|Name||Disability Law Center|
|Address||205 North 400 West|
|Address Line 2|
|City||Salt Lake City|
|Name of P&A Executive Director||Adina Zahradnikova|
|Name of PAIR Director/Coordinator||Adina Zahradnikova|
|Person to contact regarding report||Adina Zahradnikova|
|Contact Person phone||801-363-1347|
Multiple responses are not permitted.
|1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas||692|
|2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas||255|
|3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)||947|
|1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff||2|
|2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)||92|
1.The Board of the Guardianship Signature program, of which we are a member, decided to put together a CLE presentation on guardianship, in part to advertise the program and to recruit attorneys to sign up for it. A DLC attorney educated the private bar to better represent proposed wards and petitioners in guardianship proceedings. Some discussion was offered about ethics of questionable representation practices, where attorney will prepare papers for petitioners and represent ward, or represent petitioners and have friend from same firm or other firm represent ward. 2. Twice a year the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts trains new court visitors. These Volunteers are used to assist judges in various issues arising in guardianship cases, both pre and post finding of incapacity. The DLC has helped in this training by talking to the new volunteers about communicating with people with various types of cognitive impairments (degenerative, intellectual disabilities, traumatic brain injuries) and mental illness. The objective is to help the courts protect the rights of alleged incapacitated individuals in guardianship matters. A judge can send a visitor out to talk to a proposed ward in guardianship proceedings to determine whether they are capable of attending a hearing, discuss with the individual who they might prefer as a guardian, or address any other issue that arises in a guardianship case that the judge feels needs independent investigation. Once a guardian is appointed a judge can ask a visitor to do a wellness check on the individual if their condition comes into question, investigate issues of abuse, neglect or exploitation or other concerns that may arise.
|1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff||9|
|2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles||26|
|3. PSAs/videos aired||9|
|4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website||89,687|
|5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated||2,701|
|6. Other (specify separately)||230|
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)||38|
|2. Additional individuals served during the year||216|
|3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)||254|
|4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)||0|
Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 13
|1. Architectural accessibility||26|
|3. Program access||46|
|5. Government benefits/services||24|
|8. Assistive technology||0|
|10. Health care||18|
|12. Non-government services||15|
|13. Privacy rights||1|
|14. Access to records||0|
|1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor||156|
|2. Other representation found||0|
|3. Individual withdrew complaint||25|
|4. Appeals unsuccessful||2|
|5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.||0|
|6. PAIR withdrew from case||0|
|7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources||6|
|8. Individual case lacks legal merit||16|
List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.
|1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy||4|
|2. Short-term assistance||145|
|5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution||4|
|6. Administrative hearings||16|
|7. Litigation (including class actions)||2|
|8. Systemic/policy activities||0|
|1. 0 - 4||0|
|2. 5 - 22||16|
|3. 23 - 59||192|
|4. 60 - 64||29|
|5. 65 and over||17|
Multiple responses not permitted.
|1. Hispanic/Latino of any race||24|
|2. American Indian or Alaskan Native||2|
|4. Black or African American||4|
|5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander||1|
|7. Two or more races||0|
|8. Race/ethnicity unknown||2|
Multiple responses not permitted.
|2. Parental or other family home||17|
|3. Community residential home||0|
|4. Foster care||0|
|5. Nursing home||8|
|6. Public institutional living arrangement||0|
|7. Private institutional living arrangement||1|
|8. Jail/prison/detention center||7|
|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||14|
|2. Deaf/hard of hearing||18|
|4. Orthopedic impairment||110|
|5. Mental illness||28|
|6. Substance abuse||2|
|7. Mental retardation||4|
|8. Learning disability||19|
|9. Neurological impairment||25|
|10. Respiratory impairment||5|
|11. Heart/other circulatory impairment||7|
|12. Muscular/skeletal impairment||13|
|13. Speech impairment||2|
|15. Traumatic brain injury||2|
|16. Other disability||1|
|1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities||6|
|2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes||20,095|
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.
1. A DLC Advocate us serving as the chairman of the Bear River Association of Governments Mobility Management Council. This project serves to increase the transportation options for people with disabilities in the (rural) Bear River Region. It also promotes access to public accommodations in the private sector. This project also captures work done to approve or deny participation by applicants of the transportation voucher program. The program, created by the council provides people who do not have access to public transportation, have limited income and have a disability with the means to pay private transportation providers or friends or neighbors to transport them to medical appointments. The DLC coordinated with other service agencies to increase access to transportation for people with disabilities. As a result of this collaboration, a Medical Voucher program was initiated to allow folks with disabilities to pay another individual to transport them to medical appointments when public transportation is not available. 2. The DLC received a report that the Key Bank in Bountiful, UT was physically inaccessible. This project will include surveys of the Bountiful location as well as a sampling of other Key Bank locations in Utah to determine if Key Bank inaccessibility is a more prevalent issue. As a result of our advocacy, Key Bank was able to resolve all issues concerning accessibility at the locations that were not compliant with the ADA. These buildings will now be accessible to all individuals. 3. The DLC worked with Uber and local governments to develop a pilot project to make available wheelchair accessible vehicles to those who need them, including recruiting providers of vehicles and riders for the vehicles once available. After working with Uber, a limited roll-out of wheelchair accessible vehicles were put on Uber's platform. We took the first ride, and used that to try to get word out. We have continued to try to get word out about the program. We hope to expand the program in FY17, and we will continue to get word out. In addition, we intend to reach out to Lyft to try to get them to offer wheelchair accessible vehicles. 4. An individual came to us with concerns regarding new regulations regarding reasonable modifications and para-transit. We conducted research into recent Federal Transit Authority (FTA) regulations regarding reasonable modifications to policies and practices for transportation for individuals with disabilities. Namely, the individual, and our research, had concerns with Utah Transit Authority's (UTA) implementation of a reasonable modification to notify para-transit riders of the vehicle arriving via telephone.Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is likely not meeting its obligations under these regulations. We sent out clarification and a compliance demand letter to UTA. UTA has said the system to do so will be implemented early 2017 at the latest. 5. Proposed changes to the HCBS (Home and Community Based Services) and settings rule. People who will be affected by the HCBS transition plan will be all individuals who are receiving services under one of the waiver programs, or who could potentially be receiving services under any of the waiver programs. DLC conducted research, gathered data, attended meetings and provided feedback on the proposed changes and how it will affect those under the different waiver program services. The DLC successfully impacted the State's HCBS implementation process. This was done through public comments on the State's plan, testimony and meetings with the Utah State Legislature, meeting with officials from the department of health, and the release of a report detailing the results of a year long study. 6. WINGS is a committee formed through a grant by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The committee looked at a number of options that helped strengthen the guardianship process and monitoring and support for guardians once they are appointed. The objective of participation on the WINGS committee is to improve the guardianship system so that the individual alleged to be incapacitated maintains the maximum independence possible while at the same time enhanced protection against misuse of the powers of the guardian. In the spring of 2016, the DLC co-authored an Utah Bar Journal article on capacity evaluations.
|1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts||0|
|2. Number of individuals named in class actions||0|
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.
For each of your PAIR program priorities for the fiscal year covered by this report, please:
1. Identify and describe priority. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. PAIR PRIORITY — Abuse and Neglect (AN) 1 ABUSE 1. Identify and describe priority. Area of Focus 1: Investigating Abuse and Neglect of Individuals with Mental Illness in County Jails and at the Utah State Prison. DLC will conduct investigations into the provision of mental health services in county jails throughout Utah; DLC will provide legally based advocacy to inmates at the Utah State Prison who are allegedly being abused or neglected. Area of Focus 2: Monitoring Facilities and Services. DLC will monitor the following types of facilities for safety and compliance issues and will provide legally-based advocacy to residents of such facilities: a. Residential Care Facilities for Individuals with Mental Illness b. Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities c. Segregated Employment Settings Area of Focus 3: Individual Advocacy. Although focusing primarily on systemic work during FY16, DLC will also conduct investigations of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect 1) where there appears to be a pattern or recurrence of significant abuse or neglect, 2) where there has been a death or life-threatening injury, or 3) where the alleged abuse or neglect is particularly egregious, with a focus on those living in or being treated in facilities. By the end of FY 16, the DLC will provide 1:1 advocacy to 5 PAIR eligible clients who have experienced serious abuse or neglect. Area of Focus 4: Self-Advocacy Trainings. DLC will continue collaboration with Utah Developmental Disability Council (UDDC), Utah Coalition against Sexual Assault (UCASA), and Utah Domestic Violence Council (UDVC) to provide training and education for people with disabilities and their caregivers regarding recognizing and reporting abuse and neglect 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. FY15 Needs Assessment Data Reports: Results from the 2015 Needs Assessment survey demonstrate that the following percentages of respondents either have personally experienced abuse and neglect or know someone with a disability who has experienced abuse and neglect.69% had experienced emotional or verbal abuse • 46% had experienced neglect • 41% had experienced physical abuse • 225 had experienced sexual abuse, and • 36% of the respondents stated that keeping people free from abuse and neglect is their top priority. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. By the end of FY16, the AN team will provide 1:1 advocacy to a total of 5 PAIR eligible individuals. By the end of FY16, the AN team will have developed information, training, and resources to reduce and prevent the abuse or neglect of DV victims with disabilities. By the end of FY 16, the DLC will have investigated the systemic obstacles to parole for offenders whose discharge options are limited as a consequence of their mental illness. This will include collaboration with the Utah Board of Pardons & Parole. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. The DLC collaborates with many other agencies in Utah whose priorities are similar to ours in reducing and/or eliminating the abuse and neglect of people with disabilities living in facilities in Utah. Some of those agencies include: Adult Protective Services, Ombudsman, Long Term Care Planning Committee, Brain Injury Association of Utah, Utah Attorney General’s Office, Department of Aging and Adult Services, Office of Public Guardian, and Department of Health. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. Information and Referral — 50 Short term Assistance — 8 Abuse and Neglect Investigations — 3 Representation at Hearings- 0 Technical Assistance — 0 Litigation on behalf of clients —0 Class actions — 0 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. Sex Offender Training Program (SOTP) investigation — Two (2) rounds of inmate interviews were completed (20+ inmates) in April, 2016. Thousands of pages of inmate records have been reviewed. It is obvious that for years, widespread, systematic ADA violations have been occurring within the Sex Offender Treatment Program administered by the Utah Dept. of Corrections (UDC). For some inmates with disabilities, including inmates with severe and persistent mental illness, such program accessibility defects have resulted in decades of incarceration beyond what is typical for similarly situated offenders with comparable criminal convictions. The DLC has completed a Report entitled “The Utah Department of Corrections’ Sex Offender Treatment Program and Liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.” The Report’s Conclusion is laid out below: “As a practical reality, inmates like the ones described above must successfully complete the Department’s sex offender treatment program before they will be considered for parole. In completing what must be acknowledged as a de facto prerequisite for parole, an inmate’s disability status should not be the factor on which freedom and incarceration turn. Yet, despite repeated attempts, many of these individuals have been unable to complete SOTP precisely because of their disability. And while there is no constitutional right to parole, the Department has a clear legal obligation under the ADA to provide meaningful access to its programs and services, and at the very least, a compelling moral duty to ensure that the years an inmate spends incarcerated are not arbitrarily increased based on a visual or mobility impairment, learning disability, or mental illness. Simply put, when modifications are necessary to ensure meaningful access, the Department must make such reasonable modifications to their policies, services, and practices. Informing an inmate that they have been discharged “due to mental health issues that interfere with his ability to process treatment concepts and follow program guidelines” misses the mark and could almost certainly subject the Department to considerable liability under the ADA. The lack of a coherent, visible, and effective process for requesting reasonable disability modifications is similarly impermissible under the ADA. The conclusion which must be drawn from the extensive inmate interviews, record reviews, and analysis underpinning this report is that when viewed in its entirety, the Department’s sex offender treatment program is currently being administered in a manner which has violated and continues to violate the ADA rights of numerous inmates with disabilities. And unless systemic changes are implemented, legal challenges, litigation and liability are near certainties. But the ADA issues within the SOTP are not insurmountable—some improvements could be made easily with modest policy changes and training; others will inevitably require material and personnel investment. The DLC is sincerely interested in working cooperatively with the Department to ensure that it is meeting the needs of inmates with disabilities and otherwise complying with the requirements of the ADA. However, consistent with its statutory obligation to enforce federal disability law, the DLC is prepared to institute legal action on behalf of inmates within its constituency if and when such action becomes necessary. In connection with this report, please be advised of the Department’s legal obligation to affirmatively preserve all documents and data relating to the subject matter of this report, in anticipation of possible litigation. In providing the Department with this report, we hope not only to shine a light on what is a very real, systemic problem, but to start a meaningful dialogue and to constructively engage with Department personnel in finding workable solutions. As always, we sincerely appreciate the Department’s transparency and logistical assistance in facilitating this investigation, and hope that this spirit of cooperation continues with regard to this issue and in all the areas where our agencies interact.” Example B. The Disability Law Center (DLC) used a Basic Needs Advocacy Grant from United Way and a mix of federal grants to improve victim services for women with disabilities in Utah. Women with disabilities have an especially high risk of experiencing domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse. In addition, these women encounter unique barriers to accessing the services they need to escape and begin recovering from the abuse. These barriers can be related to the physical or programmatic accessibility of domestic violence or sexual assault programs, or they can be attitudinal in nature. In an effort to begin removing barriers and improving victim services for women with disabilities, the DLC originally planned to use this grant to provide individual legal representation, training and technical assistance and to engage in systemic reform efforts. However, given the amount of the grant, we were only able to engage in some of these activities. We decided to concentrate on providing training to domestic violence/sexual assault organizations on increasing awareness and knowledge of disability-related issues. We felt this would be the best way to reach the largest number of people and generate interest that could lead to further systemic improvements in the future. At the beginning of the grant year, we reached out to community partners to better identify training needs. This included meeting with outreach coordinators at the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition (UDVC) and the Utah Coalition against Sexual Assault (UCASA), networking with professionals from across the state at the UDVC’s Leadership Forum, developing and administering a survey to shelter staff, and reviewing past presentations on this topic. In September, we attended the domestic violence shelter directors’ monthly meeting to receive their input. We also conversed with another protection and advocacy agency about similar work they have done in their state. Based on our research and input from all these sources, the DLC decided to hold three seminars—in Brigham City, Provo and Richfield. These locations were selected in order to allow attendance by professionals from across the state. The event was advertised via email and flyers were distributed widely. Part of the goal was to bring together professionals from different agencies and create networking opportunities. The first seminar was held at the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Brigham City on March 24th. Forty (40) professionals attended including 18 employees of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), 6 domestic violence shelter advocates, 6 support coordinators for people with disabilities, and representatives from Bear River Mental Health, the Box Elder Family Support Center, The Family Place, Army Community Services/Family Advocacy, and other social service organizations. The seminar ran from 9:00 A.M. until 4:30 P.M. and included sessions on responding to the needs of survivors with disabilities, traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the role of Adult Protective Services (APS) in responding to abuse of vulnerable adults, and a panel presentation on working with people with disabilities. Following the training, attendees were provided with a satisfaction survey. All 25 survey respondents either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they were satisfied overall with the training. In the narrative section, respondents wrote that they enjoyed the training, that there was a lot of helpful information and that it was done very well. One DCFS employee wrote, “This was really one of the best days of training that I have attended for a long time—Great Job!” The second seminar was held at the Provo City Library on April 7th. Twenty nine (29) professionals attended including 7 employees of police departments (including Heber City, Hurricane City, Provo, and Unified Police), 6 DCFS employees, 4 support coordinators for people with disabilities, 4 shelter advocates from South Valley Services, and representatives of the Autism Council of Utah, Baby Watch, Four Corners Behavioral Health, Provo City Attorney’s Office, the Utah County Children’s Justice Center, Valley Behavioral Health, and other public and non-profit entities. This event had a similar agenda as the first; the only differences were the mental health/PTSD speaker and the panel speakers. Eighteen people responded to the satisfaction survey for the second seminar, and again, all respondents either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they were satisfied overall with the training. The third seminar was held at the Sevier County Sheriff’s Office in Richfield on April 28th. Twenty seven (27) professionals attended including 10 domestic violence shelter staff, 4 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs), 3 DCFS employees, 3 Division of Workforce Services (DWS) employees, and 4 support coordinators and advocates for people with disabilities. This event ran from 9:00 A.M until 3:00 P.M. The schedule was shortened slightly to allow attendees extra travel time to accommodate the rural location. Even with the shortened schedule, we were able to include almost all of the same sessions and topics as the previous seminars. We consider the third seminar to have been the most successful. Not only were we able to attract a large number of attendees in a rural location, but the audience consisted mainly of domestic violence shelter staff and other professionals who work directly with domestic violence survivors. Our experience from the other two seminars resulted in more polished presentations and a smooth routine. This success was reflected in the satisfaction surveys in which 100% of the 16 respondents not only “agreed” but “strongly agreed” that they were satisfied overall with the training. At each of these seminars, lunch was provided. Attendees also received a DLC pen and a folder with the following handouts: • An agenda with brief speaker biographies and presentation summaries • Presentation handouts for each of the main speakers • Fact Sheet—Crime Against Persons with Disabilities by the Bureau of Justice Statistics • Fact Sheet—Domestic Violence and Disability by the DLC • Tip Sheet—“A Trauma Informed Approach to Domestic Violence Advocacy” by the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma and Mental Health • Booklet—“Safety Planning for Domestic Violence Victims with Disabilities” by the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence • Brochure—“Best Practices: Responding to Crimes against People with Disabilities, Deaf Individuals and Older Adults, A Guide for Law Enforcement and Service Agencies” by Utah State University Center for Persons with Disabilities, Sego Lily Center for the Abused Deaf, the Utah Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the Utah Domestic Violence Council, and the Utah Developmental Disabilities Council • Traumatic Brain Injury brochure by the Utah Department of Health Violence and Injury Prevention Program • DLC general brochure • DLC Fair Housing brochure The majority of these handouts were made available electronically at the following link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6wbszy8euet6d1p/AADFvc37SSaD2wdOQVYCNL7Aa?dl=0 The DLC’s hosting of these seminars has led to closer relationships and collaborations with community partners, including the Utah Domestic Violence Coalition (UDVC). In April, the UDVC invited us to join a workgroup to help plan their annual domestic violence conference. The DLC has engaged in all three workgroup meetings and provided information on potential speakers and topics for the event. The DLC has also submitted two proposals to present at the conference on the intersection of disability and abuse as well as fair housing rights. The DLC was also able to use this grant to begin reaching out directly to victims with disabilities. A fact sheet on Domestic Violence and Disability was created and distributed to inform these individuals of their rights in accessing social services. As a result, the DLC has begun receiving calls on behalf of domestic violence shelter employees and residents who feel they have been discriminated against. One domestic violence survivor was recently referred to us because she was being given an exit date from a domestic violence shelter. Due to her disability, she felt she needed more time to be able to complete the tasks expected of her and reach her goals of obtaining employment and housing. Without additional time in the shelter, she would be left with no alternative but to return to her abuser. This case suggests that there is a need for ongoing training on how to accommodate women with disabilities as well as a need for advocacy on behalf of individual clients. In all, the DLC provided training for 96 social service professionals, most of whom work directly with domestic violence survivors on a daily basis. Trainees reported being highly satisfied with the presentations, and they were able to network with other professionals including disability service providers. The event led to improved interagency collaborations and greater awareness of the challenges faced by domestic violence survivors with disabilities. Yet this was only the first step towards removing the barriers faced by domestic violence and sexual assault survivors with disabilities. Although the seminars were successful in increasing awareness of the needs of this population, there is a high degree of staff turnover in social service organizations and a need for ongoing training. Additionally, we were not able to include all relevant topics in the seminars. Additional training on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is needed, as well as training on substance abuse disorders, self-harm and suicidality, and the needs of children with disabilities. Ultimately, every domestic violence survivor should be able to access the services needed to achieve safety and independence. Domestic violence and sexual assault programs should be prepared to help any victim who reaches out to them for help. Unfortunately, we continue to receive reports of women with disabilities being unable to access these critical services. We believe the 96 professionals who attended Disability and Domestic Violence seminars this spring are now better prepared to respond to the needs of this population, and we are hopeful that these trainings have sparked a conversation that will lead to further dialogue and progress in the future. PAIR PRIORITY — Access and Rights (AR) 1 - Eliminate architectural barriers to public buildings, transportation and Post-Secondary Education 1. Identify and describe priority. Goal 1: Reduce or eliminate architectural and programmatic barriers faced by people with disabilities using public buildings, public accommodations, transportation, and Post-Secondary Education. • Area of Focus 1: Government, Public Services and Public Accommodations. DLC will continue to take individual cases with a focus on places of public accommodation in counties where the DLC has built relationships with community officials through the voting program, or encountered pervasive accessibility violations. DLC will continue to survey and address ADA/ADAAG compliance in Salt Lake City for public or private businesses, filing DOJ complaints where noncompliance is not remedied after notification. • Area of Focus 2: Higher Education. DLC will determine appropriate methods to reach higher education students regarding available accommodations, procedures, and DRC resources. • Area of Focus 3: Transportation. DLC will engage in systemic advocacy efforts to ensure that people with disabilities can use safe, reliable, and accessible transportation and that public transportation authorities, para-transit systems, and private transportation companies are in full compliance with federal and state discrimination laws and policies. Goal 2: Utahns with disabilities will be free from housing discrimination. • Area of Focus 1: Housing Advocacy. DLC housing program will 1) conduct testing and outreach, 2) mediate cases and file administrative complaints, 3) orient testers and 4) survey design and construction of new apartment construction sites to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act (FHA). No PAIR funds will be used to support this objective. Goal 3: Create systemic impact in participation in the electoral process and inform the public, the media, and policy-makers about the rights Utahns of all abilities to vote privately and independently. Ni PAIR funds will be used to support this objective. • Area of Focus 1: Full Electoral Participation. Ensuring full participation in the electoral process for individuals with disabilities, including: registering to vote, casting a vote, and accessing polling locations. • Area of Focus 2: Accessible Voting Experience. Facilitating an accessible voting experience by working with election officials to ensure polling locations are 1) physically accessible, 2) poll workers/volunteers understand how to provide an accessible voting experience, and 3) state policies/practices are consistent with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Of those who responded to the 2015 DLC Needs Assessment Survey: 43% reported that they or someone they knew had had difficulty accessing a public place or service. Of those who reported difficulty, 74% responded that they had encountered architectural barriers and 31% reported programmatic barriers. 22% reported access problems with private restaurants 23% reported encountering barriers with public transportation 10% reported difficulty receiving scholastic accommodations in post-secondary education. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. By the end of FY16, the AR team will provide 1:1 AR-1 advocacy to 20 PAIR eligible individuals. By the end of FY 16, the AR team will continue to take individual cases for all 5 objectives related to AR 1 as well as the following specific measures: Objective 1: Architectural Accessibility Focus on places of public accommodation in rural Utah, specifically Uintah, Box Elder, Piute & Wayne counties where the DLC has begun building relationships with community officials through the voting program or encountered pervasive accessibility violations. Continue to survey and address ADA/ADAAG compliance in Salt Lake City for a total of 4 public buildings or private businesses, including filing DOJ complaints where noncompliance is not remedied after notification. Objective 2: Programmatic/Recreational Accessibility Continue to build relationships Salt Lake City Arts Council and 1 new event coordinator in Salt Lake City; continue to monitor temporary outdoor events for ADA/ADAAG compliance, incl. Twilight Concert Series and downtown Farmers Market. Continue to assess and accessibility of Salt Lake County recreational facilities, services and accommodation request procedures through the Salt Lake County Project. Objective 3: Higher Education Determine appropriate methods to reach higher ed. students regarding available accommodations, procedure and DRC resources. Objective 4: Accommodations in Utah Prison Objective 5: Transportation Continue to participate in Wasatch Regional Coordination Council for Community Transportation (RCC) meetings to organize and guide local and regional coordination efforts that directly or indirectly improve management for people with disabilities, seniors, veterans and/or persons with low income. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. The Regional Coordinating Council for Cache, Box Elder and Rich Counties is chaired by a member of the AR team. The purpose of the council is to preserve and increase the availability of public and private transportation services for underserved populations such as people with disabilities, the elderly and the poor. The AR team is represented on the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Accessibility Council. In addition to our legal work, we were able to expand transportation options for people who use wheelchairs by partnering with Uber to provide Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles on their platform. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. Information and Referral — 74 Short term Assistance — 53 Representations at Meetings — 14 Representation at Administrative Hearings — 2 Technical Assistance- 8 Litigation on behalf of clients - 0 Class actions — 0 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. The Client is close to completing her undergraduate degree in art history at Utah Valley University. She was enrolled in an online class required for her major that had many video modules to be completed. Many of these videos lacked the captioning she needed to watch the videos and complete the course. The client had been working the university's Accessibility Services Department (ASD), but the videos were being captioned at very slow rate and she was falling behind in the course. Client came to us to ensure the videos were captioned at a faster pace and that the university give her an incomplete as an accommodation, as they usually required more to grant such a request. We wrote a letter to ASD demanding that they both speed up the captioning process and grant the incomplete. Within a very short period, the client was granted the incomplete and ensured that all videos were captioned. However, as the client pressed forward in the course, opening new video modules, she discovered that many videos were still not captioned properly. We then followed up with ASD, demanding that they review every video in the course to ensure that they were captioned. We received word from ASD and the client that they reviewed the videos and found several that lacked captioning, so they had added it to them. Client has informed us that she is still working to catch up, as she fell so far behind, but all videos so far have been captioned and the incomplete has given her the necessary time to complete the course. Example B. Client came to us because he was denied access to Valley Fair Mall in West Valley. He went to the mall with his service animal, when he was questioned by two mall security guards. They asked if it was a service animal, to which he replied in the affirmative. They informed him that his dog would need a vest or collar showing it was a certified service animal. A woman at the help desk then got involved and said that it was the mall's policy not to let in service animals without such a certification. Finally, two West Valley City police officers joined the conversation to inform him that he was not permitted to bring in the animal without some kind of certification. The client offered to get his accessible parking placard as proof, which he was not required to do, and he was still denied. We wrote a letter to the Valley Fair Mall demanding that they not require certification, as that was an illegal form of discrimination. In addition, we wrote a letter to the West Valley City police department asking that they not give out incorrect legal information and offering to provide training to their officers. We received a response from the attorney that represents Valley Fair Mall that they would update their policies to comply with the ADA, and that the client and his service animal were welcome at the mall at any time. West Valley City police department did not respond. Example C. The client came to us because a tattoo shop would not give him a tattoo after he disclosed that he was HIV positive. After some initial research, the DLC agreed to represent him in a lawsuit against the tattoo shop. The client asked if we could keep his identity private in the documents filed with the court. After some additional research indicating a possibility of privacy, we filed a complaint under seal, with a motion to proceed under a pseudonym. The motion was granted, so we filed an amended complaint with the client's initials. Example D. We received a report that one Key Bank building in Bountiful was not accessible, and, after looking into accessibility issues at a few other locations, we determined there were 4 additional non-accessible locations. We informed Key Bank of these issues, and their attorney informed us they would take the necessary steps to ensure the buildings were accessible. After several months of following up, and after some issues with contractors and property managers for Key Bank, we were informed that all of the Key Bank buildings are now accessible. PAIR Priority —Community Integration (CI) 1. Identify and describe priority. Goal 1: Utahns with disabilities have the right to live in the most integrated and least restrictive settings appropriate to their choice and needs. • Area of Focus 1: Services and Supports in the Most Integrated Settings. DLC will provide systemic, legally-based advocacy to ensure that individuals with disabilities are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs and preferences. • Area of Focus 2: Implementation of CMS’s Home and Community Based Settings Rule. DLC will conduct systemic advocacy to insure that the Utah Department of Human Services will develop and implement a transition plan to become fully compliant with CMS HCBS Settings. • Area of Focus 3: Outreach. DLC will focus on outreach and trainings to consumer groups, professionals, those living in and/or working in ICFIDs/USDC, DSPD residential programs, and sheltered workshops; with an added focus on rural areas. Goal 2: People with disabilities facing denial, reduction, or termination of healthcare and/or assistive technology services will receive appropriate healthcare services. • Area of Focus 1: Access to Healthcare. DLC will develop a clinic model for intake of individual cases to more efficiently serve individuals who have received reduced, or been denied, healthcare/assistive technology services. 12 PAIR eligible clients will receive 1:1 advocacy services during FY 16. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Of the respondents in our FY 2015 Needs Assessment survey, 14% reported currently living in a nursing home or intermediate care facility. Nearly 48% reported that they were in need of housing, and funding for staff, in order to be able to move out of the facility into the community. Additionally, in order to move out, 30 % reported needing DSPD services, 35% reported needing funding for family supports, and 18% reported needing a job. Of those who responded to the 2015 survey in general: 43% of survey respondents feel it is IMPORTANT to secure appropriate mobility aids, speech devices, medical equipment or other assistive technology for individuals with disabilities. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. By the end of FY 2016, 12 PAIR eligible clients will receive healthcare/assistive technology services that have been denied or reduced. By the end of FY 2016, the CI team will research Olmstead litigation strategies and d develop a litigation plan based on researched strategies. We will identify potential plaintiffs who are currently living in an ICFID for Olmstead litigation. This will be done through routine visits to ICFIDs throughout Utah. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. Collaboration with the DLC Fair Housing team regarding the Columbus Center’s proposed “hub of opportunity.” Columbus reached out to DLC staff and requested training about the settings rule; members of the CI and fair housing teams presented this training on August 24. Attendees included Columbus staff in addition to city and county employees. Staff presented information about laws and regulations including the ADA, the Fair Housing Act and the Medicaid settings rule and how they should inform the creation of a site such as Columbus is proposing. City and county employees seemed concerned about the impact of the settings rule on Columbus’ plans and requested that Columbus contact CMS before continuing to move forward. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. • Information and Referral — 36 • Short term assistance — 13 • Representation at Meetings — 1 • Fair/Administrative hearings —3 • Technical Assistance — 4 • Litigation on behalf of clients —0 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. We were contacted the mother of two individuals with cerebral palsy, which led to several other health problems, who were being denied their enteral formula, Promote with Fiber. It was Medicaid's position that, while they did need to be tube fed, the formula only needed to be provided when it was considered a "medical food" under the Orphan Act Amendments of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 360ee(b)(3), which has a lengthy but rather general definition. Extensive research went into that definition, including FDA regulations, proposed rules, and draft guidance. I spoke with several physicians and gathered medical records. After several prehearing conferences, Medicaid would not budge on this food not being medically necessary, so they would not pay for it. I drafted a brief in support of the first client, as his case came first. One document in support from a medical professional was coming later than anticipated, so I asked for an extension. At this time, I was contacted by the Attorney General for Medicaid and informed, for the first time that he was handling these cases. It turns out they had some internal communication issues, and he was not aware we were representing these clients nor had he been on any prehearing conferences. He asked for updated medical records, as they were having trouble getting them from Rock Springs IV Center, the provider who filed the initial appeal. Portions of their extensive medical history were then submitted to show a particular medical issue this formula would help with, and Medicaid informed us that they were withdrawing the denials for both individuals. Example B. Our client contacted the DLC because Healthy-U Medicaid denied needed healthcare treatment. The DLC submitted several appeals on our client's behalf and held several prehearing phone calls. Ultimately, we scheduled an administrative hearing and presented testimony and evidence on our client’s behalf. Unfortunately, our hearing yielded an adverse outcome and the Judge determined that Healthy U was within their rights to deny the IVIG treatments due to the fact that there was not sufficient evidence in the ALJ's opinion to justify that course of treatment. Education — Areas of Focus 1. Identify and describe priority. Goal 1: Utah students with disabilities that are the most vulnerable, of highest need, and least able to advocate for themselves will be assessed, evaluated, and provided special education as outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Idea Act (IDEA). • Area of Focus 1: Systemic Advocacy. DLC will meet quarterly with the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) to discuss systemic issues related to students with disabilities and support. A representative of the DLC will serve on the Utah State Special Education Advisory Panel. Additionally, DLC will meet quarterly with the Utah Parent Center (UPC) to discuss systemic issues related to students with disabilities and collaboration efforts between the agencies. • Area of Focus 2: Youth in Custody (YIC) Advocacy. A DLC representative will serve on the Disproportionate Minority Contact Workgroup to educate minority leaders in JJS of the disability impact. • Area of Focus 3: Investigations. DLC will continue to investigate JJS and court-ordered facilities in special education eligibility and appropriate services. • Area of Focus 4: Monitoring. DLC will continue to monitor transition programs that pipeline to sheltered workshops and will determine the need for filing systemic complaints. DLC will also monitor educational services at the Utah State Hospital (USH) and at one long term juvenile detention facility. • Area of Focus 5: Trainings. DLC will provide training to JJS judges, JJS defenders, guardian ad litem, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) case managers, student, parents and foster parents on child find, eligibility, and services in special education. • Area of Focus 6: Advocacy. DLC will advocate for students, with a specific focus on youth in state custody, who are seeking eligibility, with IEPs that are wholly or substantially inadequate or whose substantial lack of implementation by their local school districts keeps the student from benefiting from special education. Advocacy will be provided through clinics, investigations, and representation. 10 PAIR eligible clients will receive 1:1 assistance from the DLC in the area of special education during FY 16. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Agency Needs Assessment: • 168 people responded to special education questions. • 71% had problems getting special education services. • 38% had problems knowing what services are available for students preparing to transition from high school. • 21% had a student restrained, isolated, and referred to law enforcement due to behaviors related to the student disability. • Surveyors ranked the following most important to least important: Special education services provided in schools 37%; positive behavior interventions and supports 21%; transition from high school 17%; Services for youth in custody 10%; restraint and seclusion 5%; and suspension and expulsion 3%. Focus Groups • ED team conducted focus groups with the PAIMI council, Duchesne, and Davis, Counties. Findings included: • Parent education for self-advocacy. • Problems receiving appropriate services. • Schools focused on discipline first. • Greater efforts to reach the rural population. • Eligibility and child find issues. • Concerns about stigma and bullying. • Dual diagnosis. • Mental health services in school. • School placement that is appropriate. • Transition and graduation. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. In FY16, the ED team will assist 10 PAIR eligible clients on a one-to-one basis and through systemic legal efforts with issues related to eligibility, placement in the least restrictive environment, suspension, expulsion, highly intrusive interventions, and transition. In FY16, the team will conduct 5 events to educate and train judges, Department of Child and Family services case workers and foster parents on child find and eligibility in special education. In FY 16, the education team will provide 4 Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) O&A presentations to parents on IDEA and will participate in 5 transition fairs in conjunction with the STAT team providing information on IDEA, Section 504, Transition and DLC general services. Additionally, the team will conduct 2 question and answer events in conjunction with the Utah Parent Center focused on IDEA. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. The Utah Parent Center and the ED team will meet quarterly to discuss systemic issues related to students with disabilities and collaboration efforts between our agencies. An Education team representative serves on the Disproportionate Minority Contact Workgroup to educate minority leaders in JJS of the disability impact. The Utah State Office of Education (USOE) and the ED team meet quarterly to discuss systemic issues related to students with disabilities, support and will have a representative serve on the Utah State special education advisory panel. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. • Information and Referral — 0 • Short term assistance — 1 • Representation at Meetings — 0 • Fair/Administrative hearings —0 • Technical Assistance -0 • Litigation on behalf of clients —0 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. A DLC advocate presented to about 20 special education teachers and staff on DLC services including education, assistive technology, employment, voting and self-advocacy. This presentation was for the Tooele County Special Education preschool teachers and staff. Example B. Collaboration with the Utah State Board of Education (USBE): Our Education team met with Glenna Gallo, state Special Education Director, and Naté Dearden, USBE Dispute Resolution Specialist. The meeting included discussion of the new Utah Special Education Rules, planned legislative advocacy, a new USBE technical assistance manual regarding online education for students with disabilities, discipline issues observed by the DLC, USBE staff changes, and distinctions between laws that protect students with disabilities (Section 504 and the IDEA). Example C. The ED Team continued its work on behalf of youth in state custody. They visited six Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) community residential programs in the fall of FY16, identified specific legal concerns, and followed up by sending letters to districts and JJS program directors and discussing our concerns with the Utah State Board of Education (USBE). We requested and reviewed records from community residential service providers, the Department of Human Services, and local school districts to better understand these issues, and we are currently in the process of developing a position statement on the educational rights and needs of Utah’s youth in custody. PAIR PRIORITY - Employment 1. Identify and describe priority Goal 1: People with disabilities will have equal employment opportunities and be free from discrimination. • Area of Focus 1: Client Assistance Program. DLC will assist individuals with disabilities who are clients or applicants of VR and ILCs achieve high-quality employment outcomes consistent with primary employment factors through the Client Assistance Program (CAP). No PAIR funds will be used to support this objective. • Area of Focus 2: Beneficiaries of Social Security. DLC will provide high-quality advocacy to ensure that people who are receiving Social Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)—who either wish to return to work or are struggling to maintain current employment—have the information they need to do so, and are not penalized in the process by unfair or incorrect overpayment with the Social Security Administration (SSA). No PAIR funds will be used to support this objective. • Area of Focus 3: Employment Discrimination. Advocating for people with disabilities on a one-to-one basis with issues related to discrimination and other barriers to employment, while providing education/training to consumers, service providers, and other employment-related agencies about the rights of people with disabilities in employment. During FY 16, 80 PAIR eligible clients will receive 1:1 advocacy services under this goal. This goal will assist Utahns with disabilities that experience discrimination based on disability when applying for a job. The goal will also assist clients who are currently employed, but face losing their job due to a denial of reasonable accommodation or other discriminatory practices. Additionally, the Employment team is placing an emphasis on exploring avenues to help end segregated employment. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. • 85% of respondents to the DLC’s 2015 Annual Needs Survey stated that it was important to help people with disabilities who have been discriminated against in work settings. • For those that responded that they had experienced discrimination in the workplace, 51% said that the discrimination was related to hiring or promotion, 45% to termination, and 38% to requests for reasonable accommodations. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. In FY16, the EM team will assist 80 PAIR eligible clients on a one-to-one basis with issues relating to discrimination and other barriers to employment. In FY16, the team will conduct 8 events to educate and train consumers, service providers, and other employment-related agencies about the rights of people with disabilities in employment. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. This priority did not involve collaborative efforts by other entities. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. • Information and Referral — 91 • Short term assistance — 53 • Representation at Meetings — 20 • Fair/Administrative hearings — 19 • Technical Assistance -21 • Litigation on behalf of clients — 2 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. A.H. is a 33 year old with hemiparesis, which is a neurological condition that represents in weakness in one side of the body, especially muscles. He was constructively terminated after 6 weeks of employment. He could do all the essentials of the job, but when placed on a new machine one day, the client's disability prevented him from going fast enough in pinching with his weak hand. He requested a reasonable accommodation, but was turned down. We sent a demand letter, and the employer was willing to work with us to transfer the client into a position where he would not have to work on the particular machine that was giving him problems. The client had gained employment elsewhere, but was satisfied with the offer and glad the employer had learned about their duties in regards to disabled employees. Example B. Client is a disabled veteran and suffered a tear in his hip that created ongoing health problems for him, including difficulties in walking and standing. Client worked for a company performing bed bug remediation and carpet cleaning services. Client required additional surgery and was advised by his doctor to temporarily perform light-duty assignments to prevent further tearing in his hip. Client informed his supervisor, who was accommodating and said there was plenty of light-duty work for him, since client was a certified translator and could translate company documents from English to Spanish. One day, however, the company told client that there was no more light-duty work for him, despite previously telling him the week before that there was plenty of work for him to complete. The company did not engage in an interactive process with our client but instead terminated his employment immediately. On May 10, 2016, the DLC wrote a demand letter to the company, alleging disability discrimination and a failure to provide reasonable accommodations or engage in the interactive process prescribed by the ADA. Since the client had found new work elsewhere by the time he sought representation form the DLC, the DLC sought compensation in the amount of $2,392 to compensate the client for the amount of money he lost from the date of his employment termination to the date he began his new position. The company contacted the DLC on May 26, 2016 and agreed to pay our client $2,500 ($108 over our requested settlement) to compensate the client for his injuries from the employment termination. Example C. Client works for a large company that sells medical devices. Due to the symptoms from his Diabetes, Neuropathy, and Restless Leg Syndrome, his doctor advised him that he needs a sit-stand desk. He submitted his request for accommodation through the company’s HR, who determined that he was qualified for reasonable accommodation under the ADA, which a Varidesk (type of sit-stand desk) was reasonable accommodation for him, but that he would have to purchase the $495 device his own. As HR wrote in an email to him, “Your current workstation will accommodate a sit-stand workstation like the one you showed me. If you want to purchase one and place it on your desk, we have no problem with that. We do not feel that DOL [Department of Labor] laws require us to pay for it.” All the client wanted was for the company to purchase him the Varidesk, as they are required to under the ADA (absent a showing of undue hardship). The DLC wrote a demand letter outlining the client’s position and relevant case law and asked them to reconsider its decision. The client’s company responded promptly that it had reconsidered its decision and would purchase the Varidesk for the client’s use. Example D. Client has a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis, which affects her ability to process information quickly, limits her lifting, and makes her easily fatigued and dizzy. Our client speaks Spanish only and the DLC Ethnic Outreach Advocate has interpreted all of our interactions at the DLC, including the mediation. Our client was employed as a temporary employee by a staffing company and was assigned to work at UPS, as needed, for a period of approximately 6 years. Her work assignments varied and some years she made as little as approximately $50 and her most lucrative year was approximately $2,800. While working at UPS, our client received a reasonable accommodation to be assigned only to a certain area of the UPS warehouse that did not require her to think as quickly as some other departments, did not require lifting, and allowed her to sit down. Her previous supervisor at UPS, left the position and left no notes of her reasonable accommodation. Although UPS and the staffing company were both aware of her accommodation, a new UPS supervisor demanded that she work in another area that would not accommodate her medical condition. When our client attempted to explain her reasonable accommodation, the supervisor told her to go home. Her placement specialist at the Staffing Company later told her that she should have done whatever UPS told her and told her that her employment was terminated. She reminded the Staffing Company of her reasonable accommodation and they said they would look into the issue, but never got back to her. This is a case of a joint liability and in addition to the staffing company failing to accommodate our client, there is also a separate EEOC charge against UPS that is pending before the EEOC. The staffing company was willing to mediate their charge and the DLC met with them on 8/31/16 for a half-day mediation session. The damages in this matter were not large, given the limited number of hours that our client worked each year and the first offers were low. Through negotiation, however, we were able to secure the client $4,000 in monetary damages (greater than she made from her employment in her single best year). Most importantly to the client, however, she received an apology from the staffing company. They explained that they did not keep adequate files on our client’s receipt of accommodation and that they were disappointed in their own conduct and sorry they caused her harm (apologies from employers and any admission of wrongdoing, even in a confidential mediation session, are almost unheard of). They explained that there were a number of errors made on their part, some of which may have occurred through the language barrier. In addition to the monetary damages, the staffing company agreed to provide a letter of reference and agreed to show our client as a current employee in their system and assign a point of contact to help her find work with appropriate reasonable accommodations at one of their other placement sites. When the negotiations started, the employee communicated that she would not be happy with anything less than $5,000 to $10,000. After receiving the apology from the company, however, the client stated that she did not wish to negotiate any further on damages and said that she was satisfied and happy with their offer. Although the damages were lower than in many other negotiations, this was probably one of the most satisfied clients we have had in mediation, largely attributable to the closure that came from the process and the explanation and apology from the employer. PAIR PRIORITY -Short Term Assistance for people with disabilities contacting DLC for assistance 1. Identify and describe priority. Goal 1: Utahns will have access to information and/or referrals regarding disability programs available in Utah as well as access to protection and advocacy services and/or referrals to agencies/resources for legal issues not covered under DLC funding and goals . The DLC will offer assistance to 500 PAIR eligible individuals living in Utah contacting the Disability Law Center for answers to legal concerns and service questions. Of those, 400 will receive information and referral and 100 callers will receive short-term/technical assistance. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. 92% of the DLC’s 2015 survey respondents reported knowing about the DLC from a friend, family member or another organization. 68% of survey respondents have visited the DLC website . 42% of survey respondents visit the website for information on disability programs. Information about disability related programs is the largest reason reported for what people visit the website. 34% of survey respondents were referred by a partner/another agency. 25% of the survey respondents reported having a learning disability. 79% of survey respondents reported themselves or a family member facing mental illness. 42% of the survey respondents reported having trouble with physical access to a public place. Architectural barriers were the largest reported difficulty. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Provide Information and Referral and Short-term Assistance Service for 500 PAIR eligible callers and those contacting the DLC electronically. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. STAT team works collaboratively with all DLC teams to provide timely and competent short term assistance to all DLC callers. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. • Information and Referral — 947 • Short Term Assistance — 158 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. Disability: Heart and Other Circulatory Conditions Client has trouble passing urine, for medical tests he uses a bag. Due to shoulder injury he was unable to use the bag. Instacare stated they were unable to help. A DLC advocate discussed filing an internal complaint at Instacare with our caller. He filed complaint with the ADA compliance department and as a result, the Instacare changed protocol for special accommodations involving testing at the lab. DLC recommended requesting the change in protocol being placed in the client file. Example B. Disability: Orthopedic/Physical Impairments Client was denied SSDI because Social Security did not believe his cancer would require him to be out of work for longer than one year. Client wanted to appeal Social Security decision. A DLC advocate explained our services and referred the client to the Utah State Bar for a private attorney and to the Social Security Administration for other resources.
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:
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 priority; 2. the need addressed by each priority; and; 3. a description of the activities to be carried out under each priority. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year (2017) Abuse and Neglect Goal 1: Eliminate Abuse and Neglect of People with Disabilities People with disabilities, with a focus on those living in or being treated in facilities, will be free from abuse and neglect and will receive appropriate services. • Area of Focus 1: Investigating abuse of individuals in county jails or in the custody of Utah Department of Corrections (UDC). DLC will provide legally-based advocacy to inmates in the county jails or UDC custody who, as determined by the team, are allegedly being seriously abused or neglected. • Area of Focus 2: Monitoring facilities and services. Based on complaints, incident reports, resident/patient advocate referrals, or survey results from facility licensing, and as determined by the DLC, the DLC will monitor facilities and institutions for serious abuse or neglect, and provide legally-based advocacy to residents of facilities who are allegedly being seriously abused or neglected. • Area of Focus 3: Individual Advocacy. Although focusing primarily on systemic work during FY17, the DLC will conduct investigations of suspected serious abuse, as determined by the team. In addition to cases from the facilities or institutions above, we will investigate concerns arising from the Community Integration Team’s work with DSPD residential or community-based providers, private ICFs/ID, nursing facilities, or assisted living facilities. Results from the 2015 Needs Assessment survey demonstrate that the following percentages of respondents either have personally experienced abuse and neglect or know someone with a disability who has experienced abuse and neglect. 69% of respondents had experienced emotional or verbal abuse. 46% of respondents had experienced neglect. 41% of respondents had experienced physical abuse. 225 respondents had experienced sexual abuse. 36% of the respondents stated that keeping people free from abuse and neglect is their top priority. Access and Rights Goal 1: Reduce or eliminate architectural and programmatic barriers faced by people with disabilities using public buildings, public accommodations, transportation, and Post-Secondary Education. • Area of Focus 1: Architectural Accessibility. Focus on places of public accommodation in rural Utah, specifically where the DLC has begun building relationships with community officials through the voting program or encountered pervasive accessibility violations. Continue to survey and address ADA/ADAAG compliance in Salt Lake City for public buildings or private businesses, including filing DOJ complaints where noncompliance is not remedied after notification. • Area of Focus 2: Programmatic Accessibility. Continue to build relationships with Salt Lake City Mayor’s Accessibility Council; continue to monitor city street parking for ADA/ADAAG compliance. • Area of Focus 3: Higher Education. Determine appropriate methods to reach post-secondary education students regarding available accommodations, procedure and DRC resources. • Area of Focus 4: Transportation. Continue to participate in Wasatch Regional Coordination Council for Community Transportation (RCC) meetings and the Bear River Association of Governments Mobility Management Council to organize and guide local and regional coordination efforts that directly or indirectly improve transportation options for people with disabilities, seniors, veterans and/or persons with low income. Goal 2: People belonging to protected classes will be free from housing discrimination. • Area of Focus 1: Housing Advocacy. DLC Housing program will 1) conduct outreach and training to individuals about their fair housing rights, 2) complete fair housing tests, 3) mediate cases and file administrative complaints, 4) orient testers, and; 4) survey design and construction of new apartment construction sites to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Goal 3: Address barriers which prevent people of all abilities the right to vote privately and independently. • Area of Focus 1: Full Electoral Participation. Ensure full participation in the electoral process for individuals with disabilities including: registering to vote, casting a vote and accessing polling places. Activities may include: systemic advocacy, consumer education/training, assisting individuals in the state-based administrative grievance procedure required by HAA, and representing individuals with disabilities in any hearing that may be held regarding the complaint. • Area of Focus 2: Accessible Voting Experience. Improve voting accessibility by working with election officials to ensure: polling places and equipment are accessible, poll workers and volunteers understand how to provide an accessible voting experience, and state policies and practices are consistent with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The Utah Legal Needs Assessment (2016) showed that of those who responded to the 2016 DLC Needs Assessment Survey: 50.6% reported encountering barriers with public transportation to be in the top five (5) of challenges people with disabilities faced in their communities. 31.4% ranked advocating for accessible transportation in the top three (3) areas needing attention. 27.3% ranked helping students get the accommodations they need as being in the top three (3) areas needing attention. 8.3% ranked advocating for businesses to be accessible as being in the top three (3) areas needing attention. 57.3% ranked finding affordable housing to be in the top five (5) (2) of challenges people with disabilities faced in their communities. 43.2% ranked getting the support they need to live in community neighborhoods to be in the top five (5) (4) of challenges people with disabilities faced in their communities. 30.1% ranked finding accessible housing to be in the top five (5) (7) of challenges people with disabilities faced in their communities. Voting in Utah is changing rapidly. Two years ago, only one of the twenty-nine counties administered by-mail elections. This year, 20 of the 29 counties are voting almost exclusively by mail. This impacts voters who cannot read a paper ballot, and constitutes a step backward for accessible voting in many areas. This year, the state legislature also chose not to fund the presidential primary. Therefore, it was left to each political party to hold elections to select their presidential candidate. Reports solicited from voters with disabilities were that the buildings and processes were not accessible and many individuals were not able to vote or faced hardships when trying to participate in this process. While HAVA does not cover party elections, there is reason to be concerned about these trends toward voting that is not accessible and can’t be done privately or independently. In a needs assessment survey where individuals were asked to rank voting among other disability issues, respondents felt that this was less of a problem than other issues like employment, housing, medical care, etc. However, many organizations such as the IL Centers, NAMI, the Utah Federation of the Blind, etc. are highly interested in partnering with the DLC to protect the voting rights of the citizens they serve. Community Integration Goal 1: Advocate for Utahns to live and receive services and supports in the most integrated and least restrictive settings appropriate to their choices and needs. • Area of Focus 1: Services and Supports in the Most Integrated Settings. The DLC will provide systemic, legally-based advocacy to ensure that individuals with disabilities are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs and preferences. • Area of Focus 2: Implementation of CMS’s Home and Community Based Settings (HCBS) Rule. The DLC will conduct systemic advocacy to ensure the Utah Department of Health (DOH) will develop and carry out a transition plan to become fully compliant with the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s HCBS Settings Rule. As a part of this continuing advocacy, the CI team will develop a plan to monitor the State’s implementation of the heightened scrutiny process. • Area of Focus 3: Outreach & Education. The DLC will continue to do outreach to individuals receiving DSPD services as well as expanding outreach to individuals receiving services through the Aging and New Choices waivers. This will include a focus on outreach and trainings to consumer groups, professionals, those living in and/or working in programs receiving waiver dollars, including those in rural areas. Goal 2: People with disabilities facing denial, reduction, or termination of healthcare and/or assistive technology services will receive appropriate healthcare services. • Area of Focus 1: Access to Healthcare and Assistive Technology. The DLC will advocate on behalf of Individuals to receive healthcare/assistive technology services that have been denied or reduced. This includes Medicaid and Medicare as well as assistive technology denials through various sources. Clients and potential clients will be served through a clinic model. • Area of Focus 2: Inappropriate discharge from residential healthcare services. The DLC will investigate allegations of inappropriate discharge of those receiving inpatient residential healthcare services in long-term care and skilled nursing facilities. Clinics will be held over the phone with the intent of ensuring that the process is being followed. Of the respondents in our FY 2016 Legal Needs assessment, 22.9% stated that they had experienced a disability rights related civil legal issue. When asked about the top challenges facing Utahns with disabilities, 43.2% of respondents stated that getting the supports they need to live in community neighborhoods was a challenge. Additionally, 27.8% of respondents stated that getting support to work in the community instead of in a sheltered workshop or employment state was a top challenge people with disabilities face. 33.2% of individuals responding to the FY 2016 Legal Needs Survey have experienced a health related legal issue while 25.6% have experienced a legal issue related to public benefits. When respondents were asked what the main challenges facing Utahns with disabilities are, 41.9% ranked getting medical equipment, devices, or assistive technology that would help them be more independent as a main challenge. Community Relations Goal 1: Increase awareness of the DLC as the disability law authority in Utah. • Area of Focus 1: Community Relations. Lead activities using a variety of strategies to increase 1) the communication skills of staff 2) the variety and reach of communication methods, 3) educate people with disabilities about their rights. • Area of Focus 2: Ethnic Outreach. Reach out and establish relationships with Latino communities in order to increase the percentage of ethnic callers to 11%. • Area of Focus 3: Rural Outreach. Increase the percentage of calls received from counties outside the Wasatch Front to 22%. Goal 2: Advance the mission of the DLC by engaging in strategic public interest communications. • Area of Focus 1: Inclusion. Pursue systemic changes designed to facilitate the full inclusion of Utahns with disabilities at home, in the workplace, and in the community. • Area of Focus 2: Systemic Change. Translate the information and policy recommendations we provide to policymakers into concrete action and positive systemic change. Needs Assessment Activities completed in FY 2016 included conducting focus groups and individual interviews with professionals in 12 counties off the Wasatch Front. We also sought feedback through an online survey and received 645 responses. Every county was represented in those responses. We found that in many areas, professionals who serve individuals with disabilities and the public have very little knowledge about our organization, our mission and how we can help. In some counties, frustration that our agency is not helping with disability related issues that don’t fall within the scope of legal advocacy has led to professionals no longer referring individuals to us. Many individuals expressed a desire for us to become more involved in their local interagency councils and give more “face-to-face” time. Other agencies would appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with our organization. Individuals expressed that the intake caller system often discourages rural callers from seeking help. They suggested assigning one staff member to be the face of our organization in their area. That way, people could contact that individual as a starting place for getting help. In 2016, disability rights ranked 4th out of 11 among identified needs of individuals with limited incomes off the Wasatch Front. Almost ¾ of respondents to the same survey said the DLC should dedicate between ¼ and ½ of its resources to systemic or policy change. 87% of respondents to the DLC’s 2012 needs assessment said that advocating for laws that protect the rights of Utahns with disabilities is “important” or “very important.” In the last 21 months, the DLC has received 184 requests for assistance related to guardianship. While there are several entities which provide guidance on the guardianship process and how to navigate it, as far as we know no one is providing similar information concerning alternative decision-making supports and how to effectively use them. Education Goal 1: All Utah students with disabilities will have available to them a free, appropriate public education designed to meet their unique needs. • Area of Focus 1: Self-advocacy. The DLC will assist self-advocates and also implement systemic legal efforts with issues related to: eligibility, placement in the least restrictive environment, suspension, expulsion, and highly intrusive interventions. • Area of Focus 2: Training & Direct Advocacy. Efforts to train and advocate on behalf of students with disabilities will focus on issues related to eligibility, placement in the least restrictive environment, suspension, expulsion, and highly intrusive interventions. The Utah Legal Needs Assessment (2016) showed that education-related legal issues are an area of high need. 20.4% of all respondents reported that they had experienced an education-related civil legal issue within the last 12 months. Helping parents get appropriate accommodations for their school age children was ranked as the second most popular method for us to spend limited funds. 54.7% of respondents included this method in their top three list. 25.6% of all respondents included education-related issues as one of the top three problems which they thought people with limited incomes needed help with most in their area. 36.7% of respondents ranked “getting an appropriate education” as one of the top five biggest challenges which they thought people with disabilities faced in their community. The decision to focus on discipline issues under both the Individuals with Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was made based on a review of data from STAT calls and discussions with partner agencies including the Utah State Board of Education (USBE), the Utah Parent Center (UPC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Utah, the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) workgroup, and the University of Utah Public Policy Legal Clinic. We have had calls related to excessive discipline of students with disabilities that do not qualify, or have not been evaluated for, special education. With our new goal plan, we will be able to take these cases. The team’s decision to focus on youth in custody (YIC) is due primarily to our observations from our visits of youth residential facilities over the past year. These visits involved discussions with students, teachers, and staff at these facilities. We identified problems related to students being placed in overly restrictive educational placements and problems with IEP development, implementation and revision. We also had discussions with community partners that helped us identify this need including the USBE, UPC, DMC workgroup, and Juvenile Justice attorneys. Employment Goal 1: People with disabilities will have equal employment opportunities and be free from discrimination. • Area of Focus 1: Client Assistance Program. The DLC will help applicants or clients of programs under the Division of Rehabilitation Services achieve high quality employment outcomes consistent with their primary employment factors. Strategies will include providing outreach and education to individuals about: 1) employment rights, 2) employment discrimination, and; 3) the services available through the Client Assistance Program and Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security programs (CAP & PABSS). • Area of Focus 2: Integrated Employment. The DLC will embark on a systemic project implemented across teams to monitor and provide follow up advocacy services for people residing in ICF/ID facilities and/or working in sheltered workshops to ensure they have information on how to obtain the services they need to find integrated employment in their community. • Area of Focus 3: Beneficiaries of Social Security. The DLC will advocate for people who receive SSI and SSDI — who either wish to return to work or are struggling to maintain their current employment — will have the information they need to do so, and are not penalized in the process by an unfair or incorrect overpayment with the Social Security Administration. • Area of Focus 4: Employment Discrimination. Advocating for people with disabilities on a one-to-one basis with issues related to discrimination and other barriers to employment, while providing education/training to consumers, service providers and other employment related agencies about the rights of people with disabilities in employment. When survey respondents were asked to rank the top challenges for people with disabilities, 57.5% of respondents answered “getting or keeping a job.” This overwhelming response was the top pick for survey respondents — showing that employment is a very important issue for the disability community. 27.8% of respondents chose “getting supports needed to work in community businesses instead of sheltered workshops or employment centers” as a top challenge facing the disability community. 25.9% of respondents said that “employment discrimination” was a top challenge for people with disabilities. When asked how the DLC should allocate limited resources, 59.5% of respondents chose to “help people with disabilities get the accommodations they need to keep their job” making this the top response. The third highest ranked response was to use funds to “represent individuals with disabilities who experience employment discrimination.” Short Term Assistance Goal: The DLC will provide information about disability rights and disability law as well as gather information from individuals about legal issues they are experiencing related to their disability. • Area of Focus 1: Information and Short Term Assistance. A team of DLC employees will provide up-to-date relevant information to individuals seeking information about disability rights/disability law and disability services available in the community. • Area of Focus 2: Intake. Legal issues brought to the attention of the DLC by callers seeking assistance will be reviewed by an intake team. The team will evaluate the issue to determine if it meets the case criteria developed by DLC teams, consult with DLC attorneys as needed and bring issues of critical need to the attention of DLC teams. According to our fiscal year 2016 STAT (Short Term Assistance) data: An average of 237 new clients were created monthly. An average of 335 service requests were created monthly. 84% of the service requests are urban, 14% are rural, and 2% are out of state. An average of 23 service requests (7%) were sent to a clinic or cased monthly. New client referrals are most often from another agencies with an average of 60 per month, second is a referral from a family or friend at 51 per month, and third is the internet with 50 per month. Additional information regarding the fiscal year 2016 Needs Assessment Survey: 645 individuals responded to the survey. 22% self-identified as having a disability. Individuals surveyed stated they are most likely to go to the internet to educate themselves on legal issues. Individuals surveyed stated that educating professionals about DLC services, who qualifies, and how to access help would encourage contact with the DLC.
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 Federal Funds received: 171,589 Federal Funds expended: 171,589 State Funds received & expended: 0 All other funds received: 30,034 All other funds expended: 30,034 Total funds received: 201,632 Total funds expended: 201,632 B. Budget for the Fiscal Year Covered by this Report Actual 2016 / Budget 2017 Wages & Salaries 144,920.00 / 136,341.00 Fringe Benefits 31,997.00 / 31,393.00 Materials/Supplies 3,877.00 / 5,047.00 Postage 515.00 / 505.00 Telephone 1,303.00 / 1,249.00 Rent 6,585.00 / 5,440.00 Travel 2,987.00 / 1,249.00 Copying 1,243.00 / 1,916.00 Bonding/Insurance 1,114.00 / 821.00 Equipment rental/purchase 522.00 / 264.00 Legal Services 460.00 / 2,914.00 Indirect Cost Miscellaneous 6,109.00 / 4,981.00 Total 201,632.00 / 192,120.00 C. Description of PAIR Staff (Duties and Person-Years) Dan Anderson, Director of Finance, is responsible for creating and maintaining financial records and protecting the financial integrity of the organization and personnel management. He oversees the DLC budget, financial statements, payroll, and other financial related duties. He also manages and coordinates all human resource functions for the DLC. Dan has worked for the DLC for twelve years. Lindsay Boerens, Advocate, has worked as the Employment Team Leader to help people with disabilities remove barriers to employment. The Employment Team addresses issues on behalf of clients of Vocational Rehabilitation, Social Security beneficiaries, and people with disabilities who face discrimination in the workplace. She also has extensive experience working on the DLC’s Abuse & Neglect Team, which assists individuals facing serious abuse and neglect issues in institutions, nursing homes, and other residential and non-residential settings. Lindsay has worked at the DLC for eight years. Laura Henrie, Supervisory Attorney, is responsible for providing legal advocacy and representation to eligible individuals in selected cases. She provides and coordinates legally based advocacy services to individuals seeking assistance through the Community Integration and Employment Issue Teams. Laura has worked for the DLC for nine years. LauraLee Gillespie, Supervisory Attorney, provides legal advocacy for students in public school systems with disabilities. She is working directly with parents to be sure that schools are providing students with appropriate specialized instruction and related services required under IDEIA and occasionally under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Provides legal supervision for the CAP Program. LauraLee has worked for the DLC for seven years. Aaron Kinikini, Legal Director, provides legal supervision to all issue teams. Aaron has worked for the DLC for six years. Vard McGuire is the Issue Team Leader for the Access and Rights (AR) Team. The Access and Rights team helps to ensure people with disabilities have access to accessible, affordable, safe and clean housing. The Team also works to eliminate architectural barriers to public buildings, transportation and post secondary education. Sheri Newton, Advocate, is responsible for directing the DLC’s PAVA program, handles Client Assistance Program casework and coordinates rural outreach efforts for the DLC. She also created and continues to administer the “Everyone Can” program, which is the DLC’s innovative education program for youth. She has worked for the DLC for seventeen years. Andrew Riggle, Public Policy Advocate, is responsible for coordinating the DLC’s legislative and policy advocacy initiatives across teams and ensuring that these strategies reflect the values of the DLC. The Public Policy Advocate works with a variety of DLC staff, Utah State Legislature, Utah’s congressional delegation, state agencies, advocacy groups and the broader community to enhance this area of the DLC’s mission. Andrew has worked with the DLC for six years. Melissa Gifford, STAT Advocate, provides information, referrals, and short-term assistance to individuals seeking assistance from the Disability Law Center. The STAT Advocate reviews requests for assistance received by phone, in writing or in person, to determine compliance with DLC goals, priorities and funding. The position requires individuals to develop broad knowledge in all disability content areas that correspond with all established DLC teams, and develop in-depth expertise that corresponds with two or three DLC teams as assigned, in order to provide input and support to the DLC teams. Melissa was hired on January 5, 2015. Maree Webb, STAT Advocate, provides information, referrals, and short-term assistance to individuals seeking assistance from the Disability Law Center. The STAT Advocate reviews requests for assistance received by phone, in writing or in person, to determine compliance with DLC goals, priorities and funding. The position requires individuals to develop broad knowledge in all disability content areas that correspond with all established DLC teams, and develop in-depth expertise that corresponds with two or three DLC teams as assigned, in order to provide input and support to the DLC teams. Maree has worked at the DLC for fifteen years. Adina Zahradnikova, Chief Executive Officer, assumes responsibility for the statewide operation of the agency. Responsibilities are both managerial and representational and include program planning, strategic budgeting, evaluation and reporting, financial planning and monitoring, organizational development and human resources, legislative advocacy, fundraising, public affairs, and public relations. Adina has worked for the DLC for fifteen years. Other staff members that have contributed to the implementation of the PAIR program during FY16: Jamila Abou-Bakr, Law Clerk, was hired on May 23, 2016. Selva Bailey, Receptionist, was hired on August 3, 2015. Diana Ballesteros, Receptionist, was hired on August 20, 2015. Katie Bushman, Attorney, was hired on November 16, 2015. Josh Campbell, Law Clerk, was hired on February 17, 2015. His last day with the DLC was May 20, 2016. Susana Canton, Support Staff, was hired on September 12, 2012. Cory Christensen, Law Clerk, was hired on February 19, 2015. His last day with the DLC was May 27, 2016. Katherine Crabtree, Advocate, was hired on February 9, 2016. Nathaniel J. Crippes, Attorney, was hired on April 6, 2015. Nick Daskalas, Law Clerk, was hired on August 18, 2014. His last day with the DLC was August 18, 2016. Amberly Datillo, Attorney, was hired on October 26, 2015. Mary Anne Davies, Attorney, was hired on December 15, 2014. Rob Denton, Senior Attorney, was hired on January 25, 1988. His last day with the DLC was July 15, 2016. Matthew Grow, Law Clerk, was hired on June 6, 2016. Erin Hough, Advocate, was hired on March 11, 2013. Timothy Hurty, Network Administrator, was hired on July 17, 2014. Nick Jackson, Attorney, was hired on February 3, 2014. Helena Jordan, Law Clerk, was hired on June 1, 2016. Matt Knotts, Advocate, was hired on October 5, 2015. His last day with the DLC was on July 20, 2016. Vard McGuire, Advocate, was hired on May 14, 2012. Erika Minjarez, Law Clerk, was hired on August 29, 2016. Evelyn Owen, Advocate, was hired on January 5, 2012. Teo Popa, Executive Assistant, was hired on August 13, 2014. Her last day with the DLC was on August 19, 2016. Carla Ramon Tejada, Receptionist, was hired on November 2, 2015. Her last day with the DLC was on January 29, 2016. Jeffery Simcox, Attorney, was hired on December 14, 2015. Erin Sullivan, Senior Attorney, was hired on April 20, 2015. Brian Tuttle, Law Clerk, was hired on June 1, 2016. His last day with the DLC was on August 29, 2016. Sean Umipig, Attorney, was hired on December 9, 2013. Leilani Whitmer, Law Clerk, was hired on July 15, 2015. The FTEs in the PAIR program for FY16 were as follows: Professional Full-time 2.02 Professional Part-time 0.28 Clerical Full-time 0.43 Clerical Part-time 0.18 Total 2.91 D. Involvement with Advisory Boards DLC PAIR staff serve on a Salt Lake City Mayor’s Committee on Accessibility. DLC PAIR staff is an active member of the Wasatch Choice for 2040 Consortium. Wasatch Choice for 2040 is a long-range urban development plan for the counties along the Wasatch Front: Utah, Salt Lake, Davis and Weber. The Consortium has designated six demonstration sites and is working to set examples of sustainable, accessible and affordable housing at these sites. DLC PAIR staff is an active member of the Wasatch Regional Coordination Council for Community Transportation, RCC. DLC PAIR staff is an active member of the Utah Parent Center Board of Trustees. The Utah Parent Center Board addresses coordination of resources for training, outreach and presentations to parents of students with disabilities attending public school in Utah. By participating on the board the DLC and the Utah Parent Center have increased their understanding of each agency’s role and have collaborated on projects. The Utah Parent Center work in collaboration with the DLC to positively affect 65,000 students with disabilities. E. PAIR Grievances Two grievances in FY 2016 1. A grievance was submitted on February 5, 2016 by P.D. (PAIR-funded client) relating to interactions with the Short Term Assistance Team (STAT), the DLC’s intake office. After reviewing files and interviewing STAT personnel, the DLC Legal Director responded to P.D.’s grievance with a letter dated March 17, 2016, finding that the grievance lacked merit, and that STAT personnel acted competently, diligently and appropriately in their interactions with her. P.D. exercised her right to seek review by the DLC Board President. The grievance materials and investigative file were provided to the Board President, and the Board’s written response was provided in a May 27, 2016 letter which confirmed that P.D.’s grievance was without merit. 2. A grievance was filed June 21, 2016 by T.B. (PAIR-funded client) complaining that the DLC refused to represent him in applying for Social Security disability benefits. The DLC does not represent individuals in eligibility determinations by the Social Security Administration. DLC Legal Director responded to T.B.’s grievance in a letter dated July 18, 2016, explaining that the DLC only provides legal assistance in defined practice areas, and that his grievance, consequently, lacked merit. T.B. was provided with information related to his rights to appeal the DLC Board of Trustees in the same letter. F. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program The DLC is the CAP Agency for Utah. We coordinate our programs through internal planning, needs assessment and public comment activities and by cooperating on specific projects as reflected in the annual objectives and priorities. PAIR funds are maximizing our efforts in several goals by allowing us to serve clients who would otherwise be ineligible for services.
|Signed By||Adina Zahradnikova|