|Name||HAWAII DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER|
|Address||1132 BISHOP STREET|
|Address Line 2||SUITE 2102|
|Name of P&A Executive Director||Louis Erteschik|
|Name of PAIR Director/Coordinator||Louis Erteschik|
|Person to contact regarding report||Ann E. Collins|
|Contact Person phone||808-949-2922|
Multiple responses are not permitted.
|1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas||540|
|2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas||0|
|3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)||540|
|1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff||12|
|2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)||224|
|1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff||7|
|2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles||3|
|3. PSAs/videos aired||0|
|4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website||519,734|
|5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated||1,534|
|6. Other (specify separately)||0|
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)||32|
|2. Additional individuals served during the year||71|
|3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)||103|
|4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)||11|
Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 35
|1. Architectural accessibility||10|
|3. Program access||0|
|5. Government benefits/services||39|
|8. Assistive technology||2|
|10. Health care||5|
|12. Non-government services||1|
|13. Privacy rights||23|
|14. Access to records||0|
|1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor||62|
|2. Other representation found||0|
|3. Individual withdrew complaint||6|
|4. Appeals unsuccessful||2|
|5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.||1|
|6. PAIR withdrew from case||0|
|7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources||1|
|8. Individual case lacks legal merit||3|
List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.
|1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy||5|
|2. Short-term assistance||37|
|5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution||0|
|6. Administrative hearings||16|
|7. Litigation (including class actions)||0|
|8. Systemic/policy activities||0|
|1. 0 - 4||0|
|2. 5 - 22||7|
|3. 23 - 59||66|
|4. 60 - 64||5|
|5. 65 and over||25|
Multiple responses not permitted.
|1. Hispanic/Latino of any race||4|
|2. American Indian or Alaskan Native||2|
|4. Black or African American||3|
|5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander||39|
|7. Two or more races||0|
|8. Race/ethnicity unknown||0|
Multiple responses not permitted.
|2. Parental or other family home||38|
|3. Community residential home||1|
|4. Foster care||1|
|5. Nursing home||2|
|6. Public institutional living arrangement||0|
|7. Private institutional living arrangement||0|
|8. Jail/prison/detention center||0|
|10. Other living arrangements||0|
|11. Living arrangements not known||0|
Identify the individual's primary disability, namely the one directly related to the issues/complaints
|1. Blind/visual impairment||9|
|2. Deaf/hard of hearing||1|
|4. Orthopedic impairment||37|
|5. Mental illness||0|
|6. Substance abuse||0|
|7. Mental retardation||0|
|8. Learning disability||0|
|9. Neurological impairment||12|
|10. Respiratory impairment||3|
|11. Heart/other circulatory impairment||26|
|12. Muscular/skeletal impairment||14|
|13. Speech impairment||0|
|15. Traumatic brain injury||0|
|16. Other disability||1|
|1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities||0|
|2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes||1,200|
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.
AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE HOUSINGHDRC’s PAIR systems case, with the goal of advocating for an increase in the number of accessible units to bring the Hawaii Public Housing Authority into compliance with the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act included:
HANDIVANThe DTS continues to address ADA compliance issues in three major areas relating to equipment and operations.
1. Improve and upgrade fixed assets
a. TheHandi-Van fleet. TheHandi-Van fleet presently totals 165 vehicles, the majority of which are “traditional” 25-foot cutaways with multiple wheelchair positions, but also includes 17’ mini-vans. The City is working to procure vehicles on a regular basis to replace those vehicles at or beyond service life guidelines.
|FY Placed In Service||No. Vehicles Added|
Unfortunately, the City’s ability to procure replacement paratransit vehicles in conformance with its fleet management plan has been hampered by procurement protests lodged by a local vendor:The City issued a Request for Bids (RFB) to procure 38 new Handi-Van vehicles on April 28, 2011. Bid opening occurred on June 20, 2011. On June 30, 2011, the City made a conditional award of the subject contract to National Bus Sales & Leasing, Inc (National). Thereafter, but also on June 30, 2011, Soderholm Sales and Leasing, Inc. (SSL) filed a bid protest contesting the conditional award to National. The bid protest was denied by the Purchasing Administrator of the Department of Budget and Fiscal Services (BFS) on September 29, 2011. An administrative Hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) was held on October 21, 2011. An Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part SSL’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment was issued on October 27, 2011. The matter then was subject to further hearing on November 28, 2011. On December 28, 2011, the DCCA issued its “Hearings Officer’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision,” in which it voided the contract awarded to National. The hearings officer also determined that it could not award the contract to SSL. SSL’s appeal of the DCCA hearings officer’s decision was dismissed by the U.S. District Court judge on February 13, 2012. DTS did not proceed with this procurement due to lapsing of a portion of the matching funds.The City advertised a Request for Bids (RFB) to procure 99 new Handi-Van vehicles on September 18, 2012. On September 24, 2012, a bid protest was filed with the City by Soderholm Sales and Leasing, Inc. (SSL). SSL protested the RFB because it does not require bidders to obtain a Hawai’i state dealer license pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 437-2(a). The City believes that this provision of State law constitutes a local geographic preference, and did not include this in the RFB because federal requirements prohibit the inclusion of this kind of requirement in a solicitation when using federal funds to purchase rolling stock (which includes buses and paratransit vans). Federal funds are involved in this RFB. The Purchasing Administrator of BFS denied SSL’s protest on October 12, 2012. A hearing was held before a DCCA hearings officer on November 8, 2012. The DCCA issued a decision on November 30, 2012, granting the City’s motion for summary judgment in the bid protest appeal.DTS proceeded with the subsequent RFB. Bid opening was held on April 19, 2013, and a conditional award was issued to Soderholm Sales and Leasing, Inc. on May 9, 2013. A subsequent bid protest was filed on May 15, 2013; it was withdrawn on June 20, 2013. Notice to Proceed was issued on October 25, 2013. The production of the vehicles is scheduled to start on November 25, 2013 and end in June 2014. The first vehicles are expected to begin service in Honolulu in Spring 2014.
b. Safety and security. Planning is underway for the installation of a mobile vehicle surveillance system on Handi-Van vehicles. The next set of vehicles purchased will be equipped with interior and exterior cameras connected to a centralized high-definition digital video recording system for after-the-fact reviews of incidents or events.
2. Service demand.
a. Improve eligibility screening. The City’s TheHandi-Van Eligibility Center began operations in October 2009, and provides in-person functional assessments of all new and renewal TheHandi-Van applicants. The Center also provides travel training for those TheHandi-Van customers who can use the fixed route service, TheBus, for some of their trips.
|In-person assessments conducted||4115||4064||4128||4371|
|Conditional eligibility (4 yrs)||707||527||497||555|
|Unconditional eligibility (4 yrs)||2556||2716||2756||3285|
|Temporary Conditional eligibility (<4 yrs)||35||23||10||30|
|Temporary Unconditional eligibility (<4 yrs)||194||598||630||307|
3. Daily Operationa. Update to the Local Coordinated Transportation Plan. The City’s Human Service Transportation Coordination Plan was updated in 2012. The purpose was to review and revise the goals and objectives set forth in the original Plan and to refine the strategies that serve as the basis for project recommendations. As a result, the Plan’s goals have been reprioritized as shown below:
1) Get Compliant (formerly Goal 3) - Improve TheHandi-Van On-Time Performance and Trip Length
2) Get Coordinated (formerly Goal 1) - Reduce Duplication and Inefficiencies in the Transportation Delivery System
3) Get Connected (formerly Goal 2) - Increase Access to Transit and Other Mobility Options in Rural and Urban Fringe Areas
This reprioritization places emphasis on the City’s need to be fully compliant with federal regulations.
In this Update, the City and its mobility management consultant, Innovative Paradigms (IP) evaluated both statistical data and anecdotal information from the two operating projects— Goodwill’s agency-provided trips for persons with disabilities, and the Kalaeloa Shuttle serving low-income residents. Specific to the City’s paratransit service, this review found that “the Goodwill agency-provided trips project was extraordinarily successful, achieving its objective of moving a significant number of trips off TheHandi-Van and providing those same trips through Goodwill at a fraction of the cost. In the process, the level of service quality for the individual riders and for the agency itself far exceeded anything possible by TheHandi-Van.” Significantly, this project also results in additional paratransit capacity for demand rides during the morning and afternoon peak periods.
As a result of these findings, the City has implemented additional agency-provided trips projects, as discussed in the next item.
b. Increase Agency-Provided Trips. Presently, the City’s most effective strategy for increasing TheHandi-Van’s demand service capacity is to increase the number of trips provided by social service agencies for their own clients, who would otherwise use TheHandi-Van for these trips. In addition to the Goodwill project, which is funded through both FTA and local matching funds, in 2012 the City issued a 100% locally funded RFP for additional agency-provided transportation services.
On July 1, 2013, The Arc in Hawaii and SECOH joined Goodwill Industries of Hawaii in providing trips for some of their clients. From City FY’11 to FY’13, the number of trips annual provided by Goodwill for their clients has increased from 58,000 to 75,239 client trips. The Arc and SECOH projects are starting at lower trip levels, due in part to the lead time needed to acquire vehicles and also to allow them to coordinate their service increases with TheHandi-Van’s triannual driver sign-ups. Over the next 12 months, The Arc and SECOH will ramp up service to provide an estimated annual 54,824 trips between the agencies. Since wheelchairs and mobility aids take up additional space on TheHandi-Van, the SECOH service will be particularly beneficial as SECOH is purchasing cutaway vans to transport their many non-ambulatory clients.
Also on July 1, 2013, The Salvation Army began operating a transportation service for its senior clients. The service was originally projected to provide 3,430 trips annually. Unfortunately, The Salvation Army was delayed approximately one year in implementing their service due to difficulties in executing a vehicle lease agreement. During this time, many of the clients identified to be carried by the service had left The Salvation Army program. As a result, their transportation service provided only 19 trips in the first two months of operation. This will result in cost per trip that is higher than originally targeted. The Salvation Army is aware of this, and we will continue to work with them to find ways of increasing their trip volume.
c. Dedicated Vehicles for Agency Subscription Trips. On November 5, 2012, Oahu Transit Services, Inc. (OTS) began a pilot project to dedicate a subset of its TheHandi-Van fleet to provide subscription rides to three agencies: The Arc in Hawaii, SECOH, and Lanakila Pacific. This was based on an OTS review of their scheduling practices that suggested this may be a more efficient approach to providing service than mixing subscription trips for these agencies with demand trips on the same vehicles.
While promising at the outset, the new schedules created did not mesh well with the caregivers’ needs, and many booked demand rides for their clients rather than using the new service. This placed additional demands on the remaining TheHandi-Van fleet, and over a period of months OTS began adding demand trips to the formerly dedicated runs to improve their efficiency. As of October, 2013, OTS is no longer dedicating vehicles to serve these agencies’ subscription trips.
d. Analysis of the Paratransit Scheduling System and Planning for Paratransit Service Improvements. As reported last year, an analysis by Innovative Paradigms (IP) suggests that TheHandi-Van service may be improved through more efficient use of the Trapeze reservations and scheduling system. After reviewing the analysis, OTS, DTS, and IP believe that a further reduction in the number of subscription trips is needed in order to allow OTS to use Trapeze to more efficiently schedule demand trip requests. As a result, OTS and IP, in consultation with DTS, are collaborating to perform simulations in Trapeze to determine the necessary level of subscription ride reduction.
We expect that the results of these simulations will benefit TheHandi-Van service in two ways. First, they will identify more exactly the level of subscription trip reduction needed to allow the OTS to implement the Trapeze scheduling improvements. Second, and more importantly, the City will then work to identify potential ways to achieve this level of subscription trip reduction, such as further increasing the number of agency-provided transportation services and other options. We plan to identify the costs and relative benefits of each option, address any policy-related impacts, develop budgets and implementation timelines, and then present them to the City Administration for funding consideration. Once the Administration approves a particular strategy and level of funding, we will implement the strategy, monitor the results, and determine the appropriate next steps.
HAWAII INSURANCE EXCHANGEIn our efforts to monitor the Exchange, our Director of Operations served on the Hawaii Connector (Exchange) Advisory Committee. As we know, the Exchanges are off to a poor start though we shall continue our monitoring efforts in the expectation that the Hawaii Exchange will at some point be substantially operational.
|1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts||500|
|2. Number of individuals named in class actions||1|
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.
On July 27, 2010, HDRC filed a class action complaint against the Hawaii Department of Education (“DOE”) in federal court seeking to compel the DOE to provide special education and related services (including mental health services) to eligible students ages 20 - 22. Hawaii is one of only two states that terminate special education as early as age 20. In July 2009, the U.S. District Court of Hawaii ruled that the DOE discriminated against students with mental illness ages 20-22 who needed special education services because it offered a public education to non-disabled students in that age range. In June 2010, the Hawaii Legislature enacted a law to reverse that court decision, which we believe perpetuates discrimination against students with mental illness. HDRC, therefore, filed its class action.
The theory in the case is based upon an interpretation of the term “public education” in accordance with the IDEA. While states are permitted to terminate special education below the age of 22 (the absolute cut off under the IDEA) they may do so only if it does not conflict with their overall provision of education to children in that age range. Therefore, although the legislature passed a law to cut off the age of high school eligibility at 20, since a large number of children age 20-22 are able to obtain the equivalent education in the high school equivalency/adult education program, the argument is that the state is nonetheless required to continue to provide special education to the age of 22.
The case had gone through the motions phase and the court denied summary judgment motions brought by both sides. The Court opined that the record was not sufficiently clear to establish the absence of a factual dispute. Therefore, it set the matter for trial in February, 2012. The court wanted to see evidence of the number of students transitioned from regular high school to these high school equivalency programs. In particular, the Judge wanted to know if students were “ushered with regularity” (the term he used) from regular education, after they aged out, to adult education. In his view, that was critical to analyzing whether the presence of adult education constituted “public education” so as to trigger the IDEA requirements that special education be extended to the same age group.
After a one day trial, the Judge ruled that there was not sufficient evidence of a practice of “ushering” students in said fashion and for that reason, ruled that the existence of the adult education program was not the sort of public education contemplated that would trigger the IDEA requirement to extend special education. In light of that, he ruled against HDRC.
The case was appealed to the United States District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The premise was that the trial judge erred when he ruled that the adult education was not public education. Oral Argument was held on June 12, 2013 and the Court ruled in favor of HDRC on August 28, 2013. The Court opined that the community school for adults was a form of public education. Students without disabilities are afforded the right to continue their public education after age 20, so students with disabilities must also be allowed to continue their education until (the maximum age limit under IDEA) age 22. This decision allows thousands of students with mental illness to continue their education for two more years. The benefits of two more years of education is an enormous benefit to those with mental illness.
For each of your PAIR program priorities for the fiscal year covered by this report, please:
Priority 1 (1A) Description: Care and Treatment: Freedom from Abuse and NeglectNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities in homes and facilities providing 24-hour care and treatment are not abused nor neglected.Indicators: PAIR will open 5 individual cases to investigate and rectify allegations of abuse and neglect (particularly seclusion and restraint) of people with disabilities in 24 hour residential care. Collaboration: N/ANumber of cases handled: 4 individual casesCase Summary: Ms. Yoshida is an 85 year old female with arthritis who requested HDRC assistance getting her primary care physician to submit paperwork for a CT scan. HDRC attorney called the physician to explain that Ms. Yoshida fell and needed immediate medical treatment for her face. HDRC attorney questioned the physician why it had been 3 weeks to complete emergency CT scan referral paperwork. Based on the HDRC attorney’s phone call, the paperwork was submitted to HMSA and Ms. Yoshida was approved to get a CT scan for her face the next day.
Priority 2 (1C) Description: Care and Treatment: Freedom from discrimination and stigmaNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities will receive care and treatment that is appropriate and provided in the least restrictive environment.Indicators: PAIR will open 5 cases to advocate for People with disabilities to live in the least restrictive environment.Collaboration: Adult Residential Care Homes and Expanded ARCH’sNumber of cases handled: 0 casesCase Summary: N/a
Priority 3 (1D) Description: Care and Treatment: Self-DeterminationNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities make their own decisions about their care and treatment.Indicators: PAIR will open 35 cases to prepare Advance Health Care Directives for people with disabilities. PAIR will identify and visit (6 visits) selected long term care and acute facilities to introduce current patients to PAIR and to identify potential Advance Directives clients. PAIR will provide 6 Advance Directives education/training for the staff and/or patients/families of selected long term care and acute facilities. PAIR will distribute 100 Advance Directives materials to selected long term care and acute facilities.Collaboration: N/ANumber of cases handled: 24 individual casesCase Summary: NS is an 83 year old with orthopedic impairments and her husband, YS is an 81 year old with a visual impairment. This Advocate met this couple through an education/training at Ho’opono. They both requested assistance with completion of an Advance Health Care Directive. This Advocate met with Clients in order to explain and complete the Advance Directive. The Advance Directive was notarized and each client was provided with a wallet card. Priority 4 (2B) Descriptions: Citizenship: Accessible CommunitiesNeed, Issue or Barrier: Public facilities are accessible to people with disabilities.Indicators: PAIR will represent 15 individuals with disabilities with complaints of inaccessible public facilities. PAIR will conduct 30 site surveys of public facilities to determine compliance with Title III of the ADA. PAIR will distribute 150 Accessible Communities brochures and other printed materials about Title III of the ADA.Collaboration: N/ANumber of cases handled: 10 individual casesCase Summary: Mr. Larson was a 46 year old male who is the owner of a gym in Waikiki. He called for assistance to ensure an accessible route to the gym while the complex elevator was being reconstructed. Mr. Larson explained that several elderly individuals and people with disabilities stopped utilizing the gym facilities because they did not have have an accessible route to the gym. HDRC attorney worked with the complex management and their ADA consultant to adequately place signs on the alternative route so that people would know where the accessible route and alternate elevator was located. HDRC attorney also worked with the management company to make sure that the new elevator was installed.
Priority 5 (4C) Descriptions: Employment: Freedom from discrimination and stigmaNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities receive training and are accommodated in recruitment, hiring, employment and advancement.Indicators: PAIR will represent 5 people with disabilities to obtain relief from disability discrimination in employment, or with unemployment insurance appeals. PAIR will visit 12 identified un- and under-served communities to provide information about reasonable accommodation in the workplace. PAIR will distribute 200 Employment brochures. Collaboration: N/ANumber of cases handled: 5 individual casesCase Summary: M.C. is a 46 year-old male who lives on the Big Island of Hawaii. M.C. states that he worked in a hospital, but was being verbally harassed by co-workers. He was placed into the position by the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and had experienced three strokes. The assigned HDRC advocate contacted M.C. and worked with the hospital administration to resolve his complaint. While this Advocate was working with M.C. he suffered a fourth stroke and required physical rehabilitation. When he completed his rehabilitation, the advocate coordinated with the hospital, DVR, and his doctor to:1. Have Client cleared as ready to work.2. The employer kept Client’s position open.3. Resolve the harassment issue.The problem was resolved and M.C. went back to work at the hospital. M.C. stated that he was very satisfied with HDRC’s assistance.
Priority 6 (6A) Descriptions: Housing: Freedom from Abuse and NeglectNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities are not abused nor neglected in their homes.Indicators: PAIR will represent 5 people with disabilities who have complaints of abuse by their housing providers.Collaboration: N/ANumber of cases handled: 3 individual casesCase Summary: EA is a 53 year old woman with COPD, who uses oxygen due to her disability. She called requesting assistance because she alleged that she was being evicted due to her oxygen use. This HDRC Advocate investigated and found that the landlord had verbally asked Client to leave because he felt it was unsafe that she had oxygen around while people in her household smoke. Our staff attorney wrote a letter to the landlord informing him of our Client’s rights.
Priority 7 (6B) Descriptions: Housing: Accessible CommunitiesNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities have accessible homes.Indicators: (System Case) PAIR will advocate for an increase in the number of accessible units to bring the Hawaii Public Housing Authority into compliance with the ADA and Section 504.Collaboration: N/ANumber of cases handled: 1 system case.Case Summary: (See PART IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation - AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE HOUSING)
Priority 8 (6C) Descriptions: Housing: Freedom from discrimination and stigmaNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities are not denied homes in their community.Indicators: PAIR will represent 5 people with disabilities with complaints of housing discrimination (eligibility and accessibility).Collaboration: N/ANumber of cases handled: 7 individual casesCase Summary: M.M. is a 79 year old male who has Alzheimer’s disease and was living in a 1 bedroom unit at a public housing facility on Oahu. His daughter contacted HDRC for assistance as she reported that he would wander away from his unit. When she purchased a lock for her door in an effort to keep her father from wandering, the resident manager informed her that putting a lock on the door would not be in compliance with fire code regulations and both the client and his daughter would be subject to being evicted. The HDRC advocate assigned to the case worked with the family and the resident manager to resolve the problem. The advocate wrote a letter of inquiry to the State Housing Authority to request that installation of an alarm system be allowed at the family’s residence. The alarm was approved and installed.
Priority 9 (8C) Description: Programs and Services: Freedom from discrimination and stigma.Need, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities obtain assistive technology, general assistance, food stamps, TANF, IL services, Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security benefits to which they are entitled.Indicators: PAIR will represent 40 People with disabilities to appeal denials of applications for services to which they may be entitled. (System Case) PAIR will monitor and enforce HandiVan’s compliance with the Bunch v. City & County of Honolulu Settlement Agreement; and monitor Hawaii’s Insurance Exchange (Connectors) to assure consumer choice to a fair impartial selection of individual and small group insurance products marketed to individuals with disabilities. PAIR will visit (12 visits) un- and underserved communities (disability, ethnic and geographic, as identified through monthly reports) to introduce their members with disabilities to PAIR. PAIR will provide 4 education/training to un- and underserved communities on programs and services entitlements.Collaboration: N/ANumber of cases handled: 61 individual cases and 2 system cases (see PART IV.A - HandiVan and Hawaii Insurance Exchage)Case Summary: TR is a 29 year-old woman diagnosed with Lambert Eaton/Myasthenia Gravis, which is a rare form of Muscular Dystrophy. During the pendency of this case she also suffered from a severe intestinal infection (C. Diff.) and had surgery on her knee. Her condition is progressive and she is unable to work. She was denied SSDI when she originally applied because of her age and again when she requested reconsideration. She called HDRC for assistance with an appeal hearing. The Advocate met with the client to complete the SSA Appointment of Representative form and HDRC consent form. We met several more times throughout this process to discuss the status of the case, and to update medical information. The Advocate sent letters to the client’s treating physicians to request letters from them explaining the nature of the client’s disability/illness, the treatment being provided, and the prognosis. The client assisted with obtaining medical information, as well. The Advocate forwarded the information received to the SSA/ODAR office. The Advocate represented the client at the hearing and the ALJ made a bench decision of fully favorable effective retroactive to the date eligible. The client’s two children will receive benefits, as well.
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:
PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES FOR FY2014
Priority 1 (1A) Description: Care and Treatment: Freedom from Abuse and NeglectNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities in homes and facilities providing 24-hour care and treatment are not abused nor neglected.Indicators: PAIR will open 5 individual cases to investigate and rectify allegations of abuse and neglect (particularly seclusion and restraint) of people with disabilities in 24 hour residential care.Priority 2 (1C) Description: Care and Treatment: Freedom from discrimination and stigmaNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities will receive care and treatment that is appropriate and provided in the least restrictive environment.Indicators: PAIR will open 5 cases to advocate for People with disabilities to live in the least restrictive environment.Collaboration: Adult Residential Care Homes and Expanded ARCH’sPriority 3 (1D) Description: Care and Treatment: Self-DeterminationNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities make their own decisions about their care and treatment.Indicators: PAIR will open 35 cases to prepare Advance Health Care Directives for people with disabilities. PAIR will identify and visit (6 visits) selected long term care and acute facilities to introduce current patients to PAIR and to identify potential Advance Directives clients. PAIR will provide 6 Advance Directives education/training for the staff and/or patients/families of selected long term care and acute facilities. PAIR will distribute 100 Advance Directives materials to selected long term care and acute facilities.Priority 4 (2B) Description: Citizenship: Accessible CommunitiesNeed, Issue or Barrier: Public facilities are accessible to people with disabilities.Indicators: PAIR will represent 15 individuals with disabilities with complaints of inaccessible public facilities. PAIR will conduct 30 site surveys of public facilities to determine compliance with Title III of the ADA. PAIR will distribute 100 Accessible Communities brochures and other printed materials about Title III of the ADA.Priority 5 (4C) Description: Employment: Freedom from discrimination and stigmaNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities receive training and are accommodated in recruitment, hiring, employment and advancement.Indicators: PAIR will represent 5 people with disabilities to obtain relief from disability discrimination in employment, or with unemployment insurance appeals. PAIR will visit 12 identified un- and under-served communities to provide information about reasonable accommodation in the workplace. PAIR will distribute 100 Employment brochures. Priority 6 (6A) Description: Housing: Freedom from Abuse and NeglectNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities are not abused nor neglected in their homes.Indicators: PAIR will represent 5 people with disabilities who have complaints of abuse by their housing providers.Priority 7 (6B) Description: Housing: Accessible CommunitiesNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities have accessible homes.Indicators: (System Case) PAIR will advocate for an increase in the number of accessible units to bring the Hawaii Public Housing Authority into compliance with the ADA and Section 504.Priority 8 (6C) Description: Housing: Freedom from discrimination and stigmaNeed, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities are not denied homes in their community.Indicators: PAIR will represent 5 people with disabilities with complaints of housing discrimination (eligibility and accessibility).Priority 9 (8C) Description: Programs and Services: Freedom from discrimination and stigma.Need, Issue or Barrier: People with disabilities obtain assistive technology, general assistance, food stamps, TANF, IL services, Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security benefits to which they are entitled.Indicators: PAIR will represent 40 People with disabilities to appeal denials of applications for services to which they may be entitled. (System Case) PAIR will monitor and enforce HandiVan’s compliance with the Bunch v. City & County of Honolulu Settlement Agreement; and monitor Hawaii’s Insurance Exchange (Connectors) to assure consumer choice to a fair impartial selection of individual and small group insurance products marketed to individuals with disabilities. PAIR will visit (12 visits) un- and underserved communities (disability, ethnic and geographic, as identified through monthly reports) to introduce their members with disabilities to PAIR. PAIR will provide 4 education/training to un- and underserved communities on programs and services entitlements.
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.
A. Sources of funds received and expended
Source of Funding Amount Received Amount Spent
Federal (section 509) $166,132 $166,132 State 10,057 10,057 Program income 3,197 3,197 All other funds 0 0 Total (from all sources) $179,386 $179,386
B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report
Budget for the fiscal year covered by the report (prior fiscal year), as well as a projection for the current fiscal year are:
FY2013 FY2014Salaries 95,427 95,427 Employer’s FICA 7,535 7,535 State Unemployment 1,738 1,738 Worker’s Compensation 311 311 Temporary Disability Insurance 441 441 Medical/Dental Insurance 9,476 9,476 Simplified Pension Plan 8,258 8,258 Group Life Insurance 952 952LTD 202 202 Professional Associations 942 942 Books & Subscriptions 1,650 1,650 Meeting Expense 81 81Air Travel 2,485 2,485 Meals and Incidentals 409 409 Accommodations 1,261 1,261 Auto Allowance and Expense 1,349 1,349 Misc./Business Expense 1,350 1,350 Conference and Seminars 616 616 Lease 18,159 18,159 Neighbor Island Lease 398 398 Parking Lease 887 887 Mileage 726 726 Telephones 2,941 2,941 Equipment/Furniture Rental 3,341 3,341 Equipment Maintenance 748 748 Computer Maintenance 1,268 1,268 Office Supplies 844 844 Paper Supplies 282 282 Postage/Freight 990 990 Parking Validations 258 258 Agency Insurance 5,548 5,548 Bank Charges 45 45 Office Equipment 52 52 Computer Software 0 0 Computer Hardware 11 11 Legal Corporate 1,092 1,092Audit 2,223 2,223 Programming Services 3,357 3,357 Software Support Services 185 185 Payroll Services 569 569 Other 979 979 TOTAL 179,386 179,386
C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)
Type of Position FTE % of year filled Person-years
Professional Full-time 14 100% 1.4 Part-time 4 100% 0.4 Vacant 0 0% 0 ClericalFull-time 1 100% 0.1 Part-time 0 0% 0 Vacant 0 0% 0
D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any) D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any) Hawaii Disability Rights Center (HDRC) continues to provide PAIR involvement through Governor-appointed memberships on the State Rehabilitation Council and the State Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities.
This year, HDRC staff also participates in an advisory capacity with the following:
HDRC’s involvement provides opportunities to participate and collaborate in government and private, non-profit agencies, planning efforts for programs and services designed to enhance the lives of people with disabilities by promoting systemic change within programs and in developing and maintaining a network of relationships with these agencies.
HDRC’s collaborative activities continues to result in outcomes that have moved to strengthen programs, policies and services, while protecting the rights of persons with disabilities in our state for all individuals in the PAIR population. E. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure None
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.
The Hawaii Disability Rights Center is responsible for administering the Client Assistance Program.
|Signed By||Louis Erteschik|