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

Illinois (EQUIP FOR EQUALITY, INC.) - H240A120014 - FY2012

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameEquip for Equality Inc.
Address20 North Michigan Avenue
Address Line 2Suite 300
CityChicago
StateIllinois
Zip Code60602
E-mail Addresscontactus@equipforequality.org
Website Addresshttp://equipforequality.org
Phone312-341-0022
TTY 800-610-2779
Toll-free Phone800-537-2632
Toll-free TTY800-610-2779
Fax312-541-7544
Name of P&A Executive DirectorZena Naiditch
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorBarry Taylor
Person to contact regarding reportDeborah Kennedy
Contact Person phone312-341-0022
Ext.7304

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 areas0
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas620
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)620

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff141
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)3,797

EFE’s Training Institute on Disability Rights provided self-advocacy training to 2,190 people with disabilities and their families. Training seminar topics included the Americans with Disabilities Act, Employment Rights, Special Education, Guardianship and Advance Directives, Self-Advocacy, Legislative Advocacy, Transportation Rights, Voting Rights and Transitioning from High School to the Adult World. 57% of all of the participants were people of color. A total of 82 training seminars were provided, each tailored to meet the unique needs of the participants attending. Participant interaction is encouraged with hands-on activities designed to help people with disabilities generalize what they’ve learned about their rights to their everyday lives. These interactive sessions include practice and strategies to help participants become more confident in using their advocacy skills to meet their goals and dreams. In addition, EFE provided 59 training seminars to 1,607 people representing employers, businesses, service providers and other interested in the legal rights of people with disabilities.

Webcasts In FFY 2012, Equip for Equality continued to partner with the Illinois Legal Aid Online (ILAO) on producing webcasts of EFE’s self-advocacy trainings. ILAO broadcasted 45 of EFE’s self-advocacy trainings and people could watch the trainings live or later via an archive on Illinois Legal Aid Online’s website located at www.illinoislegalaid.org. ILAO reports that there were 73,452 "hits" on its website for the EFE webcast trainings. This partnership will continue in FFY 2013 and will greatly expand the reach of EFE’s self-advocacy trainings.

In addition to these formal trainings, EFE staff attended numerous fairs, conferences and exhibitions for people with disabilities in which information about the organization was distributed and individual questions about the legal rights of people with disabilities was addressed. In total, EFE engaged in 44 outreaches reaching approximately 6,099 people.

In addition, the following training seminars were provided using federal funds:

ADA with EEOC EFE staff provided ADA and employment rights training for 68 staff.

ADAAA Training EFE staff provided training for 15 staff on ADA and Employment Rights.

Alexian Brothers Hospital EFE staff provided training during a bullying conference to 130 participants, some of whom were people with disabilities and their families, and most of whom were mental health service providers, regarding the legal rights of students with disabilities who have been bullied.

Amaker Retreat Education Panel EFE staff provided training as a panelist to 24 law students.

American Bar Association’s Education Law 101 EFE staff provided training as a panelist on the phone to 7-8 people.

Association for the Developmentally Disabled EFE staff provided training for 3 staff on employment rights.

Center for Working Women EFE staff provided training on social security and employment for 3 staff.

Charter School Conference EFE staff provided training on special education to 150 people.

Chicago Bar Association EFE staff provided training on current issues facing persons with disabilities to 50 legal attorneys.

Chicago Head Start Programs EFE staff provided training on Early Intervention transition and IEP to approximately 40 case managers and administrators.

City of Chicago Early Intervention Case Manager Training EFE staff provided training about special education to 35 people.

Children’s Memorial Hospital Sickle Cell Unit EFE staff provided training on eligibility, evaluation and special education services for students with medical needs to 14 staff members.

Community Support Services Brookfield EFE staff provided training on special education behavioral plans to 5 people.

Community College Centers EFE staff provided training on the ADA for 28 staff.

Cook County Judges EFE staff provided information regarding the special education rights of court involved youth with disabilities and information regarding EFE’s juvenile justice project to all 15-20 of the juvenile court judges in Cook County.

Daley College EFE provided training to 3 staff on ticket-to-work and employment.

Dallas County Probation Officers EFE staff conducted a training to 4 supervisory probation officers from Dallas County regarding our Juvenile Justice Project and partnership with Cook County Juvenile Court.

Department of Mental Health Recovery Support Services EFE Staff conducted a training on advance directives for 28 hospital administrators and 3 staff at DMH in Peoria.

Department of Rehabilitation Services EFE Staff conducted a training on social security and employment for 10 staff.

Diversion Probation Officers EFE Staff conducted a training to 12 probation officers in the diversion project.

Disability Rights Consortium EFE staff provided training on current Medicaid Managed Care programs in Illinois to 40 disability rights advocates.

Disability Rights Consortium EFE staff provided training on HAVA law ten years later and current issues facing people with disabilities in voting to 35 disability rights advocates.

Early Intervention Case Managers Training EFE staff provided training to 35 people.

FIT EFE staff provided training on the special education rights of court-involved youth with disabilities to approximately 8 FIT coaches from Youth Outreach Services and One Hope United (therapists working with the students through a court program)

Gads Hill Center Training EFE staff provided training on school to prison pipeline to 11 participants.

Governor State University EFE staff provided training by teaching an upper level Juvenile Justice class at Governor State University to approximately 20 undergraduate students.

Head Start Migrant Case Workers EFE staff provided training on disability rights, including special education, to 6 participants.

HORP EFE staff provided training on disability rights, including special education, to 4 participants.

IICLE EFE staff provided training about special education initial contact with parents to 28 people.

Irving School EFE staff provided training on special education to 1 person.

Irving School EFE staff provided training on special education to 5 people. ISBA Disability Law Commission EFE staff provided training on the ADA for 8 staff.

Jennifer Fleege EFE staff provided training on social security and ticket-to-work to 65 staff.

Jewish Vocational Services EFE staff provided training to 36 staff on the ADA, employment rights and social security and returning to work.

Juvenile Court Judges EFE staff provided training on special education to 15 judges.

Kent Law School EFE staff provided training to 16 staff about cases based on Olmstead.

Kirland & Ellis EFE staff conducted pro bono training at Kirkland for approximately 22 attorneys.

Komensky School EFE staff provided training on special education to 9 people.

Komensky School EFE staff provided training on special education to 6 people.

La Voz Latina EFE staff provided training on special education to 12 people.

Legal Aid Conference EFE Staff provided training for approximately 30-35 legal aid attorneys regarding special ed law.

LETAC EFE staff provided training on the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Code for 60 staff at the Law Enforcement Training Advisory Unit in Springfield.

LETAC EFE staff provided training on the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Code for 56 staff Law Enforcement Training Advisory Unit in Springfield.

Lindbloom Chicago Public High School EFE staff provided training on social security to 8 staff.

Loyola University EFE staff provided training on ticket-to-work for 2 staff.

Microboard Conference Presented training to approximately 60 people with disabilities, family members, and provider staff members regarding community integration for people with developmental disabilities.

Morgan Lewis & Bockius EFE Staff conducted CLE training to 10 attorneys.

National ADA Symposium Presented training on Title I Case Law: Reasonable Accommodation & Emerging Issues to approximately 60 attendees —advocates, attorneys, employers and government workers.

National ADA Symposium Presented training on Title I Case Law: Definition of a Disability to approximately 60 attendees — people with disabilities, advocates, attorneys, employers and government workers.

National ADA Symposium Presented training on accessible High Stakes Testing to approximately 40 attendees — people with disabilities, advocates, attorneys, employers and government workers.

National ADA Symposium Presented training on accessible High Stakes Testing to approximately 40 attendees — people with disabilities, advocates, attorneys, employers and government workers.

Neal Gerber Eisenberg EFE staff provided training to 12 attorneys.

Neal Gerber Eisenberg EFE staff taped special education helpline training to show staff and 3 interns were trained.

Near South Family Health Center Training EFE staff provided training to 20 people.

Northwestern Law School EFE staff provided training, as a panelist, regarding how to get a job as a public interest attorney to 6-8 law students.

Northwestern School of Law EFE staff provided training on the ADA and employment rights to 15 staff .

Northwestern School of Law EFE staff provided training to 25 students regarding the field of Education Law. NSSEO Parent Education EFE staff provided training on transition to 8 parents.

PACT Pre-Admission Screening Agency Presented training to approximately 70 provider staff members regarding community integration for people with developmental disabilities.

PAIMI Council Presented at the pre-PAC meeting legal training on invisible disabilities and the ADA to 9 members of the PAIMI Council

PAIMI Council Presented at the pre-PAC meeting legal training on illegal pre-employment disability questions to 10 PAIMI Council members.

PAIMI Council EFE staff presented training on voting rights and voting issues faced by people with mental illness to 8 mental health consumers and advocates.

PILS of U of C EFE staff provided training regarding work in pro bono to 90 students.

Prevent School Violence Illinois Coalition EFE staff provided training on bullying to approximately 20 people.

PSVI EFE staff provided training regarding bullying of special education students to 20 staff.

Public Defenders EFE staff provided training in special education law to approximately 25 public defenders.

Roosevelt University EFE staff provided training to 2 staff on employment rights, ADA and returning to work.

SASI EFE staff provided training for 4 staff on returning to work, social security and employment rights.

Sangamon County Transition Planning Committee EFE Staff provided training on employment rights and transitioning from high school for 24 teachers.

SER of Central States Jobs for Progress EFE Staff provided training on returning to work and social security for 9 staff.

Specialized Assistance Services EFE staff provided training on Ticket-to-Work for 15 staff.

Thresholds EFE staff provided a Ticket-to-Work training for 6 staff.

Thresholds EFE staff provided returning to work training for 3 staff.

U Can EFE staff provided a return to work and social security training for 5 staff.

University of Chicago Law School Presented training to approximately 60 law students on the plight of people with disabilities, especially those with mental illness, who are incarcerated in Illinois’ prison system.

University of Chicago Law School Presented training to approximately 60 law students on community integration for people with mental illness.

University of Illinois in Chicago EFE staff provided training on the ADA and employment rights for 7 staff.

University of Illinois in Chicago, Division of Specialized Care for Children EFE staff presented an overview of Special Education, to 20 case managers and staff.

University of Illinois in Chicago, Division of Specialized Care for Children EFE staff presented an overview of Special Education, to 25 case managers and staff.

Will-Grundy Transition Conference EFE staff provided training on transition in special education to 19 people.

Zurich North America EFE staff provided helpline training to 6-8 attorneys and staff.

In addition to these formal trainings, EFE staff attended numerous fairs, conference and exhibitions for people with disabilities in which information about the organization was distributed and individual questions about the legal rights of people with disabilities were addressed. These outreach opportunities include: Access Chicago Event: Disability Fair Total number of people receiving EFE materials: 550

ADA Celebration Event: Springfield outreach Total number of people receiving EFE materials: 50

A.E.R.O. Special Ed Cooperative Event: Transition fair Total number of people receiving EFE materials: 82

Alexian Brothers Event: Disability and Bullying Outreach Total Number of people receiving EFE materials: 120

ARC Conference Event: Conference Total number of people receiving EFE materials: 300

Asian Pacific Legal Advocacy Network Event: Resource Fair/Meeting Total number of participants: 25

Autism Awareness Day Dunlap Event: Disability Awareness Total number of people receiving EFE materials: 78

Autism Society Event: Spring Fling for Autism Awareness Total number of people receiving EFE materials: 60

CAMBIANDO VIDAS Event: Training on disability rights Total number of participants: 35

CAMBIANDO VIDAS Event: Training on disability rights Total number of participants: 26

Chicago Bar Foundation Event: Fundraiser Total number of participants: 50

Champaign Disability Expo Event: Expo Total number of participants: 150

Chicago High School of Agricultural Sciences Event: School-wide expo Total number of people receiving EFE materials: 644

Chicago Association of Students Transitioning Event: Self Employment Fair Total number of people receiving EFE materials: 67

Chicagoland Autism Connection Event: Spring Fling Total number of participants: 60

CRSS Chicago Event: Outreach Total number of participants : 104

Daley College Event: Disability Awareness fair Total number of participants: 32

Deaf Awareness Day Event: Thompson Center Expo Total number of participants: 165

Disability Pride Parade Event: Chicago Expo Total number of participants: 500

Elim Christian School Event: Transition fair Total number of participants: 55

Equip for Equality Event: Open house Total number of participants: 10

Habilitative Systems Event: Outreach Total number of participants: 54

Harvard Law School Event: Public Interest Panel Total number of participants: 40

Harvard Law School Event: SPIN Career Forum Total Number of participants: 100

Henry Booth Event: Advisory Committee Meeting Total number of participants: 40

Home-Based Support Services Vendor Event: Mini Conference Total number of participants: 115

Illinois Family Leaders Collaboration 6th Annual Conference Event: Annual conference Total number of participants: 77

Illinois Law Careers in Public Service Evening Event: Career conference Total number of participants: 150

Kankakee Transition Fair Event: Exhibits and workshops Total number of participants: 33

Kendall County Special Education Cooperative Event: Transition Fair Total number of participants: 65

Kennedy King College Event: Disability Awareness Fair Total number of participants: 168

Lake County Center for Independent Living Event: Watch party for presidential candidate forum on disability issues Total number to participants: 10

Lawndale Christian Development Center Event: Meeting Total number to participants: 25

Lawndale Christian Health Center Event: Meeting Total number to participants: 35

Lindbloom Chicago Public School Event: Summer Session Total number of participants: 53

Linkages at JCCC Event: Community vendors and workshop Total number of participants: 80

Lincoln Land Community College Taylorville Event: Transition Expo Total number of participants: 135

Loyola University Event: Disability Awareness Fair Total number of participants: 75

Loyola Law School Event: Special education and charter school conference Total number of participants: 150

Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities Event: College Summit Total number of participants: 310

Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities Event: Youth Summit Total number of participants: 325

McHenry County Coordinating Council Event: Monthly meeting of regional emergency planners and first responders Total number of participants : 30

Northside Learning Center Event: Report Card Pick-up Total number of participants: 105

Northwestern Event: Public Interest Career Panel Total number of participants: 15

Olive Harvey College Event: Disabilities Awareness Day Total number of participants: 55

Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities Event: College Summit Total number of participants: 310

Parent Institute Day Event: Conference for Families South Suburbs Total number of participants: 6

PILI Event: Public Interest Career Forum Total number of participants: 125

PILI Event: Fall meeting forum Total number of participants: 60

Prairie State College Event: Transition Fair Total number of participants: 85

Ray Graham High School Transition Fair Event: Transition fair Total number of participants: 57

Recovery Conference Event: IL Region 5 Conference Total number of participants: 219

Sangamon County Event: Transition Fair Total number of participants: 172

Spoon River Valley Peoria Event: Festival Total number of participants: 37

Statewide Transition Conference Event: Annual Transition fair Total number of participants: 400

Thresholds Event: Outreach Total number of participants: 54

Tri-County Area Disability Activists Event: Fair Total number of participants: 87

U Can Event: Outeach Total number of participants: 85

Westside Providers Event: Network meeting Total number of participants: 30

Will-Grundy Transition Conference Event: Transition fair Total number of participants: 115

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff29
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles229
3. PSAs/videos aired2
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website50,409
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated99
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

In FFY 2012 EFE issued seven (7) press releases and held one (1) press conference.

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)145
2. Additional individuals served during the year432
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)577
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)35

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 144

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility9
2. Employment159
3. Program access24
4. Housing24
5. Government benefits/services33
6. Transportation14
7. Education174
8. Assistive technology4
9. Voting0
10. Health care32
11. Insurance1
12. Non-government services9
13. Privacy rights6
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse30
16. Neglect25
17. Other17

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor83
2. Other representation found7
3. Individual withdrew complaint17
4. Appeals unsuccessful1
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.1
6. PAIR withdrew from case42
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources194
8. Individual case lacks legal merit25
9. Other7

Please explain

1=Prohibited; 6=Client’s Request Provided, but issue NOT resolved in client’s favor; 128=Client’s Request Provided, but the disposition is Unknown; 135=Total

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-advocacy239
2. Short-term assistance195
3. Investigation/monitoring33
4. Negotiation36
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution1
6. Administrative hearings5
7. Litigation (including class actions)2
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 - 48
2. 5 - 22187
3. 23 - 59292
4. 60 - 6442
5. 65 and over48

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females265
2. Males312

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race70
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native6
3. Asian12
4. Black or African American191
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White306
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown15

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent292
2. Parental or other family home199
3. Community residential home6
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home36
6. Public institutional living arrangement1
7. Private institutional living arrangement4
8. Jail/prison/detention center29
9. Homeless3
10. Other living arrangements6
11. Living arrangements not known1

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

1. Blind/visual impairment30
2. Deaf/hard of hearing55
3. Deaf-blind3
4. Orthopedic impairment115
5. Mental illness4
6. Substance abuse2
7. Mental retardation3
8. Learning disability132
9. Neurological impairment90
10. Respiratory impairment16
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment49
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment21
13. Speech impairment6
14. AIDS/HIV6
15. Traumatic brain injury2
16. Other disability43

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities3

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes21,412

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.

Restaurant Adopts New Service Animal Policy EFE learned that a Chicago area restaurant refused to allow a woman with a visual impairment to enter with her service animal. EFE filed a complaint with the Illinois Attorney General’s Disability Rights Bureau. Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement — terms include: adoption of a progressive service animal policy, staff training, and the use of stickers at the restaurant to indicate that service animals are now welcome in the restaurant.

Retail Store Adopts New Service Animal Policy EFE assisted a man who is blind regarding the denial of access to a retail store because he uses a service animal. EFE filed a Complaint with the Chicago Commission on Human Relations on his behalf. Following the filing of the Complaint, the parties reached a favorable settlement that provided: monetary payment, development of a service animal policy, development of training materials for staff, and an in-person apology to the client.

Disability Rights Consortium Focuses on Systemic Legal Issues Impacting People with Disabilities Since 1997, EFE has chaired and hosted the Disability Rights Consortium, a group of disability advocacy groups that meets on a monthly basis to share information and work on issues of common concern. In FFY 2012, EFE coordinated speakers on a number of critical topics including: Seniors with Disabilities, Powers of Attorney, Maximizing Employment Opportunities for People with Disabilities on Social Security, Employment First, Class Action Updates, Managed Care, Special Needs Trusts and Voting. Additionally, the Commissioner for the City of Chicago Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities and the Chief of the Disability Rights Bureau for the Illinois Attorney General made presentations at Consortium meetings in FFY 2012.

Secretary of State Makes Bathrooms Accessible EFE represented an employee with the Secretary of State who uses a wheelchair. Although initially the client could access the bathroom because he had some ability to walk short distances, this was no longer the case after he fell and broke his hip. After the client’s self-advocacy was unsuccessful, EFE contacted the Secretary of State’s office. In response to EFE’s demand letter, the State agreed to make both the men’s and women’s restrooms accessible. Because the restrooms were not only used by employees, but the general public, these changes have a positive systemic impact on all people with disabilities who are in the office.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts461,875
2. Number of individuals named in class actions16

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. Colbert v. Maram In FFY 2007, EFE and its co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit against state officials for failing to provide community services for people living in nursing homes in Cook County Illinois, who are people with physical disabilities and/or people with mental illness. Suit was brought under the ADA and pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, which stated that unjustified institutionalization is discrimination under the ADA. It is estimated that 21,000 people live in nursing homes in Cook County. Up to 60% of non-elderly nursing home residents, all of whom are people with disabilities, in Cook County, and nearly one-third of elderly residents, have expressed a preference to receive long-term care services in their own homes, apartments, and communities instead of a nursing facility. In FFY 2008, the case was certified as a class action and in FFY 2009, the parties engaged in extensive discovery. In FFY 2011, the parties reached an agreement and a proposed Consent Decree received preliminary approval. In FFY 2012, a Fairness Hearing was held and the Consent Decree was given final approval which will ultimately result in approximately 20,000 people with disabilities in nursing homes the opportunity to move into the community. Subsequently, the court appointed an Independent Monitor and for the remainder of the fiscal year the parties worked on drafting an Implementation Plan scheduled to be completed and filed with the court in early FFY 2012. (Note: Due to limited PAIR funding, this matter is now being funded by PAIMI.)

2. Holmes v. Godinez Over the years, EFE has received numerous complaints from deaf inmates living in prisons administered by the Illinois Department of Corrections. Complaints include insufficient access to ASL interpreters and TTYs. Efforts to address these issues through individual advocacy have not resolved the broader problem. Accordingly, EFE, in conjunction with another public interest organization and a pro bono law firm, a class action suit was filed in FFY 2011 seeking a systemic solution to these issues. During FFY 2012, the parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations. However, the negotiations were not successful and so at the end of the fiscal year, the parties began engaging in discovery.

3. Melissa Jay Craig v. Columbia College Chicago EFE represents a woman who is hard of hearing who alleges that her employer Columbia College discriminated against her on the basis of her disability by failing to provide reasonable accommodations, denying her a promotion to an open tenure-track position, and terminating her employment due to her disability and need for accommodations. In FFY 2010, EFE filed suit in federal court and engaged in extensive discovery. Discovery closed in FFY 2011 and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment that has been fully briefed. In FFY 2012, the judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The client ultimately decided not to appeal the case.

4. Linda Kobler v. Illinois Department of Human Services Plaintiff has been employed as a Registered Nurse in Defendants’ mental health center for thirty-eight years. Plaintiff has made Defendants aware that she has asthma, which is triggered by strong or offensive perfumes and other fragrances. Plaintiff has asthmatic reactions to some of her colleagues’ scents, fragrances, lotions, and perfumes, forcing her to immediately leave her work area and use an inhaler when one of these colleagues approaches. Plaintiff has repeatedly requested from Defendants a restrictive fragrance policy as a reasonable accommodation. Without engaging in an interactive process and despite doctors’ recommendations for a restrictive fragrance policy, Defendants have repeatedly denied Plaintiff’s requests for a reasonable accommodation without providing any supporting medical evidence for their decisions. In addition to denying her requests for a reasonable accommodation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act when they retaliated against Plaintiff for requesting accommodations by placing her on administrative leave, subsequently attempting to place her on Defendants’ night shift, and finally lowering her performance evaluation in the category of “job knowledge” despite her 36 years of experience. EFE filed suit in federal court in FFY 2012 and at the end of the fiscal year, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was pending with the court.

5. Frederick Lange v. GCA Services Group, Inc., In FFY 2012, EFE filed an employment discrimination case in federal court on behalf of a custodial worker who is deaf to redress violations of his rights under the ADA. His employers discriminated against him by denying him reasonable accommodations, including failing to provide auxiliary aids and services; failing to provide effective communication in trainings and meetings with Plaintiff; failing to engage in an interactive process with Plaintiff; taking adverse employment actions against Plaintiff; and discharging him from his employment. The suit seeks reinstatement to his employment, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. At the end of the fiscal year, the parties were beginning the discovery process.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

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

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

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

PAIR Priority 1 1. Identify and describe the priority. Personal safety, basic health and fundamental liberty 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. People with disabilities have a right to be safe and be treated with respect. Unfortunately, children and adults with disabilities often are at risk for abuse or neglect as well as having basic rights denied them. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. EFE will respond to allegations of abuse and neglect and rights violations to ensure that people with disabilities are safe, receive quality care and their rights respected. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE will often collaborate with others who are charged with investigating abuse and neglect, such as the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Human Services, and the Illinois Department of Public Health. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 82 investigations were handled under this priority; none were class actions 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. An investigation was initiated following a request for assistance from a twenty year old deaf woman who wanted to leave an abusive home. The client’s mother, the abuser, had become her guardian when the client turned 18 simply because of her deafness and because she reads at a grade school level. The mother was emotionally abusive and was taking the client’s social security money. The client was not allowed to attend school or work outside the home and was isolated from her peers. The doctor who supported the need for guardianship never communicated with the client prior to recommending that the client’s mother become her guardian. EFE filed motions to be appointed independent counsel and to have the client’s rights restored. EFE was successful in its efforts. Today, the client is her own guardian; she has a job, a car, her own bank account and is her own payee. She has also established professional relationships with service providers who have expertise in meeting the needs of individuals who are deaf. An investigation was initiated based on a call from an individual residing at a nursing home who requested assistance with discharge from the nursing home and obtaining a prosthetic leg. The individual indicated he had repeatedly asked facility staff about the status of his prosthetic leg but had not received a satisfactory answer. The Abuse Investigation Unit attempted to speak with facility staff to determine the status of his request. When numerous attempts to speak with the facility social worker and facility administrators went unanswered, the Investigation Unit conducted an unannounced site visit to the nursing home to speak to staff directly. The Investigation Unit worked with the appropriate staff to ensure that an appointment was made for a fitting for the prosthetic for the individual the following week. Information was also provided to the individual regarding his rights related to discharge from a nursing home. Subsequent to the Investigation Unit’s site visit, the individual received a prosthetic leg.

PAIR Priority 2 1. Identify and describe the priority. Challenges to P&A Access Authority 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. For Protection and Advocacy organizations to be effective and to adequately fulfill its charge from Congress, the organizations need to be given physical access to facilities that serve people with disabilities, access to the individuals served and the staff and also be given access to requisite documents. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. EFE must respond quickly and decisively whenever its access is compromised, including filing litigation if the dispute cannot be resolved otherwise. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE is part of a nationwide network of Protection and Advocacy agencies and frequently information and strategies are shared among the network on P&A access issues. TASC/NAPAS also collaborates with the P&A network on P&A access issues. Additionally, at times professional associations or governmental agencies may be asked if they want to intervene prior to access litigation being filed. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. There were no cases handled under this priority during FFY 2012 related to individuals eligible for services under this program. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Not applicable.

PAIR Priority 3 1. Identify and describe the priority. Monitoring of State/Federal Investigatory Systems and Implementation of Recommendations to Enhance the Safety of Children and Adults with Disabilities. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority People with disabilities have a right to be safe and be treated with respect. Unfortunately, children and adults with disabilities often are at risk for abuse or neglect as well as having basic rights denied them. Current state and federal investigatory systems do not provide coverage for all settings and populations. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. AIU has presented its report entitled "Ensuring the Safety of Children and Adults with Disabilities: Filling the Gaps in Illinois; System that Investigates Allegations of Abuse and Neglect" to the affected state agencies and has called upon them to work with EFE in pursuing the strategies outlined in the report. The report has been widely distributed and is available on EFE’s website. AIU has also engaged in efforts to educate policy makers on the problems uncovered through its activities so that appropriate regulatory changes can be considered. A legislative resolution directed the creation of a task force to develop strategies to address the problems identified by the report. EFE served on that task force and participated in the development of a report to the legislature to address the gaps identified by EFE. A task force report with recommendations addressing gaps and problems identified by AIU was submitted to the Illinois legislature in January 2011. Media exposure of additional serious problems within Illinois’ investigatory system led to a renewed focus by the state agencies, members of the legislature and the Governor’s office on the recommendations in EFE’s report and the task force recommendations. EFE continues to work with the Governor’s office, affected state agencies and individuals to pursue opportunities to facilitate implementation of the recommendations. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE will often collaborate with others who are charged with investigating abuse and neglect, such as the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Department of Human Services Office of Inspector General. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. Not applicable. 6.Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Not applicable.

PAIR Priority 4 1. Identify and describe the priority. Monitor implementation of Illinois’ Medicaid Managed Care Plan 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Illinois is currently implementing a Medicaid Managed Care Pilot program in the northern part of the state. Significant concerns have been raised by the disability community regarding the impact that this plan will have on the quality and availability of needed services. Illinois’ plan now includes acute care, and will eventually include residential services. The state is also issuing proposals for integrating care for duals and for moving all long-term services and supports to managed care. Significant concerns related to choice of providers as well as access to providers and hospitals have been raised. Potential for adverse consequence for people with disabilities arising from the implementation must be addressed. 3. Identify and describe any indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.. EFE, in collaboration with other organizations and people with disabilities, has worked with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the single state Medicaid agency, to raise concerns associated with the implementation of the Medicaid Managed Care Plan, including the adverse consequences associated with lack of sufficiency of the current provider network offered by the Managed Care Plans. EFE communicates these concerns at periodic stakeholder meetings held by the state, as well as directly to the Managed Care Plans as part of various advocacy meetings which the Managed Care Plans attends. In addition, EFE serves as part of the Evaluation Advisory Committee and communicates these concerns at that time as well. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE is part of a coalition of disability advocates formed to address significant issues facing people with disabilities in Illinois, including issues related to the Medicaid managed care pilot program. The Community for All Coalition has participated in stakeholder meetings with the managed care organizations and has met separately with the Director of the State Medicaid agency to report concerns and develop solutions. These efforts will continue, especially as the state moves its efforts statewide. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. Not applicable. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Not applicable.

PAIR Priority 5 1. Identify and describe the priority. Right to receive services in the most integrated, least restrictive setting 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. When the ADA was passed, Congress found that people with disabilities have been historically isolated and segregated from the general population, and that this segregation was inherently discriminatory and a social ill that needed to be addressed by the ADA. However, because Illinois still provides a majority of its disability funding to institutional settings, significant barriers still exist with respect to community living for people with disabilities. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Securing placements in the most integrated setting with the necessary support services. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE collaborated on community integration cases with the different Centers for Independent Living participating in the Community Reintegration Project funded by the Illinois Division of Rehabilitation Services 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 12; none were class actions. (EFE is currently litigating a community integration class action described in the Litigation Section IV.B. above, and although that case was originally funded by PAIR, it is now being funded by PAIMI because of limited PAIR resources.) 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. EFE assisted a woman with Huntington’s Disease who following a hospitalization was placed in a nursing home. She wanted to move into the community but was told she would have to stay in the nursing home for a minimum of 90 days. EFE did not believe this requirement was valid under the law and after contacting various people in the state, as well as the Center for Independent Living, the client was able to move back home with home and community based services provided through a personal assistant.

PAIR Priority 6 1. Identify and describe the priority. Implementation of Illinois of U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision for people living in traditional nursing homes 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. When the ADA was passed, Congress found that people with disabilities have been historically isolated and segregated from the general population, and that this segregation was inherently discriminatory and a social ill that needed to be addressed by the ADA. However, because Illinois still provides a majority of its disability funding to institutional settings, significant barriers still exist with respect to community living for people with disabilities. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Securing placements in the most integrated setting with the necessary support services. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE is co-counseling this case with Access Living (the Center for Independent Living in Chicago), the ACLU of Illinois, attorney Steve Gold and the law firm of SNR Denton. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 1; this case is a class action. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. In FFY 2007, EFE and its co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit against state officials for failing to provide community services for people living in nursing homes in Cook County Illinois, who are people with physical disabilities and/or people with mental illness. Suit was brought under the ADA and pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, which stated that unjustified institutionalization is discrimination under the ADA. It is estimated that 31,000 people live in nursing homes in Cook County. Up to 60% of non-elderly nursing home residents, all of whom are people with disabilities, in Cook County, and nearly one-third of elderly residents, have expressed a preference to receive long-term care services in their own homes, apartments, and communities instead of a nursing facility. In FFY 2008, the case was certified as a class action and in FFY 2009, the parties engaged in extensive discovery. In FFY 2011, the parties reached an agreement and a proposed Consent Decree received preliminary approval at the end of the fiscal year. In FFY 2012, a Fairness Hearing was held and the Consent Decree was given final approval which will ultimately result in approximately 20,000 people with disabilities in nursing homes the opportunity to move into the community. Subsequently, the court appointed an Independent Monitor and for the remainder of the fiscal year the parties worked on drafting an Implementation Plan scheduled to be completed and filed with the court in early FFY 2013. For people living in nursing homes outside of Cook County, EFE will continue to accept individual community integration cases. (See Priority 2 above) Note: Because of limited PAIR funds, during FFY 2009 the funding for the case was changed from PAIR to PAIMI.

PAIR Priority 7 1. Identify and describe the priority. Employment Discrimination 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. The unemployment rate of people with disabilities is extremely high. Without equal access to employment, many people with disabilities are unable to support themselves or live independently. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Removing barriers to obtaining and maintaining employment, including assisting clients with obtaining reasonable accommodations in the workplace. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. Yes, Equip for Equality collaborates with other groups focusing on employment issues including the National Employment Lawyers Association and the Great Lakes ADA Center sharing information about ADA employment developments and making appropriate referrals. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 180; none were class actions 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. EFE assisted a person with a neurological disorder who wears a leg brace secure a reasonable accommodation at his job. Because of his disability he had difficulty moving to different areas of the factory. With EFE’s assistance, the client wrote a letter to his employer advising of his disability, documenting his need for an accommodation and setting forth the specific accommodations he needed — an accessible parking place near the front door and a golf cart to travel to different parts of the factory for work related tasks and to facilitate his travel during lunch and other breaks. After receiving the letter, the employer agreed to provide both of the requested accommodations. Client reported that as a result, things are going well for him at work.

PAIR Priority 8 1. Identify and describe the priority. Discrimination in Transportation 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Public and private transportation services are important for many people with disabilities as a means of access to employment, food, health care, social and cultural opportunities, and government services. Unfortunately, in Illinois, many aspects of the public transportation system and many private transportation services are inaccessible to people with physical or sensory disabilities. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Removal of barriers to public and private transportation: physical, communication and attitudinal. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. Equip for Equality is currently on the ADA Advisory Committees for the Regional Transit Authority, the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra Rail and Pace (Suburban Cook County bus provider and paratransit provider for all of Cook County.) Also, previously, Equip for Equality worked in collaboration with Centers for Independent Living, the American Council for the Blind, as well as grass roots groups Suburban Access Squad and Chicago ADAPT, in identifying barriers to accessible transportation before filing systemic litigation against the Chicago Transit Authoirty. Equip for Equality co-counseled its systemic transit litigation with Access Living, the Chicago Center for Independent Living and private attorneys. Since the lawsuit was settled, we have collaborated and consulted with the following groups on the implementation of the settlement and other transit issues: Progress Center for Independent Living, Council for Disability Rights, Anixter Center, The Chicago Lighthouse for People who are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago ADAPT, IMPRUVE Chicago Transit Coalition, AIDS Legal Council of Chicago, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Metro Seniors In Action, National Multiple Sclerosis Society - Greater Illinois Chapter, City of Chicago Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, City of Chicago Department of Consumer Services, Blue Line Transit Task Force, Break the Gridlock, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Hyde Park Transit Task Force, Jane Addams Senior Caucus, Lawndale Neighborhood Organization, Pilsen Alliance, and Rogers Park Community Action Network. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 13; none were class actions 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. EFE assisted person who uses a wheelchair, is HIV-positive, and experienced a stroke last year. He relies on a powerchair and Paratransit service to get around. Client was informed that, after his most recent assessment, his Paratransit services would be restricted to only November 15 - March 1, as well as when ice is on the ground. EFE assisted the client on appealing these restrictions to Paratransit. EFE encouraged the client to keep a journal as he traveled over the next few weeks in order to document all issues arising when he took public transportation. EFE also encouraged the client to get doctors’ notes to document any complications that could arise from his exposure to the elements. EFE then drafted a letter setting forth all the arguments that could be made at the appeals hearing. The client used EFE’s guidance materials and letter to assist him in making his arguments at the appeal, which resulted in the client getting full restoration of his paratransit eligibility.

PAIR Priority 9 1. Identify and describe the priority. Discrimination in public accommodations 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Private businesses provide many essential services to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, many businesses fail to ensure that their facilities are accessible which denies people with disabilities equal access to the services. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Removal of barriers to accessibility and providing reasonable modifications 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. N/A 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 41; none were class actions 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. EFE assisted a man who is blind regarding the denial of access to a retail store because he uses a service animal. EFE filed a Complaint with the Chicago Commission on Human Relations on his behalf. A favorable settlement was reached providing the client with monetary recovery, development of a service animal policy, development of training materials for staff and an in-person apology.

PAIR Priority 10 1. Identify and describe the priority. Discrimination in government services and programs 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Some of the most important services to people with disabilities are provided by governmental entities. Accordingly, ensuring program access to these services is crucial. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Removal of physical and attitudinal barriers along with the implementation of reasonable modifications to ensure program access. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. N/A 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 4; 1 is a class action. (See priority 22 below) 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. The client was shot in the leg and chest, and after rehabilitation, needed a Motomed Movement Therapy Trainer (similar to an exercise bike, but with features designed for people with disabilities) to strengthen his legs in order to be able to walk again. EFE submitted a request for prior approval to Medicaid. The State denied the claim stating that the equipment was not covered. EFE then filed an appeal, and the State again denied the claim stating that client had to apply for Medicare coverage before he could seek payment from Medicaid. EFE did extensive research into the responsibilities and timelines for the State to act, and decided to pursue a complaint for mandamus and declaratory relief. EFE discovered an Illinois administrative rule that says that Medicaid must pay the maximum Medicaid rate for the equipment in question if they do not issue a timely decision on the request for prior approval. They did not issue a timely decision in our case. EFE sent a demand letter to the State with the draft complaint, and counsel for the State contacted us soon thereafter. Thereafter, EFE successfully negotiated for the State to pay for the Motomed on client’s behalf. The client accepted delivery of the equipment in December 2011.

PAIR Priority 11 1. Identify and describe the priority. Discrimination in housing 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. For many people with disabilities, access to accessible and affordable housing is a critical component to living independently. Historically, many public housing authorities and private landlords have failed to make reasonable housing accommodations and modifications for people with disabilities. This priority is particularly important in downstate Illinois where there are few legal advocacy services to address housing discrimination for people with disabilities. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Removing physical and attitudinal barriers, along with the implementation of reasonable modifications to ensure equal access to housing. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. N/A 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 17; none were class actions 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. EFE assisted a client muscular dystrophy who uses a wheelchair. Client lives in a single family home that she rents from public housing and needs accommodations to address accessibility issues — specifically grab bars and an accessible shower. After client’s unsuccessful efforts, EFE wrote a demand letter to the State Division of Rehabilitation Services that resulted in the client getting the accommodations she was seeking.

PAIR Priority 12 1. Identify and describe the priority. Access to facilities that sell lottery tickets 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Many people with disabilities, especially those living in poorer areas, depend upon local convenience stores for basic necessities — such as food and medicine. Most of these facilities also sell lottery tickets. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Implementation by the State of Illinois of regulations that would ensure that people with disabilities have access to the State of Illinois Lottery, and thereby access to other items sold in these facilities. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE had been collaborating with the State to reach a mutually agreeable solution to this problem. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 1 case — but it will assist thousands of people with disabilities across the state who seek access to the 8,000+ facilities that sell lottery tickets. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. In prior fiscal years, discussions with representatives of the Illinois Lottery Commission led to an informal agreement that the state would voluntarily adopt regulations to ensure that the state lottery complies with requirements of the ADA. If successful, this initiative will ensure the accessibility of the 8,000+ convenience stores and local businesses that sell lottery tickets. Due to changes in personnel at the Illinois Lottery Commission, a reorganization of the Commission following the election of a new Governor, and the uncertainty of enforcing this agreement in light of recent ADA immunity decisions, this initiative did not progressed as quickly as anticipated. Subsequently, EFE re-opened dialogue with the general counsel at the Illinois Lottery Commission, who expressed a desire to reach a mutual agreement on program access to the Illinois Lottery. However, when EFE sought to move forward with implementing the agreement, the State was unresponsive despite repeated contacts. EFE sent a final demand letter advising the State that it intended to litigate the case if it did not respond by a certain date. The State did not respond and thus, EFE filed a complaint with the Illinois Attorney General’s office. After the Attorney General’s inquiry, the Lottery Commission drafted proposed regulations that will be incorporated accessibility requirements into the lottery licensing process. EFE reviewed and provided comments to the State about the proposed regulations. In FFY 2012, the Lottery Commission began a pilot project in the fall for a select number renewing facilities that sell lottery ticket to conduct an accessibility self-evaluation. The Attorney General reported that the self-evaluations indicated no accessibility problems at all, which raised concerns about the viability of the self-evaluation process. In FFY 2013, EFE will work with the Illinois Attorney General to ensure that a meaningful process be put in place for lottery application renewals.

PAIR Priority 13 1. Identify and describe the priority. Right to self-determination, including guardianship defense and restoration of rights 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Many adults with disabilities have a guardian even though they may be capable of making decisions for themselves. Since a guardianship can take away from a person even the most basic decisions, it is critical for people with disabilities to understand how to challenge an unwarranted restriction of their personal freedom. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Either defeating an inappropriate guardianship petition or eliminating or reducing an existing guardianship 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. Not applicable. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 18; none were class actions 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. EFE assisted a woman with orthopedic disabilities who was concerned that her power of attorney was financially exploiting her. EFE assisted the client with terminating the power of attorney so that she now had control over her own finances. EFE also assisted her with reporting the alleged financial exploitation to the proper authorities.

PAIR Priority 14 1. Identify and describe the priority. Involving People with Disabilities in the Public Policy Process 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. For many years, people with disabilities and disability advocacy groups have been frustrated by the lack of response by policy makers to their public policy initiatives. To a great extent, this has resulted from insufficient numbers of people with disabilities who are interested in and have the confidence to self-advocate at a systemic level. People with disabilities also identified the lack of resources to identify current issues, research the impact of policy proposals, and finance systemic self-advocacy efforts as barriers to their involvement in public policy making. While previously EFE employed a Disability Community Organizer to provide training and technical assistance in public policy advocacy to people with disabilities, disability groups and disability advocates, in FFY 2008 a fiscal crisis resulted in the elimination of that position. EFE lacks the resources to resume that position. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. EFE will directly involve more people with disabilities in the public policy making process by providing them with self-advocacy training and technical assistance on an ad hoc basis as requested and disseminating, through the Internet, up to date legislative and other policy-related information. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, please describe this collaboration. No. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. There were no cases because this was not a case priority and fiscal limitations prevented EFE from providing technical assistance for any specific projects in FFY 2012. However, individuals with disabilities other than mental illness or developmental disabilities received technical assistance on public policy self-advocacy when requested. EFE did receive a request for training on public policy advocacy to be held in September 2012, but the advocacy group requesting the training changed the date to October 2012 (which was held and will be reported upon in FFY 13). In addition, during the Illinois legislative session, EFE provided weekly updates on pending disability-related legislation (including bill numbers, summaries, and sponsors, committee assignments, and hearing details) and public policy initiatives via the Internet. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. No cases were handled under this priority and fiscal limitations prevented EFE from providing technical assistance for any specific projects in FFY 2012.

PAIR Priority 15 1. Identify and describe the priority. Training Institute 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. In a previous strategic planning session, the disability community identified that people with disabilities needed access to quality self-advocacy education. Without legal rights information and self-advocacy skills, people with disabilities are unable to effectively achieve their life goals, such as employment and independent living. Accordingly, EFE established the Training Institute for Disability Rights to provide self-advocacy training seminars to people with disabilities and their family members across the State of Illinois on a variety of topics including the ADA, employment discrimination, voting, transportation, guardianship, advance directives and special education 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. After each self-advocacy training, EFE distributed seminar evaluations for the participants and the co-sponsoring agency to determine the effectiveness of the training. In the last year, 97.5% of the surveys collected indicated that the training was "good" or "excellent" and 95.75% of participants reported that they had a better understanding of their legal rights following the training. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. The model of the Training Institute is to conduct trainings in the community and we co-sponsor self-advocacy trainings with other disability advocacy groups, community providers, and state and local government entities. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. This priority does not involve cases, but EFE conducted 82 self-advocacy training seminars in FFY 2012 for 2,190 people with disabilities and their family members. Additionally, EFE provided 59 trainings to 1,607 people that included others (such as staff, employers, etc.) EFE also conducted 45 webcasts of its trainings on Illinois Legal Aid Online, and there were 73,452 "hits" on those webcasts in FFY 2012. (For more specific information about EFE’s training activities, see Section I. B. above.) 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. As noted above, this priority does not involve cases. However, self-advocacy training seminars were co-sponsored with the following organizations serving PAIR-eligible individuals: Access Living, EEOC, Chacot-Marie-Tooth Support Group, CORE Center, Daley College, Deaf Awareness Day, DRS, HORP, ISBA Disability Law Committee, Jewish Vocational Services Living with Lupus Support Group, Loyola University, Lupus Support at Trinity, Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities College Summit, National ADA Symposium, Roosevelt University, Statewide Transition Conference, Thresholds, UCP of Joliet.

PAIR Priority 16 1. Identify and describe the priority. Develop Self-Advocacy Materials on Discrimination issues 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Many people with disabilities do not know their legal rights and thus, they are unable to identify and address discrimination issues that may arise. As part of its annual priority setting process, EFE consistently receives input that the disability community needs more legal rights self-advocacy information and that EFE should take the lead on developing these materials. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. The number of EFE’s self-advocacy materials on discrimination disseminated. This number would be calculated by combining the number distributed by EFE staff and the number of "hits" on these fact sheets on EFE’s website. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE collaborates with many organizations and entities on helping get these self-advocacy materials to people with disabilities and their family members. This is done primarily with co-sponsors of the seminars provided by EFE’s Training Institute. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. Not applicable. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Not applicable as this priority is not case related. However, fact sheets have been developed and/or updated on the following discrimination-related topics: ADA Coverage Beyond Actual Disabilities: Regarded As, Record Of and Associational Disability, Hot Topics in ADA Title III Litigation, Impact of the Supreme Court’s ADA Decisions, Invisible Disabilities and the ADA, Service Animals and the ADA, Postsecondary Education and Licensing under the ADA, Drugs, Alcohol and Conduct Rules under the ADA, Advising People with Disabilities about the Disabilities Inquiry and Medical Examinations Provisions of the ADA; Employee Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation, Reassignment as a Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment, Retaliation and Discipline: Three Emerging ADA Issues, Reasonable Accommodations for People with Psychiatric Disabilities, Direct Threat Under the ADA, Barriers and Requirements in ADA Litigation, and ADA Amendments Act Update. See: www.equipforequality.org/resourcecenter/advocacybytopic.php

PAIR Priority 17 1. Identify and describe the priority. Special education cases where the primary issue is inclusion in the neighborhood school with needed services, a less restrictive setting, transition from high school, suspension or expulsion, or inappropriate use of restraint or seclusion, including locked time out, and appropriate transition. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Access to educational services is a critical component for independent living and self-determination. In addition, students should receive educational services in a safe environment. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Putting in place appropriate individual education programs that ensure that students receive services in the least restrictive environment with the necessary supports, including appropriate behavioral intervention plans. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. Not applicable. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 189; none were class actions. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. EFE represented a teenage student with a learning disability to secure him a safety transfer and appropriate special education services. EFE negotiated with the student’s District and attended two IEP meetings. The District agreed to provide the student with a safety transfer to his desired school placement. EFE attended a follow-up IEP meeting at the new school. The new school indicated that the student was doing exceptionally well and had become a model for his peers. The student is very happy with his placement and will be transitioning into more regular education classrooms due to his improvement in behavior.

PAIR Priority 18 1. Identify and describe the priority. Special Education Advocacy Clinic 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Many students with disabilities and their families need access to legal rights’ information and education, self-advocacy assistance and legal representation, but are unable to navigate the current special education advocacy system and/or do not have sufficient funds to retain a private attorney. In FFY 2007, EFE launched its Special Education Clinic to provide better access to special education services. Components of the Clinic include: a. a telephone Helpline to provide advice, self-advocacy assistance, information and referrals; b. an accessible website with special education resources; c. special education training seminars; d. written materials with legal rights information; and e. legal representation in selected individual cases through EFE staff and a pro bono network. In FY2012 the Clinic increased the number of law firm partnerships to 15 and continued to work with law student interns and in-house pro bono lawyers to increase the capacity for legal information and representation.. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Continue to grow Statewide Special Education providing comprehensive special education training, self-advocacy and legal advocacy services. Also, incorporate pro bono attorneys, law students and law firm partnerships into the Clinic to increase its level of assistance to clients, as well as the number of clients it serves. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE’s Special Education Clinic has pro bono partnerships with fifteen major law firms and corporate legal departments who are handling 100 new cases and helpline calls and 27 cases opened the previous year and still pending during the most recent year. EFE’s Special Education Clinic has trained over 70 law firm partner attorneys, in-house attorney volunteers and law student interns. The Clinic also utilizes in-house volunteer attorneys, not affiliated with our law firm partners, and law student volunteers. Through outreach efforts, the Clinic has recruited, trained and utilized four volunteer attorneys on the Helpline on a regular basis, as well as over 20 law students on a year-round basis. Many law student interns remain with the Clinic for more than one semester, thereby, providing even greater benefit to EFE and our clients. The Clinic continues to partner with Loyola Law School’s Child Law and Education Institute and has law students volunteer as part of their practicum each semester. The Clinic also utilized additional law student volunteers from other area law schools. Clinic staff are members of and regularly attend the following monthly meetings with other leaders in the special education community to discuss special education topics, areas of concern, and needed areas of involvement: Attorney General’s Committee on Special Education, Parent-Side Special Education Attorney’s Group, CBA Legal Aid Committee, and the Disability Rights Consortium of area public interest organizations. In addition to these meetings, EFE spearheaded a new group to meet on school discipline issues and includes the following organizations: Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, Civitas ChildLaw Clinic, The ACLU, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Cabrini Green, and the Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law. Clinic staff have had individual meetings or ongoing collaboration with the above organizations as well as with Health and Disability Advocates, Cook County Probation, and the Health Justice Project at Loyola School of Law to discuss our programs and collaboration efforts. The Latino Project also has ongoing collaborations and satellite offices at the University of Illinois Family Clinic, El Valor, Erie Health Center, Beth Lacey Center in Cicero, the Fantus Health Center at the John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, and Rush University Hospital. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 189; none were class actions. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Our client is a five-year old boy in kindergarten with cerebral palsy and a vision impairment. Believing that their son would benefit from a single level home where he would have access to parks and open spaces, our client’s parents moved from Chicago to a nearby suburb. When they enrolled their son in his new school over the summer, the school district placed him in a self-contained kindergarten class, rather than the general education kindergarten class required by his IEP. The school staff told his parents that his placement in the self-contained program was a "no-brainer" because of his physical disabilities, even though he was achieving on par with other kindergarten students and had always attended school in an inclusion setting. Unlike in his previous school in Chicago where he had classmates and friends with many diverse abilities, our client had little to no interaction with students without disabilities in his new suburban school. EFE represented this young client at an IEP meeting to obtain placement for him in a general education kindergarten with necessary related services and support. His parents reported that before EFE intervened, the school district would not listen to anything they said and treated them like their ideas did not matter. Now, they feel more like equal team members. Most importantly, our client is making progress on his goals and has become a full member of his school community.

The parent of a student with an iron deficiency and other medical issues contacted EFE requesting assistance securing the student the accommodations she needs for high school, including homebound instruction and implementation of her 504 plan. EFE assisted the family in self-advocating for the student to receive the services listed in her 504 plan and to establish a plan for homebound for the student. EFE provided the parent with the homebound law so she could provide this to the school. The parent successfully advocated with the school to work out a plan for homebound and to ensure that the 504 plan will be appropriately implemented.

PAIR Priority 19 1. Identify and describe the priority. Public Education and Outreach to Under-Served Populations. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Equip for Equality continues to strive to be more visible to the general population so that eligible individuals know where to turn when they require advocacy resources and rights-related resources. This is also important because it builds public understanding and support for the rights of people with disabilities to live independent and productive lives in the community. Because Chicago and many other parts of Illinois have a very diverse population, culturally appropriate strategies need to be used to reach out to and serve the many ethnic communities with their own culture, language and approach/perspective on disability and the role of the government and the family. This makes the provision of PAIR services especially challenging along with the fact that the federal P&A System is responsible for providing advocacy services to the largest segment of the population of people with disabilities. Given resource limitations, PAIR has conducted targeted outreach to three populations that have their own unique culture and language — Latinos, the blind community and the deaf community. Given the dramatic advances in technology, there are new opportunities to reach out to and serve certain segments of the disability community who are able to use the internet to secure information and resources as well as to provide input into our planning and evaluation processes. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Equip for Equality has a database that enables us to monitor numbers of calls, how the callers heard about us and whether we take the case as well as tracking training participants, etc. This helps us assess which outreach strategies are working. In terms of the media, we subscribe to a media monitoring service that documents when we appear in the print and electronic media in major markets and the viewership of these publications/shows. This enables us to assess how successful our outreach via the media has been. Our achievement of other objectives under this general category of public education and outreach to underserved populations can be more readily assessed by monitoring our completion of tasks, such as translation of brochures, redesigning our website to improve accessibility and content, maintaining a presence in specific communities via satellite offices, etc. We review hits to our website by substantive website area which helps us assess interest and strategize about who we are not reaching. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE collaborates with many grass-roots community-based groups, statewide/local advocacy groups, local/state government and the business community, by chairing such groups as the Disability Rights Consortium and the Illinois ADA Project. EFE’s Latino Advocacy Project operates out of several satellite offices in Latino communities around the Chicagoland area, and through our Training Institute (set forth in more detail in Priority 21) EFE frequently co-sponsors self-advocacy training seminars and conducts outreach at community events, conferences, etc. Howard Rosenblum, a deaf attorney previously on EFE’s staff was instrumental in reaching out to the deaf community and increasing our service delivery to this underserved group. Howard left EFE in FY 2011 to become the Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of the Deaf. Fortunately, EFE was able to hire Rachel Arfa, who is also a deaf attorney, to continue EFE’s efforts to outreach to the deaf community. EFE also holds semi-annual meetings with the blind community to get their input on issues EFE should address for that community. EFE’s website is collaborative in the sense that it includes a Disability Resource Directory with links to 781 other sites, many of which also provide a link to our site. EFE also develops joint publications, including a Resource Guide for People with Disabilities with the Chicago Bar Association that was updated in FFY 2012. Finally, EFE regularly serves on task forces of local/state/federal government-executive and legislative-such as the Mayor’s Employment Task Force on Employment of People with Disabilities, and Equip for Equality is a founding member of the Executive Committee of the Chicagoland Business Leadership Network (CBLN), which is promoting the hiring of workers with disabilities and adoption of best practices. Equip for Equality provides ADA trainings to CBLN members. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. Not applicable (cases examples are elsewhere in this report; this priority was about outreach/visibility only) However, in addition to the outreach accomplished from its training seminars outlined in Priority 15 above, EFE staff also participated in 44 outreach events reaching approximately 6,099 people. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Since this priority is about visibility/outreach, there are no case summaries that demonstrate the impact of this priority in this section. However, examples of the impact include the fact that 57% of the approximately 2,190 individuals who attended a self- advocacy seminar through our Training Institute on Disability Rights in FFY 2012 were people of color. Hits to the EFE website totaled 73,452 another sign that a significant number of people are learning about EFE and the resources offered to the community.

In connection with EFE’s continuing role administering the Illinois ADA Project (for the Great Lakes ADA Center at UIC-Chicago), EFE is getting doing a significant number of ADA and other trainings and presentations for businesses, nonprofit organizations and governmental agencies which demonstrates our credibility in the public and private sectors. In FFY 2012, EFE conducted 59 of these trainings for 1,607 people. (See Section I. B. above.)

In FFY 2012, EFE continued to devote resources to support the Latino Advocacy Project. The Staff Attorney for the Latino Advocacy Project is bilingual/bicultural, and has developed close ties to the Latino community. EFE also has on contract another bilingual/bicultural attorney who provides self-advocacy trainings to Latinos with disabilities and their families. EFE has contracted with a professional translation company called Teleinterpreters for over-the-phone translations as well as material translation into Spanish to ensure that EFE’s materials and written and oral communications are accessible to the Latino community. The Latino Project’s outreach efforts have also been enhanced by the establishment of several satellite offices that are housed in Latino community agencies in the Chicago area. Currently, the Latino Project has satellite offices in the following locations: the University of Illinois at Chicago Family Clinic, El Valor, Erie Health Center, through a partnership with the Health Justice Project at Loyola University’s School of Law, The Beth Lacey Center for Family Support in Cicero, The Fantus Clinic at Stroger Hospital, and Rush University Hospital. In FFY 2012, EFE handled 312 total cases on behalf of Latinos with disabilities (244 were new cases and 68 were cases that were opened prior to FFY 2011). Using a bilingual/bicultural attorney, EFE also conducted numerous legal rights trainings in Spanish on a variety of topics.

PAIR Priority 20 1. Identify and describe the priority. Monitor Community First Choice Option 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Illinois remains one of the most highly institutionalized states in the nation. The Community First Choice Option of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows states to provide home and community-based services (HCBS) through Medicaid, enabling more people with disabilities to access long-term care services in the setting they choose. Unlike HCBS waivers, states choosing this option may not cap services, have waiting lists or impose geographic restrictions on services. 3. Description of Activities EFE monitored Illinois’ position regarding the Community First Choice Option by attending various meetings held by both the state Medicaid agency and the state’s Healthcare Reform Implementation Council. At the meetings attended by EFE, the state clearly indicated that it was not going to pursue the Community First Choice Option due to the state’s ongoing fiscal crisis, and because it bans capping services. As a result, there was no occasion for EFE to make any formal recommendations to policy makers regarding the option, beyond inquiring whether they would pursue it. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. No. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. Not applicable. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Not applicable.

PAIR Priority 21 1. Identify and describe the priority. Communication Access in Professional Services 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Over the years, Equip for Equality has received numerous complaints from people with communication disabilities about difficulty in obtaining access to professional services, including the failure of the medical and legal professions to provide sign language interpreters to people who are deaf. Equip for Equality has successfully handled many individual cases, but the problems are still pervasive. Because of this widespread problem, one idea is to advocate for a fund for professionals to access for communication accommodations, such as sign language interpreters that would be paid for by an increase in professional licensing fees. The challenge has been to convince the state entities in charge of licensing the respective professionals to establish such funds and support such funds through licensing fees. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. EFE will establish a dialogue with state licensing authorities and professional groups regarding the creation of such funds. To support this effort, EFE will use data gathered in FFY 2009 from a survey of individuals who are deaf regarding their experiences with professional services. In addition, EFE will work to raise awareness regarding the need for such funds. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE collaborated with the Midwest Center on Law and the Deaf ("MCLD") and the Illinois Association of the Deaf ("IAD") to create awareness within the licensing authorities and professional groups. EFE also worked with various deaf services coordinators at some Centers for Independent Living ("CILs") in Illinois to raise awareness with the state public health agency regarding communication access with respect to the medical profession. EFE also collaborated with the Illinois Supreme Court, its Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, and the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts to assess strategies for communication access with respect to the legal profession. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. Not applicable as this priority does not involve case handling. However, over 350 surveys were collected in FFY 2009. In addition, at least a dozen cases were brought to our attention respectively in FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 alleging denial of communication access by doctors and lawyers. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. There are no case summaries that demonstrate the impact of the priority in this section because this priority focuses on developing data and a strategy to address a systemic problem. EFE with the assistance of MCLD and IAD have discussed with professional medical and legal groups as well as state licensing authorities regarding the communication access problems posed by the medical and legal professions. EFE worked with deaf services coordinators at a few CILs to discuss with the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation ("IDFPR") regarding recurring problems with the medical profession. EFE discussed the legal profession’s resistance to providing communication access with the Chicago Bar Association, the Chicago Bar Foundation, the Illinois State Bar Association (and its newly reconvened Disability Law Committee), the Illinois Supreme Court, the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission ("IARDC"). In addition, to increase awareness of this concept, EFE submitted to the Valparaiso Law Journal a law review article on the need for and basic operating principle of communication access funds to increase the accessibility of professional services for individuals who are deaf. Discussions on creating communication access funds are ongoing, particularly with the IARDC and the IDFPR.

PAIR Priority 22 1. Identify and describe the priority Prisoners Who Are Deaf Initiative (continued)

Note: PAIR Priority 22 continued in Part VI: Narrative Item G.

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.

I. INTRODUCTION

This document highlights the priorities and plan Equip for Equality has established for its Federal Fiscal Year 2013 advocacy efforts. If circumstances warrant, additions or deletions to this document may be made during the year.

Equip for Equality is the independent, private, not-for-profit organization designated by the Governor to administer the federally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System to safeguard the rights of children and adults with developmental disabilities, mental illnesses, and other disabilities for Illinois. Equip for Equality is the only comprehensive, statewide, cross-disability advocacy organization providing self-advocacy assistance, legal services, information and referral, and training in disability rights. It also has a public policy program that is active in Springfield and conducts in-depth policy studies. Our Abuse Investigation Unit examines deaths or other serious allegations of abuse or neglect of people with disabilities at facilities in Illinois and our Special Education Clinic ensures better access to special education services. Finally, systems changes that benefit the broader disability community are accomplished through high impact litigation, public policy advocacy, and the Abuse Investigation Unit.

To ensure that our services meet the needs of the disability community, in 2012 notice that Equip for Equality was seeking input on its annual priorities was posted on EFE’s website, distributed in person and via e-mail to people on EFE’s mailing list, at various community meetings and during outreach and training sessions. The notice included a description of EFE’s programs. The notice was also provided to members of Equip for Equality’s various councils and advisory groups (e.g. PAIMI Advisory Council, Special Education Parent Council, Disability Rights Consortium, Blind Community Meeting etc.) who were encouraged to participate in the priority setting and also encouraged to disseminate the notice to other people with mental illness and their families. People could provide input on the organization’s website by using a "Survey Monkey" tool. Also, EFE staff forwarded the electronic version to their various e-mail lists and list serves.

A variety of public comments were received and suggestions were made relating to our programs. The topics most frequently mentioned were abuse/neglect, access to private businesses and government programs, assistive technology, communication access, community integration, emergency preparedness, employment, health care (including managed care, accessible medical equipment, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act), housing, institutional rights, self-determination, special education, transportation, testing accommodations, voting, and website accessibility. Staff carefully considered all of the public input received in developing our annual priorities and plan. Historically, almost all of our special initiatives and systemic litigation (such as the SGP on our community integration class action) have resulted from public comments.

In addition to the grant we receive for Protection & Advocacy for Individual Rights (PAIR), we also receive funding from private foundations and other non-federal sources for specific program initiatives noted below.

II. EQUIP FOR EQUALITY’S SERVICES AND PROGRAMS

Equip for Equality believes that a fundamental change for people with disabilities in our society will occur when they become effective advocates on their own behalf and informed and active participants in the community. Equip for Equality supports individuals in these efforts through its Self-Advocacy Programs, which provides advice and technical assistance to individuals advocating on their own behalf or on behalf of a family member. While self-advocacy by individuals with disabilities is critical to their advancement, public and private entities must also be held accountable for complying with civil rights statutes and other legal mandates intended to ensure full equality for people with disabilities. Through its program, Equip for Equality’s attorneys provide direct representation to a significant number of individuals every year in negotiations and mediation, administrative hearings, and federal and state court.

Due to extremely heavy demand and limited resources, we must provide short-term advice or technical assistance in self-advocacy to the vast majority of people with disabilities seeking our help. In selecting cases for litigation, we have tried to reach a balance between individual advocacy and systems change litigation. Additional funding for providing self-advocacy and legal services to our clients comes from the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois.

These services are provided through three Equip for Equality programs: Community Living Program, Abuse Investigation Unit and Special Education Clinic.

1. Community Living Program: The Community Living team focuses on three major legal areas for people with disabilities: anti-discrimination, community integration and self-determination. Under anti-discrimination, EFE handles cases in which people with disabilities have been treated differently because of their disabilities in such areas as employment, transportation, voting, state and local government programs, access to private businesses and housing. In community integration, EFE works with people with disabilities seeking to live in more integrated settings with the supports they need to be successful. In self-determination, EFE represents people with disabilities to help them achieve their goals and limit any unnecessary restrictions to make choices, particularly within the context of adult guardianship.

2. Abuse Investigation Unit: The Abuse Investigation Unit, (AIU) which concluded its initial five-year national demonstration period in FFY 2007, focuses its activities on systemic issues by examining deaths, serious incidents of abuse or neglect and quality of care issues in response to incidents of abuse, neglect, exploitation and violations of fundamental liberties. AIU addresses those issues by working with state and federal investigatory agencies and facilities and programs to change policies and practices in an effort to prevent further tragedies. While continuing to work on systemic issues, AIU also handles individual cases of abuse, neglect, quality of care and deprivation of fundamental liberties.

3. Special Education Clinic: EFE launched its Special Education Clinic in April 2007 to provide better access to special education services. Components of the Clinic include: 1) A telephone Helpline to provide advice, self-advocacy assistance, information and referrals; 2) An accessible website with special education resources; 3) Special education training seminars for parents and students; 4) Written materials with legal rights information; and 5) Legal representation in selected individual cases through EFE staff and an extensive pro bono network.

III. PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM Equip for Equality’s Public Policy Program has a significant positive impact on the broader disability community by educating state decision-makers, developing state legislative initiatives, serving on executive and legislative task forces, and working in coalition with a broad spectrum of consumer and family organizations, not-for-profit agencies, and professional associations. The Public Policy Program also conducts in-depth research projects on issues of importance to people with disabilities. Legislative advocacy is undertaken with non-federal funds.

IV. DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND TRAINING (funding from state government; private foundations; and PAIMI, PADD, PAIR, PABSS, TBI and Voting P&A) Equip for Equality’s Training Institute on Disability Rights provides people with disabilities and their family members substantive self-advocacy training in their local communities. The substantive priority areas for the Training Institute are as follows: -Rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act; -Challenging Employment Discrimination; -Special Education Rights; -Guardianship and Advance Directives; -Employment Rights of Beneficiaries of Social Security; -Transportation Rights; -Voting Rights. This year, contributions to the Scholarship Fund at our Training Institute will enable Equip for Equality to train approximately 2000 people with disabilities and their families statewide with full scholarships. The Illinois Department of Human Services and the Illinois Foundation for Equal Justice are contributing to the Scholarship Fund. In addition, PADD, PAIMI, PAIR, PABSS, TBI, the Voting P&A cover the tuition for additional participants during the year. We typically provide training to service providers, professionals, and businesses for a fee.

V. Case Selection Priorities and Special Initiatives

1] Case Selection Priorities:

PAIR Priority 1 1. Identify and describe the priority. Personal safety, basic health and fundamental liberty 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. People with disabilities have a right to be safe and be treated with respect. Unfortunately, children and adults with disabilities often are at risk for abuse or neglect as well as having basic rights denied them. 3. Description of the activities. Provide self-advocacy and legal assistance to PAIR-eligible individuals and conduct systemic investigations in response to: A) Failure to provide adequate and individualized supports and services resulting in harm B) Deaths, including deaths resulting from restraint or seclusion C) Misuse of physical holds, mechanical and chemical restraints, seclusion and time-out. D) Challenge to P&A Access Authority

PAIR Priority 2 1. Identify and describe the priority. Right to receive services in the most integrated, least restrictive setting 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. When the ADA was passed, Congress found that people with disabilities have been historically isolated and segregated from the general population, and that this segregation was inherently discriminatory and a social ill that needed to be addressed by the ADA. However, because Illinois still provides a majority of its disability funding to institutional settings, significant barriers still exist with respect to community living for people with disabilities. 3. Description of Activities Provide self-advocacy and legal advocacy services to PAIR-eligible individuals who have experienced problems related to community integration.

PAIR Priority 3 1. Identify and describe the priority. Employment Discrimination 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. The unemployment rate of people with disabilities is extremely high. Without equal access to employment, many people with disabilities are unable to support themselves or live independently. 3. Description of Activities Provide self-advocacy and legal advocacy services to PAIR-eligible individuals who have experienced employment discrimination.

PAIR Priority 4 1. Identify and describe the priority. Discrimination in Transportation 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Public and private transportation services are important for many people with disabilities as a means of access to employment, food, health care, social and cultural opportunities, and government services. Unfortunately, in Illinois, many aspects of the public transportation system and many private transportation services are inaccessible to people with physical or sensory disabilities. 3. Description of Activities Provide individual self-advocacy and legal assistance to people with disabilities seeking access to transportation.

PAIR Priority 5 1. Identify and describe the priority. Discrimination in public accommodations 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Private businesses provide many essential services to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, many businesses fail to ensure that their facilities are accessible which denies people with disabilities equal access to the services. 3. Description of Activities Provide self-advocacy and legal advocacy services to PAIR-eligible individuals who have experienced discrimination by public accommodations.

PAIR Priority 6 1. Identify and describe the priority. Discrimination in government services and programs 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Some of the most important services to people with disabilities are provided by governmental entities. Accordingly, ensuring program access to these services is crucial. 3. Description of Activities Provide self-advocacy and legal advocacy services to PAIR-eligible individuals who have experienced discrimination in government services and programs.

PAIR Priority 7 1. Identify and describe the priority. Discrimination in housing 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. For many people with disabilities, access to accessible and affordable housing is a critical component to living independently. Historically, many public housing authorities and private landlords have failed to make reasonable housing accommodations and modifications for people with disabilities. This priority is particularly important in downstate Illinois where there are few legal advocacy services to address housing discrimination for people with disabilities. 3. Description of Activities Provide self-advocacy and legal advocacy services to PAIR-eligible individuals who have experienced housing discrimination.

PAIR Priority 8 1. Identify and describe the priority. Right to self-determination, including guardianship defense and restoration of rights 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Many adults with disabilities have a guardian even though they may be capable of making decisions for themselves. Since a guardianship can take away from a person even the most basic decisions, it is critical for people with disabilities to understand how to challenge an unwarranted restriction of their personal freedom. 3. Description of Activities Provide self-advocacy and legal advocacy services to PAIR-eligible individuals who have experienced issues related to guardianship and other self-determination issues.

PAIR Priority 9 1. Identify and describe the priority. Special education cases where the primary issue is inclusion in the neighborhood school with needed services, a less restrictive setting; transition from high school; suspension or expulsion; inappropriate use of restraint or seclusion, including locked time out; assistive technology; and eligibility for special education services. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Access to educational services is a critical component for independent living and self-determination. In addition, students should receive educational services in a safe environment. 3. Description of Activities Provide self-advocacy and legal advocacy services to PAIR-eligible individuals who have experienced special education related problems.

PAIR Priority 10 1. Identify and describe the priority. Challenges to P&A Access Authority 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. For Protection and Advocacy organizations to be effective and to adequately fulfill its charge from Congress, they need to be given physical access to facilities that serve people with disabilities and also be given access to requisite documents. 3. Description of Activities Defend any challenges to EFE’s P&A authority.

2] PAIR Special Initiatives:

PAIR Priority 11 1. Identify and describe the priority. Monitoring of State/Federal Investigatory Systems and Implementation of Recommendations to Enhance the Safety of Children and Adults with Disabilities 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. People with disabilities have a right to be safe and be treated with respect. Unfortunately, children and adults with disabilities often are at risk for abuse or neglect as well as having basic rights denied them. Current state and federal investigatory systems do not provide coverage for all settings and populations. 3. Description of the activities. Enhance the safety of children and adults with disabilities through oversight and monitoring of state/federal investigatory systems and implementation of the recommendations contained in its report on gaps in Illinois investigatory system entitled Ensuring Safety: Filling the Gaps in Illinois’ System that Investigates Abuse and Neglect of Children and Adults with Disabilities. A task force report with recommendations addressing gaps and problems identified by AIU was submitted to the Illinois legislature in January 2011. Media exposure of additional serious problems within Illinois’ investigatory system led to a renewed focus by the state agencies, members of the legislature and the Governor’s office on the recommendations in EFE’s report and the task force recommendations. EFE continues to work with the Governor’s office, affected state agencies and individuals to pursue opportunities to facilitate implementation of the recommendations.

PAIR Priority 12 1. Identify and describe the priority Reducing or Eliminating the Use of Restraints 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. The Abuse Investigation Unit’s review of hundreds of episodes of restraint and its review of numerous reports of injuries and deaths have documented the immediate need to develop effective strategies to substantially reduce reliance on these dangerous interventions with a goal of eventually eliminating reliance on such practices. 3. Description of the activities. Addressing misuse of restraint has remained a priority for the Abuse Investigation Unit and is being addressed in several ways. EFE, through its Abuse Investigation Unit, spearheaded a nationwide review of nearly 70 restraint-related deaths in collaboration with the National Disability Rights Network and other state protection and advocacy systems. The findings and recommendations of the study provide information that will enhance national efforts to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the use of restraints as well as fatalities from this practice. The report has been released and is being disseminated widely to bring attention to and support for its findings and recommendations. EFE has brought together various state agencies to strategize on effective methods to implement many of the report’s recommendation particularly as related to dangerous practices and a statewide effort to reduce reliance on restraint. The findings and recommendations of the report will be presented at the Southwest Disability Conference in October 2012 and the World Psychiatric Association conference also in October 2012.

PAIR Priority 13 1. Identify and describe the priority Monitor implementation of Illinois’ Medicaid Managed Care Plan 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Illinois is currently implementing a Medicaid Managed Care Pilot program in the northern part of the state, a program in central Illinois, a program to integrate care for individuals enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, and has announced that all long-term services will be delivered through managed care. Significant concerns have been raised by the Disability Community regarding the impact which this plan will have on the quality and availability of needed services. Significant concerns related to choice of providers as well as access to providers and hospitals have been raised. Potential for adverse consequence for people with disabilities arising from the implementation must be addressed. 3. Description of the activities. EFE, in collaboration with other organizations and people with disabilities, has worked with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the single state Medicaid agency, to raise concerns associated with the implementation of the Medicaid Managed Care Plan, including the adverse consequences associated with lack of sufficiency of the current provider network offered by the Managed Care Plans. EFE communicates these concerns at periodic stakeholder meetings held by the state, as well as directly to the Managed Care Plans as part of various advocacy meetings which the Managed Care Plans attends. In addition, EFE serves as part of the Evaluation Advisory Committee and communicates these concerns at that time as well. EFE is working with various groups of advocates including Centers for Independent Living to collect stories from individuals with disabilities who have encountered difficulty and to communicate those to the state.

PAIR Priority 14 1. Identify and describe the priority. Access to facilities that sell lottery tickets 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Many people with disabilities, especially those living in poorer areas, depend upon local convenience stores for basic necessities — such as food and medicine. Most of these facilities also sell lottery tickets. 3. Description of Activities Work with the state to oversee the implementation of the Illinois Lottery’s new program to require accessibility as a condition for initial licensing and license renewal.

PAIR Priority 15 1. Identify and describe the priority. Develop Self-Advocacy Materials on Discrimination issues 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Many people with disabilities do not know their legal rights and thus they are unable to identify and address discrimination issues that may arise. As part of its annual priority setting process, EFE consistently receives input that the disability community needs more legal rights self-advocacy information and that EFE should take the lead on developing these materials. 3. Description of Activities Develop and update consumer friendly fact sheets to provide information to assist people with disabilities with a better understanding of their legal rights under anti-discrimination laws.

PAIR Priority 16 1. Identify and describe the priority. Training Institute on Disability Rights Education and Training 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. In a previous strategic planning session, the disability community identified that people with disabilities needed access to quality self-advocacy education. Without legal rights information and self-advocacy skills, people with disabilities are unable to effectively achieve their life goals, such as employment and independent living. Accordingly, EFE established the Training Institute for Disability Rights to provide self-advocacy training seminars to people with disabilities and their family members across the State of Illinois on a variety of topics including the ADA, employment discrimination, voting, transportation, advance directives, guardianship, and special education. 3. Description of Activities Provide disability rights trainings statewide to people with disabilities and their families, as well as professionals, service providers and businesses on discrimination issues including: ADA, employment, Ticket to Work, transportation, special education, advance directives, guardianship and voting.

PAIR Priority 17 1. Identify and describe the priority. Involving People with Disabilities in the Public Policy Process 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. For many years, people with disabilities and disability advocacy groups have been frustrated by the lack of response by policy makers to their public policy initiatives. To a great extent, this has resulted from insufficient numbers of people with disabilities who are interested in and have the confidence to self-advocate at a systemic level. People with disabilities also identified the lack of resources to identify current issues, research the impact of policy proposals, and finance systemic self-advocacy efforts as barriers to their involvement in public policy making. 3. Describe the Activities to be carried out under this priority EFE will directly involve more people with disabilities in the public policy making process by providing them with self-advocacy training and technical assistance on an ad hoc basis as requested and disseminating, through the Internet, up to date legislative and other policy-related information.

PAIR Priority 18 1. Identify and describe the priority. Prisoners Who Are Deaf Initiative 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Prisoners who are deaf and hard of hearing are routinely denied effective communication for participation in IDOC programs and services, including medical appointments, educational opportunities, communication with counselors and guards, religious services, and for maintaining contact with their loved ones. EFE hopes to end this discrimination and unnecessary isolation of prisoners with hearing disabilities through a court mandate. 3. Description of Activities In conjunction with co-counsel, litigate class action seeking a judgment or settlement that will address the systemic discrimination facing deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in Illinois.

PAIR Priority 19 1. Identify and describe the priority. Special Education Clinic 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Many students with disabilities and their families need access to legal rights’ information and education, self-advocacy assistance and legal representation, but are unable to navigate the current special education advocacy system and/or do not have sufficient funds to retain a private attorney. 3. Description of Activities Continue to grow Statewide Special Education providing comprehensive special education training, self-advocacy and legal advocacy services. Also, incorporate pro bono attorneys, law students and law firm partnerships into the Clinic to increase its level of assistance to clients, as well as the number of clients it serves.

PAIR Priority 20 1. Identify and describe the priority. Public Education and Outreach to Under-Served Populations. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Equip for Equality continues to strive to be more visible to the general population so that eligible individuals know where to turn when they require advocacy resources and rights-related resources. This is also important because it builds public understanding and support for the rights of people with disabilities to live independent and productive lives in the community. Because Chicago and many other parts of Illinois have a very diverse population, culturally appropriate strategies need to be used to reach out to and serve the many ethnic communities with their own culture, language and approach/perspective on disability and the role of the government and the family. This makes the provision of PAIR services especially challenging along with the fact that the federal P&A System is responsible for providing advocacy services to the largest segment of the disabled population. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Equip for Equality has a database that enables us to monitor numbers of calls, how they heard about us and whether we take the case as well as track training participants, etc. This helps us assess which outreach strategies are working. In terms of the media, we subscribe to a media monitoring service that documents when we appear in the print and electronic media in major markets and the viewership of these publications/shows. This enables us to assess how successful our outreach via the media has been. Our achievement of other objectives under this general category of public education and outreach to underserved populations can be more readily assessed by monitoring our completion of tasks, such as translation of brochures, redesigning our website to improve accessibility and content, maintaining a presence in specific communities via satellite offices, etc. We review hits to our website by substantive website area which helps us assess interest and strategize about who we are not reaching.

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) / $638,994 / $627,251 State / -0- / -0- Program income / $30,526 / $6,000 Private / -0- / -0- All other funds / -0- / -0- Total (from all sources) / $669,520 / $633,251

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report

Category / Prior Fiscal Year (2012) / Current Fiscal Year (2013) Wages-salaries / $367,844 / $395,674 Fringe benefits (FICA, unemployment, etc.) / $111,250 / $102,875 Materials-supplies / $3,878 / $3,995 Postage / $1,939 / $1,997 Telephone / $10,805 / $11,055 Rent & Other Occupancy Costs / $76,053 / $77,954 Consultants-Professional Fees / $10,549 / $6,985 Travel / $7,776 / $8,524 Printing / $1,589 / $1,650 Bonding-insurance / $10,334 / $11,085 Equipment (rental-purchase) / $11,535 / $10,785 Legal services / $14,465 / $17,475 Miscellaneous / $5,234 / $2,195 Total Budget / $633,251 / $652,249

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

1. Duties.

Most staff divide their time between PAIR, PADD and PAIMI. A list of each job title is presented below along with a brief description of staff duties.

PAIR program responsibilities are performed by the following staff:

Attorneys-provide legal advice and representation in negotiations, administrative hearings, and federal and state court; make presentations to variety of audiences and venues about legal rights of people with disabilities and their families; and work in coalition with other advocacy organizations to promote the rights of people with disabilities.

Advocates and investigators provide information, advice and technical assistance in self advocacy as well as representation in negotiations and administrative hearings by some staff; make presentations to variety of audiences and venues about legal rights of people with disabilities and their families; work in coalition with other advocacy organizations to promote the rights of people with disabilities.

Policy staff-monitor and analyze pending regulations and bills, conduct studies and issue recommendations, and work in coalition with other advocacy organizations to promote the rights of people with disabilities.

Vice-Presidents for the legal advocacy programs and the public policy program, along with the Managing Attorney-spend most of their time on program-related activities, including planning, design of new initiatives, and monitoring progress in meeting program objectives and outcomes. They spend some of their time on administration and they also build coalitions, engage in public speaking, testifying, serve as a resource for media and are spokespersons for the agency on select issues.

President and C.E.O.-splits her time between administration and program-related activity, leads and manages the agency, functions as its spokesperson, and provides support to Board of Directors and advisory committees. The President and C.E.O. also promotes awareness of the organization, builds public support for its mission and the rights of people with disabilities.

Chief Financial Officer-oversees agency finances, technology, human resources and operations.

Administrative assistants and other support staff-split their time between administrative duties and program-related activities.

2. Person-years

Type of Position / FTE / % of year filled / Person-years* Professional: Full-time / 37 / 100 / 8.1 Part-time / 0.5 / 0 / 4.1 Vacant / 0 / 0 / 0 Clerical: Full-time/ 6 / 100 / 4.7 Part-time / 1.5 / 100 / 6.8 Vacant / 0 / 0 / 0

*As indicated above, agency staff divides their time between programs, including PAIR, PADD and PAIMI. In FY2012, the figure used in determining the person-years was calculated using FTEs.

D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)

The PAIR program does not have an advisory board.

E. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure

There was one PAIR grievance in FFY 2012. Below is a summary:

EFE was contacted by a man who is deaf regarding assistance with a housing discrimination matter, specifically for the denial of an interpreter at a condo board meeting. Because of limited PAIR resources, EFE secured a pro bono attorney to assist with the case. The client had other potential claims against the condo board, but Equip for Equality and the pro bono law firm made clear that the representation was limited to the interpreter case. Prior to EFE and the pro bono law firm getting involved, the client had filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR), which issued a finding of substantial evidence on the interpreter issue, and dismissed the other issues the client had included in his discrimination charge. After IDHR made a finding of substantial evidence, the condo board removed the case to state court. This triggered an obligation of the Illinois Attorney General to provide representation. The pro bono law firm and EFE concluded that our representation would be duplicative of the representation being provided by the Attorney General. Moreover, there were fundamental disagreements with the client over the scope of representation, the unauthorized contacts he had made with HUD, and the overall relationship with counsel had become adversarial,which is contrary to the nature of the attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, it was determined that the decision not provide legal representation in court was appropriate. The client was provided with information on how to request a review of the grievance decision by EFE’s Board of Directors. The client did not file an appeal her grievance to the Board and the matter was closed.

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.

Equip for Equality regularly informs individuals who are CAP-eligible about this advocacy resource and makes appropriate referrals. And we accept referrals from CAP of individuals who are eligible for our programs.

Primarily though our Abuse Investigation Unit, we accept referrals from local ombudsman programs and work collaboratively with the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program on issues of mutual interest as they arise.

G. Continued from Part V. Section A:

PAIR Priority 22 1. Identify and describe the priority Prisoners Who Are Deaf Initiative 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Prisoners who are deaf and hard of hearing are routinely denied effective communication for participation in IDOC programs and services, including medical appointments, educational opportunities, communication with counselors and guards, religious services, and for maintaining contact with their loved ones. EFE hopes to end this discrimination and unnecessary isolation of prisoners with hearing disabilities through a court mandate. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. EFE, in conjunction with co-counsel, will litigate a class action that either by court ruling or by settlement will address the systemic discrimination identified in our class action complaint. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. EFE filed this lawsuit in collaboration with two public interest organizations (Uptown People’s Law Center and the National Association of the Deaf), as well as with a private law firm (Winston & Strawn). We also consult with members of the deaf community and disability/deaf advocacy organizations, such as the Midwest Center for Law and the Deaf and Access Living regarding the developments in the case and possible remedies. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many, if any, were class actions. 1 case, which is a class action. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Over the years, EFE has received numerous complaints from deaf inmates living in prisons administered by the Illinois Department of Corrections. Complaints include insufficient access to ASL interpreters and TTYs. Efforts to address these issues through individual advocacy have not resolved the broader problem. Accordingly, EFE, in conjunction with another public interest organization and a pro bono law firm, a class action suit was filed in FFY 2011 seeking a systemic solution to these issues. During FFY 2012, the parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations. However, the negotiations were not successful and so at the end of the fiscal year, the parties began engaging in discovery.

Note: Part III A. - Ages of Individuals Served - In 5 of the cases, the age of the individual is not reflected. This section does not contain an "unknown" category. Consequently the identified age categories include those 5 individuals distributed proportionately in relation to the known ages.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByDeborah M. Kennedy
TitleAbuse Investigation Unit Director
Signed Date12/21/2012