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

New Jersey (Disability Rights New Jersey) - H240A170031 - FY2017

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights New Jersey
Address210 S. Broad Street 3rd Floor
Address Line 2
CityTrenton
StateNew Jersey
Zip Code08608
E-mail Addressadvocate@drnj.org
Website Addresshttp://www.drnj.org
Phone609-292-9742
TTY 609-633-7106
Toll-free Phone800-922-7233
Toll-free TTY
Fax609-777-0187
Name of P&A Executive DirectorJoseph B. Young
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorMary A. Ciccone
Person to contact regarding reportMary A. Ciccone
Contact Person phone609-292-9742
Ext.

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 areas721
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas1,184
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)1,905

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff16
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)625

Trainings DRNJ staff conducted 16 education and training programs attended by approximately 625 individuals. These programs included issues such as special education, including transition services, employment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, housing, voting, and health care. Underserved Populations DRNJ staff conducted 16 outreach, public awareness, and training events targeted to the deaf and hard of hearing, blind, Latino and rural Latino, and the military. DRNJ presented information to approximately 95 consumers and family members at three workshops serving the needs of the deaf and hard of hearing. DRNJ participated in eight events that reached out to the Latino community on topics regarding special education, transition, voting, and DRNJ’s services. Approximately 1,000 consumers and family members attended these events. DRNJ attended two consumer fairs for individuals with blindness fair and provided information regarding assistive technology, special education, voting, and DRNJ’s services. Approximately 500 consumers and family members attended this event. Finally, DRNJ continued its efforts to outreach to the military. During the year, DRNJ provided information about special education and health care in addition to its services at three events which focused on military consumers and their families. Approximately 190 family members and consumers attended.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff2
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles1
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website369,218
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated11,607
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

DRNJ distributed 11,607 publications by printing and through its website. The publications included topics such as general DRNJ brochures, special education, transportation, bullying and harassment, post-secondary education, and summer camp. In addition, DRNJ made two television appearances and appeared in one newspaper article to discuss issues involving reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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)236
2. Additional individuals served during the year396
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)632
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 253

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility10
2. Employment37
3. Program access2
4. Housing53
5. Government benefits/services7
6. Transportation3
7. Education354
8. Assistive technology7
9. Voting0
10. Health care114
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services0
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse3
16. Neglect10
17. Other48

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor260
2. Other representation found12
3. Individual withdrew complaint71
4. Appeals unsuccessful2
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.4
6. PAIR withdrew from case1
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources2
8. Individual case lacks legal merit37
9. Other1

Please explain

client discharged DRNJ representation

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-advocacy152
2. Short-term assistance85
3. Investigation/monitoring69
4. Negotiation31
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution9
6. Administrative hearings13
7. Litigation (including class actions)31
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 - 418
2. 5 - 22342
3. 23 - 59151
4. 60 - 6446
5. 65 and over75

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females291
2. Males341

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race142
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian7
4. Black or African American145
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White317
7. Two or more races3
8. Race/ethnicity unknown18

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent203
2. Parental or other family home406
3. Community residential home0
4. Foster care1
5. Nursing home16
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center3
9. Homeless1
10. Other living arrangements2
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 impairment23
2. Deaf/hard of hearing24
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment83
5. Mental illness35
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability122
9. Neurological impairment176
10. Respiratory impairment14
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment20
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment31
13. Speech impairment18
14. AIDS/HIV3
15. Traumatic brain injury27
16. Other disability56

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 changes250,000

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.

DRNJ continued its efforts to conduct systemic activities in the area of voting. Prior to the general election, DRNJ sent out e-blasts to its email list to advise individuals of the voter registration deadline and the deadline to request Vote-By-Mail ballots. DRNJ collaborated with other disability advocacy organizations during the spring and summer of 2017 to raise awareness about voting rights of people with disabilities and to encourage voter registration of people with disabilities during this gubernatorial election year. DRNJ also continued to speak to individual groups of people with disabilities about their voting rights. DRNJ participated in meetings with the Secretary of State, Director of the Division of Elections, the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey before the primary and the general election to discuss potential voter issues during the elections. DRNJ continues to distribute its voter guide, Voting: It’s Your Right, to individuals, advocacy groups and election officials. DRNJ also collaborated with the New Jersey Hospital Association to develop a brochure for hospitals to distribute to patients so that they may be aware of how to vote if suddenly hospitalized before an election. Finally, DRNJ operated a voter hotline for individuals with disabilities during the general election and the primary election. Special Education DRNJ participated in several stakeholders meetings sponsored by the NJ Department of Education to provide comments on the Office of Special Education’s State Performance Plan. DRNJ also collaborated with a task force convened by the New Jersey Education Association to address issues regarding special education reform. DRNJ staff participates in work groups and committees dealing with systemic issues, such as the Special Education Practitioner’s Group, the Coalition for Special Education Funding Reform and the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Reform Coalition. Due to the advocacy of DRNJ, the Education Law Center and others under the auspices of New Jersey Special Education Practitioners, the Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired (CBVI) deleted the provision of its administrative code that limited blindness education services “subject to the availability of funds,” and added language to acknowledge that CBVI’s provision of blindness education services must be in accordance with the IDEA. These regulatory changes will potentially benefit the approximately 380 New Jersey students who are classified visually impaired and receive services in school from the CBVI. Transportation DRNJ staff continues to monitor New Jersey Transit’s compliance with the Americans with Disability Act through participation on New Jersey Transit’s ADA advisory committee. In addition, DRNJ staff attended meetings of the NJ Transit Local Programs Support Citizen’s Advisory Committee and the New Jersey Council on Special Transportation during the past year. DRNJ continues to distribute its Consumers Transportation Handbook.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts400,000
2. Number of individuals named in class actions0

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

DRNJ et al. v. New Jersey Department of Education et al. DRNJ, along with the Education Law Center, SPAN, and the ARC of New Jersey filed suit in federal court against the New Jersey Department of Education in 2007. The complaint alleged that DOE failed to address the systemic problem that New Jersey children with disabilities are not being educated in the least restrictive environment as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In February 2014, the parties settled the complaint. The settlement required the following activities: • Completion of a Needs Assessment by 75+ school districts with the worst track record in inclusion; • District site visits by the DOE, including classroom observations and staff interviews; • Extensive training and technical assistance for district staff, and regular assessment of the trainings and technical assistance; • Training of state complaint investigators; • Specially designated state and local inclusion facilitators; • Annual compliance monitoring; • Parental input regarding district failures to appropriately include students with disabilities; and • Oversight by a stakeholder committee comprised of disability advocates. The settlement became effective upon the judge’s February 19, 2014 signing of the Order, and with implementation beginning immediately. DRNJ staff was named to the stakeholder committee that oversees the needs assessment and training schedule. The committee met during the past year and reviewed the compliance reports and training evaluations. In addition, the committee offered suggestions regarding future training sessions. DRNJ will continue to monitor the settlement for the remainder of the time it is in effect. Mount Laurel Litigation In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that municipalities in the state could not use exclusionary zoning practices to keep out low- and moderate-income citizens, and often racial and ethnic minorities, from their communities. According to the Court, New Jersey’s constitution not only prohibits exclusionary zoning, it also imposes an affirmative obligation on the municipalities to ensure zoning that allows the municipality to meet its fair share of regional affordable housing obligations. New Jersey’s implementation of the Court’s decision stalled in 1999, and effectively came to a halt for three to four years. In 2015, the process was revived when the Supreme Court removed authority for implementation from the executive branch and returned it to the courts. As a result, there has been active litigation in many of New Jersey’s 15 regional courts to determine each municipality’s fair share of the statewide affordable housing obligation. In calculating the number of affordable housing units required over the next ten years, a couple issues cut across the state. Initially, the coalition of municipalities attempted to argue that the very poor should not be included in the calculation of persons in need of affordable housing because their incomes were too low to afford even affordable housing. This issue spurred DRNJ’s initial involvement in the litigation because this argument would have excluded most households headed by individuals receiving Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income from the calculation of need. On behalf of itself and 15 other organizations, including Advancing Opportunities, the Alliance for the Betterment of Citizens with Disabilities, The Arc of New Jersey, the Coalition of Mental Health Consumer Organizations, Collaborative Support Programs of New Jersey, Community Access Unlimited, the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, the Mental Health Association in New Jersey, the New Jersey Association of Mental Health and Addiction Agencies, the New Jersey Association of Community Providers, the New Jersey Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, the Supportive Housing Association, the System of Care Association, Autism New Jersey, and the Community Health Law Project, DRNJ filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) interest in three county courts, arguing against the exclusion of the very poor from these calculations. When the effort to exclude the poorest households from the calculation of the need for affordable housing was subsequently largely abandoned, the municipalities then focused on excluding households formed during the period from 1999 to 2015 (the “gap period”) when the state’s implementation of the municipalities’ obligation to establish affordable housing was stalled. A trial court judge in one of the counties held that households formed during the gap period should be included in the calculation of the need for affordable housing. The municipalities appealed that decision to the Appellate Division. DRNJ filed an amicus brief in the Appellate Division supporting the decision of the trial court. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that prior decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court did not provide a mechanism for calculating the need for housing that arose during a gap period. After a couple false starts, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to resolve the dispute. Since households headed by individuals with disabilities would comprise a significant percentage of households affected by this ruling, DRNJ again filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and the other organizations, arguing on behalf of recognizing the housing needs of low income individuals who formed, or would have formed, households during the gap period. In a decision issued in January 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that municipalities were required to address the need for low- and moderate-income housing that arose during the gap period and that this would be accomplished by expanding the definition of “present need” in the formula used to calculate a municipalities obligation. In re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various Municipalities, 227 N.J. 508 (2017). The expert engaged by the Fair Share Housing Center estimated that including the need for affordable housing that arose during the gap period would increase the need for affordable housing units by over 145,000 statewide. Following the Court’s decision, the Fair Share Housing Center has indicated an increase willingness in the number of municipalities seeking to reach voluntary settlements of their affordable housing obligation.

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.

ISSUE 1 — ABUSE AND NEGLECT GOAL 15-1X ABUSE AND NEGLECT — To ensure that individuals with disabilities living in institutions and the community are free from abuse and neglect. OBJECTIVE 1X.1 To address complaints of abuse and neglect living in institutions or community residential programs in at least one (1) matter. DRNJ assisted a 57-year-old resident of Mercer County who has a visual impairment and is HIV-positive. He had broken a hip approximately 18 months prior to contacting DRNJ and was placed in a nursing home for rehabilitation. He contacted DRNJ because he wanted to be discharged, but the nursing home administrative staff repeatedly told him that he was unable to live in the community. DRNJ staff had a meeting with the individual, the social worker and the care team at his nursing home. His nursing home stated that his HIV status and his handling of frustrations prevented him from successfully living in the community. DRNJ connected him with the states I Choose Home program to transition him to the community. He subsequently moved into his own apartment. 11 cases were handled under this priority. ISSUE 2 — DISCRIMINATION GOAL 15-2A HOUSING: To ensure that people with disabilities have greater access to accessible, affordable housing and experience decreased housing discrimination. OBJECTIVE 2A.1 To participate in at least one (1) coalition, task force, advisory, or work group seeking to increase accessible, affordable housing. Mount Laurel Litigation In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that municipalities in the state could not use exclusionary zoning practices to keep out low- and moderate-income citizens, and often racial and ethnic minorities, from their communities. According to the Court, New Jersey’s constitution not only prohibits exclusionary zoning, it also imposes an affirmative obligation on the municipalities to ensure zoning that allows the municipality to meet its fair share of regional affordable housing obligations. New Jersey’s implementation of the Court’s decision stalled in 1999, and effectively came to a halt for three to four years. In 2015, the process was revived when the Supreme Court removed authority for implementation from the executive branch and returned it to the courts. As a result, there has been active litigation in many of New Jersey’s 15 regional courts to determine each municipality’s fair share of the statewide affordable housing obligation. In calculating the number of affordable housing units required over the next ten years, a couple issues cut across the state. Initially, the coalition of municipalities attempted to argue that the very poor should not be included in the calculation of persons in need of affordable housing because their incomes were too low to afford even affordable housing. This issue spurred DRNJ’s initial involvement in the litigation because this argument would have excluded most households headed by individuals receiving Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income from the calculation of need. On behalf of itself and 15 other organizations, including Advancing Opportunities, the Alliance for the Betterment of Citizens with Disabilities, The Arc of New Jersey, the Coalition of Mental Health Consumer Organizations, Collaborative Support Programs of New Jersey, Community Access Unlimited, the Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey, the Mental Health Association in New Jersey, the New Jersey Association of Mental Health and Addiction Agencies, the New Jersey Association of Community Providers, the New Jersey Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, the Supportive Housing Association, the System of Care Association, Autism New Jersey, and the Community Health Law Project, DRNJ filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) interest in three county courts, arguing against the exclusion of the very poor from these calculations. When the effort to exclude the poorest households from the calculation of the need for affordable housing was subsequently largely abandoned, the municipalities then focused on excluding households formed during the period from 1999 to 2015 (the “gap period”) when the state’s implementation of the municipalities’ obligation to establish affordable housing was stalled. A trial court judge in one of the counties held that households formed during the gap period should be included in the calculation of the need for affordable housing. The municipalities appealed that decision to the Appellate Division. DRNJ filed an amicus brief in the Appellate Division supporting the decision of the trial court. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that prior decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court did not provide a mechanism for calculating the need for housing that arose during a gap period. After a couple false starts, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to resolve the dispute. Since households headed by individuals with disabilities would comprise a significant percentage of households affected by this ruling, DRNJ again filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and the other organizations, arguing on behalf of recognizing the housing needs of low income individuals who formed, or would have formed, households during the gap period. In a decision issued in January 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that municipalities were required to address the need for low- and moderate-income housing that arose during the gap period and that this would be accomplished by expanding the definition of “present need” in the formula used to calculate a municipalities obligation. In re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various Municipalities, 227 N.J. 508 (2017). The expert engaged by the Fair Share Housing Center estimated that including the need for affordable housing that arose during the gap period would increase the need for affordable housing units by over 145,000 statewide. Following the Court’s decision, the Fair Share Housing Center has indicated an increase willingness in the number of municipalities seeking to reach voluntary settlements of their affordable housing obligation. Supportive Housing Association DRNJ is an active participant in the Supportive Housing Association, which is a statewide, nonprofit organization that promotes and maintains a strong supportive housing industry in New Jersey serving persons with special needs through information, training, and collaboration, promoting systems change to provide more flexible funding and increased mainstream housing opportunities, and educating policy makers, elected officials, and the public on the use and benefits of the supportive housing model. OBJECTIVE 2A.2 To pursue individual and/or systems advocacy in at least one (1) housing matter addressing discriminatory barriers to accessible, affordable housing. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 49-year-old resident of Burlington County who has chronic lung disease and uses a ventilator, oxygen concentrator, and various other medical equipment. The client contacted DRNJ because her condominium has had many power outages, and she sought permission from her condominium association to install a natural gas powered stand-by generator at her expense so that she would not be without the use of her medical equipment during a power outage. The condominium association denied her request. DRNJ attempted to negotiate with association, but the association refused to grant her request. DRNJ then filed for an Order to Show Cause seeking an injunction allowing the installation of the generator. Following the filing, the association agreed to allow for the installation of the generator, which was installed shortly thereafter. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 61-year-old resident of Essex County who had a brain aneurysm, subsequent stroke, and multiple circulatory and orthopedic impairments. She contacted DRNJ for assistance because the elevator and lift in her apartment building were frequently inoperable. DRNJ contacted the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and scheduled an elevator inspection. The Department of Community Affairs cited the owner with a violation and ordered him to fix the elevator and lift. The elevator and lift were properly repaired. DRNJ intervened on behalf of several residents who use wheelchairs and live in a 55-and-over community in Ocean County. The residents contacted DRNJ because the homeowner’s association provides bus transportation for residents so that they can go out into the community. However, the contract with the bus company did not require that the bus company provide accessible buses or vans. DRNJ contacted the homeowner’s association to discuss this issue. The homeowner’s association agreed to provide accessible transportation when requested by the residents. 54 cases were handled under this priority. GOAL 15-2B EMPLOYMENT: To ensure that people with disabilities experience decreased discrimination and gain increased employment opportunities. OBJECTIVE 2B.1 To address through individual and/or systems advocacy employment discrimination issues or complaints in at least fifteen (15) matters DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 49-year-old resident of Gloucester County who has carpal tunnel syndrome and chronic back and neck pain. She contacted DRNJ because she had requested that her employer provide her with speech recognition software and an ergonomic keyboard to assist her at work. Although the employer agree to provide the equipment, the employer delayed and then failed to provide the appropriate training. DRNJ contacted the employer and requested the assistive technology and training as an accommodation. After DRNJ’s request, the employer provided the devices and the necessary training. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 59-year-old resident of Essex County who has asthma. She contacted DRNJ because her asthma is severely affected by strong scents used in the cleaning supplies and the air fresheners at her workplace. She had spoken to management about the effect that the chemicals were having on her, but the employer refused to change the cleaning supplies to unscented ones. DRNJ contacted the employer to request that the employer accommodate the employee. After DRNJ contacted the employer, the employer changed the cleaning supplies to unscented ones and also removed the aromatic air fresheners in the restrooms. 38 cases were handled under this priority. GOAL 15-2C VOTING: To ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity and can exercise the right to register and vote. OBJECTIVE 2C.1 To participate in at least three (3) activities promoting and protecting the right to vote of people with disabilities. DRNJ operated a hotline for the general election of November 8, 2016. DRNJ received approximately 25 calls. DRNJ had several calls involving the voting rights of individuals currently serving in psychiatric hospitals and the provision of a vote-by-mail ballot. DRNJ successfully arranged for Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital staff to obtain a vote-by-mail ballot for one of the residents of the hospital. DRNJ staff appeared in Mercer County Superior Court in order to obtain a vote-by-mail ballot for a resident of Anne Klein Forensic Hospital. Many of the other calls involved issues regarding transportation to the polls, inaccessible polling locations and individuals seeking information about whether they were registered and the location of their polling place. Prior to the general election, DRNJ sent out e-blasts to its email list to advise individuals of the voter registration deadline and the deadline to request Vote-By-Mail ballots. DRNJ collaborated with other disability advocacy organizations during the spring and summer of 2017 to raise awareness about voting rights of people with disabilities and to encourage voter registration of people with disabilities during this gubernatorial election year. DRNJ also continued to speak to individual groups of people with disabilities about their voting rights. DRNJ participated in meetings with the Secretary of State, Director of the Division of Elections, the League of Women Voters of New Jersey, and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey before the primary and the general election to discuss potential voter issues during the elections. DRNJ continues to distribute its voter guide, Voting: It’s Your Right, to individuals, advocacy groups and election officials. DRNJ also collaborated with the New Jersey Hospital Association to develop a brochure for hospitals to distribute to patients so that they may be aware of how to vote if suddenly hospitalized before an election. GOAL 15-2D PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES: To ensure that people with disabilities have non-discriminatory access to public accommodations and public entities. OBJECTIVE 2D.1 To undertake individual and/or systems advocacy in at least ten (10) matters addressing discrimination against people with disabilities in public accommodations and services. DRNJ intervened on behalf of an 87-year-old resident of Bergen County who has orthopedic impairments. He contacted DRNJ because his local supermarket would display merchandise outside the building that would block the accessible route of travel into the store. DRNJ contacted the store manager and explained how the displays of merchandise blocked the accessible entrance to the store. As a result of DRNJ’s intervention, the store removed the merchandise near the entrance. DRNJ intervened on behalf of 59-year-old resident of Morris County who uses a wheelchair for ambulation. The individual contacted DRNJ because he attempted to attend a funeral at a local funeral home, but there was no accessible entrance. DRNJ contacted the funeral home to discuss the lack of an accessible entrance. The funeral home advised that it had an accessible entrance on the side of the building. However, there were no signs indicating the location of the accessible entrance. DRNJ negotiated with the funeral home to have signage installed to advise all entering the location of the accessible entrance. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 22-year-old resident of a juvenile justice facility who is blind. The individual contacted DRNJ because he was attempting to take a remote course from the local community college. However, he needed adaptive equipment in order to read the class material. DRNJ contacted the disability office of the community college to discuss the individual’s need for accommodations in order to participate in the course. The director of the disability office agreed to meet with the individual and officials at the juvenile justice facility to determine how to accommodate his disability. As a result of the meeting, the juvenile justice facility began providing the individual with two hours of computer lab access three times a week so that he could review the reading materials. In addition, the juvenile justice facility agreed to purchase a new computer for him to use outside the computer lab. Finally, the school advised him that if he was not able to catch up with the reading assignments, the school would allow him to withdraw from the course and start the course again the following semester. 63 cases were handled under this priority. ISSUE 3 — COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES GOAL 15-3A COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES AND SUPPORTS — To ensure that people with disabilities have access to appropriate community-based supports and services to promote integration and independence. OBJECTIVE 3A.1 To provide individual and/or systems advocacy in at least three (3) matters promoting or addressing access to community supports and services. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 53-year-old resident of Monmouth County who has a traumatic brain injury. He contacted DRNJ because he was not receiving case management services from the TBI Fund. DRNJ contacted the TBI Fund directly and advocated for the provision of intensive case management series. Subsequently, the TBI Fund approved case management services for him three times a week. 8 cases were handled under this priority. GOAL 09-3B - ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION: To improve the availability of accessible transportation for people with disabilities. OBJECTIVE 3B.1 - To participate in at least one (3) individual and systems matters addressing lack of accessible transportation services for people with disabilities. DRNJ staff continues to monitor New Jersey Transit’s compliance with the ADA, through participation on New Jersey Transit’s ADA advisory committee, the North Jersey Transit Planning Authority, and the New Jersey Transit ADA Task Force. In addition, DRNJ staff attended meetings of the NJ Transit Local Programs Support Citizen’s Advisory Committee and the New Jersey Council on Special Transportation, an organization of consumers and professionals that focuses on local county paratransit systems. DRNJ assisted a 33-year-old resident of Somerset County who has a traumatic brain injury. His mother contacted DRNJ because he needed transportation to medical appointments, but Access Link would not pick him up from his home as his home was beyond the ¾ mile radius of a transit route. DRNJ first attempted to arrange for the county paratransit to pick him up and take him to a bus stop where Access Link would pick him up. However, his mother did not think he would be able to properly make the transfer. DRNJ then discussed the possibility of Medicaid providing transportation. DRNJ contacted Logisticare, the Medicaid transportation provider, and advocated for curb-to-curb service for the individual to receive transportation to his medical providers. Medicaid agreed to provide the service. 2 cases were handled under this priority. ISSUE 4 — HEALTH CARE GOAL 15-4A HEALTH CARE: To ensure that people with disabilities have access to appropriate health care services. OBJECTIVE 4A.1 To provide individual assistance and advocacy in at least five (5) matters promoting access by people with disabilities to health care. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 73-year-old resident of Bergen County who has multiple disabilities including respiratory disorders, circulatory disorders, and orthopedic disorders. She lives alone, and receives personal care assistance through Medicaid. She contacted DRNJ because her Medicaid managed care organization (MCO) sent her a letter reducing her personal care assistance hours from 21 to 15 hours a week. DRNJ represented her on her appeal at a hearing in the Office of Administrative Law. The Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing went on a medical leave so the decision was pending for almost a year. Eventually, a second judge drafted the initial decision. The second judge ruled that the individual was entitled to 21.4 hours a week of personal care assistance services. The MCO agreed to settle the matter for 21 hours a week instead of filing objections with the agency head. The client accepted the settlement and was pleased that her hours were no longer being reduced. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 57-year-old resident of Essex County who has hepatitis C. The client contacted DRNJ because her Medicaid managed care organization denied her request for Harvoni, a hepatitis C treatment, because her condition had not deteriorated enough for her to get the treatment. However, her doctor prescribed the treatment specifically so that her condition could be cured before she would deteriorate. DRNJ agreed to represent her in a fair hearing. While waiting for the fair hearing to be scheduled, the matter was sent to an independent utilization and review organization for a review of the decision. The independent review determined that the Harvoni was medically necessary. As a result, the managed care organization agreed to authorize the treatment. DRNJ intervened on behalf of an 88-year-old resident of Hudson County who has dementia. She resides in her own home with the assistance of her children and her personal care assistance services provided through her Medicaid managed care organization. Her daughter contacted DRNJ because the managed care organization sent a notice reducing her personal care assistance hours from 60 hours a week to 50 hours a week. DRNJ agreed to represent the individual at a Medicaid fair hearing. After the hearing and briefing, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the managed care organization to conduct a new assessment. Following the new assessment, the managed care organization agreed to reinstate her hours. 121 cases were handled under this priority. GOAL 15-4B INFORMED DECISION MAKING — To ensure that the rights of individuals with disabilities are protected through informed individual and /or surrogate decision making. OBJECTIVE 4B.1 To promote individual rights and informed decision making through at least one (1) educational and systems advocacy activities related to advance directives and end-of-life activities. DRNJ has targeted consumer and family education and training programs centering on end-of-life decision making for individuals with developmental disabilities and advance directives for mental health care. During each of these programs an effort is made to include information on medical advance directives and informed consent applicable to people with disabilities who are not eligible for PADD or PAIMI services and are present, or whose family members are present, at these programs. DRNJ has also collaborated with the Office of the Public Guardian to promote joint decision making for individuals receiving guardianship services. ISSUE — EDUCATION GOAL 15-5A EDUCATION: To promote inclusive education for children with disabilities in least restrictive environments consistent with and appropriate to their needs. OBJECTIVE 5A.1 To engage in individual advocacy in at least fifty (50) matters addressing inclusive education and least restrictive environment. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 13-year-old resident of Monmouth County who has ADHD and specific learning disabilities. The student’s mother contacted DRNJ because she believes that the district had not followed the child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), and, as a result, her daughter failed many of her classes. The mother was especially concerned that the district wanted to move the student into a self-contained classroom because the student had failed some of her classes. Her mother wanted the student to remain in the inclusion classroom and still receive the services specified in the IEP. DRNJ advised the mother to file for mediation to maintain the inclusion classroom placement following the spring IEP meeting. DRNJ represented the student at the mediation, where the district agreed to have the student remain in the inclusion classroom. The student would receive 1 1/2 time for tests, the teachers would ensure that her assignments were written in her daily planner, and she would have an opportunity to make test corrections if she got lower than a C on her tests. In addition, the parties agreed to have a follow-up meeting after 45 days to discuss how the accommodations were working. DRNJ intervened on behalf of an eight-year-old resident Mercer County who has behavioral disabilities including frequent elopement. The aunt of the child contacted DRNJ and explained that the child had been living with the child’s mother in New York, but the mother could no longer care for the child and the child moved in with the father. The child’s father and aunt explained to the new school district that the child needed behavioral assistance. However, after only a few weeks, the district suspended the child and placed him on home instruction. DRNJ agreed to file a petition of appeal and emergent relief to get the child back in school. After DRNJ filed the petition, the district requested an IEP meeting. At the meeting, the district and family agreed to an in-district placement for September. In addition, the district agreed to pay for a summer camp that the family wanted the child to attend and agreed to reimburse the family for transportation to the camp. The family was pleased with the settlement and the petition of appeal was withdrawn. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 19-year-old resident of Cape May County who has learning disabilities and mental illness. His parent contacted DRNJ because he had been attending an out-of-district placement, but the district graduated him. The parent did not file for due process in time to stop the graduation. DRNJ reviewed the records and discovered that the district had not evaluated the student for years, and that the graduation notice was deficient. DRNJ represented the student at mediation to challenge the district’s graduation. At mediation, the district agreed to rescind the graduation and continue providing educational services, and placed the student at another out-of-district school for the upcoming school year. DRNJ assisted a 6-year-old resident of Camden County who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and oppositional defiance disorder. The child’s parent contacted DRNJ because the child has behavior problems in school and had been put out of class on multiple occasions. The parent sought special education classification, but the district refused after conducting initial evaluations. DRNJ requested independent evaluations from the district. After DRNJ requested the independent evaluations, the district contacted DRNJ and agreed to classify the child. DRNJ intervened on behalf of an 11-year-old resident of Gloucester County who has celiac disease. The student’s mother contacted DRNJ because she wanted the district to develop a Section 504 plan for her daughter that would specify the accommodations she needed. The district refused to develop a Section 504 plan and instead stated that her Individualized Healthcare Plan (IHP) was sufficient. DRNJ filed for due process in order to obtain Section 504 eligibility. Following the filing, DRNJ moved for summary decision on the basis that the student had a substantial limitation of a major life activity and is therefore eligible for a Section 504 plan. The administrative law judge granted DRNJ’s motion for summary decision. Following the judge’s decision, the district developed a Section 504 plan for the student. 177 individual cases were handled under this priority. 15-5A.2 - To monitor settlement of litigation addressing the disproportionate number of children with a diagnosis of mental illness or severe emotional disorder eligible for special education services who receive educational services in segregated placements. DRNJ, along with the Education Law Center, SPAN, and the ARC of New Jersey, filed suit in federal court against DOE in 2007. The complaint alleged that DOE failed to address the systemic problem that New Jersey children with disabilities are not being educated in the least restrictive environment as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In February 2014, the parties settled the complaint. The settlement required the following activities: • Completion of a Needs Assessment by 75+ school districts with the worst track record in inclusion; • District site visits by the DOE, including classroom observations and staff interviews; • Extensive training and technical assistance for district staff, and regular assessment of the trainings and technical assistance; • Training of state complaint investigators; • Specially designated state and local inclusion facilitators; • Annual compliance monitoring; • Parental input regarding district failures to appropriately include students with disabilities; and • Oversight by a stakeholder committee comprised of disability advocates. The settlement became effective upon the judge’s February 19, 2014 signing of the Order, and with implementation beginning immediately. DRNJ staff was named to the stakeholder committee that oversees the needs assessment and training schedule. The committee met during the past year and reviewed the compliance reports and training evaluations. In addition, the committee offered suggestions regarding future training sessions. DRNJ will continue to monitor the settlement for the remainder of the time it is in effect. In addition, DRNJ staff participates in work groups and committees dealing with systemic issues, such as the Special Education Practitioner’s Group and the Coalition for Special Education Funding Reform. In addition, DRNJ participated in several stakeholders meeting sponsored by the NJ Department of Education to provide comments on the Office of Special Education’s State Performance Plan. GOAL 15—5C — BULLYING: To ensure that children with disabilities do not experience bullying in educational settings. OBJECTIVE 5C.1 To provide individual advocacy and representation in at least one (1) matter addressing bullying. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 14-year-old resident of Cumberland County who has conversion disorder, a disorder in which she will go catatonic for an episode, and then once she awakens, she experiences memory loss. One episode resulted in the student having a memory loss of six months. The parent contacted DRNJ because she wanted to update her Section 504 plan so that it addressed the complexities of the conversion disorder. DRNJ attended the Section 504 meeting and the district agreed to incorporate all of the recommendations from her doctor. Following the meeting, the student had an incident with a gym teacher at the school. Specifically, the teacher accused the student of saying bad things about her and made her stay in her office while she yelled disparaging comments at her. This resulted in the student having a conversion disorder episode. Other gym teachers and students tried to warn the teacher about the student’s disability, but the gym teacher continued to yell at her. DRNJ assisted the parent with filing a harassment, intimidation, and bullying complaint about the teacher. The district investigated the matter, substantiated the complaint, and removed the student from that gym teacher. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 16-year-old resident of Ocean County who has extreme anxiety and depression due to extreme bullying at her high school. Her mother contacted DRNJ because the student had spent the majority of the last two years on home instruction and had been hospitalized twice for mental health issues. The school district still refused to classify the student for special education services. In addition, the parent requested that the student be sent to another high school because the high school was a trigger for her anxiety. DRNJ agreed to represent at due process. At the case settlement conference, the district agreed to send the student to another school if the parent agreed to a Section 504 plan rather than special education eligibility. The parents agreed, and the student is now doing well at another high school. 13 individual cases were handled under this priority. 15-5D - SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE: To ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate services and supports to oppose policies and practices that promote the school-to-prison pipeline. 15-5D.1 - To collaborate with community and advocacy organizations, and court personnel, including local public defenders, to ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate services and supports to oppose policies and practices that promote the school-to-prison pipeline. DRNJ is a member of the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Reform Coalition (NJJJRC). The NJJJRC is a collaborative organization which is led by the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. Other member agencies include the NJ ACLU, the Rutgers Law School Justice Clinic, the NJ Public Defenders Office, the pro bono division of Lowenstein Sandler, the NJ Parents Caucus, and numerous others. The NJJJRC’s goal is to raise awareness in communities about issues in the juvenile justice system such as the school to prison pipeline, conditions of confinement, and alternatives to incarceration, and engage in dialogue with policymakers to enact change. DRNJ has signed up to be a part of two working groups (the school to prison pipeline group and the conditions of confinement group) and over the next several months will meet with the other members of the working group to fully outline the issues in these areas and formulate plans to address them. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 21-year-old resident of a juvenile justice facility who is blind. The student contacted DRNJ because he wanted access to Braille materials, orientation and mobility classes, and transition services to be included in his IEP. DRNJ advocated for the additional services, and the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) agreed to provide the Braille materials and the orientation and mobility classes. However, the Juvenile Justice Commission did not know what transition services were appropriate. An independent transition evaluation recommended training in several activities of daily living. However, the student wanted to focus on the specific transition skill of cooking. As a result, DRNJ attended an IEP meeting and the parties agreed that the JJC would provide culinary arts training in their kitchen with assistance from the Commission for the Blind. The student was pleased with the services added to the IEP. 1 individual case was handled under this priority. ISSUE 6 — ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY GOAL 15-6D ADVOCACY - To increase access to and funding for assistive technology through individual advocacy and legal representation. OBJECTIVE 6D.1 Provide short term assistance, advocacy services, or legal representation to at least ten (10) people with disabilities to assist them to obtain access to or funding for assistive technology. DRNJ intervened on behalf of a 69-year-old resident of Hudson County who has a traumatic brain injury and uses a wheelchair for mobility. The individual contacted DRNJ because he wanted a new motorized wheelchair since the one he had for three years was broken, and he was not able to find any company willing to repair it. However, Medicaid denied the request for a new wheelchair because he only had the other one for three years. DRNJ contacted his physician and the supplier of the wheelchair to facilitate the appropriate documentation. DRNJ then assisted the parties to write an appeal letter to the Medicaid managed care organization. After reviewing the documentation, the Medicaid managed care organization authorized the new wheelchair. 21 individual cases were handled under this priority. ISSUE 8 — CONSUMER EDUCATION AND TRAINING GOAL 15-8A UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS: To increase services to historically underserved urban, rural and minority persons with disabilities. OBJECTIVE 8A.1: OUTREACH - Conduct at least six outreach/education presentations on disability rights, issues and services in underserved communities. DRNJ staff conducted 16 outreach, public awareness, and training events targeted to the deaf and hard of hearing, blind, Latino and rural Latino, and the military. DRNJ presented information to approximately 95 consumers and family members at three workshops serving the needs of the deaf and hard of hearing. DRNJ participated in eight events that reached out to the Latino community on topics regarding special education, transition, voting, and DRNJ’s services. Approximately 1000 consumers and family members attended these events. DRNJ attended two consumer fairs for individuals with blindness fair and provided information regarding assistive technology, special education, voting, and DRNJ’s services. Approximately 500 consumers and family members attended this event. Finally, DRNJ continued its efforts to outreach to the military. During the year, DRNJ provided information about special education and health care in addition to its services at three events which focused on military consumers and their families. Approximately 190 family members and consumers attended. OBJECTIVE 8A.3: WORKGROUP ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY: Participate on the State’s Workgroup on Cultural Diversity. DRNJ continues to be an active participant on the Statewide Network for Cultural Competence, a network of about 30 core public and private agencies and programs whose mission is to increase the ability of all agencies and programs to serve and meet the needs of people with disabilities from culturally diverse populations. The Network, which meets quarterly, has an annual conference, and sponsors webinars, also regularly updates its internet-based resource guide that identifies service providers, what they do, who they serve, and their capacity to serve people with disabilities. The Network also now serves as a clearinghouse for training and information. GOAL 15-8B EDUCATION AND TRAINING: To promote the education of consumers and their families regarding disability rights and issues. OBJECTIVE 8B.1: Conduct at least five (5) consumer education and training programs on disability rights issues and services for people with disabilities including rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. DRNJ staff conducted 16 education and training programs attended by approximately 625 individuals. These programs included issues such as special education, including transition services, employment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, housing, voting, and health care.

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.

FFY 2018 PAIR PRIORITIES AND OBJECTIVES ISSUE 1 — ABUSE AND NEGLECT GOAL 15-1X ABUSE AND NEGLECT — To ensure that individuals with disabilities living in institutions and the community are free from abuse and neglect. OBJECTIVE 1X.1 To address complaints of abuse and neglect living in institutions or community residential programs in at least one (1) matter. ISSUE 2 — DISCRIMINATION GOAL 15-2A HOUSING: To ensure that people with disabilities have greater access to accessible, affordable housing and experience decreased housing discrimination. OBJECTIVE 2A.1 To participate in at least one (1) coalition, task force, advisory, or work group seeking to increase accessible, affordable housing. OBJECTIVE 2A.2 To pursue individual and/or systems advocacy in at least one (1) housing matter addressing discriminatory barriers to accessible, affordable housing. GOAL 15-2B EMPLOYMENT: To ensure that people with disabilities experience decreased discrimination and gain increased employment opportunities. OBJECTIVE 2B.1 To address through individual and/or systems advocacy employment discrimination issues or complaints in at least fifteen (15) matters GOAL 15-2C VOTING: To ensure that people with disabilities have the opportunity and can exercise the right to register and vote. OBJECTIVE 2C.1 To participate in at least three (3) activities promoting and protecting the right to vote of people with disabilities. GOAL 15-2D PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES: To ensure that people with disabilities have non-discriminatory access to public accommodations and public entities. OBJECTIVE 2D.1 To undertake individual and/or systems advocacy in at least ten (10) matters addressing discrimination against people with disabilities in public accommodations and services. ISSUE 3 — COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES GOAL 15-3A COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES AND SUPPORTS — To ensure that people with disabilities have access to appropriate community-based supports and services to promote integration and independence. OBJECTIVE 3A.1 To provide individual and/or systems advocacy in at least three (3) matters promoting or addressing access to community supports and services. GOAL 09-3B - ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION: to improve the availability of accessible transportation for people with disabilities. OBJECTIVE 3B.1 - To participate in at least one (3) individual and systems matters addressing lack of accessible transportation services for people with disabilities. ISSUE 4 — HEALTH CARE GOAL 15-4A HEALTH CARE: To ensure that people with disabilities have access to appropriate health care services. OBJECTIVE 4A.1 To provide individual assistance and advocacy in at least ten (10) matters promoting access by people with disabilities to health care. GOAL 15-4B INFORMED DECISION MAKING — To ensure that the rights of individuals with disabilities are protected through informed individual and /or surrogate decision making. OBJECTIVE 4B.1 To promote individual rights and informed decision making through at least one (1) educational and systems advocacy activities related to advance directives and end-of-life activities. ISSUE — EDUCATION GOAL 15-5A EDUCATION: To promote inclusive education for children with disabilities in least restrictive environments consistent with and appropriate to their needs. OBJECTIVE 5A.1 To engage in individual advocacy in at least fifty (50) matters addressing inclusive education and least restrictive environment. OBJECTIVE 5A.2 - To monitor settlement of litigation addressing the disproportionate number of children with a diagnosis of mental illness or severe emotional disorder eligible for special education services who receive educational services in segregated placements. GOAL 15—5C — BULLYING: To ensure that children with disabilities do not experience bullying in educational settings. OBJECTIVE 5C.1 To provide individual advocacy and representation in at least one (1) matter addressing bullying. GOAL 15-5D - SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE: To ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate services and supports to oppose policies and practices that promote the school-to-prison pipeline. OBJECTIVE 5D.1 - To collaborate with community and advocacy organizations, and court personnel, including local public defenders, to ensure that children with disabilities receive appropriate services and supports to oppose policies and practices that promote the school-to-prison pipeline. ISSUE 6 — ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY GOAL 15-6D ADVOCACY - To increase access to and funding for assistive technology through individual advocacy and legal representation. OBJECTIVE 6D.1 Provide short term assistance, advocacy services, or legal representation to at least ten (10) people with disabilities to assist them to obtain access to or funding for assistive technology. ISSUE 8 — CONSUMER EDUCATION AND TRAINING GOAL 15-8A UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS: To increase services to historically underserved urban, rural and minority persons with disabilities. OBJECTIVE 8A.1: OUTREACH - Conduct at least six outreach/education presentations on disability rights, issues and services in underserved communities. OBJECTIVE 8A.3: WORKGROUP ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY: Participate on the State’s Workgroup on Cultural Diversity. GOAL 15-8B EDUCATION AND TRAINING: To promote the education of consumers and their families regarding disability rights and issues. OBJECTIVE 8B.1: Conduct at least five (5) consumer education and training programs on disability rights issues and services for people with disabilities including rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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. In addition to funds received from the U.S. Department of Education, DRNJ received a $32,200 grant from New Jersey’s Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts program for legal and advocacy assistance in special education cases for individuals with low income. A portion of this grant is allocated to the PAIR program. B. Budget for Fiscal Year Covered by this Report The following are the actual expenses for FY 2017. Payroll $ 310,830.00 Fringe Benefits $ 86,222.00 Advertising $ 0.00 Advisory and Governing Board $ 381.00 Audit $ 4,971.00 Auto $ 0.00 Conference $ 0.00 Consultants - Administration $ 6,079.00 Consultants — Programs $ 8,760.00 Copier $ 2,139.00 Equipment/Furniture $ 726.00 Insurance $ 4,096.00 Interns $ 0.00 Legal $ 0.00 Library $ 2,666.00 Litigation $ 15,238.00 Membership $ 2,489.00 MIS $ 3,272.00 Office Expense $ 4,957.00 Office Supplies $ 1,115.00 Other Personnel $ 0.00 Outreach $ 361.00 Postage $ 241.00 Printing $ 1,069.00 Staff Training $ 1,266.00 Subcontractors $ 10,000.00 Telephone $ 0.00 Travel $ 2,885.00 Volunteers $ 0.00 Total $ 469,763.00 Notes: The State of New Jersey provides in-kind support for rent, telephone, and postage. Because of rounding the total may not equal the sum of the budget lines. C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years) During the year 2017, the PAIR program had the following staff assigned directly to program activities, a Managing Attorney responsible for coordinating the activities of the program and supervising the staff; six Staff Attorneys assigned part-time to the PAIR program; two Staff Advocates assigned part-time, and one secretary assigned part-time. For FY 2017, the PAIR program received approximately 3.2 person-years of staff time. D. Involvement with Advisory Boards The PAIR program is responsible to DRNJ’s Governing Board, which meets four times a year. DRNJ staff invites the Governing Board to participate in consumer-driven activities such as our priority review focus groups and identification of barriers to accessibility throughout the state. E. Grievances Filed Under the Grievance Procedure All individuals requesting assistance from DRNJ are sent a copy of the grievance policy and procedure along with the letter from the Intake Coordinator advising whether their request for assistance has been assigned to a member of the staff for further action. Individuals are also advised of their right to appeal whenever a decision is made to close a file or not file an appeal contrary to the individual’s wishes. Any disputes that cannot be resolved by the program’s managing attorney are reviewed by the Director of Administration in consultation with the Executive Director. An individual may appeal a decision of the Executive Director to a committee of the Board of Directors. DRNJ processed eight formal appeals during FY 2017, and one was for a client of the PAIR program. F. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State Long-Term Care Program The Client Assistance Program (CAP) is one of nine programs within Disability Rights New Jersey. The two programs share many activities including outreach, technical assistance and training, staff development, information and referral, and cooperation, consultation, and collaboration in the handling of cases. Shared priorities include the transition of students in special education, quality assurance, public awareness, and information and referral. Cooperation between the PAIR Program and the Long Term Care Ombudsman has included collaboration on many substantive issues and interaction between the Ombudsman and DRNJ staff, as well as participation on the Long Term Care Ethics Consortium. Referrals are made between the two agencies.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByJoseph B. Young
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/21/2017