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

Indiana (INDIANA P and A SERVICES) - H240A140015 - FY2014

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameIndiana Protection and Advocacy Services
Address4701 N. Keystone Ave.
Address Line 2Suite 222
CityIndianapolis
StateIndiana
Zip Code46205
E-mail Addresstcrishon@ipas.in.gov
Website Addresshttp://www.in.gov/ipas
Phone317-722-5555
TTY 317-722-5563
Toll-free Phone800-622-4845
Toll-free TTY800-838-1131
Fax317-722-5564
Name of P&A Executive DirectorDawn Adams
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorThomas E. Crishon
Person to contact regarding reportThomas E. Crishon
Contact Person phone800-622-4845
Ext.443

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 areas398
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas124
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)522

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff20
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)685

During the past year, PAIR staff provided training at twenty public speaking events addressing disability rights, PAIR services, and other disability rights issues to approximately 685 participants including the following:

- Eleven resident rights presentations, focusing on abuse, neglect, and grievance procedures, conducted at select Indiana nursing facilities to approximately 196 participants.

- Two presentations about fair housing and the rights of those with disabilities at Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana’s 2014 Fair Housing Conference to approximately 250 people.

- A presentation about fair housing and the rights of those with disabilities at Indiana Association for Community Economic Development and Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority’s 2014 Indiana Statewide Conference to approximately fifty people.

- Two presentations about conducting ADA accessibility surveys at the 2014 National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) Protection and Advocacy Annual Meeting to approximately forty people.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff0
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles0
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website69,396
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated19,694
6. Other (specify separately)34

Narrative

The thirty-four others include fairs and conferences where IPAS staff disseminated information to the public through booths or exhibits, including how many individuals attended the fair or conference:

10/05/2013 2013 Allen County Buddy Walk (10 individuals attended) 10/04/2013 Indiana Hospital Association Rehab Task Force (40 individuals attended) 10/08/2013 Self Advocates of Indiana Conference 2013 Exhibit (100 individuals attended) 10/09/2013 Marion VA Exhibit (300 individuals attended) 10/11/2013 ESARC-ARC Bridges Outreach (5 individuals attended) 11/01/2013 Bartholomew County School Corporation 2013 Transition Fair Exhibit (150 individuals attended) 11/02/2013 National MS Society of Indiana Chapter Conference (100 individuals attended) 11/06/2013 Arc of Indiana’s 2013 Conference and Appreciation Luncheon (200 individuals attended) 11/07/2013 INSOURCE 2013 Volunteer Networking Conference Exhibit (150 individuals attended) 11/12/2013 Evansville ARC, Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation Transition Fair (20 individuals attended) 11/20/2013 Greater Lafayette Area Special Services (GLASS) Transition Fair Exhibit (125 individuals attended) 12/03/2013 IGCPD 2013 Conference Exhibit (417 individuals attended) 02/20/2014 INARF State Officials Roundtable Event (50 individuals attended) 03/14/2014 Scott County Transition Fair Exhibit (100 individuals attended) 03/20/2014 2014 Fort Wayne Disability Resource Fair (50 individuals attended) 03/21/2014 Hamilton-Boone-Madison Special Services Cooperative Transition Fair (300 individuals attended) 03/21/2014 NAIM-IN 11th Annual Mental Health & Criminal Justice Summit (300 individuals attended) 03/22/2014 2014 Indiana Autism Expo/Exhibit Booth (1,000 individuals attended) 03/27/2014 Life Care Nursing Home Health Fair (10 individuals attended) 04/02/2014 Monroe-Owen County Transition Fair exhibit (50 individuals attended) 04/08/2014 Indy Bar Ask-A-Lawyer (1 individual attended) 04/17/2014 2014 PATINS Tech Expo (200 individuals attended) 04/19/2014 2014 Indiana Autism Expo/Exhibit Booth (50 individuals attended) 04/25/2014 Floyd County Transition Fair 2014 (100 individuals attended) 04/29/2014 Jackson County Transition Fair Exhibit 2014 (50 individuals attended) 05/10/2014 2014 disABILITY Expo (150 individuals attended) 07/18/2014 SAI 2014 Picnic (600 individuals attended) 08/09/2014 Down Syndrome Indiana Fly-In (2,000 individuals attended) 08/21/2014 2014 Perry Township Transition Carnival (15,000 individuals attended) 09/03/2014 Rehabilitation Options of Indiana (3 individuals attended) 09/09/2014 Sanders School (Marion County) Transition Fair (80 individuals attended) 09/12/2014 Key Consumer Conference 2014 (300 individuals attended) 09/26/2014 Greater Clark County Transition Fair (75 individuals attended) 09/27/2014 2014 Indiana Vision Expo (400 individuals attended)

Additionally, the following is a list of IPAS publications created in connection with PAIR, including the total number of each disseminated during FY2014:

Abuse and Neglect Information Cards (602 publications disseminated) Article 7 (338 publications disseminated) Complaint Brochure (82 publications disseminated) Disability Rights and Appeals Process Guide (80 publications disseminated) Emergency Planning Guide (198 publications disseminated) IMPACT Newsletter Annual Report (544 publications disseminated) IMPACT newsletter Priorities Publication (1,105 publications disseminated) IPAS Agency Booklet (253 publications disseminated) IPAS Agency Brochure (4,345 publications disseminated) Recruitment for IPAS Commission and MIAC (116 publications disseminated) Segregated and Exploited: The Failure of the Disability Service System to Provide Quality Work (55 publications disseminated) TIPS Guide (115 publications disseminated) Toll-free Resource Page (2,250 publications disseminated) Transition Planning Handbook (Generic) (4,278 publications disseminated) Voting Guide (2,242 publications disseminated) Voting Information Bookmark (2,555 publications disseminated) Voting Postcard (536 publications disseminated)

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)23
2. Additional individuals served during the year61
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)84
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)3

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 31

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility18
2. Employment3
3. Program access2
4. Housing3
5. Government benefits/services0
6. Transportation4
7. Education27
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting1
10. Health care2
11. Insurance1
12. Non-government services0
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse9
16. Neglect5
17. Other12

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor33
2. Other representation found2
3. Individual withdrew complaint13
4. Appeals unsuccessful0
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case0
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit10
9. Other0

Please explain

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-advocacy4
2. Short-term assistance36
3. Investigation/monitoring6
4. Negotiation2
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution3
6. Administrative hearings1
7. Litigation (including class actions)0
8. Systemic/policy activities4

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. 0 - 41
2. 5 - 2229
3. 23 - 5928
4. 60 - 646
5. 65 and over20

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females28
2. Males56

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race0
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian1
4. Black or African American11
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White70
7. Two or more races1
8. Race/ethnicity unknown1

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent33
2. Parental or other family home31
3. Community residential home0
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home13
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center6
9. Homeless0
10. Other living arrangements1
11. Living arrangements not known0

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

1. Blind/visual impairment4
2. Deaf/hard of hearing5
3. Deaf-blind1
4. Orthopedic impairment31
5. Mental illness0
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability11
9. Neurological impairment19
10. Respiratory impairment0
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment4
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment1
13. Speech impairment1
14. AIDS/HIV0
15. Traumatic brain injury1
16. Other disability6

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities4

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes6,909

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.

There were four policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities by IPAS this year.

- The first was a policy revised by a private post-secondary institution following IPAS advocacy. The policy had prohibited animals on campus and in campus housing, which affected individuals with disabilities utilizing service animals. The policy change now reflects the school’s obligations under the ADA. Based on Cornell University’s 2012 Disability Status Report, the most recent available, 2.2% of Hoosiers have a visual disability, the disability most likely to use service animals under the ADA. As the university has 1,700, 2.2% of those students would equate to thirty-seven individuals impacted by this policy change.

- The second was a policy developed and implemented by a nursing home in Lake County, Indiana, following IPAS advocacy. The facility did not have a policy addressing reports of abuse/neglect or how allegations of abuse/neglect are to be investigated. IPAS advocated that the facility develop such a policy, which was done. This new policy impacted all 117 residents of the facility.

- The third involved a change in practice regarding tuition refunds at a large public university. IPAS found that the university was arbitrarily denying fee refund claims, even in instances where the claims were based on recurring disability conditions. The university agreed to consider all future claims individually, without regard to previously submitted and/or granted claims. If an individual with a disability now needs to withdraw from the university because of his/her disability, the refund request will no longer be arbitrarily denied. Again utilizing the Cornell University statistics, 12.7% of Hoosiers have some type of disability. As the university has 35,000 students, 12.7% of those students would equate to 4,445 possibly impacted by this practice change.

- The fourth was a change in policy at a public hospital regarding service animals in the emergency room. The prior policy required individuals who utilize a service animal to carry documentation showing current vaccinations and veterinarian examinations for their service animal, which was especially problematic in emergency situations. The hospital policy also required the service animals to wear special "service animal" identification, including tags, special collars, or harnesses. IPAS successfully advocated for revisions to the policy to remove both requirements. As mentioned above, 2.2% of Hoosiers have a visual disability according to the Cornell University report. As the hospital treated 105,000 individuals in their emergency room in 2013, 2.2% of those individuals would equate to 2,310 individuals possibly impacted by the policy change.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts0
2. Number of individuals named in class actions0

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

There were no instances this year where litigation on an individual or class action basis was required to resolve client concerns. Negotiation/mediation and use of established complaint processes were adequate to resolve the service requests handled this year.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

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

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

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

Priority 1: Reduce or eliminate abuse and neglect of individuals with disabilities.

Needs addressed: Continuing vulnerability of individuals with disabilities to be subject to abuse or neglect.

Indicators of success: Outcomes of individual cases handled which result in improved safety and well-being of clients served.

Collaboration: None required although cooperation of service providers, family, and guardians was often a contributing factor to success.

Objective:

101 Review twenty allegations of abuse and neglect on behalf of individuals with disabilities to ensure that the allegation is reported to the responsible entities and advocate that necessary actions are taken to protect the health, safety and welfare of the individual.

For the year, eight service requests were closed. Twelve service requests are being carried over into FY2015. For the year, with the eight service requests closed and twelve service requests carried over, the goal of reviewing twenty allegations was met.

Representative case: “Dan,” an inmate at an Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) Correctional Facility contacted IPAS alleging that he was not receiving appropriate medical care for his diabetes. Dan stated that following a transfer, the new facility changed his medication causing his blood glucose levels to become dangerously high. IPAS reviewed IDOC Health Care Services Directives and Dan’s submitted grievances related to this medical care. The response indicated that the treating physician mistakenly believed that Dan’s old medication was no longer available for use in IDOC. That physician retired during the review of this incident. The new physician changed Dan’s medication and his diabetes is now under control. Due to IPAS advocacy, the facility has corrected Dan’s medication so that his diabetes is now controlled. Dan benefited from IPAS services as he is now receiving appropriate medical care.

Priority 2: Reduce or eliminate discrimination or the denial of rights due to disability.

Needs addressed: Continuing discrimination and denial of rights of individuals with disabilities.

Indicators of success: Interventions employed in individual cases results in cessation of discrimination and restoration of rights to individuals served.

Collaboration: None required although, again, often the cooperation of service providers, family, and guardians was helpful in achieving positive outcomes.

Objectives:

201 Review thirty allegations of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Act, or other disability discrimination law.

For the year, thirty-two service requests were closed. Twelve service requests are being carried over into FY 2015. For the year, with the thirty-two service requests closed and twelve service requests carried over, the goal of reviewing thirty allegations was met.

Representative cases: “Daniel,” age 54, contacted IPAS about being denied a sign language interpreter at a local dental office. Daniel, an individual with a visual impairment and a hearing impairment, attempted to schedule an appointment at a dental office and requested the assistance of a sign language interpreter for the appointment. Daniel was informed that the dental office did not provide interpreters and that he would need to bring his own. Daniel then contacted IPAS. When the assigned IPAS advocate contacted the office, she was told that the office was short-staffed, the office would be unable to provide the services that Daniel required, and that he should seek services elsewhere. A few days later, the assigned IPAS attorney contacted the office to request the same services that Daniel was requesting. The office informed the IPAS attorney that an appointment could be scheduled for the following week. A legal representation agreement was then entered into between IPAS and Daniel. The attorney then sent the dental office’s corporate office a letter alleging disability discrimination, demanding appropriate action, and stating that legal action would be pursued if an appropriate response was not received. Legal counsel for the dental office contacted the IPAS attorney to discuss the matter. Ultimately, the dental office agreed to provide Daniel with a dental appointment, provide all necessary auxiliary aids for ensure effective communication, provide Daniel with compensatory relief and recovery of attorney’s fees. A final settlement was agreed to and signed by the parties, the dental office did provide those settlement checks to Daniel and IPAS, and Daniel did have a dental appointment with an appropriate interpreter. As a result of IPAS advocacy, Daniel was compensated for his time, inconvenience, and embarrassment, and was provided the necessary services he required, along with a sign language interpreter to ensure effective communication for those services, in compliance with Title III of the ADA.

“George,” age 52, lives in an apartment complex in Indianapolis and utilizes a wheelchair. George contacted IPAS because he was unable to access his apartment complex’s business office. He explained that there were steps at the front entrance making it inaccessible to a person utilizing a wheelchair. IPAS conducted a site visit and contacted the apartment management about George’s concerns. An accessible ramp was already constructed at the rear of the building, but was located by the apartment pool behind a locked gate. A resident without the necessary key or a visitor would be unable to access this ramp. Additionally, there was no signage indicating the availability of this accessible ramp. Apartment management agreed to erect a sign and door bell at the front of the building and at the locked gate. The signs indicate the location of the accessible entrance. An individual can ring the door bell to alert staff that someone needs to use the accessible entrance at the rear of the building. As a result of IPAS advocacy, George can now enter the business office at his apartment complex. Visitors with mobility issues will also now have an opportunity to utilize the accessible entrance to the business office.

“Jack,” age 68, contacted IPAS about interpreter services at a recent medical appointment. Jack, a person who is deaf, requested a sign language interpreter before going to the appointment. The doctor’s office stated that they do not provide interpreter services and that he would need to bring one with him. He did. Jack then called IPAS about the issue. Under Title III of the ADA, a place of public accommodation — including an office of a health care provider — must take those steps necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services. A qualified on-site interpreter is an example of an auxiliary aid or service. IPAS educated the doctor’s office about its requirements under the ADA and advocated for the office to reimburse Jack for the costs of hiring the interpreter. The doctor’s office did reimburse Jack for those costs. As a result of IPAS advocacy, Jack was reimbursed all monies that were inappropriately expended. Additionally, the doctor’s office was educated on its obligations under the ADA, which will hopefully prevent future violations.

203 Review three allegations of disability based discrimination that may have systemic implications.

For the year, one service request was successfully resolved under this objective. One service request is being carried over into FY 2015. Additionally, IPAS completed advocacy under thirteen projects, discussed below. As the goal was to review three systemic allegations, this objective was met for the year.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak): This project involves IPAS’s survey of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, d/b/a Amtrak stations in Indiana. When the ADA was enacted in 1990, Amtrak was given twenty years to make its rail system (trains and stations) fully accessible. It has been twenty-three years since the ADA became law and Amtrak is still largely inaccessible to individuals with a disability. Even today, Amtrak refuses to sell tickets to individuals with a disability to some destinations because there is no way for those individuals to get off the train once they arrive. While accessibility problems exist nationwide, this project was limited to accessibility concerns found at stations located in Indiana. In the fourth quarter of last fiscal year, IPAS, in coordination with NDRN and other protection and advocacy systems across the country, surveyed the accessibility of Amtrak train stations. IPAS surveyed all eleven Amtrak locations in Indiana for compliance with the relevant accessibility laws, including the ADA, and found accessibility concerns at all locations. These eleven locations include stations in Connersville, Crawfordsville, Dyer, Elkhart, Hammond-Whiting, Indianapolis, Lafayette, Michigan City, Rensselaer, South Bend, and Waterloo. IPAS submitted its results in a complaint to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), requesting that the USDOJ fully investigate these claims and ensure that Amtrak make the necessary changes to stations in Indiana to become fully accessible to individuals with a disability. While IPAS awaits contact by the USDOJ concerning that disability discrimination complaint, the Amtrak Office of the Inspector General did release an audit report (OIG-A-2014-010) on in the fourth quarter of this fiscal year. The report noted that in the past two years, since the Amtrak Office of Inspector General’s prior audit report, Amtrak has only made three stations compliant. Additionally, Amtrak is spending over 46 percent on project management rather than in actually improving accessibility. The report also noted that Amtrak Office of the Inspector General found that Amtrak spent money on non-ADA work and charged it to the ADA compliance budget. This project will be carried over into FY2015 while awaiting response from USDOJ.

Bowling Centers: This project was opened to review the accessibility at four Indianapolis bowling centers. The goal is for these highly visible recreational centers to make any needed changes to their locations to bring them into compliance with the ADA. This year, IPAS completed its reviews/inspections of the four facilities. Particular attention and review was directed towards the accessibility of the bowling lanes; accessibility of the facilities generally; parking and routes of access; signage; and accessibility of restrooms, service counters, food service areas, and the seating areas behind the bowling lanes. IPAS Legal reviewed the findings against the applicable ADA 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (ADA Standards), in order to pare the list to those areas and associated findings that appeared to be out of compliance with the standards. IPAS Legal then sent a letter to the company’s General Manager, who had been designated as the contact person for this dialogue, which set forth IPAS’s findings, positions, and provided facility-specific lists of identified issues/problems citing the applicable ADA Standard for each item. The company employed private counsel to represent them and communicate on their behalf through this process. Counsel for the respective parties had initial, substantive communication in the fourth quarter, following which the company’s counsel did provide a letter of answer and position to IPAS Legal. The assigned IPAS attorney continues to correspond with the company’s counsel to resolve these issues. This project will be carried over into FY2015.

National Center for Access to Justice: This project was opened in response to a National Center for Access to Justice (NCAJ) report finding that Indiana ranked last in the use of best practices for making courts available to individuals with disabilities. IPAS reached out to the Indiana Division of State Court Administration (DSCA) to make them aware of the report and to begin a dialogue to better improve the use of best practices in Indiana courts. The DSCA responded favorably and invited IPAS to meet with DSCA about ways to address the findings in the report. IPAS also contacted NCAJ to inquire about more information that IPAS could use in discussions with DSCA. The NCAJ responded that it was currently assigning attorneys to each state to help address concerns. The NCAJ invited IPAS to be the contact for issues relating to access to the courts for individuals with disabilities. The NCAJ Executive Director indicated that discussions would start soon after the attorneys were appointed. IPAS will be a part of those discussions. This year, DSCA sent a letter to the IPAS legal director indicating that upon review of the report, it was determined by DSCA that the ranking was in error based on a misunderstanding of Indiana’s unique court system and the report not utilizing the correct Indiana rules and statutes to generate its scores. DSCA indicated it was in the process of updating its website to better present information on how to request accommodations when utilizing the court system. DSCA also indicated that it has since hired a staff attorney whose responsibilities will include addressing court users with special needs. DSCA also indicated it is working with the Office of the Indiana Attorney General regarding the results of the report. This project will be carried over into FY2015.

Parking Lot Compliance: This project was opened to advocate for business parking lots found to be out of compliance with ADA to make necessary corrections. Work continues in this project and the project will be carried over into FY2015.

Gas America: This project involves accessibility at Gas America convenience stores and gas stations. Gas America was acquired by Speedway LLC, the nation’s fourth largest company-owned and operated convenience store chain and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum Corporation. IPAS continues to communicate with legal counsel from Speedway to ascertain how that company has addressed or plans to address any ADA compliance issues at these newly-acquired locations. This project will be carried over into FY2015.

Municipal Swimming Pool Surveys: This project was opened to survey and review accessibility at municipal swimming pools in a number of Indiana cities. This year, IPAS advocates surveyed pools in several cities throughout Indiana, which were then reviewed by IPAS Legal to make determinations regarding whether each city’s swimming pools are accessible pursuant to Title II of the ADA. If IPAS determines that a city’s pools are inaccessible, IPAS will begin discussions with that city regarding making the pools accessible and leaving open the possibility for litigation, if necessary. Work continues on this project and this project will be carried over into FY2015.

City of Indianapolis ADA Complaint Procedure: This project was opened to advocate for the City of Indianapolis to comply with Title II of the ADA and to adopt and publish an appropriate complaint procedure, as required by 28 C.F.R. ยง 35.107(b). This year, IPAS initiated contact, and subsequently met with the City’s outside legal counsel. During the meeting, IPAS stated its position that the City needed to adopt and publish an appropriate Title II ADA complaint policy, procedure and form(s), and that those should be posted on the City’s ADA website so they are accessible to the general public. The City’s counsel acknowledged the City’s responsibility to have an adopted and published ADA complaint policy, procedure and form(s) to comply with the applicable federal regulation, and that the City would be working on it in the near future. IPAS provided him with a copy of an ADA policy, procedure and form from another city in Indiana as an example, and a copy of the materials from the U.S. Department of Justice’s ADA Title II toolkit, which includes a basic form that could be amended and used on the City’s website to comply with the regulation. Work continues on this project and this project will be carried over into FY2015.

Olmstead: This project was created to explore what the State of Indiana has done since 1999 to comply with the Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), Supreme Court decision. In Olmstead, the United States Supreme Court held that Title II of the ADA prohibits the unjustified segregation of individuals with disabilities. The Court held that public entities are required to provide community-based services to persons with disabilities when (a) such services are appropriate; (b) the affected persons do not oppose community-based treatment; and (c) community-based services can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the entity and the needs of others who are receiving disability services from the entity. Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. at 607. The Court noted that a State can meet its ADA obligations if it has (1) “a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings”; and (2) “a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the State’s endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated.” Id. at 584. This year, research was conducted to attempt to find the State’s present Olmstead plan. Additionally, an Access to Public Records Act request was sent to the Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to request the current Olmstead plan, all previous Olmstead plans, and all public records related to the development of those plans since 1999. Work continues on this project and this project will be carried over into FY2015.

Subminimum Wage and Sheltered Workshops: This project was opened to investigate sheltered workshops and 14(c) wage and hour complaints and to advocate for fair wages for people with disabilities. The project was started based on a national initiative from NDRN focusing on the issue of employment for people with disabilities. The Legal Director and several IPAS staff have attended online trainings about this project, which involves two separate issues. The first is at a federal level: looking at those organizations holding federal 14(c) certifications, which exempt them from having to pay minimum wage. This part of the project is designed to make sure that those who are paying sub-minimum wages have complied with all necessary requirements. A FOIA request was drafted and sent out to the federal Department of Labor at the end of the quarter. The second is at a state level: looking at the state statute, which explicitly exempts sheltered workshop workers from the definition of "employee." Research has begun to find examples of companies who are paying sub-minimum wages but do not fall under the statutory exemption definition as well to brain storm ways to challenge the validity of the statute. Work continues on this project and this project will be carried over into FY2015.

Indiana University Tuition Refund Policy: This project was opened to examine the Indiana University policy related to reimbursement of tuition based upon withdrawal from classes due to alleged physical, mental, or other impairment following the expiration of the standard tuition reimbursement scale applicable to all students over the first few weeks of the semester. Indiana University maintains a “Fee Policy Appeals” through which students who withdraw from classes after the standard period for refund to submit a request for refund that will be considered and approved or denied by a committee based upon the committee’s review of and determination as to whether “significant or unusual circumstances” exist to warrant refund of tuition for the period in question. Research of federal and state case law, as well as contact with the Great Lakes DBTAC, on this issue disclosed no precedent. IPAS did not find a systemic issue in regard to Indiana University’s “Fee Policy Appeals” or in the process involved for review of the appeals by the Committee. However, in working this project, several issues were identified for which a letter was sent advocating for certain modifications of policies and practices. Based on IPAS’s recommendations, Indiana University’s policy restricting the ability of individuals with recurring temporary or permanent disabilities to seek second or subsequent refunds based on the same or similar disability-related conditions which prevented them from completing course work has been modified to remove that restriction; the University has stated unequivocally that all fee refund requests will be considered independently and on their own merit without regard to previously filed and granted appeals; that the Indiana University ADA Coordinator for students will now participate in appeal deliberations which involve claims based on some form of disability related impairment; and that this information has been fully posted on the Indiana University Bursar’s web page for the student population. This project was closed this fiscal year.

Indianapolis Museum of Art: This project involved reviewing the accessibility of an outdoor exhibit at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. This project has been open since August 2012. This year, IPAS emailed the 100 Acre Director with a request to respond to our concerns by June 30, 2014. No response was received. As a result, IPAS filed a disability discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice this quarter regarding the outstanding accessibility concerns. Due to the filing of the disability discrimination complaint, this project was closed this fiscal year.

Indiana Statehouse: This project involved surveying street parking areas located near the Indiana Statehouse for compliance with applicable accessibility laws. This year, IPAS completed a site survey and advised the City of Indianapolis of the compliance problems IPAS found. These problems included some accessible parking spaces lacking appropriate signage and the need for curb ramps from some access aisles to the sidewalk. IPAS recommended that the City of Indianapolis review the United States Access Board’s Proposed Rights-of-Way Guidelines (2011), which might contain additional accessibility standards that will be required once adopted. This project was closed this year since IPAS ultimately determined that there were a sufficient number of accessible parking spaces provided in the area.

Eskenazi Health: This project was initially opened to ensure that a Wishard Memorial Hospital (now Eskenazi Health) policy concerning service animals was compliant with the relative provisions of the ADA and Indiana law concerning service animals. This year, IPAS legal sent Eskenazi Health a letter informing them that the Eskenazi policy contradicts the ADA and requested that appropriate changes be made. Eskenazi did amend the policy to be compliant with the ADA. This project was closed this fiscal year.

204 Review allegations on behalf of five students where the school is not providing appropriate educational services.

For the year, seventeen service requests were closed. The closed service requests involved ensuring that IPAS clients were receiving Free Appropriate Public Education. Nine service requests are being carried over into FY2015. For the year, with the seventeen service requests closed and nine service requests carried over, the goal of reviewing allegations on behalf of five students was met.

Priority 3: Increase awareness and effective self-advocacy by providing education and training about disability rights and the exercise of these rights.

Needs addressed: Improve knowledge about disability rights and self-advocacy skills of individuals with disabilities and their families and guardians.

Indicators of success: Most training and public speaking events include an evaluation by participants. One indicator of success is the results of these evaluations, which attempt to assess the degree to which participants found the information to be helpful. Such results are overwhelmingly positive.

Collaboration: To achieve positive outcomes, IPAS worked in partnership with participating individuals, families, and guardians, as well as with organizations and agencies on whose committees or groups IPAS staff members participated.

Objectives:

301 Provide education and training about disability rights, self-advocacy skills and IPAS to individuals with disabilities, parents, guardians, advocates, and/or service program providers.

For the year, IPAS conducted twenty education and training speaking engagements training approximately 685 individuals. Please refer to the previous listing of training and public information events.

302 Participate on selected committees, groups or task forces that have systemic implications concerning policies and practices affecting the rights of individuals with disabilities.

IPAS participated on six committees, groups or task forces this year. This objective was met for the fiscal year.

ADA Indiana Steering Committee: This group attempts to promote ADA awareness and compliance throughout the state. IPAS participated in nine of nine meetings conducted during the year. The committee continues to promote the ADA Audio Conference series sponsored by ADA Indiana and the Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center (DBTAC), the Legal Issues Webinar Series, and ADA Community grants available to entities wanting to promote accessibility in their communities. Over the year, ADA Indiana supported eight sites for the ADA Audio Conference series, with 261 participants attending, and distributed 1,081 publications, provided technical assistance to ninety-three individuals, and conducted sixty-four training events. IPAS will continue to participate on this committee in FY2015.

Back Home in Indiana Alliance Steering Committee: This organization comprises representatives from federal, state, and local housing, advocacy, and disability-related organizations and is working to increase the availability of individual, affordable, and accessible housing for people with disabilities. IPAS participated in two of two meetings this year. IPAS will continue to participate on this committee in FY2015.

Indiana Task Force on Disability and Health: The Indiana Institute on Disability and Community received a contract from the Indiana State Department of Health to develop a task force and identify recommendations about decreasing health disparities among people with disabilities, with a particular emphasis on chronic health conditions of heart disease and stroke, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory diseases (asthma) along with the behavioral risk factors that are associated with them. IPAS was invited to participate on this new task force, the Indiana Task Force on Disability and Health. The task force will meet monthly to respond to expert data on health disparities around chronic illnesses, share insights into the issues, needs and challenges associated with chronic illness among people with disabilities and offer recommendations around priorities for further research and action. IPAS participated in eight of eight meetings the year. IPAS will continue to participate on this committee in FY2015.

Indiana Adult Guardianship Task Force: IPAS was invited to participate on the Adult Guardianship Task Force this year. The stated purpose of the task force is “to convene an interdisciplinary group of Indiana key stakeholders to examine the public policy, legal and service delivery issues, and needs related to adult guardianship and to support the development and provision of community-based adult guardianship services across the state.” IPAS participated in three quarterly meetings this year. IPAS will continue to participate on this committee in FY2015.

Elder Justice Convening: The Indiana Association of Area Agencies on Aging and the Indiana Division of Aging sought to convene representatives of as many of organizations serving the aged and disabled. The purpose of this gathering was to gain an improved understanding of how elder justice issues impact all of our organizations, to understand the threads of interdependency, and to discuss planned and potential initiatives designed to improve our response to these challenges and to strengthen the systems in Indiana that protect vulnerable Hoosiers, into which the disabled community falls. IPAS participated in one of one meeting this year. IPAS will continue to participate on this committee in FY2015.

ICJI STOP Implementation Planning Group: IPAS was invited to participate on Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors (STOP) Grant Implementation Planning Group this year. The STOP Implementation Plan is a three-year strategic plan. The STOP program funds are intended to promote a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to improving the criminal justice system’s response to violent crimes against women. The program encourages the development and strengthening of effective law enforcement, courts and prosecution strategies along with victim services. The primary goals for the ICJI are to decrease domestic violence homicides, increase training to more practitioners, increase areas of services for crime victims and increase awareness of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. The group attempted to devise a plan on how to best allocate the STOP funds for 2014 to 2016. IPAS was represented at four of four meetings and provided input regarding disability-related issues. The work was completed and the planning group was ended this year.

Priority 4: Provide timely and accurate information about disability rights and technical assistance concerning the exercise of these rights.

Needs addressed: Individuals with disabilities require information about their rights, technical assistance in self-advocacy efforts, and referral to other organizations based on their presenting needs.

Indicators of success: IPAS conducts a follow-up telephone satisfaction survey on a sample of individuals who have recently received information and referral services. A goal has been established to achieve at least 90% affirmative responses to the question “would you call IPAS again if you have another disability rights concern?” This year, of those individuals calling about PAIR services, IPAS exceeded that goal by 4% achieving a positive response from 94% of those responding to the question.

Collaboration: None.

Objectives:

401 Respond to requests for information and referral and technical assistance to individuals with disabilities, their families, and professionals about disability rights and provide information and technical assistance concerning the exercise of these rights.

For the year, IPAS fielded 522 PAIR service requests for information and referral services. Of these, follow-up calls were made to forty-eight individuals who participated in the satisfaction survey. This constitutes a 9.2% survey sample. Of the forty-eight participants, forty-seven indicated that they found the information which they gained to be helpful and forty-eight said they would call IPAS again if they should have a disability rights concern or problem.

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.

Priority 1: Reduce or eliminate abuse and neglect of individuals with disabilities.

Needs addressed: Continuing vulnerability of individuals with disabilities to be subject to abuse or neglect.

Activities: Activities are described by objectives below.

Objective:

101 Review twenty allegations of abuse and neglect on behalf of individuals with disabilities to ensure that the allegation is reported to the responsible entities and take appropriate actions as necessary.

Priority 2: Reduce or eliminate discrimination or the denial of rights due to disability.

Needs addressed: Continuing discrimination and denial of rights of individuals with disabilities.

Activities: Activities are described by objectives below.

Objectives:

201 Review thirty allegations of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Housing Act, or other disability discrimination law and take appropriate actions as necessary.

203 Review three allegations of disability based discrimination that may have systemic implications and take appropriate actions as necessary.

204 Review allegations on behalf of ten students where the school is not providing appropriate educational services and take appropriate actions as necessary.

Priority 3: Increase awareness and effective self-advocacy by providing education and training about disability rights and the exercise of these rights.

Needs addressed: Improve knowledge about disability rights and self-advocacy skills of individuals with disabilities and their families and guardians.

Activities: Activities are described by objectives below.

Objectives:

301 Provide education and training about disability rights and IPAS to individuals with disabilities, parents, guardians, advocates, and/or service program providers.

302 Participate and take an active role on selected committees, groups or task forces that have systemic implications concerning policies and practices affecting the rights of individuals with disabilities.

Priority 4: Provide timely and accurate information about disability rights and technical assistance concerning the exercise of these rights.

Needs addressed: Individuals with disabilities require information about their rights, technical assistance in self-advocacy efforts and referral to other organizations based on their presenting needs.

Activities: Activities are described by objectives below.

Objectives:

401 Respond to all requests for information and referral and technical assistance to individuals with disabilities, their families, and professionals about disability rights and provide information and technical assistance concerning the exercise of these rights.

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:

The PAIR grant is the sole source of funds received and expended for the PAIR program activities.

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report:

The following includes the actual amount expended in each category for FY2014, and the proposed budget for each category for FY2015.

SALARIES & FRINGE BENEFITS

Expended: $ 308,432.48

Proposed: $ 270,000.00

CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS

Expended: $ 26,923.69

Proposed: $ 29,000.00

MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

Expended: $ 3,464.87

Proposed: $ 5,250.00

EQUIPMENT

Expended: $ 5,009.81

Proposed: $ 9,250.00

OTHER (Work, Comp, ID bills, etc.)

Expended: $ 2,658.08

Proposed: $ 10,000.00

ADMINISTRATIVE/OPERATING EXPENSES

Expended: $ 14,349.47

Proposed: $ 21,800.00

TOTAL Expenses for 2014: $ 360,838.40

TOTAL Proposed for 2015: $ 345,300.00

CARRYOVER 2014 Grant: $ 136,664.37

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

IPAS had twenty-six staff members this fiscal year. IPAS had an Interim Executive Director while conducting a search to fill the Executive Director position. A new Executive Director was hired and began work on October 20, 2014. The former Interim Executive Director transitioned to the Support Services Director.

IPAS administers eight federally-funded advocacy programs: the PAIR program; Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities (PADD); Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI); the Client Assistance Program (CAP); Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology (PAAT); Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS); Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI); and Protection and Advocacy for Voting Accessibility (PAVA). All staff work under the various programs, including the PAIR program. Staff are required to closely track their work activities under each program. Bi-weekly, each staff member accounts for the amount of time spent in each program. This accounting is used to determine the portion of each staff member’s salary and benefits paid by each of the federal programs for that bi-weekly pay period. This cost allocation approach assures that each funding source supports only those activities and expenses which are authorized under that source’s legislation and regulations.

The entire IPAS staff:

1 Interim Executive Director

1 Legal Director

4 Staff Attorneys

2 Assistant Client Services Directors

11 Advocacy Specialists

2 Intake Specialists

1 Education and Training Coordinator

2 Accountants

1 Secretary

1 Data Entry Clerk

D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any):

IPAS is represented by staff serving on the ADA State Steering Committee, the Back Home in Indiana Alliance Steering Committee, Indiana Task Force on Disability and Health, Indiana Adult Guardianship Task Force, and Elder Justice Convening. The IPAS Executive Director is a member of the Governor’s Council for People with Disabilities.

E. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure:

There was one PAIR grievances filed under the IPAS grievance procedure in FY2014. The grievance was a request for service for an issue reviewed by the IPAS Case Review Committee but was determined to not be a rights violation. The Executive Director reviewed the case and affirmed the decision made by the Case Review Committee. The individual appealed to the Commission Chairman, the second step in the IPAS grievance procedure. The Chairman upheld the decision affirmed by the Executive Director.

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:

CAP is also administered by IPAS. The State long-term care program is administered by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Division of Aging. IPAS has an on-going arrangement with the administering agency based on a prior written agreement, which defined coordination and referrals between all IPAS programs and the State long-term care ombudsman program.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByDawn Adams
TitleAuthorized Certifying Official
Signed Date12/23/2014