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

Washington (Disability Rights Washington) - H240A160048 - FY2016

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights Washington
Address315 Fifth Avenue South
Address Line 2Suite 850
CitySeattle
StateWashington
Zip Code98104
E-mail Addressmstroh@dr-wa.org
Website Addresshttp://doesnotfit.org
Phone206-324-1521
TTY 206-957-0728
Toll-free Phone800-562-2702
Toll-free TTY800-905-0209
Fax206-957-0729
Name of P&A Executive DirectorMark Stroh
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorMark Stroh
Person to contact regarding reportMark Stroh
Contact Person phone206-324-1521
Ext.217

Part I. Non-Case Services

A. Individual Information and Referral Services (I&R)

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas140
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas0
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)140

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff38
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)1,285

1. Disability Rights Washington participated on a panel regarding accessibility advocacy. We presented our crappycurbs campaign and the related lawsuit to members of the Seattle community. City and county leaders were in attendance and asked questions about how they can make their cities more accessible. 4 individuals reported to DRW that the presentation enhanced their knowledge. .One person was trained on advocacy skills and three people received rights training.

2. Disability Rights Washington (DRW) addressed the United States Access Board on May 10, 2016, at its Town Hall Meeting in Seattle. DRW briefly presented on DRW's multi-modal approach to address the lack of accessibility in Washington. DRW provided four examples of its advocacy efforts including DRW's active monitoring of and reporting on the conditions of care for incarcerated people with disabilities; DRW's attempts to address the City of Seattle’s lack of designated accessible parking spaces through non litigious means; DRW's use of litigation and negotiation including two separate cases to address the lack of accessibility of stadiums and one case to address the lack of accessible curbs in Seattle; and DRW's creation of a public education campaign to support its litigation utilizing the national social media platform DRW developed, Rooted in Rights. DRW also shared information about Rooted in Rights and provided information regarding the Storyteller Project to attendees and Access Board Members. At the conclusion of the meeting, at least 6 individuals came to DRW staff and requested more information and reported interest and appreciation of DRW's work. Thus, at least 6 people reported that the training enhanced their knowledge and/or skill (was beneficial. (J1). At least 100 people attended the Town Hall and were present during DRW's presentation.

3. The Allies in Advocacy, a self advocacy group, shared their Proclamation with 220 with attendees of the International Conference on Inclusion attendees, and presented to a room of 45 individuals. Copies of the Proclamation were provided and individuals signed on with a laptop.

4. Power in Your Pocket: Using your smartphone to advocate for change - 6/15/2016 NDRN 2016 P&A/CAP Annual Meeting - DRW’s video and social media project, Rooted in Rights, has been using video advocacy and social media to boost the ongoing legal and systemic advocacy of the Washington P&A, as well as other P&As in the network. Creative content shared online has proven to be a powerful way to communicate with the public. Rooted in Rights recognizes that not all P&As have the time and resources to produce video content regularly. Luckily, mobile technology advancements have made the process of producing video content more accessible to individuals, businesses, and nonprofits alike. Strategic and “shareable” online content demonstrates the ongoing advocacy within each P&A, helps raise awareness about barriers and issues people with disabilities face and also supports fundraising efforts. The workshop session provided an overview of recommended smartphone applications and accessories available to produce videos, a simple process for video production using those applications, and methods for effective and targeted distribution using social media. 18 people reported the training enhanced their knowledge and/or skill (was beneficial) at the completion of the training, Self-advocacy materials were distributed to 18 attendees, Times the P&A exhibited at conferences, community fairs, etc.

5. ESSA and Students with Disabilities 4/23/2016 - DRW staff reported on a national webinar by AUCD and NDRN about how new the new Every Student Succeeds Act Implementation in Washington state will effect students with disabilities. The Education Ombuds office and SEL Wa provided information on how to be involved with committees that will design the state plan. Groups are being formed on accountability and students with disabilities. The new law addresses bullying and harassment, disproportionate punishment and aversive intervention that segregates students with disabilities.

6. Understanding Sexual Rights and Sexual Violence in Long Term Care - Disability Rights Washington created a video about advocacy for survivors of sexual violence in long-term care settings. DRW showed the video in Spokane, invited the Spokane Long-Term Care Ombuds and the local sexual assault advocacy provider, Lutheran Social Services to present the video with DRW, discuss the content and share information about their agencies.(J6) 2 people with disabilities collaborated with DRW on this training - not as clients. 15 people with disabilities received rights training with a total of 25 people in attendance.

7. Promising Practices Webinar for OVW - This webinar series highlights promising training practices for advocates who work with long-term care resident survivors of sexual violence. DRW involved long-term care residents with disabilities in advocacy material development. Residents and long-term care ombudsman were able to describe how they could tell, within a few moments of being in a facility, whether or not that facility was oppressive or responsive to advocacy and resident rights. DRW facilitated residents to come up with “welcome indicators” that an advocate could use to gauge level of ease or difficulty for advocacy in a long-term care facility. A video and the welcome indicators were shared with advocates from across the country who participate in Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women grantee programs.

8. Long-Term Care Ombuds Advisory Board Presentation - Disability Rights Washington presented on its activities at a meeting of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Advisory Council. DRW informed nine members and guests about DRW and its work on improving the advocacy response to sexual violence and voter rights and outreach.

9. Fall Adult Abuse Conference 10/29/2015 - Disability Rights Washington collaborated with other community organizations to sponsor and plan the 12th Annual Conference on Abuse of Elders and Adults with Disabilities. This year’s conference addressed the critical issue of domestic violence as it affects older adults and those with disabilities. Domestic violence against these populations is often longstanding and devastating with a broad range of perpetrators. In addition to intimate partners, perpetrators in these cases are often adult children, other family members, and caregivers. The impact of domestic violence on elders and adults with disabilities is often hidden, as these victims are often isolated and dependent on the perpetrator for their emotional needs as well as for physical care. The Conference Committee brought together an outstanding lineup of presenters from across the country to speak about this aspect of domestic violence from a number of different and important perspectives, including a speaker to address tribal prevention and response to vulnerable adult abuse. These presentations will continue to further conversations in our community about this issue and inspire improvements in the abuse response systems. Participants include Adult Protective Services, Residential Care Services, Prosecutors, Law Enforcement, Long-Term Care Ombuds, Disability Advocates, Guardians and other legal representatives, Domestic Violence Advocates and many others. 214 people attended including law enforcement, Adult Protective Services workers, facility licencors, LTC Ombuds, nurses, guardians and others. All 69 attendees who filled out the conference evaluation reported their knowledge was enhanced. DRW also distributed over 100 advocacy publications and DRW information at a resource table..

10. Monthly PAS-Port for Change Steering Committee Trainings -

Disability Rights Washington provides staff support and presentations of information to a group of consumer/employers of personal assistance services. Presentations occurred on October 19, 2015, November 23, 2015, January 25, 2016, February 22, 2016, March 28, 2016, April 25, 2016, May 23, 2016, June 27, 2016, July 25, 2016, August 22, 2016 and September 26, 2016. The total number of people receiving information is 66. 50 people reported the training enhanced the knowledge.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff1
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles1
3. PSAs/videos aired16
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website75,182
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated3
6. Other (specify separately)20,282

Narrative

16,886 social media followers and 3,396 indviduals on DRW listserv

Part II. Individuals Served

A. Individuals Served

Count individual once per FY. Multiple counts not permitted for lines A1 through A3.

1. Individuals still served as of October 1 (carryover from prior FY)9
2. Additional individuals served during the year367
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)376
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)16

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 7

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility26
2. Employment39
3. Program access19
4. Housing59
5. Government benefits/services68
6. Transportation7
7. Education17
8. Assistive technology3
9. Voting0
10. Health care60
11. Insurance8
12. Non-government services5
13. Privacy rights6
14. Access to records2
15. Abuse20
16. Neglect14
17. Other23

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor368
2. Other representation found1
3. Individual withdrew complaint0
4. Appeals unsuccessful0
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case0
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit0
9. Other0

Please explain

Not Applicable.

E. Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.

1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy376
2. Short-term assistance0
3. Investigation/monitoring0
4. Negotiation0
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution0
6. Administrative hearings0
7. Litigation (including class actions)0
8. Systemic/policy activities0

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. 0 - 40
2. 5 - 227
3. 23 - 59252
4. 60 - 6446
5. 65 and over71

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females181
2. Males195

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race18
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native11
3. Asian8
4. Black or African American30
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander3
6. White206
7. Two or more races25
8. Race/ethnicity unknown75

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent206
2. Parental or other family home12
3. Community residential home4
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home1
6. Public institutional living arrangement5
7. Private institutional living arrangement1
8. Jail/prison/detention center85
9. Homeless15
10. Other living arrangements47
11. Living arrangements not known0

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

1. Blind/visual impairment14
2. Deaf/hard of hearing11
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment146
5. Mental illness47
6. Substance abuse2
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability25
9. Neurological impairment30
10. Respiratory impairment6
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment15
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment58
13. Speech impairment0
14. AIDS/HIV3
15. Traumatic brain injury2
16. Other disability17

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities2

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes1,020

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.

As a result of Disability Rights Washington's technical assistance and support of PAS-Port for Change, a grassroots organization of consumer/employers that seeks to improve the quality, reliability and availability of Personal Assistance Services in Washington State, individuals who use in-home personal assistance services have voiced their concerns about a number of the barriers to care and have effected change. DSHS announced implementation of Provider One, a new provider payment system for workers who are Individual Providers. DRW provided information to PAS-Port members about the new system, timeline and timesheet submissions process. Consumer/employers were concerned that the short timeline would cause too much confusion for workers and consumers and expressed that concern to DSHS. After hearing of the concerns of consumers, DSHS delayed implementation for 3 months to allow for more education on the process. Over 40,000 people with disabilities benefited from the delay in implementation of this policy.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts314,000
2. Number of individuals named in class actions4

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.

Example 1: Settlement Reached to Improve Accessbility to University of Washington's Basketball Arena. Disability Rights Washington (DRW) filed a lawsuit alleging noncompliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements against the University of Washington (UW) after attempts at negotiation stalled. After the systemic lawsuit was filed, negotiations resumed and parties were able to reach a confidential settlement that remedied accessibility issues related to pricing, parking, seating, and physical accessibility to sporting events at UW's basketball arena. (F1/F5). This settlement results in 880 people having their right to access the public accommodation enforced. (A9) As a result of this litigation, a UW's basketball arena and ticketing practices were made more accessible (A10). Additionally, practices were modified to make the ticketing process more a

Example 2: Disability Rights Washington (DRW) is in negotiations to improve the accessibility of Mariners' Baseball Club and Safeco Field for people with physical and visual disabilities. DRW opened this case after receiving a complaint that the Mariners Baseball Club (Mariners) was not responsive to his request for information about accessibility problems at the Mariners' stadium, Safeco Field. DRW conducted an initial investigation, then agreed to co-counsel to resolve the accessibility problems at the stadium and in the Mariners' services. DRW and co-counsel conducted a site visit to take measurements and photographs of the stadium and parking facility, and then proposed specific changes that would bring the stadium and parking facility in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and regulations. Proposed changes include modifying the placement and access to wheelchair-accessible seating, adding seating to club sections, improving on-line access to ticket purchasing programs, making the ticketing kiosks fully accessible, bringing signage and parking spaces into compliance with ADA regulations, and improving Mariners website access. DRW has entered into negotiations with the Mariners which includes a separate negotiation with the Mariners' "landlord," the Public Financial District, which owns and originally built the stadium, and is responsible for major renovations. DRW and co-counsel are representing individuals, who have attended Mariners games. DRW and co-counsel received a draft settlement agreement, and will continue to work toward a written settlement to improve accessibility of the Mariners programs and facilities.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

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

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

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

A1. CART and ASL in Jails, Prison and SCC

A2. Need: Ability to communicate for individuals at jails, prisons and other places where people with disabilities are involuntarily confined

A3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; investigations; monitoring; and other systemic advocacy.

A4. There was not a significant collaboration related to this priority.

A5. 2

A6. Example 1: Disability Rights Washington (DRW) opened a project in 2015 to assess issues related to communication accommodations for Washington State Special Commitment Center (SCC) residents with hearing impairments. The SCC, operated by the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), provides a specialized mental health treatment program for civilly committed sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences. DRW's investigation included a preliminary fact finding involving two SCC participants who are deaf, who have given DRW permission to gather information and review their records regarding access to communication services, including American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters, TTY, Video Relay Services (VRS) and other technology to enable communication as effective and accessible as that afforded SCC residents without hearing impairments. DRW reviewed SCC policies and constituent records and found that SCC has failed to provide adequate hours of ASL interpreters to the deaf participants, and has delayed implementing VRS technology that one participant requested over three years before.

Based on these findings, in 2016 DRW opened a case for the two participant clients seeking reasonable accommodations for their hearing loss to represent them in negotiation with SCC, and if necessary, in litigation for the two deaf clients. Both clients seek necessary increased hours of ASL interpreter services for telephone access and other communication at SCC, including communication during treatment and medical services, recreational and administrative services, and social interactions, to ensure that hearing impaired SCC residents have access to communication equal to that enjoyed by other residents. DRW is negotiating with SCC regarding our demands for additional ASL interpreter hours and developing VRS services. If SCC fails to provide the requested accommodations, DRW will consider litigation to ensure that the clients receive reasonable accommodations as soon as possible.

Example 2: FY 2016 Disability Rights Washington (DRW) opened a case to investigate reports by inmates with hearing impairments that they were missing the announcement for "standing count" on the unit due to their disability. The inmates reported that when it is time for count the staff announce it over the intercom system. Many inmates with hearing aids cannot hear the announcement and, as a result, miss the announcement and have been infracted for failing to be present during count. In response, DRW staff contacted the ADA Compliance Manager and the ADA Coordinator at the facility to discuss potential alternative ways to announce the count. Those discussions remain ongoing and this case remains open.

B1. ADA Curb Cut Compliance

B2. Need: Compliance with physical access requirements of the ADA

B3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations, systemic litigation; educating policy makers; training; public awareness; and video advocacy

B4. There were not any significant collaborations related to this priority.

B5. 4 (includes cases from a related priority from a previous year)

B6. In addition to the example below there was substantial activity training and outreach activity on this priority - some of which is discussed in the training section.

Example: On October 8, 2015, Disability Rights Washington (DRW) with co-counsel Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC) and Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho (GBDH)) filed a class action and launched a social media campaign regarding the lack of accessibility curb ramps in the City of Seattle. Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after more than a year and a half of structured settlement negotiations. Three named plaintiffs represent a class of individuals with mobility disabilities who live, work, or visit the City of Seattle. On December 3, 2015, the city made a settlement proposal.

On February 18, 2016, GBDH, on behalf of Plaintiffs, sent a letter to the City stating that we were open to settlement, while continuing to litigate. Plaintiffs also offered to limit the production of discovery if Defendants were willing to stipulate to a class. We eventually stipulated to the class and on May 2, 2016, the court certified the class of all persons (including residents of and/or visitors to the City of Seattle) with any mobility disability who, at any time prior to judgment in this action, have been denied full and equal access to the City of Seattle’s pedestrian right of way due to the lack of a curb ramp or a curb ramp that was damaged, in need of repair, or otherwise in a condition not suitable or sufficient for use. In the spring and summer of 2016, DRW reviewed discovery production including the survey the City had conducted. In May 2016, the parties entered into a two-day mediation. While we were unsuccessful at reaching an agreement, the city agreed to paint crosswalks in areas identified by plaintiffs. Accordingly, in the summer of 2016, the City re-striped 121 crosswalks to provide marked safe crossing areas. The parties have scheduled future settlement negotiations while continuing to litigate.

C1. Disability Friendly Emergency Preparedness Plans

C2. Need: Inclusive plans for emergency preparedness

C3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; and public awareness

C4. There were not any significant collaborations related to this priority.

C5. 2

C6. DRW decided not to pursue litigation on this issue at this time after consultation with disability community leaders in the area where it was being contemplated. However, a significant amount of public education was accomplished involving the film “Right To Be Rescued” produced by DRW’s Rooted in Rights project.

D1. Olmstead: Right to Live in Community Compliance

D2. Need: Accessible and accommodating communities

D3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; H) outreach; I) training; and video advocacy

D4. Worked collaboratively with ACLU on an amicus brief.

D5. 4

D6. DRW joined signed onto an amicus brief to prevent the narrowing antidiscrimination protections.

E1. Disability Awareness: Inclusive Communities

E2. Need: Welcoming communities

E3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video Advocacy

E4. DRW works with dozens of other organizations to promote disability awareness.

E5. 1

E6. This priority area was primarily addressed through training, resource development and posts to our websites and social networking platforms. This included 36 trainings, the revision or development of 5 resources, and 13 media related campaigns.

F1. Abuse and Neglect Response and Effectiveness

F2. Need: An abuse system that thoroughly investigates and responds to allegations of abuse and neglect in a timely and effective manner

F3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; and other systemic advocacy

F4. Worked with the Long Term Care Ombuds on this priority.

F5. 3

F6. Example: The 2015 Legislative budget included a proviso that named DRW and the Long-Term Care Ombuds to the Joint Legislative and Executive Committee on Aging and Disability (JLEC), and mandated the committee take a close look at the abuse response system - particularly as it functions in institutions. The focus was a result of concerns about Lakeland Village brought to the attention of the Legislature by DRW and media reports. The committee was charged with reviewing all audit results from the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and Residential Care Services (RCS) in recent years.

On October 26, the committee spent an entire day listening to presentations by DSHS regarding the abuse response system, and public comment. DRW provided testimony to the committee regarding the recommendations for improvements in the abuse response system, and written materials describing the findings at Lakeland Village that resulted in suspension of certification for the facility. Prior to the committee meeting, DRW contacted disability advocates to discuss the need for testimony, and coordinated responses with others. Unfortunately, DSHS did not fulfill the requirements of the proviso, which required that they provide analysis of the CMS and RCS findings in recent years. DRW and the Ombuds noted this fact and alerted the chairs of the committee, and arranged for a subsequent conversation with DSHS and a Governor’s staff member regarding a plan for addressing the failure to provide the analysis.

As a result, at the June meeting of the JLEC, DSHS presented information on progress that had been made to address some of the concerns, and DRW and the LTCO gave presentations on what still needed to be done to improve the abuse response system. DRW arranged community visits by legislators. The JLEC members toured Fircrest institution for people with developmental disabilities. In order to ensure that legislators obtained a balanced view of what opportunities were available to support people with developmental disabilities, DRW arranged for a tour of a local supported living residence immediately after the Fircrest tour. DRW staff identified a supported living provider who was willing to host the tour, and made sure the people with disabilities who lived in the home were aware of the tour and its purpose. DRW participated in both tours - the Fircrest and the supported living visits (December 10, 2015) - and legislators who attended recognized the value and adequacy of the community living option, though they also were supportive of the institution option and did not indicate a preference. The visits to both residential settings gave the legislators some context for discussions regarding abuse, neglect, and individual choice in residential setting.

G1. Bettering Sexual Assault Response in Long Term Care Facilities

G2. Need: Sexual assault response and prevention services for people with disabilities in long-term care facilities

G3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; and other systemic advocacy

G4. DRW partnered with the Long Term Care Ombuds and Washington State Sexual Assault Coalition on this priority.

G5. Not Applicable

G6. This priority was addressed primarily through four substantive education and training activities, not casework.

H1. Improved Conditions in Residential Treatment Facilities

H2. Need: High quality care and conditions

H3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video advocacy

H4. No collaborations.

H5. 20.

H6. DRW provided technical assistance to 20 PAIR eligible individuals to assist in addressing their own problems. While there was other substantial activity related to this priority it was paid for with private, not PAIR funding.

I1. Improved conditions in Juvenile Detention Facilities, Jails, Prisons, and the Special Commitment Center

I2. Need: High quality care and conditions

I3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video advocacy

I4. DRW collaborated with NDRN, 30+ P&A entities in other states and a few other national organizations such as ACLU. The example below was done in collaboration with Gonzaga University Law School.

I5. 13

I6. Example: In the summer of 2016, Disability Rights Washington (DRW) launched an investigation into the conditions of confinement for inmates with disabilities at the Yakima County Jail, confirming significant legal violations related to access to mental health care, use of segregation and provision of auxiliary aids, among other things. After three monitoring visits to the jail, DRW staff obtained and reviewed records for 17 inmates. DRW staff also promoted technical assistance at the jail, leading to increased interviewing of inmates, and obtained and reviewed relevant jail policies. Based on the information confirmed through this investigation, DRW found legal violations related to many of the jail's policies and practices surrounding inmates with disabilities. For example, the jail is not providing psychiatric medication to inmates who do not already have current prescriptions at booking, no matter the inmate's need or desire for medication during incarceration. In addition, the jail does not respond in a timely fashion to reports of serious mental and medical issues. DRW met with the jail administration and representatives of their contracted health providers at the initiation of the investigation. Parties expressed a willingness to take the results of DRW's investigation seriously and potentially work together to address problems. In the spirit of this cooperative approach, DRW prepared a letter for the jail outlining the findings of our investigation and legal basis of concern. DRW proposed that parties enter into a structured negotiation in the fall of 2016 with the goal of working together under a formalized agreement to address the jail's failure to adequately treat and accommodate inmates with disabilities. DRW is waiting to hear whether the jail will agree to this plan.

J1. Quality, available advocacy

J2. Need: Quality of advocates serving people with disabilities on matters related to their disabilities

J3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video advocacy

J4. DRW collaborated with a court and the Office of Administrative Hearings on this priority.

J5. 3

J6. DRW is Co-petitioner for Rule to Provide Advocacy for People with Disabilities in Fair Hearings. The focus of DRW’s advocacy has been work to support the adoption of a rule that ensures that counsel or an advocate is available to support appellants with disabilities in fair hearings. This is an extension of the work done in earlier years to support counsel as an accommodation in court. DRW took part in the following activities this year in support of the rule: 1. In the fall of 2015, attended the Administrative Justice subcommittee of the Barriers to Justice subcommittee of the Access to Justice Board, and made plans for the support of the rule with other social justice advocates. The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) has expressed support for the rule, but DSHS and the Health Care Authority are opposed. 2. In October, the DSHS chief judge contacted DRW and other advocates to identify what resources were available to support advocacy in fair hearings. 3. In December, DRW and a representative from the Seattle Law School met with others to decide on a strategy, and DRW provided information to self-advocates and disability advocates. 4. On March 23, DRW and Seattle Law School wrote a letter requesting a meeting with Governor’s policy staff to discuss the need for the Rule. The meeting occurred on April 11. 5. In July 2016, DRW and Seattle Law School filed a petition for rulemaking. 6. In August 2016, DRW sent a letter to the Governor requesting support for the new Rule, and obtained support from the Arc of Washington State, Self-Advocates in Leadership, the Developmental Disabilities Counsel, and NAMI Washington. DRW also provided support and information to individuals requesting information about the existing court rule providing for counsel as accommodation, including written information to a prominent developmental disabilities advocate on January 13, for use by the Arc of United States in supporting counsel as accommodation in other jurisdictions.

K1. Protect Due Process Rights

K2. Need: Due process

K3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers and training

K4. DRW is working with Office of Public Defense on this priority.

K5. None.

K6. DRW is in the planning stage of a major project related to the custodial rights of parents with disabilities. A conference supporting parents with these rights is planned for May 2017. There currently no casework associated with this priority.

L1. Court Access and Accommodation

L2. Need: Access to justice and due process

L3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers and training

L4. See J4.

L5. See J5.

L6. This priority has been merged with Priority J1 as the cases under it were addressing both priorities.

M1. P&A Access Authority

M2. Need: Access to federally mandated protection and advocacy services

M3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; and video advocacy

M4. Not Applicable

M5. 0

M6. We had no denials of P&A access involving PAIR eligible individuals this year.

N1. Fair Personal Assistance Services

N2. Need: Quality personal assistance services

N3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; and public awareness

N4. DRW is working with the Allies in Advocacy Task Force, the Developmental Disabilities Council, PAS-Port for Change and the Washington State Independent Living Movement

N5. None.

N6. This was addressed with training and other systemic advocacy. See narratives in those sections.

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year

Please include a statement of priorities and objectives for the current fiscal year (the fiscal year succeeding that covered by this report), which should contain the following information:

  1. a statement of each prioirty;
  2. the need addressed by each priority; and;
  3. a description of the activities to be carried out under each priority.

A1. Deaf and Hard of Hearing Accommodations in Jails, Prison and Special Commitment Center

A2. Need: Ability to communicate for individuals at jails, prisons and other places where people with disabilities are involuntarily confined

A3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; investigations; monitoring; and other systemic advocacy

B1. ADA Curb Cut Compliance

B2. Need: Compliance with physical access requirements of the ADA

B3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations, systemic litigation; educating policy makers; training; public awareness; and video advocacy

C1. Olmstead: Right to Live in Community Compliance

C2. Need: Accessible and accommodating communities

C3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; H) outreach; I) training; and video advocacy

D1. Disability Awareness: Inclusive Communities

D2. Need: Welcoming communities

D3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video Advocacy

E1. Available and Affordable Housing Options for People with Disabilities

E2. Need: Affordable and available housing particularly in the large cities where housing costs are very high

E3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; and public awareness

F1. Abuse and Neglect Response and Effectiveness

F2. Need: An abuse system that thoroughly investigates and responds to allegations of abuse and neglect in a timely and effective manner

F3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; and other systemic advocacy

G1. Improved Conditions in Residential Treatment Facilities

G2. Need: High quality care and conditions

G3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video advocacy

H1. Improved conditions in Juvenile Detention Facilities, Jails, Prisons, and the Special Commitment Center

H2. Need: High quality care and conditions

H3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video advocacy

K1. Quality, available advocacy

K2. Need: Quality of advocates serving people with disabilities on matters related to their disabilities

K3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video advocacy

L1. P&A Access Authority

L2. Need: Access to federally mandated protection and advocacy services

L3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; and video advocacy

M1. Fair Personal Assistance Services

M2. Need: Quality personal assistance services

M3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; and public awareness

N1. Self-Advocacy Support

N2. Need: Responding to the expressed interest of PAIR eligible individuals to be supported in their own advocacy

N3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness

Part VI. Narrative

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

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

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

A:

Actual FY2016

Sources of funds received and expended:

Federal (Section 509) - $401,675

State - 0

Program Income - $6,279

Private - 0

All other funds - 0

Total (from all sources) -- $407,954

Budget FY2017

Sources of funds received and expended:

Federal (Section 509) - $324,171

State - 0

Program Income - 0

Private - 0

All other funds - 0

Total (from all sources) -- $324,171

Note transferred $ 16,800 of cash basis expense from PAIR because of overspending

B:

Actual FY2016

EXPENDITURES PPR FORMAT

WAGES - $222,112

FRINGE BENEFITS - $75,396

SUPPLIES- $3,083

POSTAGE - $1,096

TELEPHONE - $3,832

RENT - $24,513

TRAVEL - $14,174

COPYING - $398

INSURANCE - $2,786

EQUIP RENT/PUR - $14,673

LEGAL SERV (LIT AND COPIES) - $7,839

MISCELLANEOUS - $38,054

Total EXPENDITURES PPR FORMAT - $407,954

Budget FY2017

EXPENDITURES PPR FORMAT

WAGES - $176,496

FRINGE BENEFITS - $59,912

SUPPLIES- $2,450

POSTAGE - $871

TELEPHONE - $3,045

RENT - $19,479

TRAVEL - $11,263

COPYING - $316

INSURANCE - $2,214

EQUIP RENT/PUR - $11,660

LEGAL SERV (LIT AND COPIES) - $6,229

MISCELLANEOUS - $30,239

Total EXPENDITURES PPR FORMAT - $324,173

C:

Descrition of PAIR Staff

Professional Positions

Full time FTE - 2.300; 100% of year filled; Person Years = 2.300

Part Time FTE - 0.300; 100% of year filled; Person Years = 0.300

Vacant FTE - 0.500; 100% of year filled; Person Years = 0.500

Support

Full time FTE - 0.520; 1.000 of year filled; Person Years = 0.520

Students

Part Time FTE - 2.150; 0.200 of year filled; Person Years = 2.150

D. None.

E. No grievances.

F. Disability Rights Washington and the Client Assistance Program work together to assure that there is not a duplication of effort and that appropriate referrals are made between the two organizations. Because of CAP’s narrow focus it is relatively easy to draw the lines between the programs. DRW generally does not make priorities of issues that are within CAP’s realm so there is not alot of the common ground to be found. DRW’s role is to make accurate referral to CAP and to let CAP know how people who call them can access our services when appropriate. We are engaged in advocacy related to the issue of subminimum wage and are keeping the CAP aware of our activity in this area.

Coordination of DRW and Long Term Care Ombudsman legislative education activities, sharing information on issues effecting people who live in adult family homes, nursing homes and boarding homes, discuss ways to work together for common goals of improving conditions and enforcement of rights.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByMark Stroh
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/30/2016