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

Utah (DISABILITY LAW CENTER -- THE COMMUNITY LEGAL CENTER) - H240A170045 - FY2017

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Law Center
Address205 North 400 West
Address Line 2
CitySalt Lake City
StateUtah
Zip Code84103
E-mail Addressazahradnikova@disabilitylawcenter.org
Website Addresshttp://www.disabilitylawcenter.org
Phone801-363-1347
TTY
Toll-free Phone800-662-9080
Toll-free TTY
Fax801-363-1437
Name of P&A Executive DirectorAdina Zahradnikova
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorAdina Zahradnikova
Person to contact regarding reportAdina Zahradnikova
Contact Person phone801-363-1347
Ext.3220

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 areas459
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas123
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)582

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff2
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)27

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff11
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles154
3. PSAs/videos aired2
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website54,845
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated220
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

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)42
2. Additional individuals served during the year98
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)140
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)2

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 46

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility13
2. Employment90
3. Program access9
4. Housing0
5. Government benefits/services6
6. Transportation0
7. Education5
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting0
10. Health care4
11. Insurance2
12. Non-government services8
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse3
16. Neglect1
17. Other0

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor64
2. Other representation found1
3. Individual withdrew complaint11
4. Appeals unsuccessful2
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case3
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources1
8. Individual case lacks legal merit8
9. Other6

Please explain

E. Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

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

1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy23
2. Short-term assistance48
3. Investigation/monitoring3
4. Negotiation9
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution5
6. Administrative hearings6
7. Litigation (including class actions)2
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 - 226
3. 23 - 59112
4. 60 - 6414
5. 65 and over8

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females75
2. Males65

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race14
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian2
4. Black or African American4
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander2
6. White100
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown18

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent117
2. Parental or other family home10
3. Community residential home2
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home2
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center7
9. Homeless2
10. Other living arrangements0
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 impairment5
2. Deaf/hard of hearing6
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment82
5. Mental illness5
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation1
8. Learning disability10
9. Neurological impairment15
10. Respiratory impairment2
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment3
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment7
13. Speech impairment1
14. AIDS/HIV3
15. Traumatic brain injury0
16. Other disability0

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

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

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes10,690

Describe your systemic activities. Be sure to include information about the policies that were changed and how these changes benefit individuals with disabilities. Include case examples of how your systemic activities impacted individuals served.

1. Uber Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles- We were successful in getting a pilot project of Uber wheelchair accessible vehicles. The vehicles were rolled out during some portion of the year; however, Uber changed regional managements and we have not been able to follow up with them on the progress with the pilot project. In addition, there are lawsuits pending in a couple jurisdictions regarding Uber and the ADA with respect to wheelchair accessible vehicles. Given those lawsuits, we have elected not to pursue this project any further. If they are resolved as we hope, we will address the issue there. 2. The DLC hosted a conference entitled "Successful Strategies for Community Integration" on September 14, 2017 in West Valley City. There were over 190 attendees including professionals, state employees, providers, family members and self-advocates. National speakers included Elizabeth Edwards from the National Health Law Project speaking about the importance of Olmstead and Serena Lowe from the Administration on Community Living speaking about the importance of community integration and the settings rule. Breakout sessions included information about community integration across the lifespan, in residential and non-residential settings, and for people with multiple disabilities. Staff received positive feedback from attendees about the content and was recognized by our national partners for our advocacy around the settings rule. 3. HCBS Settings Regulations - The objective of this project was to gather information regarding the effect that the proposed changes will have on all people currently receiving waiver services or who may potentially receive waiver services in the future, and to use that information and data to provide feedback on changes to the current plan. The DLC has successfully continued to monitor and take part in the State's implementation process of the HCBS settings rule. This has included meeting with state officials, researching updates to the rule, and providing technical assistance to providers. 4. WINGS - WINGS is a committee formed through a grant by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The committee will look at a number of options that will help strengthen the guardianship process and monitoring and support for guardians once they are appointed. During FY17, the DLC provided judges, court administrative personnel, and other involved parties with feedback on how the HB 101 process is working in practice.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts500
2. Number of individuals named in class actions2

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.

Disability Law Center, et al. v. State of Utah, et al., (Filed July 6, 2017 in federal district court): This lawsuit challenges the state’s implementation of the Adult Guardianship Amendments (HB 101), under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to halt the effect of HB101 during the pendency of litigation. The state defendants have moved to dismiss. Briefing is in process on all these issues. The DLC and the two named plaintiffs are being represented in this matter by the ACLU of Utah, the national ACLU foundation, and by pro bono counsel from Latham & Watkins LLP. This class action litigation project will continue in FY 18.

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.

PAIR PRIORITY — Abuse and Neglect (AN) 1 ABUSE 1. Identify and describe priority. Area of Focus 1: Investigating abuse and neglect of individuals with disabilities in county jails and at the Utah State Prison. DLC will conduct investigations into the provision of mental health services in county jails throughout Utah; DLC will provide legally based advocacy to inmates at the Utah State Prison who are allegedly being abused or neglected. Area of Focus 2: Monitoring Facilities and Services. DLC will monitor the following types of facilities for safety and compliance issues and will provide legally-based advocacy to residents of such facilities: a. Residential Care Facilities for Individuals with Mental Illness b. Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities c. Segregated Employment Settings Area of Focus 3: Individual Advocacy. Although focusing primarily on systemic work during FY 17, DLC will also conduct investigations of alleged or suspected abuse or neglect 1) where there appears to be a pattern or recurrence of significant abuse or neglect, 2) where there has been a death or life-threatening injury, or 3) where the alleged abuse or neglect is particularly egregious, with a focus on those living in or being treated in facilities. By the end of FY 17, the DLC will provide 1:1 advocacy to 5 PAIR eligible clients who have experienced serious abuse or neglect. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. FY15 Needs Assessment Data Reports: Results from the 2015 Needs Assessment survey demonstrate that the following percentages of respondents either have personally experienced abuse and neglect or know someone with a disability who has experienced abuse and neglect. • 69% had experienced emotional or verbal abuse • 46% had experienced neglect • 41% had experienced physical abuse • 225 had experienced sexual abuse, and • 36% of the respondents stated that keeping people free from abuse and neglect is their top priority. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. By the end of FY 17, the DLC team will provide 1:1 advocacy to a total of 5 PAIR eligible individuals. By the end of FY 17, the DLC will have investigated serious abuse and neglect of people with disabilities, with a focus on those living or being treated in facilities or institutions By the end of FY17, the DLC will have monitored facilities and institutions where people with disabilities reside based on complaints, incident reports, resident/patient advocate referrals, or survey results from facility licensing, and as determined by the team. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. The DLC collaborates with many other agencies in Utah whose priorities are similar to ours in reducing and/or eliminating the abuse and neglect of people with disabilities living in facilities in Utah. Some of those agencies include: Adult Protective Services, Ombudsman, Long Term Care Planning Committee, Brain Injury Association of Utah, Utah Attorney General’s Office, Department of Aging and Adult Services, Office of Public Guardian, and Department of Health. 4. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. Information and Referral — 17 Short term Assistance — 2 Abuse and Neglect Investigations — 2 Representation at Hearings- 0 Technical Assistance — 0 Litigation on behalf of clients —0 Class actions — 0 5. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. Sex Offender Training Program (SOTP) investigation Partly in response to the DLC's investigation and written report documenting consistent failings by UDC in making its SOTP program accessible to offenders with disabilities, UDC installed a new Director of Programming and implemented changes which have dramatically improved treatment services. The Director of Programming met with DLC staff, listened to concerns, and explained his plans for improving SOTP. Coinciding with the DLC's investigation, Utah's Office of Legislative Auditor General conducted an audit of the SOTP program. DLC staff met with the Auditor General's team to offer our insights and observations, and provided them with our SOTP Report. The legislative audit revealed massive, long-term problems with the SOTP-- from outmoded methods, chronic under-staffing, widespread inefficiencies and poor management. Most significantly the Audit confirmed the same problems identified by the DLC's investigation: inmates with disabilities were routinely excluded from equal access to the programs, and were spending longer in prison solely because they couldn't complete SOTP. As of 2017, UDC has implemented mechanisms for identifying inmates with disabilities before they begin SOTP; and have created a program for inmates with developmental disabilities, including materials and curricula which can be tailored to individual needs. The DLC continues to seek periodic updates from UDC about the ongoing improvement efforts, but the original SOTP project has been completed. Example B. Investigate the conditions of confinement and other issues affecting deaf inmates in the Utah State Prison system (Draper and Gunnison locations), and engage in potential advocacy activity. The Abuse and Neglect team has been working with deaf inmates for several months to identify the nature of issues affecting the deaf community in the Utah state prison system. We have found systemic failures by the Department of Corrections to accommodate or even identify deaf inmates, resulting in missed meals, termination of medication privileges, ineffective communication, inability to complete programming necessary for release, and other significant harms. The DLC is preparing to meet with the Department of Corrections during the next few weeks to address these issues in detail. Example C. Investigation of alleged abuse A DLC attorney investigated a complaint of failure to provide appropriate medical treatment from a former Utah State Prison inmate. The inmate was scheduled to receive life-sustaining dialysis treatment on Saturday 4/4/15. Despite requests and warnings to USP staff regarding his need for dialysis, he was not transported to hospital until Sunday night. Another USP inmate who was not provided dialysis died as a result of the same delays in treatment. A DLC attorney reviewed records re: alleged denial of medical care; conducted legal research to determine standards for claims under facts presented. We corresponded with the client with instructions for further documentation of issues. The DLC attorney discovered factual problems concerning the client’s alleged 'denials' of dialysis treatment. Foremost was repeated refusals by client to be transported for dialysis when scheduled and available. Coupled w/ high standard for any claim (deliberate indifference), the client did not have a viable claim. Client has since been paroled-- mooting any claims, even were such viable. PAIR PRIORITY — Access and Rights (AR) 1 - Eliminate architectural barriers to public buildings, transportation and Post-Secondary Education 1. Identify and describe priority. Goal 1: Reduce or eliminate architectural and programmatic barriers faced by people with disabilities using public buildings, public accommodations, transportation, and Post-Secondary Education. • Area of Focus 1: Government, Public Services and Public Accommodations. DLC will continue to take individual cases with a focus on places of public accommodation in counties where the DLC has built relationships with community officials through the voting program, or encountered pervasive accessibility violations. DLC will continue to survey and address ADA/ADAAG compliance in Salt Lake City for public or private businesses, filing DOJ complaints where noncompliance is not remedied after notification. • Area of Focus 2: Higher Education. DLC will determine appropriate methods to reach higher education students regarding available accommodations, procedures, and DRC resources. • Area of Focus 3: Transportation. DLC will engage in systemic advocacy efforts to ensure that people with disabilities can use safe, reliable, and accessible transportation and that public transportation authorities, para-transit systems, and private transportation companies are in full compliance with federal and state discrimination laws and policies. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. The 2016 “Utah Legal Needs Assessment” shows that transportation for people with disabilities is one of the top three challenges faced by people with disabilities. 244 people, representing 50.6% of the survey responders thought that transportation is one of the biggest challenges for their community. Additionally, qualified respondents were given a list of nine ways in which limited funds could be used to serve the legal needs of people with disabilities and asked to mark the top three ways they thought the funds should be used. Advocating for more accessible transportation was marked in the top three areas of need by 148 survey respondents, representing 31.4% of the total. Accessible places of public accommodations and accessible government programs and services were also ranked in the top fifteen challenges faced by people with disabilities in their communities. 74 respondents listed “using private businesses or services" in the top fifteen challenges faced for people with disabilities. An additional 66 people marked “using government buildings or services” in the top fifteen challenges. Lastly, “help students in higher education get the accommodations they need was identified as a top priority by 129 survey respondents, representing 27.3% of the total. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. By the end of FY 17, the AR team will provide 1:1 AR-1 advocacy to 20 PAIR eligible individuals. By the end of FY 17, the AR team will continue to take individual cases and will in systemic work related to the following priorities: Objective 1: Architectural Accessibility Focus on places of public accommodation in rural Utah, specifically Uintah, Box Elder, Piute & Wayne counties where the DLC has begun building relationships with community officials through the voting program or encountered pervasive accessibility violations. Continue to survey and address ADA/ADAAG compliance in Salt Lake City for public buildings or private businesses, including filing DOJ complaints where noncompliance is not remedied after notification. Objective 2: Programmatic Accessibility Continue to build relationships Salt Lake City Mayor’s Accessibility Council; continue to monitor city street parking for ADA/ADAAG compliance. Objective 3: Higher Education Determine appropriate methods to reach higher ed. students regarding available accommodations, procedure and DRC resources. Objective 4: Transportation Continue to participate in Wasatch Regional Coordination Council for Community Transportation (RCC) meetings and the Bear River Association of Governments Mobility Management Council to organize and guide local and regional coordination efforts that directly or indirectly improve transportation options for people with disabilities, seniors, veterans and/or persons with low income. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. The Regional Coordinating Council for Cache, Box Elder and Rich Counties is chaired by a member of our Access and Rights team. The purpose of the council is to preserve and increase the availability of public and private transportation services for underserved populations such as people with disabilities, the elderly and the poor. The AR team is represented on the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Accessibility Council. In addition to our legal work, we were able to expand transportation options for people who use wheelchairs by partnering with Uber to provide Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles on their platform. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. Information and Referral — 55 Short Term Assistance — 13 Representations at Meetings — 8 Legal Clinics- 4 Litigation on behalf of clients - 0 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. The Regional Coordinating Council for Cache, Box Elder and Rich Counties works to retain and improve accessible transportation for underserved individuals with an emphasis on serving individuals with disabilities. Projects include mapping systems for people to determine which businesses are accessible. A certification system so that businesses can display that they are accessible, collaboration between service providers to expand the availability of transportation for people with disabilities while keeping costs down, and; a voucher program that provides an opportunity for people who need rides to medical appointments to reimburse volunteer drivers who take them (when no public transportation is available) Individuals who live outside areas served by public transportation were provided medical trips. A total of 617 RT medical trips were provided through the voucher program we created. A grant provided 2,644 trips for individuals with disabilities and those with limited incomes to get to work or vocational training. Another program worked with Cache County businesses to improve accessibility. A map was developed where citizens can rate businesses on accessible features. Example B. The Salt Lake City Mayor's Accessibility Council identifies issues that are important to the disability community in Salt Lake City and votes on recommendations that are made to the Mayor. In addition, the Council encourages a dialogue between the disability community, the community at large, and Salt Lake City to ensure greater access to a variety of issues that impact the disability community, including transportation, employment, physical access, and affordable and accessible housing. The DLC is a member of the council and provides input and assistance when possible. This year, we helped create a SLC policy that encourages the hiring of people with disabilities. Example C. Client came to us because she had been asked to either provide documentation that her dog was a service animal, or have it perform its task in front of staff, in order to be permitted into the Springville Library. Her animal had once barked at another dog, but it was provoked and she had been able to get the dog under control very quickly. We wrote a letter to the Springville City Attorney, as well as the Library, to inform them no certification is required, nor is it appropriate to ask an individual have their animal perform its task in front of them. Moreover, an animal is not out of control when it barks when provoked, especially when its handler can get it under control quickly. We demanded that the client have access to the Library with her animal, and that staff be properly trained on the ADA and its requirements. We discussed the matter with the City Attorney, who assured us that the client was permitted in the Library with her service animal. In addition, the management of the Library was going to ensure that staff were aware of the ADA requirements. Example D. Client came to us because she had been denied admission to Brigham Young University's (BYU) master of social work program. Client had submitted an essay for admission, per their request, that talked about overcoming adversity. Client wrote about her difficulties in getting diagnosed and treated for rheumatoid arthritis. She had gone through much pain and discomfort in a lengthy process in getting diagnosed, and it took some time to find the appropriate treatment. All while she was doing this, she finished her undergraduate degree from BYU and worked several jobs. When she was denied, upon advice from a mentor, she sought someone from the admission committee to see what she could do to improve for next year. In this meeting, it was communicated that a reason she was denied was concern over her ability to complete the program with her health. This was again communicated to her in writing, that she was denied admission over health concerns. We filed a complaint with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, alleging denial of access on the basis of disability. Client elected to find another school, but we were able to mediate a resolution. BYU will review its policies regarding 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and they will get trained on admitting and accommodating students with disabilities under 504. Client also received a small monetary settlement to help with the costs she incurred for not being admitted. PAIR Priority —Community Integration (CI) 1. Identify and describe priority. Goal 1: Utahns with disabilities have the right to live in the most integrated and least restrictive settings appropriate to their choice and needs. • Area of Focus 1: Services and Supports in the Most Integrated Settings. DLC will provide systemic, legally-based advocacy to ensure that individuals with disabilities are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs and preferences. • Area of Focus 2: Implementation of CMS’s Home and Community Based Settings Rule. DLC will conduct systemic advocacy to insure that the Utah Department of Human Services will develop and implement a transition plan to become fully compliant with CMS HCBS Settings. • Area of Focus 3: Outreach. DLC will focus on outreach and trainings to consumer groups, professionals, those living in and/or working in ICFIDs/USDC, DSPD residential programs, and sheltered workshops; with an added focus on rural areas. Goal 2: People with disabilities facing denial, reduction, or termination of healthcare and/or assistive technology services will receive appropriate healthcare services. • Area of Focus 1: Access to Healthcare. DLC will develop a clinic model for intake of individual cases to more efficiently serve individuals who have received reduced, or been denied, healthcare/assistive technology services. 12 PAIR eligible clients will receive 1:1 advocacy services during FY 17. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. Of the respondents in our FY 2016 Legal Needs assessment, “getting medical equipment, devices, or assistive technology that would help them be more independent” was marked as very important by 202 survey respondents, representing 41.9% of the total number. Getting supports for people with disabilities so they can live in community neighborhoods was marked in the top fifteen challenges by 208 respondents our 2016 Legal Needs Assessment survey respondents. This represents 43.2% of the total. This priority came in very high, being ranked2 on the list. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. By the end of FY 2017, 12 PAIR eligible clients will receive healthcare/assistive technology services that have been denied or reduced. By the end of FY 2017, the CI team will research Olmstead litigation strategies and develop a litigation plan based on researched strategies. We will identify potential plaintiffs who are currently living in an ICFID for Olmstead litigation. This will be done through routine visits to ICFIDs throughout Utah. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. N/A 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. • Information and Referral — 38 • Short term assistance — 2 • Legal clinics- 2 • Representation at Meetings — 0 • Fair/Administrative hearings —2 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. Client is an individual with several orthopedic impairments that cause significant pain in her back and legs. Client also cannot tolerate traditional pain relievers, so she was seeking an epidural shot to relieve pain. She had received the shots in the past, almost a decade ago, and her Utah Medicaid ACO was denying her these shots because she could not show that these shots from a decade ago helped her pain. The client had already gone through the internal appeal process with her ACO when she came to us, and she had requested a hearing with the ALJ at the Department of Health. The client provided us with copious amounts of medical records, but we could not get records from a decade ago. In the prehearing process, we worked with Utah Medicaid and the ACO to provide what documentation we could, and advocated that the client should receive an initial shot to help show improvement, something seemingly permitted by Utah Medicaid policy, as well as that of the ACO. The ACO still would not provide the shot, suggesting that Utah Medicaid policy was unclear. So we asked Utah Medicaid to review the records to determine if they would provide the shot if the client was a fee for service client. Utah Medicaid agreed that the client would receive the shot if she were a fee for service client, so the ACO finally agreed to approve the shot. Example B. Client is an individual with a physical disability who uses a wheelchair. He currently lives in a travel trailer. His doctor requested a power wheelchair; however, Molina denied this request because client could not use the wheelchair in his trailer, his home. He did need the wheelchair for his daily activities. When client came to the DLC, he had already been through the internal appeals process, and Molina was still denying the chair. Client filed an appeal with the Department of Health prior to contacting us. Unfortunately, due to client's living situation, he was having a difficult time receiving mail notifying him of prehearing conference dates. We first reached out to the Hearings Unit at the Department of Health. They were seeking an explanation for why client missed a prehearing, so we filed an explanation on his behalf. We were able to keep his appeal open, and we attending several prehearing conferences on his behalf. We passed along regulations that make clear that a wheelchair cannot be denied solely because it is not needed in one's home. Molina sought clarification from Utah Medicaid, who stated that wheelchairs do not need to be used in the home, but in daily life activities, for approval. We received word from Molina that the wheelchair has been approved. Example C. Olmstead Investigation Our Community Integration (CI) team made significant progress towards its goal to provide systemic, legally-based advocacy to ensure that individuals with disabilities are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs and preferences. The CI team continues to make progress on its Olmstead class action litigation to assist individuals who are institutionalized in private ICFs. The team has partnered with private co-counsel, Parsons, Behle and Latimer. The team has identified plaintiffs for the class action. The team sent a demand letter to the State of Utah. The team will continue to explore its legal strategy in the coming year. Example D. Home and Community Based Settings (HCBS) Rule The CI team continues to make progress with its efforts towards full implementation of the HCBS settings rule in the State of Utah. The team engaged in administrative advocacy through meetings, letters and public comments. The team made 21 visits to settings urban and rural, residential and non-residential across the State. For each setting, the team has or is in the process of providing a technical assistance letter to inform the provider what changes need to be made for compliance with the rule. The team sent a letter to the State identifying problematic settings. The CI team had a goal to make 24 visits to ICFs during the year; the team made 20 visits to ICIDs and 21 visits to community settings during the fiscal year. The CI team had a goal to conduct 2 trainings/outreach to providers of HCBS services. The team made 21 technical assistance visits, created an online training with 42 attendees (which was posted online for additional viewing) and conducted a day-long training to 200 people with 4 plenary and 9 breakout sessions available. The CI team had a goal to conduct 2 trainings/outreach to Family/Guardian/Caregiver, Consumer and Self Advocate Groups: The team presented to the Utah Parent Center, created an online training with 42 attendees (which was posted online for additional viewing) and conducted a day-long training to 200 people with 4 plenary and 9 breakout sessions available. Education — Areas of Focus 1. Identify and describe priority. Goal 1: Utah students with disabilities that are the most vulnerable, of highest need, and least able to advocate for themselves will be assessed, evaluated, and provided special education as outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Idea Act (IDEA). • Area of Focus 1: Systemic Advocacy. DLC will meet quarterly with the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) to discuss systemic issues related to students with disabilities and support. A representative of the DLC will serve on the Utah State Special Education Advisory Panel and the Disproportionate Minority Contact Workgroup. Additionally, DLC will meet quarterly with the Utah Parent Center (UPC) to discuss systemic issues related to students with disabilities and collaboration efforts between the agencies. • Area of Focus 2: Investigations. DLC will continue to investigate JJS and court-ordered facilities in special education eligibility and appropriate services. • Area of Focus 3: Trainings. DLC will provide training to foster parents, parents of children who receive services from the Children’s Center, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), etc. • Area of Focus 4: Individual Advocacy. DLC will advocate for students, with a specific focus on youth in state custody, who are seeking eligibility, with IEPs that are wholly or substantially inadequate or whose substantial lack of implementation by their local school districts keeps the student from benefiting from special education. Advocacy will be provided through clinics, investigations, and representation. 2 PAIR eligible clients will receive 1:1 assistance from the DLC in the area of special education during FY 17. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. The Utah Legal Needs Assessment (2016) showed that education-related legal issues are an area of high need. 20.4% of all respondents reported that they had experienced an education-related civil legal issue within the last 12 months. Helping parents get appropriate accommodations for their school age children was ranked as the second most popular method for us to spend limited funds. 54.7% of respondents included this method in their top three list. 25.6% of all respondents included education-related issues as one of the top three problems which they thought people with limited incomes needed help with most in their area. 36.7% of respondents ranked “getting an appropriate education” as one of the top five biggest challenges which they thought people with disabilities faced in their community. The team’s decision to focus on youth in custody (YIC) is due primarily to our observations from our visits of youth residential facilities over the past year. These visits involved discussions with students, teachers, and staff at these facilities. We identified problems related to students being placed in overly restrictive educational placements and problems with IEP development, implementation and revision. We also had discussions with community partners that helped us identify this need including the USBE, UPC, DMC workgroup, and Juvenile Justice attorneys. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. In FY 17, the Education team will assist 2 PAIR eligible clients on a one-to-one basis and through individualized legal efforts with issues related to eligibility, placement in the least restrictive environment, suspension, expulsion, highly intrusive interventions, and transition. In FY 17, the Education team will focus on training private service providers including providers through the Youth Providers’ Association, foster parents, parents of children who receive services from the Children’s Center and to DCFS caseworkers. In FY 17, the Education team will continue to investigate JJS and court ordered facilities in special education identification, eligibility and appropriate services and placement. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. Partners include, but are not limited to, the Utah State Office of Education (USOE), the Utah Parent Center (UPC), parents, Juvenile Justice attorneys and judges, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Utah, the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) workgroup, the University of Utah Public Policy Legal Clinic, the Utah Juvenile Defenders Association, and the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. • Information and Referral — 0 • Short term assistance — 2 • Representation at Meetings — 1 • Fair/Administrative hearings —0 • Technical Assistance -0 • Litigation on behalf of clients —0 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. The DLC attempted to get the student a trained school employee to administer her seizure rescue medication as an accommodation. The DLC corresponded with the school district special education director and 504 direct and provided the parent with self-advocacy tools. The DLC corresponded with the school district on behalf of the parent but also provided the parent with ghost written materials to request a reasonable accommodation. After discussions with the school district, it was clear that the district believed that they only needed to seek a volunteer to be trained as a reasonable accommodation rather than providing a trained school employee. This belief is based on a state law that was passed in the last legislative session. After months of fighting with the district, the district sent a request for volunteers and a volunteer offered to be trained on administering the student's rescue medication. Example B. The Education Team enjoyed a legislative success in FY17 with the passage of House Bill 92. The Education Team worked hard to help promote this bill. The result is that corporal punishment is now prohibited, as is the use of restraint and seclusion of students who do not present a danger to themselves or others. Example C Salt Lake Peer Court, Racially Just Utah, the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, Teen Council, Planned Parenthood, and Spy Hop annually collaborate to promote the National Week of Action on School Pushout (October 15-23, 2016) spearheaded by Dignity in Schools. The Week of Action against School Pushout seeks to engage the community in conversation around the imbalance between growing investment in juvenile justice and the diminishing funding for public education. The DLC participated in the Week of Action against School Pushout community event and tabled to provide information. The purpose of the community event was to get a dialogue going about the school to prison pipeline and to talk about possible solutions to the school to prison pipeline. The purpose was also to bring the community together to educate on the school to prison pipeline. PAIR PRIORITY - Employment 1. Identify and describe priority Goal 1: People with disabilities will have equal employment opportunities and be free from discrimination. • Area of Focus 1: Employment Discrimination. Advocating for people with disabilities on a one-to-one basis with issues related to discrimination and other barriers to employment, while providing education/training to consumers, service providers, and other employment-related agencies about the rights of people with disabilities in employment. During FY 17, 80 PAIR eligible clients will receive 1:1 advocacy services under this goal. This goal will assist Utahns with disabilities that experience discrimination based on disability when applying for a job. The goal will also assist clients who are currently employed, but face losing their job due to a denial of reasonable accommodation or other discriminatory practices. Additionally, the Employment team is placing an emphasis on exploring avenues to help end segregated employment. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. When survey respondents were asked to rank the top challenges for people with disabilities, 57.5% of respondents answered “getting or keeping a job.” This overwhelming response was the top pick for survey respondents — showing that employment is a very important issue for the disability community. 27.8% of respondents chose “getting supports needed to work in community businesses instead of sheltered workshops or employment centers” as a top challenge facing the disability community. 25.9% of respondents said that “employment discrimination” was a top challenge for people with disabilities. When asked how the DLC should allocate limited resources, 59.5% of respondents chose to “help people with disabilities get the accommodations they need to keep their job” making this the top response. The third highest ranked response was to use funds to “represent individuals with disabilities who experience employment discrimination.” 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. In FY 17, the EM team will assist 80 PAIR eligible clients on a one-to-one basis with issues relating to discrimination and other barriers to employment. In FY 17, the team will conduct 8 events to educate and train consumers, service providers, and other employment-related agencies about the rights of people with disabilities in employment. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. This priority did not involve collaborative efforts by other entities. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. • Information and Referral — 44 • Short term assistance — 53 • Representation at Meetings —15 • Fair/Administrative hearings — 23 • Legal Clinics-27 • Litigation on behalf of clients — 2 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A. Client is 54 years old and has a neurological impairment. Client worked as a Customer Service Representative in Sandy, Utah, Client has Meniere’s which can cause flare-ups that impact his ability to speak, move, or concentrate for approximately 1-2 days per episode. These flare-ups occur once to twice a month. Additionally, the client also experiences the need to go to the bathroom more frequently than the employer’s standard break schedule allowed. The Client requested reasonable accommodations and provided medical evidence to his employer for more frequent bathroom breaks and an exception to the attendance policy that would allow him to miss from 2-4 days per month due to his flare-ups. The company agreed to extend the client more bathroom breaks, but denied his request for an exception to the attendance policy and stated that his condition did not qualify as a disability and they would not issue that reasonable accommodation. The DLC wrote the employer a letter to explain the client’s condition, provide evidence of his need for reasonable accommodation, and educate employer of their obligations under the ADA. The DLC requested that employer re-analyze the client’s request for accommodation. The employer agreed to re-analyze the client’s request for accommodation and ultimately concluded that it could provide the client with the reasonable accommodation of an exception to the attendance policy that allowed him to be absent up to four days per month if the absences are related to his Meniere’s and its associated flare-ups. Example B. Client is 51 years old and has a neurological impairment. Our client works as a salesperson for his company but has been experiencing issues related to his Parkinson’s disease, a diagnosis he received in the last year which has gotten progressively worse. The client experiences limitations in a variety of his daily life activities, including but not limited to, typing, thinking, standing, and walking. While his employer understood some of the physical aspects of his disability, like keeping his balance while standing, and adjusted some of his duties that required him to make measurements on client rooftops, he has struggled with many of his other tasks at work, most notably typing. The client has requested some reasonable accommodations, such as a speech-to-text program to aid with his work performance and typing, and his employer has been attempting to engage in the interactive process but required more information from his medical provider regarding his limitations. The DLC held a legal clinic with this client where his most pressing issue was that his medical provider had written a letter that was insufficient to qualify him for reasonable accommodations, answering some of the most basic questions improperly — For example the doctor notated that the client, a person with Parkinson’s disease, was not substantially limited in any major life activities, which would automatically rule him ineligible for coverage under the ADA. The client was very frustrated and we agreed to guide and assist in writing some documents and suggestions for working with his medical provider to obtain a satisfactory letter that described his condition in a timely manner and enabled him to obtain the reasonable accommodations he needs. We worked with the client to provide appropriate guidance from credible sources, such as the EEOC, on what it means to be “substantially limited in a major life activity” and disabled under the ADA, as well as some other talking points for him to have a conversation with his doctor while still being respectful and acknowledging the medical provider’s professional opinion. The client scheduled another appointment with his medical provider and obtained a much more accurate and detailed letter that described his condition and allowed him to receive reasonable accommodations. In addition to helping the client work with his doctor, the DLC has also provided legal advice to assist the client in helping his employer understand his disability and the barriers his medical condition places upon his successful completion of the essential functions of his position. For example, the client has been placed on performance improvement plan for not completing some of his written reports and summaries in a timely manner. The client had a meeting scheduled with his employer on Tuesday and was convinced his employment would be terminated at this meeting. The DLC advised the client to remind the employer that he still had requests for accommodation pending and that his slow typing was directly related to his disability and could be accommodated with speech-to-text software that the company had not yet provided and that he wished to complete these tasks in a timely manner but was struggling because of his disability. The company acknowledged what he was saying about his condition and his barriers and agreed to provide outstanding requests for accommodation such as a larger monitor and appropriate speech-to-text software satisfied and happy with their offer. Although the damages were lower than in many other negotiations, this was probably one of the most satisfied clients we have had in mediation, largely attributable to the closure that came from the process and the explanation and apology from the employer. Example C Client is 46 years old and has absence of extremities, mental illness, and orthopedic/physical impairments. Client worked for a grocery store first as a produce associate and later as a cashier and customer service representative. Client has a prosthetic leg, of which his employer knew about. The client experienced some complications with his prosthesis and developed an infection, which required multiple hospital visits and stays. The client requested multiple reasonable accommodations, in writing, including ADA leave and temporary accommodations that allowed him to stand no more than 20 minutes at a time. The client did not receive a response to his request for accommodation and instead was told that his employment terminated. R.D.’s Director of Human Resources was extremely apologetic for our client’s experience and said that after investigation of the matter while some facts were disputed, it was clear that our client’s employment location did not live up to the expectations of the company in analyzing and granting requests for reasonable accommodation. The Human Resources Director assured the DLC that the company is normally much better in complying with the ADA and that she analyzes all requests across the nation and would have granted our client’s request for leave without a problem. However, the client’s store never brought the request to her attention. She thanked the DLC for bringing this matter to her attention and agreed to pay the client $10,000 in damages as a settlement. PAIR PRIORITY -Short Term Assistance for people with disabilities contacting DLC for assistance 1. Identify and describe priority. Goal 1: Utahns will have access to information and/or referrals regarding disability programs available in Utah as well as access to protection and advocacy services and/or referrals to agencies/resources for legal issues not covered under DLC funding and goals . The DLC will offer assistance to 500 PAIR eligible individuals living in Utah contacting the Disability Law Center for answers to legal concerns and service questions. Of those, 400 will receive information and referral and 100 callers will receive short-term/technical assistance. 2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority. 645 individuals responded to the survey. 22% self-identified as having a disability. Individuals surveyed stated they are most likely to go to the internet to educate themselves on legal issues. Individuals surveyed stated that educating professionals about DLC services, who qualifies, and how to access help would encourage contact with the DLC. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. Provide Information and referral and Short-term Assistance Service for 500 PAIR eligible callers and those contacting the DLC electronically. 4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. STAT team works collaboratively with all DLC teams to provide timely and competent short term assistance to all DLC callers. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. • Information and Referral — 426 • Short Term Assistance — 13 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example A Caller needed assistance with a Social Security Administration hearing. A Short- Term Assistance Advocate referred him to Utah Legal Services for assistance and explained their income eligibility guidelines. Additionally, our caller was referred to the Utah State Bar’s lawyer referral service. Example B Caller needed assistance with a personal injury case. A STAT Advocate recommended that she contact “Tuesday Night Bar” and make an appointment. She can also call the Utah State Bar and request information about the “Modest Means Program” which is designed to provide effective low cost legal services.

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.

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year (FY 2018) Please include a statement of priorities and objectives for the current fiscal year (the fiscal year succeeding that covered by this report), which should contain the following information: 1. a statement of each priority; 2. the need addressed by each priority; and; 3. a description of the activities to be carried out under each priority. Abuse and Neglect Goal 1: Eliminate Abuse and Neglect of People with Disabilities People with disabilities, with a focus on those living in or being treated in facilities, will be free from abuse and neglect and will receive appropriate services. • Priority1: Investigating abuse of individuals in county jails or in the custody of Utah Department of Corrections (UDC). DLC will provide legally-based advocacy to inmates in the county jails or UDC custody who, as determined by the team, are allegedly being seriously abused or neglected. • Priority2: Monitoring facilities and services. Based on complaints, incident reports, resident/patient advocate referrals, or survey results from facility licensing, and as determined by the DLC, the DLC will monitor facilities and institutions for serious abuse or neglect, and provide legally-based advocacy to residents of facilities who are allegedly being seriously abused or neglected. • Priority3: Individual Advocacy. Although focusing primarily on systemic work during FY17, the DLC will conduct investigations of suspected serious abuse, as determined by the team. In addition to cases from the facilities or institutions above, we will investigate concerns arising from the Community Integration Team’s work with DSPD residential or community-based providers, private ICFs/ID, nursing facilities, or assisted living facilities. Results from the 2015 Needs Assessment show that of those who responded either was or knew someone with a disability who had experience abuse and neglect. 69% had experienced emotional or verbal abuse 46% had experienced neglect 41% had experienced physical abuse 225 had experienced sexual abuse 36% of the respondents stated that keeping people free from abuse and neglect is their top priority. Additionally, the Disability Law Center, in partnership with Utah Legal Services, completed a comprehensive needs assessment process in March 2016. The “Utah Legal Needs Assessment” was comprised of a state- wide on-line survey and focus groups conducted in nine rural counties. A total of 647 respondents completed the on-line survey. The focus groups were attended by 136 people. Qualified respondents were given a list of fifteen challenges faced by people with disabilities and asked to mark the top five biggest challenges which they thought people with disabilities faced in their community. “Assist people living in care facilities who have been financially exploited “was listed in the top five categories by 185 survey participants, which represents 39.2% of the total. Access and Rights Goal 1: Reduce or eliminate architectural and programmatic barriers faced by people with disabilities using public buildings, public accommodations, transportation, and Post-Secondary Education. • Priority 1: Architectural Accessibility. Focus on places of public accommodation in rural Utah, specifically where the DLC has begun building relationships with community officials through the voting program or encountered pervasive accessibility violations. Continue to survey and address ADA/ADAAG compliance in Salt Lake City for public buildings or private businesses, including filing DOJ complaints where noncompliance is not remedied after notification. • Priority 2: Programmatic Accessibility. Continue to build relationships with Salt Lake City Mayor’s Accessibility Council; continue to monitor city street parking for ADA/ADAAG compliance. • Priority 3: Higher Education. Determine appropriate methods to reach post-secondary education students regarding available accommodations, procedure and DRC resources. • Priority 4: Transportation. Continue to participate in Wasatch Regional Coordination Council for Community Transportation (RCC) meetings and the Bear River Association of Governments Mobility Management Council to organize and guide local and regional coordination efforts that directly or indirectly improve transportation options for people with disabilities, seniors, veterans and/or persons with low income. The 2016 “Utah Legal Needs Assessment” shows that transportation for people with disabilities is one of the top three challenges faced by people with disabilities. 244 people, representing 50.6 of the survey responders thought that transportation is one of the biggest challenges for their community. Additionally, qualified respondents were given a list of nine ways in which limited funds could be used to serve the legal needs of people with disabilities and asked to mark the top three ways they thought the funds should be used. Advocating for more accessible transportation was marked in the top three areas of need by 148 survey respondents, representing 31.4% of the total. Accessible places of public accommodations and accessible government programs and services were also ranked in the top fifteen challenges faced by people with disabilities in their communities. 74 respondents listed “using private businesses or services “in top fifteen challenges faced for people with disabilities. An additional 66 people marked “using government buildings or services” in the top fifteen challenges. Lastly, “help students in higher education get the accommodations they need was identified as a top priority by 129 survey respondents, representing 27.3% of the total. Community Integration Goal 1: Advocate for Utahns to live and receive services and supports in the most integrated and least restrictive settings appropriate to their choices and needs. • Priority1: Services and Supports in the Most Integrated Settings. The DLC will provide systemic, legally-based advocacy to ensure that individuals with disabilities are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs and preferences. • Priority 2: Implementation of CMS’s Home and Community Based Settings (HCBS) Rule. The DLC will conduct systemic advocacy to ensure the Utah Department of Health (DOH) will develop and carry out a transition plan to become fully compliant with the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s HCBS Settings Rule. As a part of this continuing advocacy, the CI team will develop a plan to monitor the State’s implementation of the heightened scrutiny process. • Priority 3: Outreach & Education. The DLC will continue to do outreach to individuals receiving DSPD services as well as expanding outreach to individuals receiving services through the Aging and New Choices waivers. This will include a focus on outreach and trainings to consumer groups, professionals, those living in and/or working in programs receiving waiver dollars, including those in rural areas. Getting supports for people with disabilities so they can live in community neighborhoods was marked in the top fifteen challenges by 208 respondents our 2016 Legal Needs Assessment survey respondents. This represents 43.2% of the total. This priority came in very high, being ranked2 on the list. Goal 2: People with disabilities facing denial, reduction, or termination of healthcare and/or assistive technology services will receive appropriate healthcare services. • Priority1: Access to Healthcare and Assistive Technology. The DLC will advocate on behalf of Individuals to receive healthcare/assistive technology services that have been denied or reduced. This includes Medicaid and Medicare as well as assistive technology denials through various sources. Clients and potential clients will be served through a clinic model. • Priority2: Inappropriate discharge from residential healthcare services. The DLC will investigate allegations of inappropriate discharge of those receiving inpatient residential healthcare services in long-term care and skilled nursing facilities. Clinics will be held over the phone with the intent of ensuring that the process is being followed. Of the respondents in our FY 2016 Legal Needs assessment, “getting medical equipment, devices, or assistive technology that would help them be more independent” was marked as very important by 202 survey respondents, representing 41.9% of the total number. Education Goal 1: All Utah students with disabilities will have available to them a free, appropriate public education designed to meet their unique needs. • Priority 1: Individual Representation. The DLC will assist individuals with one- on —one representation and also implement systemic legal efforts with issues related to: eligibility, placement in the least restrictive environment, suspension, expulsion, and highly intrusive interventions. • Priority 2: Training & Direct Advocacy. Efforts to train and advocate on behalf of students with disabilities will focus on issues related to eligibility, placement in the least restrictive environment, suspension, expulsion, and highly intrusive interventions. The Utah Legal Needs Assessment (2016) showed that education-related legal issues are an area of high need. 20.4% of all respondents reported that they had experienced an education-related civil legal issue within the last 12 months. Helping parents get appropriate accommodations for their school age children was ranked as the second most popular method for us to spend limited funds. 54.7% of respondents included this method in their top three list. 25.6% of all respondents included education-related issues as one of the top three problems which they thought people with limited incomes needed help with most in their area. 36.7% of respondents ranked “getting an appropriate education” as one of the top five biggest challenges which they thought people with disabilities faced in their community.. Employment Goal 1: People with disabilities will have equal employment opportunities and be free from Priority 1: Integrated Employment. The DLC will embark on a systemic project implemented across teams to monitor and provide follow up advocacy services for people residing in ICF/ID facilities and/or working in sheltered workshops to ensure they have information on how to obtain the services they need to find integrated employment in their community. Priority 2: Employment Discrimination. Advocating for people with disabilities on a one-to-one basis with issues related to discrimination and other barriers to employment, while providing education/training to consumers, service providers and other employment related agencies about the rights of people with disabilities in employment. When survey respondents were asked to rank the top challenges for people with disabilities, 57.5% of respondents answered “getting or keeping a job.” This overwhelming response was the top pick for survey respondents — showing that employment is a very important issue for the disability community. 27.8% of respondents chose “getting supports needed to work in community businesses instead of sheltered workshops or employment centers” as a top challenge facing the disability community. 25.9% of respondents said that “employment discrimination” was a top challenge for people with disabilities. When asked how the DLC should allocate limited resources, 59.5% of respondents chose to “help people with disabilities get the accommodations they need to keep their job” making this the top response. The third highest ranked response was to use funds to “represent individuals with disabilities who experience employment discrimination.” Short Term Assistance Goal: The DLC will provide information about disability rights and disability law as well as gather information from individuals about legal issues they are experiencing related to their disability • Priority 1: Information and Short Term Assistance. A team of DLC employees will provide up-to-date relevant information to individuals seeking information about disability rights/disability law and disability services available in the community. • Priority 2: Intake. Legal issues brought to the attention of the DLC by callers seeking assistance will be reviewed by an intake team. The team will evaluate the issue to determine if it meets the case criteria developed by DLC teams, consult with DLC attorneys as needed and bring issues of critical need to the attention of DLC teams. FY16 Needs Assessment Survey relevant data: 645 individuals responded to the survey. 22% self-identified as having a disability. Individuals surveyed stated they are most likely to go to the internet to educate themselves on legal issues. Individuals surveyed stated that educating professionals about DLC services, who qualifies, and how to access help would encourage contact with the DLC.

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

Actual 2017 Budget 2018 A. Sources of funds received and expended Federal Funds Received: $164,840.00 $153,490.00 Federal Funds Expended: $164,840.00 State Funds Received & expended All other funds received: All other funds expended Total funds received: $164,840.00 $153,490.00 Total funds expended: $164,840.00 - B. Budget for fiscal year covered by this report Actual 2017 Budget 2018 Wages & Salaries $117,927.00 $108,572.00 Fringe Benefits 24,964.00 25,294.00 Materials/Supplies 5,103.00 3,741.00 Postage 520.00 430.00 Telephone 967.00 899.00 Rent 4,863.00 4,278.00 Travel 2,065.00 3,521.00 Copying 901.00 1,582.00 Bonding/Insurance 604.00 625.00 Equipment rental/purchase 1,564.00 124.00 Legal Services 642.00 7.00 Indirect Cost - Miscellaneous 4,720.00 4,417.00 Total $164,840.00 $153,490.00 C. Description of PAIR Staff Dan Anderson-Director of Finance: Responsible for creating and maintaining financial records and protecting the financial integrity of the organization and personnel management. He oversees the DLC budget, financial statements, payroll, and other financial related duties. He also manages and coordinates all human resource functions for the DLC. Dan has worked for the DLC for thirteen years. Lindsay Boerens-Advocate: Has worked as the Employment Team Leader to help people with disabilities remove barriers to employment. The Employment Team addresses issues on behalf of clients of Vocational Rehabilitation, Social Security beneficiaries, and people with disabilities who face discrimination in the workplace. She also has extensive experience working on the DLC’s Abuse & Neglect Team, which assists individuals facing serious abuse and neglect issues in institutions, nursing homes, and other residential and non-residential settings. Lindsay has worked at the DLC for nine and half years. Laura Henrie-Supervisory Attorney: Is responsible for providing legal advocacy and representation to eligible individuals in selected cases. She provides and coordinates legally based advocacy services to individuals seeking assistance through the Community Integration and Employment Issue Teams. Laura has worked for the DLC for eleven years. LauraLee Gillespie-Staff Attorney: Primary advocate for students in public school systems with disabilities. Working directly with parents to be sure that schools are providing students with appropriate specialized instruction and related services required under IDEIA and occasionally under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. LauraLee is the CAP Program legal supervisor. LauraLee has worked for the DLC for eight years. Evelyn Owen -Advocate: Short-term Assistance Advocate. She provides information, referrals, and short-term assistance to individuals seeking assistance from the Disability Law Center. The STAT Advocate reviews requests for assistance received by phone, in writing or in person, to determine compliance with DLC goals, priorities and funding. The position requires individuals to develop broad knowledge in all disability content areas that correspond with all established DLC teams, and develop in-depth expertise that correspond with two or three DLC teams as assigned, in order to provide input and support to the DLC teams. Evelyn has worked for the DLC for six years. Vard McGuire - Issue Team Leader, Access and Rights (AR) Team: The Access and Rights team helps to ensure people with disabilities have access to accessible, affordable, safe and clean housing; as well as working to eliminate architectural barriers to public buildings, transportation and post-secondary education. Vard has worked for the DLC for five years Selva Bailey-: STAT Advocate: provides information, referrals, and short-term assistance to individuals seeking assistance from the Disability Law Center. The STAT Advocate reviews requests for assistance received by phone, in writing or in person, to determine compliance with DLC goals, priorities and funding. The position requires individuals to develop broad knowledge in all disability content areas that correspond with all established DLC teams, and develop in-depth expertise that correspond with two or three DLC teams as assigned, in order to provide input and support to the DLC teams. Selva is a native Spanish speaker and has been with the DLC Sheri Newton-Advocate; she is responsible for directing the DLC’s PAVA program and coordinates rural outreach efforts for the DLC. She has worked for the DLC for seventeen years. Andrew Riggle-Public Policy Advocate: is responsible for coordinating the DLC’s legislative and policy advocacy initiatives across teams and ensuring that these strategies reflect the values of the DLC. The Public Policy Advocate works with a variety of DLC staff, Utah State Legislature, Utah’s congressional delegation, state agencies, advocacy groups and the broader community to enhance this area of the DLC’s mission. Andrew has worked with the DLC for nine years. Maree Webb-STAT Advocate: provides information, referrals, and short-term assistance to individuals seeking assistance from the Disability Law Center. The STAT Advocate reviews requests for assistance received by phone, in writing or in person, to determine compliance with DLC goals, priorities and funding. The position requires individuals to develop broad knowledge in all disability content areas that correspond with all established DLC teams, and develop in-depth expertise that correspond with two or three DLC teams as assigned, in order to provide input and support to the DLC teams. Maree has worked at the DLC for fifteen years. Alberto Muller is the DLC's para-legal. He has worked at the DLC for a year and a half. Adina Zahradnikova-Chief Executive Officer: Executive Officer of the Disability Law Center and assumed responsibility for the statewide operation of the agency. Responsibilities are both managerial and representational and include program planning, strategic budgeting, evaluation and reporting, financial planning and monitoring, organizational development and human resources, legislative advocacy, fundraising, public affairs, and public relations. Adina has worked for the DLC for seventeen years. Other staff members that have contributed to the implementation of the PAIR program during FY17: Jamila Abou-Bakr, Law Clerk, was hired on May 23, 2016. Selva Bailey, STAT Advocate, was hired on August 3, 2015. Diana Ballesteros, Receptionist, was hired on August 20, 2015. Katie Bushman, Attorney, was hired on November 16, 2015. Josh Campbell, Law Clerk, was hired on February 17, 2015. His last day with the DLC was May 20, 2016. Susana Canton, Support Staff, was hired on September 12, 2012. Cory Christensen, Law Clerk, was hired on February 19, 2015. His last day with the DLC was May 27, 2016. Katherine Crabtree, Advocate, was hired on February 9, 2016. Nathaniel J. Crippes, Attorney, was hired on April 6, 2015. Nick Daskalas, Law Clerk, was hired on August 18, 2014. His last day with the DLC was August 18, 2016. Amberly Datillo, Attorney, was hired on October 26, 2015. Mary Anne Davies, Attorney, was hired on December 15, 2014. Rob Denton, Senior Attorney, was hired on January 25, 1988. His last day with the DLC was July 15, 2016. Matthew Grow, Law Clerk, was hired on June 6, 2016. Erin Hough, Advocate, was hired on March 11, 2013. Timothy Hurty, Network Administrator, was hired on July 17, 2014. Nick Jackson, Attorney, was hired on February 3, 2014. Helena Jordan, Law Clerk, was hired on June 1, 2016. Matt Knotts, Advocate, was hired on October 5, 2015. His last day with the DLC was on July 20, 2016. Vard McGuire, Advocate, was hired on May 14, 2012. Erika Minjarez, Law Clerk, was hired on August 29, 2016. Evelyn Owen, Advocate, was hired on January 5, 2012. Teo Popa, Executive Assistant, was hired on August 13, 2014. Her last day with the DLC was on August 19, 2016. Carla Ramon Tejada, Receptionist, was hired on November 2, 2015. Her last day with the DLC was on January 29, 2016. Jeffery Simcox, Attorney, was hired on December 14, 2015. Erin Sullivan, Senior Attorney, was hired on April 20, 2015. Brian Tuttle, Law Clerk, was hired on June 1, 2016. His last day with the DLC was on August 29, 2016. Sean Umipig, Attorney, was hired on December 9, 2013. Leilani Whitmer, Law Clerk, was hired on July 15, 2015. The FTEs in the PAIR program for FY17 were as follows: Professional Full-time 1.50 Professional Part-time 0.26 Clerical Full-time 0.15 Clerical Part-time 0.41 Total 2.31 D. Involvement with Advisory Boards DLC staff serve on a Salt Lake City Mayor’s Committee on Accessibility. DLC staff is an active member of the Utah Parent Center Board of Trustees. The Utah Parent Center Board addresses coordination of resources for training, outreach and presentations to parents of students with disabilities attending public school in Utah. By participating on the board the DLC and the Utah Parent Center have increased their understanding of each agency’s role and have collaborated on projects. The Utah Parent Center work in collaboration with the DLC to positively affect 65,000 students with disabilities. A DLC attorney engaged in systemic advocacy as a member of the Utah Special Education Advisory Panel. This panel represents students with disabilities to the Utah State Board of Education on issues of special education. This year, the group drafted comments to the Utah State Board of Education on special education services for youth in custody and advocated for the passage of House Bill 92, a bill prohibiting corporal punishment and further restricting the use of restraint and seclusion. With the support of USEAP and the DLC, the bill passed. The DLC continued to participate as a member of WINGS. WINGS is a committee formed to look at options to strengthen the guardianship process and increase monitoring and support for guardians once they are appointed. Bear River Association of Governments Access and Mobility Council (BRAG). A member of the AR team was just elected for a third term as chairman of BRAG's Access and Mobility Council. E. PAIR Grievances — None this year. E. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program The DLC is the CAP Agency for Utah. We coordinate our programs through internal planning, needs assessment and public comment activities and by cooperating on specific projects as reflected in the annual objectives and priorities. PAIR funds are maximizing our efforts in several goals by allowing us to serve clients who would otherwise be ineligible for services.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByAdina Zahradnikova
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/20/2017