level. Although the majority of IHSS recipients had no share of cost, about 7,500 Medi-Cal recipients had their share of cost increased as of October 1, 2009. The notice of action to recipients was confusing and incomprehensible. In addition, the State refused to provide information about how many could qualify for Medi-Cal and IHSS without a share of cost under other programs, or how other programs could assist them in remaining in the community. As a result of the case, the state defendant agreed to require counties to send out an explanatory insert, which was drafted by DRC, with the defective IHSS notices.

Defendants have also agreed to issuance of an All-County Letter to the counties directing them to issue better notices. Los Angeles County, home to about 40% of the affected IHSS Medic-Cal recipients, continues to provide extra information to the affected recipients at application review and in response to requests for help.

DRC staff is also providing individual assistance to many affected individuals who are able to qualify for IHSS with a reduced or no-share-of-cost based on other factors. DRC has developed and updated materials to help other programs — legal services, senior programs and independent living centers — similarly assist persons with disabilities. (Approximately 3,000 PAIR-eligible individuals are impacted.)

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

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

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

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

Priority 1: Abuse and Neglect

NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED: 22

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

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

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

INDICATOR 1: Reduce serious and life-threatening injuries caused by abuse and neglect in all facilities, including: institutions, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, residential care facilities, and jails, prisons, and other correctional facilities. Improve how oversight agencies respond to reported abuse and neglect in these facilities. Provide technical assistance (including brief service) or conduct select investigations of serious injury or death related abuse or neglect. Investigations will include investigating the adequacy and timeliness of oversight and investigations by responsible entities.

EXAMPLE: (1)The Investigations Unit (IU) learned about the suspicious death of TM, a patient at an acute care hospital. For years, T.M. had lived in a nursing home and received dialysis several times a week for end stage renal disease. T.M. had no involved family and was never found to be incompetent to make his own health care decisions.

T.M. had executed a Physician’s Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST), a physician’s order that memorialized his wishes for all necessary medical intervention to extend his life. In the weeks before his death, T.M. was having increased difficulty tolerating dialysis. Often he was hospitalized following dialysis to stabilize him before being returned to the nursing home. However, T.M. did not revoke his POLST or execute a new version expressing a change in his end of life wishes. During his last hospitalization after medical difficulties while getting dialysis, the hospital ethics committee voted to re-write his POLST, and ordered that all medical treatment cease so that T.M. only receives “comfort care.” T.M. died soon thereafter.

After conducting an investigation, the IU concluded that the hospital had failed to honor T.M.’s validly executed POLST, thereby precipitating his untimely death. The IU found no evidence that T.M. lacked capacity at the time that he executed his POLST, as later claimed and that the hospital failed to follow its own procedures (and those recommended by the California Hospital Association) by referring his case to the Unrepresented Patient Committee, reserved for patients who have not given directives for treatment and have no involved family or designated health care decision maker. IU staff met with the hospital president, chief medical officer, ethics committee chair, counsel for the hospital, and other representatives. Although the hospital staff stated at the meeting that T.M. had made statements to his physician that he had changed his mind and wanted to stop dialysis if “‘treatment were futile,” they were unable to produce any written record or documentation of these conversations and continued to assert that it had been in T.M.’s best interest to discontinue the dialysis.

IU staff clarified to the hospital staff that they had a duty to follow the POLST and that the legal standard was following the patient’s expressed interest, and not best interest. The IU recommended that the hospital ensure that an advocate with a disability serve on its Ethics and Unrepresented Patient’s Committees. The hospital was appreciative of the IU’s involvement and requested recommendations for potential committee members from the disability community.

(2) The Investigations Unit (IU) was informed that D.G., an individual with both legs amputated, was dropped off at a homeless shelter near a local hospital in the middle of the night, wearing only a hospital gown. The shelter claimed that it had not received advance notice from the hospital and was not equipped to provide services and care for D.G., who required a wheelchair for mobility and toileting assistance. The shelter complained to DRC that the hospital frequently discharged individuals to them with no advance notice.

The IU met with staff and administrators at the shelter, and advised them of discharge planning laws and responsibilities. The IU also gave them information about filing licensing complaints against hospitals for failing to provide a proper discharge.

The IU met with the administrators of the hospital regarding D.G.’s case. The hospital was able to produce records that indicated that it had engaged in appropriate discharge practices. D.G. had experienced frequent, short term admissions to the hospital. The hospital complained that the local psychiatric facility denied admission to individuals who had needed a wheelchair or other device for mobility, and it had been unable to discharge D.G. to that facility. The IU sent a follow up letter to the psychiatric hospital, requesting clarification of its admissions policy, and advising it of the need to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. To date, the hospital has not responded to our letter.

INDICATOR 2: Inform people with disabilities about their rights and give them the information and materials they need to advocate for themselves by providing training and/or outreach to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on abuse and neglect issues.

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

INDICATOR 3: Develop or revise, and distribute publications and/or training materials to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers, and/or other relevant groups of people on abuse and neglect issues.

EXAMPLE: DRC investigated complaints of abuse by certified nursing assistants (CNAs) to their licensing board, including multiple complaints of physical abuse such as CNAs punching and slapping residents in the face and stomach, A CNA hitting a resident in the back of the head with a clipboard, and a CNA spitting an elderly female resident in the face. In addition, there were complaints of sexual abuse including CNAs handling residents roughly, touching their genitals, and making sexual remarks. In many of the incidents, the facility where the incident occurred immediately suspended and subsequently terminated the CNA involved. The agency that licenses the facility was notified and promptly initiated on investigation which found the allegations of abuse substantiated. However, DRC’s investigations found significant delays in the referral of complaints to the CNA certification board and in the CNA certification board initiating or completing its investigation. In at least three cases reviewed, the CNA certification board received notification from state licensing only after DRC queried the board regarding the status of its investigation.

DRC has written a summary report and plans to meet with the CNA Certification Board about our findings and recommendations, which include ensuring that the complaints are promptly referred to the CNA certification board, and timeframes are set for the timely completion of investigations into the CNA misconduct.

INDICATOR 4: Provide counsel and advice to people with disabilities, their family members, and/or other relevant groups of people on abuse and neglect issues.

EXAMPLE: L.W., a woman with fibromyalgia, e-mailed DRC regarding concerns with her husband and caregiver. She alleged that he was abusive, and that she had fears about her safety. L.W. only listed a cell phone and did not provide an address. DRC’s IU called L.W. and gave her multiple numbers and names for follow up with DRC. The IU also sent L.W. an e-mail with information for Adult Protective Services as well as local law enforcement. L.W. e-mailed back, thanking the IU for the referral information and stating that she was doing much better but would contact us if she had any other problems.

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

EXAMPLE: The IU submitted a letter in support of proposed amendments to state regulations regarding psychiatric technicians (PTs) and licensed vocational nurses (LVNs) who have resigned from employment after allegedly committing abuse against people with disabilities. The proposed regulations would ensure that employees who have resigned for cause for committing abuse would be promptly reported to the Board, thereby enabling it to take corrective disciplinary action against these individuals, and protecting vulnerable individuals from harm. The IU also wrote in support of the regulations because they would broaden the category of employers to include employment agencies and nursing registries. Given the profusion of employment agencies and nursing registries, it is important that these entities are also held responsible to report PT and LVN misconduct.

PRIORITY 2: Benefits

NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED: 159

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

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

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

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

EXAMPLE: (1) H.R., a person with quadriplegia from the Czech Republic and a “nonimmigrant” (a person who enters the U.S. on a temporary basis — whether for tourism, business, temporary work, or study), was assaulted while working and assisted the authorities with the investigation of the crime. He eventually applied for a U-Visa, applicable to people who have experienced crimes and substantial mental or physical abuse and are willing to assist law enforcement in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity.

H.R. applied for CAPI benefits (cash benefits under a California program for immigrants who are not eligible to receive SSI or SSP due to their immigration status) and was denied eligibility because he did not provide sponsor information. DRC assisted H.R. by advising the county that as a nonimmigrant, H.R. did not have a sponsor. Although the county agreed with us, it continued to deny CAPI eligibility, stating that H.R was not yet approved for a U-Visa. We provided legal authority to show that H.R. only needed to be a U-Visa “applicant” in order to receive CAPI benefits. The county agreed and found H.R. eligible, retroactive to November 2011, the date of his application for CAPI benefits.

INDICATOR 2: Identify and take steps to address systemic benefits issues such as improving the SSI program for people with disabilities, and/or reducing the problems and barriers in the disability determination process.

EXAMPLE: (1) W.J., a person with physical disabilities, had his Social Security Income (SSI) terminated because the Social Security Administration (SSA) claimed that he and his girlfriend were holding themselves out as a married couple (holding out). The consequence of holding out for someone receiving SSI is that the other person’s income and resources are counted in determining whether the person is or continues to be eligible for SSI, which can result in disqualification from the SSI program or a reduction in the amount of SSI a person gets. Although W.J. and his girlfriend live together, they maintain separate bank accounts, filed separate tax returns, did not indicate on the apartment rental agreement that they were married, and do not introduce themselves as each other’s spouse.

One night, while at a free legal advice clinic, W.J. consulted with DRC staff who after the initial meeting at the clinic, contacted Social Security, advocated for W.J. and eventually got Social Security to change its position. W.J.’s SSI was reinstated and he received retroactive payments for the months he did not receive SSI and should have.

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

EXAMPLE: (1) M.F., a 15 year-old young adult with genitourinary conditions and deafness, should be eligible for California Children’s Services (CCS), a program that provides diagnostic and treatment services, medical case management, and physical and occupational therapy services to children under age 21 with certain medical conditions. However, M.F. was denied CCS eligibility for multiple hospitalizations occurring over 15 months. On six separate occasions, M.F. went to the emergency room of the local children’s hospital with the following symptoms: abdominal pain, back pain, fever, nausea, and vomiting. She was admitted each time, stayed for several days to several weeks, then was discharged as stable. However, M.F. was discharged without an accurate diagnosis and advised to continue seeking a diagnosis through specialists in the medical field. M.F.’s parents continued to seek these opinions, and M.F. was ultimately properly diagnosed and had her gall bladder removed.

For unknown reasons, the hospital only referred M.F. to CCS for possible coverage and payment on three of the six occasions. Once the appropriate diagnosis was found to be a CCS-eligible condition, and her symptoms were largely resolved after the removal of her gall bladder, CCS agreed to pay for three of the six hospitalizations. When M.F.’s parents challenged CCS’s decision to only pay for three of the hospitalizations, CCS determined that the remaining three requests for prior authorization were untimely. M.F. appealed this decision. DRC provided technical assistance to M.F.’s parents, who represented her at the administrative hearing. The hearing officer reversed CCS’s denial of coverage for two of the three remaining hospitalizations originally determined to be untimely, holding that CCS could not escape responsibility for the payment merely because the hospital had failed to seek timely approval for services rendered.

(2) D.W., a person with a visual disability received a notice from the county advising him that he had a $576 Medi-Cal share of cost. DRC provided him with information about his appeal rights and he filed for a fair hearing. We provided him with a letter which he used to request a letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that had the information he needed, in order to prove that he was eligible for no share of cost Medi-Cal. We also assisted D.W. by providing the county with the SSA letter and explaining why its notice was wrong. D.W. was able to resolve his issue without the need to go to a hearing.

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

EXAMPLE: DRC staff sought input from community organizations and assistive technology professionals about issues that Medi-Cal managed care recipients with disabilities were experiencing with obtaining or repairing custom wheelchairs. For example, recipients reported the contracted durable medical equipment (DME) vendors were spending a maximum of 15 minutes to complete wheelchair assessments which is not enough time to determine the type of wheelchair and associated DME that a person with a disability needs. Further, Medi-Cal managed care recipients experience significant delays in obtaining new wheelchairs and repairs for existing ones and Medi-Cal managed care organizations lack functional complaint systems for recipients to resolve the issues, leaving their DME needs unmet. The purpose of the investigation was to gather justification for the development of legal standards defining what constitutes a quality wheelchair assessment. These standards will increase the quality of wheelchair assessments by creating universal and enforceable requirements for these procedures.

The investigation yielded personal accounts of the issues that managed care recipients with disabilities are experiencing with obtaining or repairing custom wheelchairs. We also obtained materials providing guidance on industry standards from the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) and the Clinician Task Force. These personal accounts and guidance on standards provided us with a framework to develop proposed legal standards on this issue. The accounts and guidance also shaped our future systemic advocacy in the area of assistive technology in that we now know that Medi-Cal recipients need more information about their rights to obtain and repair DME in Medi-Cal managed care. To that end, DRC staff are drafting a self help packet for people experiencing these issues. Statewide standards will lead to more thorough assessments, which in time will increase the likelihood that Medi-Cal recipients will receive wheelchairs that work with their existing assistive technology, allow them to function independently in the environments to which they are accustomed, and do not cause physical injury.

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

EXAMPLE: (1) DRC has represented approximately 80 individuals with physical and/or psychiatric disabilities who had been receiving Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) services at ADHC centers (which provide a program of therapeutic, social and health activities and services for the purpose of restoring or maintaining optimal capacity for self-care) and who received Notices of Action terminating services.

DRC previously filed a lawsuit challenging the elimination of the ADHC program (see Darling v. Douglas in litigation section above) and the parties reached an agreement where the ADHC program became a new program called Community Based Adult Services (CBAS) effective April 1, 2012. The services provided under the CBAS program are essentially the same as under the old ADHC program.

Although some people who received ADHC services were presumptively eligible for CBAS, they received Notices of Action finding them ineligible for CBAS services, resulting in our representing 80 clients at hearing. Of the 63 decisions received, DRC has received 53 favorable hearing decisions, restoring services to clients, retroactive to April 1, 2012.

R.R. is a 79 year old woman with multiple disabilities including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, edema, osteoporosis, and macular degeneration. R.R. had been receiving ADHC services since 2006. DRC represented R.R. in an administrative hearing challenging DHCS’s denial of CBAS services. In September 2012, the Administrative Law Judge found that DHCS had incorrectly determined that R.R. was not eligible for CBAS, requiring DHCS to grant CBAS benefits to R.R. effective April 1, 2012. R.R. was able to return to the ADHC center within days of receiving the hearing decision.

INDICATOR 6: Identify and take steps to preserve, increase, expand and improve access to programs and services in the community, by undertaking administrative advocacy to help people get out of or avoid going into nursing facilities; identifying and taking steps to improve and expand home and community based waiver programs to help people live in the community which may include looking at ways to increase the cost caps; monitoring “fraud” investigations that have a chilling or intimidating effect on consumers’ access to services in the community; and/or maximizing Medicaid waivers and waiver slots, and undertaking other administrative strategies, to enable persons to remain in the community or return to the community from an institution.

EXAMPLE: When IHSS budget cuts were implemented in the last fiscal year, we received many calls from clients regarding due process issues in certain counties, including failure to issue any notice of action on the reduction, misapplication of the budget cuts to individuals with unmet need hours, unreported, unknown, or unmet need hours, and refusal by county workers to process appeals based on clients’ requests for reassessments due to changed circumstances.

DRC exchanged letters with the Department of Social Services (DSS) Director explaining the problems and attempting resolution of the issues at the state level. DRC then exchanged letters with the county directors and the presiding ALJ to correct these due process failures. DRC worked with the ALJ to clarify the approach to determining unmet need that should be followed by counties and judges when conducting hearings. DRC also received responses from the county directors indicating that noted problems with due process had been corrected in those counties.

When recipients do not receive proper notice regarding decreases in IHSS hours, they can miss deadlines to appeal and lose their due process rights as a result. For many IHSS recipients, a drop in IHSS hours, no matter how slight, can lead to increased risk of institutionalization or a degradation of their living circumstances or health. By preserving due process protections for all IHSS recipients, we are fulfilling the federal mandate to keep individuals with disabilities that require IHSS assistance in the community. This work will benefit approximately 130,000 IHSS recipients statewide.

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

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

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

EXAMPLE: DRC provides training to various groups throughout the year on a number of substantive topics including, for example, Social Security, In Home Supportive Services, and Medi-cal. In March 2012, a DRC advocate provided a presentation about Social Security work incentives to San Diego Community College students, including PAIR-eligible students, which included an overview about Social Security benefits. Students worked with the advocate regarding hypothetical situations to understand the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) work incentives. Students were also provided with information about the 250% working disabled Medi-cal program, the Aged and Disabled Medi-cal program, and how to contact the local benefits planner.

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

EXAMPLE: D.B., a person with fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, and tumors, called DRC because of a Social Security (SSI) overpayment. During her annual review by the Social Security Administration (SSA), she mentioned that she gets paid to cut and style hair out of her home. After SSA reviewed her tax records, they determined that she has been overpaid since 2009 and continuing, and as a result, reduced her SSI benefit amount. D.B. did not agree with the overpayment because she had told SSA about this work on several occasions, and did not know it would affect her SSI. We advised D.B. to appeal if she was not in agreement with the overpayment, provided her with overpayment publications, and information on how to appeal and to ask for a waiver of the overpayment.

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

EXAMPLE: DRC commented on the California Department of Social Services, Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) eviction notice regulations on February 14, 2012. Due to a change in state law, the Department of Social Services proposed an amendment to RCFE regulations to provide for the specific contents of eviction notices to residents. The proposed regulations also contained a list of resources that RCFE operators could refer residents to for assistance. DRC agreed that the proposed notice requirements complied with the new state law and were beneficial to residents. However, DRC believed that the list of resources was inadequate. DRC recommended that the Department of Social Services add to the list legal services organizations that assist with evictions and that assist individuals with accessing home and community-based services. The Department of Social Services changed the proposed regulations to provide that operators may contact advocacy organizations to assist in developing a list of resources. DRC advocated for the rights of individuals with disabilities through activities to ensure the enforcement of state law by helping to provide board and care operators with the resources needed to help board and care residents maintain their residence or find a new one.

PRIORITY 3: Discrimination NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED: 45

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

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

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

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

EXAMPLE: DRC filed this class action lawsuit (Darling v. Douglas) challenging two sets of cutbacks to Medi-Cal funded Adult Day Health Care services in California arising from 2009 legislation. DRC filed a request for a Preliminary Injunction on the first cut, an across the board cut to no more than 3 days per week of attendance, and the cut was enjoined by the Court. The claims related to the first cut were subsequently settled in May, 2010. The class was certified in August 2010.

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

In April 2011, Plaintiffs amend the complaint to challenge a proposed elimination of the program. The Parties reached a settlement agreement, which the court approved. Under the Settlement, on April 1, 2012, the ADHC program converted from a Medi-Cal state plan optional benefit into a new service -- Community Based Adult Services or “CBAS” — which is provided through a Medi-Cal 1115 Waiver program. There is no enrollment cap on the number of individuals who can be served under the CBAS program and services will be provided at no cost to recipients. CBAS will be provided through Medi-Cal managed care plans in most parts of the state. In counties where managed care is not available, and for people who are not eligible for managed care, CBAS will remain a fee-for-service Medi-Cal benefit.

The approximately 35,000 current ADHC participants were reassessed for CBAS eligibility during November 2011 through February 2012. Although approximately 80% of ADHC participants were found eligible for CBAS and transitioned to the new program, approximately 2,400 class members were found ineligible. Plaintiffs have worked intensively to assist the 2,400 class members who filed for administrative hearings challenging denial of CBAS, but representing some and coordinating a network of over 40 pro bono attorneys to represent others, developing training materials, and conducting numerous trainings for attorneys, advocates, and CBAS providers.

Under the settlement, the Court will retain jurisdiction and Plaintiffs’ counsel will monitor implementation for 30 months. Plaintiffs have filed two compliance motions with the trial court. The first, in March 2012, was partially settled and the remainder withdrawn without prejudice. The second was filed in September 2012. With regard to the second compliance complaint, the judge denied all of our claims. The judge indicated that the long delay in the fair hearing process resulting in waits of over 90 days for a hearing and administrative decision by class members, was not within the court’s jurisdiction and, therefore, did not violate the settlement. The judge added that the appropriate venue for plaintiffs to resolve fair hearing timeliness problems would be to file separate motions in state or federal court.

Although DRC is disappointed by the decision, it is noteworthy that since the filing of our motion, DHCS took a number of steps to correct violations and/or improve compliance that it likely would not have taken absent the motion. In addition, based on the limited information we have so far on hearing outcomes, approximately 88% of class members have prevailed at their hearings making them entitled to monetary penalties for decisions that are issued more than 90 days after they filed their request. DRC wants to hold DHCS to its obligation to comply with this requirement and is exploring the next steps in settlement implementation.

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

EXAMPLE: DRC has continued to work with a coalition of organizations to fight against a proposed ordinance within the City of Los Angeles designed to regulate “sober living” homes. The ordinance would make it difficult for people with disabilities who need to live in shared or supported living situations to live in low-density residential neighborhoods. Work done in the past fiscal year included public comments to the City explaining the effect that such an ordinance would have on housing options for people with disabilities and the laws that prohibit such discriminatory conduct by the City. DRC staff continue their efforts to stop the city from passing an ordinance and make any ordinance passed comply with anti-discrimination laws.

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

EXAMPLE: 1) V.P. is a person who is blind who lives in a senior housing center with a mandatory meal plan. The residents are asked to review a posted menu and check the meal that they want to have once a week. Due to his disability, he cannot read the menu. In addition, he has special dietary needs due to high blood pressure and irritable bladder. DRC staff gave V.P. advice regarding his housing rights and how to request a reasonable accommodation of providing a version of the in Braille.

After no accommodations were provided, DRC negotiated on V.P.’s behalf. As a result, the senior housing center provided V.P. with the requested accommodations.

2) J.S., a woman with digestive disorders, resides in a semi-independent apartment that requires a meal plan. When she moved into the housing unit, she was told that her dietary needs due to her disability could be addressed with a dietician. However, when J.S. moved in, there was no dietician available. The housing management told her that she needed to submit a letter from her doctor detailing her dietary needs. J.S. submitted a letter as requested on multiple occasions, but the housing management did not respond to her requests by either providing her appropriate meals or waiving her meal plan even though J.S. was paying for three meals a day.

DRC assisted J.S. to file a complaint through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). DRC staff assisted J.S. to communicate with her doctor and respond to the HUD investigators on her behalf. After a lengthy investigation, HUD issued findings that the senior housing center had discriminated against J.S. by not waiving her from its monthly meal plan requirement as an accommodation for her disability. The senior housing center reached an agreement with HUD by agreeing to waive J.S. from the meal plan requirement, reimburse her for all the monthly meal plan payments she had to make with interest, and to make accommodations impacting future individuals with disabilities who need to be waived from the meal plan policy due to their disability.

INDICATOR 4: Identify and take steps to change policies to expand quality, affordable, accessible housing. Steps may include: Commenting on public housing authority plans and eliminating barriers to use of Section 8 vouchers for people with disabilities; investigating and developing approaches to actively evaluate and monitor new housing construction for fair housing compliance and conformance to universal design; and/or enforcing land use laws and changing local policies and procedures to preserve and increase affordable and accessible housing and reduce barriers for people with disabilities.

EXAMPLE: The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) recently issued new procedural regulations that govern how it handles complaints of discrimination against employers, housing providers, and places of public accommodation. DRC, along with other non-profit organizations, submitted comments and testified at a public hearing. Those comments focused on the lack of a reasonable accommodations policy in the regulations and the lack of a policy to ensure that people with limited English proficiency have access to DFEH’s services (See Section IV. A above for additional description).

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

EXAMPLE: A.S. is a community college student who uses a wheelchair and lives in accessible housing provided by the college. She contacted DRC because her roommates had been harassing her about her disability including complaining about her ability to assist to clean the apartment, and that she kept equipment in the common bathroom to assist her due to her disability. The college responded to the roommates’ complaints by threatening to evict A.S. from her apartment which would require her to move to a less accessible housing location. DRC staff informed A.S. about her right to be free from housing discrimination, and contacted the college on her behalf. With DRC’s assistance, A.S. was able to convince the college to allow her to stay in her accessible housing until she graduates this spring.

INDICATOR 6: Identify and take steps to address systemic discrimination issues such as evaluating ADA compliance by local governments especially in rural areas, developing strategy for addressing personal autonomy rights and abuse issues for consumers in NFs, access to accommodations in higher education, and/or developing strategies for ensuring access to technology at public and private entities (e.g. policy advocacy, outreach and investigations, and working in collaboration with other advocacy groups).

EXAMPLE: The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and the Office of Systems Integration has agreed to change a number of its websites that serve public programs to remove significant barriers to use by people who are blind or have other significant vision impairments. These websites serve the public in several important ways. They furnish information about eligibility for and the scope of services under many public benefits programs.

On June 2, 2011, DRC, along with other advocacy groups, sent a demand letter to the Director of CDSS about possible website accessibility barriers. We asked that the agencies remove the barriers identified and retain an independent expert to do a detailed analysis of their accessibility. We received a reply letter in late June 2011 stating that it would perform an assessment of its websites with respect to the issues noted in our demand letter. We received the assessments on September 28, 2011.

CDSS contracted with consultants for an independent evaluation of the websites and the consultants have completed their evaluations and written reports. The evaluation reports indicated substantial compliance with current standards, but also suggested a number of recommendations to improve the websites. CDSS asserted that it has implemented the recommendations of the consultants. DRC is working to secure our own consultant, or alternatively, ask the State to obtain an additional evaluation to verify the State’s assertions to verify that assertion.

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

EXAMPLE: (1) In July 2012, DRC published Rights of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education, a guide for student with disabilities in colleges and/or universities. This publication addresses rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504, modifications and reasonable accommodations.

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

EXAMPLE: In February 2012, DRC staff joined a one-day conference organized by the Sacramento Native Health Center aimed to promote domestic violence prevention and increase awareness of benefits and services for individuals with disabilities. DRC hosted a workshop called "Accessing Services for Individuals with Disabilities" to train participants, most of whom are members of the Native American community, regarding disability awareness and advocacy skills. DRC worked to increase awareness of benefits and services for Native American children, youth and adults with disabilities, including rural or low income communities.

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

EXAMPLE: S.F. is a client who has blindness and had been receiving guide dog services for nearly 30 years. However, when S.F. became an amputee, the nonprofit that had been providing guide dog services to her in the past denied her request for a guide dog.

DRC provided S.F. with information about the right to file a discrimination complaint based on disability with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). DRC also provided S.F. with information regarding her right to sue. With this information, S.F. had the information she needed about her rights and planned on filing administrative complaints.

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

EXAMPLE: In April 2012, DRC joined with several disability and civil rights organizations in providing comments opposing any regulations that would exclude “obesity” from the definition of disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Discrimination Act (FEHA). Such exclusion would require “obese” individuals who are limited in a major life activity to prove the cause of their condition before receiving protection from disability discrimination under the FEHA. We estimate that these regulations would potentially impact at least 7 million Californians whose weight would be considered obese under the disability laws. DRC comments indicated that individuals who are obese should be protected from discrimination under the ADA by meeting the definition of disability, and under the FEHA by meeting the definition of a “medical condition”. In addition to commenting on how these requirements would increase the burden of proof beyond what is required of an individual with any other disability, we also commented that those individuals that are unable to prove the medical mechanism giving rise to their “obesity” due to the complexity of the condition or questions unresolved by medical science, would be unjustly excluded from protection of the law. To date obesity is not excluded from the definition, and as a result individuals who are obese are still protected by discrimination law.

PRIORITY 4: Education for Children and Youth

NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED: 33

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

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

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

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

EXAMPLE: In April 2012, DRC published Bullying and Harassment of Students with Disabilities, a frequently asked questions guide to bullying in schools. This publication addresses school districts’ legal obligations under federal and California law to address and prevent bullying and disability harassment of students with disabilities, and identifies possible strategies to deal with bullying through the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process and other procedures. This publication was translated in to Spanish in May 2012.

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

EXAMPLE: DRC joined the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, Area Board 11 to provide a two part, in depth training on the rights of students in the special education setting to parents who had a basic understanding of their legal rights, but wanted a more comprehensive understanding of special education law.

Over the course of two evenings, over twenty five parents participated in two, three hour sessions. The first session covered special education laws and advocacy tactics to optimize success. The second session included information about how to approach school discipline, the rights of students who have behaviors associated with their disabilities, and how and when to file complaints using the laws discussed in session one. Both sessions also included a thirty minute question and answer component that allowed parents to ask questions about their cases. The sessions were a major success, with attendees universally reporting on their surveys that they gained valuable information that will assist them in advocating for their students in the future.

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

EXAMPLE: A.Y. is a student who has Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and was attending a charter school where he experienced behaviors due to his disability. His parent requested that he be evaluated for special education, but his school did not do so. Instead, his school repeatedly disciplined him by refusing to allow him to attend field trips and finally telling his parent that he could not re-enroll at the school. A.Y.’s mother called DRC to find out what A.Y.’s rights were.

A DRC attorney advised A.Y.’s parent that he has the same rights to special education and related services in a charter school as he would in a traditional school. She provided A.Y.’s parent with information on charter school laws, the laws on assessing a student for special education, and how to file complaints against school districts, including charter schools. Using this information and her written requests as evidence, A.Y.’s mother filed a complaint against the charter school on his behalf.

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.

(1) Priority: Access/Discrimination

(2) Needs Statement: Discrimination against people with disabilities in California exists in many areas including, but not limited to, attitudes, stigma, and stereotypes; discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of their disability and other protected categories; inadequate and inaccessible transportation; lack of affordable, accessible housing; barriers to a full range of employment and self-employment opportunities; inadequate training and supports necessary to enter and stay in the workforce; and lack of access to supports needed to participate fully in the community. People with disabilities face challenges in their right to full participation in electoral and governmental systems. People with disabilities encounter barriers to physical access and reasonable accommodations, as well as stigmatization while residing in the community.

(3) Description of Activities:

Goal 1: Improve disability access and reduce discrimination in private, public and government programs and services so that all people with disabilities are able to use them effectively.

Objective A: Through direct representation or systemic advocacy, eliminate access barriers and discrimination and improve access to technology and assistive technology in places of public accommodations and businesses and in government programs, such as benefit offices, services and websites.

Objective B: Through direct representation or systemic advocacy, improve access to transportation in areas such as sidewalk access, bus stops and paratransit.

Goal 2: Increase and maintain affordable, accessible housing.

Objective A: Through direct representation and systemic advocacy, reduce housing discrimination in private housing, in a variety of continuum of care housing types and in homeless and transitional housing settings; ensure that licensing restrictions in housing do not inhibit community living; and ensure that laws and regulations against housing discrimination effectively address the needs of people with disabilities. This work includes our continuing litigation such as Doe v. San Diego Rescue Mission and other housing discrimination cases.

Objective B: Through direct representation and systemic advocacy, reduce discrimination in local government planning and regulation of housing and land use and improve local government planning for affordable, accessible housing and a variety of living arrangements, for example, by continuing to litigate Independent Living Center et al v. City of Los Angeles et al.

Objective C: Through direct representation and systemic advocacy, expand the availability of public and subsidized housing programs for people with disabilities, by reducing discrimination and expanding accommodations in the programs, requiring more accessible units, expanding the use of the programs for people with disabilities and advocating for the development of permanent affordable, accessible housing fund sources.

Goal 3: Preserve disability civil rights laws, including the ADA and the Unruh Act. Objective A: Develop and begin to implement a strategy for addressing attacks on disability discrimination laws and/or addressing effective implementation of physical accessibility requirements.

Goal 4: Enforce rights by ensuring that individuals with disabilities have access to courts, administrative agencies and legal services.

Objective A: Respond to proposed constraints on access through amicus briefs or regulatory comments as needed.

(1) Priority: Community Integration

(2) Needs Statement: People with disabilities face barriers to living their daily lives, on their own terms, and in communities of their choice. People with disabilities do not always live in the community placement that is the most appropriate, least restrictive setting chosen by that individual and many people with disabilities are forced to live in institutions. When living in the community, people with disabilities cannot obtain the proper accommodations, services, and supports they need and/or are entitled to. Due to budget cuts and reorganization of the departments, people with disabilities often face unexpected cuts in their services, health benefits, and supports including In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), Community Based Adult Services (CBAS), Medi-Cal, Medicaid, and Social Security. (3) Description of Activities:

Goal 1: Advocate to transition people out of facilities to the community consistent with the principles of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision.

Objective A: Conduct systemic advocacy to ensure that people with mobility and other physical and sensory disability needs live in the least restrictive environment, including providing legal analysis regarding improved nursing transitions and nursing facility waivers.

Objective B: Monitor implementation of the settlement in Chambers v. City and County of San Francisco.

Goal 2: Ensure that people with disabilities have access to a full range of community services and supports to enable them to live in the community and avoid institutionalization, consistent with the principles of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision.

Objective A: Through direct representation and systemic advocacy, ensure that people with disabilities have access to essential health care services, including continuing to litigate cases to secure Medi-Cal funded shift nursing for youth aging out of the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment program.

Objective B: Through direct representation, ensure that people with disabilities who receive Social Security benefits maintain access to those benefits to allow them to remain in the community.

Objective C: Continue litigation and direct representation to protect existing long-term care services, such as In-Home Supportive Services, Community Based Adult Services and in-home nursing including continued litigation of Oster v. Lightbourne and Darling v. Douglas.

Goal 3: As Managed Care Organizations assume more responsibility for Medicaid-funded services, ensure that they continue to provide full access to essential health care benefits to people with disabilities.

Objective A: Conduct systemic advocacy to ensure that efforts to integrate the financing, coordination or delivery of long-term services and supports are done in a way that ensures that consumers receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate.

Objective B: Conduct direct representation or systemic advocacy to oppose the denial of Medi-Cal benefits and due process protections by managed care organizations.

(1) Priority: Employment

(2) Needs Statement: People with disabilities face discrimination and other barriers to the opportunity to engage in integrated employment with competitive wages and benefits. People with disabilities do not always receive the supports and reasonable accommodations they need to enable them to enter and remain in the workforce and often face discrimination in throughout the employment process.

(3) Description of Activities:

Goal 1: Address discrimination, enforce discrimination laws and increase access to integrated competitive employment.

Objective A: Through direct representation or systemic advocacy, advocate for the rights of people with disabilities to be free from discrimination in the workplace and other discriminatory barriers to employment, including their right to receive reasonable accommodations.

Goal 2: Advocate for the successful employment and removal of barriers to employment for people receiving Social Security Benefits.

Objective A: Directly represent beneficiaries of Social Security on issues such as work incentives, barriers to employment and problems with representative payees, including in negotiations, mediations, or administrative proceedings.

(1) Priority: Rights in Facilities/Abuse and Neglect

(2) Needs Statement: People with disabilities are at disproportionate risk of abuse and neglect. Caregivers are frequently the perpetrators of abuse. Yet, the abuse reporting and response system is complex and confusing. Investigators lack sufficient training and expertise in working with people with disabilities. There is inadequate oversight of the abuse system’s response to allegations of abuse and neglect, from initial report to investigation and response by the criminal justice system. People with disabilities who reside in facilities are at risk of incidents of abuse, neglect, and improper administration of medications and/or restraints. People with disabilities who reside in facilities do not have the services they need to lead fulfilling lives and enable them to transition into the community.

(3) Description of Activities:

Goal 1: Reduce criminal victimization and serious and life-threatening injuries caused by abuse and neglect of people with disabilities in facilities.

Objective A: Conduct select investigations and make recommendations regarding corrective action to prevent likelihood of abuse, neglect or criminal victimization.

Objective B: Issue an advisory on patient directed Physician’s Order for Life-sustaining Treatment.

Goal 2: Improve the response and involvement of agencies in the abuse response, oversight and criminal justice systems to reported criminal victimization, abuse and neglect of people with disabilities.

Objective A: Conduct select investigations into adequacy and timeliness of responsible entities, including law enforcement, licensing, criminal justice, regional centers, developmental centers, and other protective services agencies to incidents of abuse, neglect and criminal victimization of people with disabilities.

Objective B: Issue a report regarding the responsiveness of licensing to substantiated complaints of abuse perpetrated by certified nurse assistants.

Goal 3: Improve the quality of life for people with disabilities in institutions, by protecting their rights and ensuring that they have effective, client-centered, culturally competent services that will help their transition into the community.

Objective A: Through direct representation, enforce the rights of individuals in county jails to receive appropriate services and accommodations, including continuing to litigate Johnson v. County of Los Angeles and Hall v. Mims.

(1) Priority: Information, Training, Outreach and Publications

(2) Needs Statement: Thousands of people with disabilities in California face legal issues related to their disabilities daily. They need information, training, and publications to enable them to navigate complicate systems and to advocate for themselves when advocates and attorneys are not available to represent them. People with disabilities need resources in a variety of formats and languages.

(3) Description of Activities:

Goal 1: Counsel and Advice- Regional office staff will provide counsel and advice to people with disabilities as well as their advocates, family members and/or other relevant groups of people on disability related legal issues.

Objective A: Provide counsel and advice on at least 1,000 service requests.

Goal 2: Publications- DRC will develop, or revise and distribute publications and/or training materials to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers and/or other relevant groups of people.

Objective A: Develop or revise, and distribute publications and/or training materials, which may include the following: a fact sheet on the Medi-Cal transition to managed care; a publication about how to get good transition planning that includes issues such as independent living, voting, driving, services, education and employment; and/or a fact sheet regarding the transfer of parental rights so that students and parents are prepared for transition.

Goal 3: Outreach and Training- DRC will provide training and/or outreach to people with disabilities, their family members, advocates, service providers and/or other relevant groups of people on disability related legal issues.

Part VI. Narrative

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

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

  1. Sources of funds received and expended
  2. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report
  3. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)
  4. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)
  5. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure
  6. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State long-term care program, if these programs are not part of the P&A agency

A. Sources of funds received and expended SOURCE OF FUNDING / AMOUNT RECEIVED / AMOUNT SPENT Federal (section 509) / $1,805,206 / $878,238 Federal (section 509) FY 2011 Carryover / $640,150 / $640,150 State / $0 / $0 Program Income - FY 2012 / $0 / $0 Program Income - FY 2011 Carryover / $2,793 / $2,793 Private / $0 / $0 All Other Funds / $0 / $0 Total (from all sources) / $2,448,149 / $1,521,181

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report

CATEGORY/ CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FY12 BUDGET WITH PAIR PROGRAM INCOME Category / Administrative / Program Wages/Salaries / $144,300 / $715,642 Fringe Benefits (FICA, UI, etc.) / $49,263 / $304,636 Professional Services / $2,845 / $17,591 Legal Services / $8,289 / $51,261 Materials/Supplies / $1,979 / $12,236 Telephone / $3,073 / $19,005 Postage/ $801 / $4,952 Rent / $29,140/ $180,200 Bonding/Insurance / $1,700 / $10,516 Equipment Rental/Purchase/Depreciation / $3,707 / $22,922 Equipment Maintenance / $292/ $1,808 Copying & Printing / $891 / $5,512 Subscriptions & Publications / $2,788 / $17,244 Legal Data Base Services / $790 / $4,888 Recruiting & Personnel Advertising / $446 / $2,760 Software & Software Maintenance / $1,679 / $10,386 Travel / $5,658 / $34,986 Staff Training & Registrations / $1,143 / $7,071 Sponsored Trainings & Events / $0 / $0 Dues / $1,664 / $10,289 Staff Disability Accommodations / $3,304 / $20,434 Indirect Costs / $0 / $0 Miscellaneous / $538 / $3,330 Total Budget / $264,293 / $1,457,666

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

Type of Position / FTE / % of Yr Filled / Person Years Professional Full -Time / 0.0000 / 0.0000 / 0.0000 Part-Time / 14.9611 / 0.7287 / 9.5506 Vacant / 0.0000 / 0.0000 / 0.0000

Clerical Full -Time / 0.0000 / 0.0000 / 0.0000 Part-Time / 4.8453 / 0.7752 / 4.0947 Vacant / 0.0000 / 0.0000 / 0.0000

D. INVOLVEMENT WITH ADVISORY BOARDS

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

E. GRIEVANCES FILED UNDER THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

J.C. was dissatisfied with the services she received from DRC regarding her loss of a voucher from Section 8 for a two bedroom home. Staff declined to represent her at a hearing due to lack of resources but offered to provide an opinion letter. The Executive Director upheld staff’s decision not to represent J.C. due to lack of resources.

K.K. was dissatisfied that DRC declined to represent her in her unlawful detainer action and did not have the resources to represent her in a lawsuit against her landlord. However, staff advised K.K. on how to request accommodations from the court for her unlawful detainer action and she was subsequently successful in getting some of the accommodations she requested. The Executive Director upheld staff’s decision not to represent K.K. due to lack of resources.

P.A. was dissatisfied with services he received from DRC regarding his daughter’s eligibility for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) from her school district. Staff declined to represent P.A.’s daughter in a Section 504 hearing, but advised P.A. about eligibility under both Section 504 and the IDEA as well as how to appeal the denial. Staff were subsequently unable to represent P.A. in a Section 504 lawsuit against the school district. The Executive Director upheld staff’s decision not to represent P.A. in a Section 504 lawsuit against the school district due to lack of resources.

B.B. was dissatisfied with the services she received from DRC regarding her request for assistance in getting her Medi-Cal services reinstated. The Deputy Director arranged for another attorney to assist her and the grievance was resolved.

A.M. is a person with multiple disabilities who filed a lawsuit in San Diego probate court against Kaiser Permanente, the Department of Health Care Services and the nursing home her mother resided in. A.M. filed the lawsuit as a result of her mother having been given a lethal dose of morphine. During the hearing A.M. experienced symptoms from her disabilities which resulted in an ambulance being called. The court would not allow the emergency medical technicians to enter the courtroom. A.M. filed a grievance because she was dissatisfied with the services she received from DRC in response to her request for representation in this matter. The Deputy Director agreed to have another attorney provide A.M. with additional information on how to request accommodations from the court and the grievance was resolved.

M.F. was dissatisfied that DRC declined to represent her against her employer in a matter of retaliation and discrimination due to her disabilities and the related leaves of absences during her employment. The Deputy Director agreed to have another attorney contact M.F. regarding her employment questions and the grievance was resolved.

F. COORDINATION WITH THE CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CAP) AND THE STATE LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM, IF THESE PROGRAMS ARE NOT PART OF THE P&A AGENCY

From October 1 through December 31, 2011, DRC contracted with the California Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), which houses CAP, to provide CAP services to CAP eligible clients in one out of ten regions in California only. Beginning January 1, 2012, DRC began providing services under the Client Assistance Program (CAP) throughout the entire state. CAP provides advocacy to persons with disabilities who are seeking or receiving vocational rehabilitation (VR) services from DOR, as well as individuals who are seeking or receiving services from independent living centers and other federal rehabilitation-funded partners. DRC CAP and PAIR staff refer cases to each other where appropriate and routinely share expertise on issues affecting their clients. DRC has been working with the Long-Term Care Ombudsmen’s (LTCO) office to address issues of abuse and neglect of residents of long term care facilities.

DRC provided essential technical assistance on a bill that revised mandated abuse reporting laws, to ensure that incidents of resident physical abuse are immediately reported to law enforcement rather than the LTCO who are barred from cross-reporting. DRC has also been a part of an interagency workgroup, convened by CMS, addressing the excessive use of psychotropic medication, mostly as a form of chemical restraint, with nursing home residents, some of whom have PAIR-eligible disabilities. DRC, LTCO, and other advocates have partnered to bring a consistent message to state and federal oversight agencies regarding the need for enhanced oversight and leadership.

No referrals from LTCO were received this past year but DRC did collaborate with one county LTCO on a case involving a PAIR client. (See Section V, Abuse and Neglect Indicator 1 regarding client, T.M., for a description of the case)

The local LTCO’s office reported that the hospital had made similar decisions (contrary to the patient’s written directive) with other young nursing home patients with chronic medical conditions who lacked any next of kin or legal representatives.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByDebra Marley
TitleGrants Manager
Signed Date12/21/2012