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

Pennsylvania (Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania) - H240A180039 - FY2018

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights Pennsylvania
Address301 Chestnut Street
Address Line 2Suite 300
CityHarrisburg
StatePennsylvania
Zip Code17101
E-mail Addressdrnpa-hbg@drnpa.org
Website Addresshttp://www.disabilityrightspa.org
Phone717-236-8110
TTY 717-346-0293
Toll-free Phone800-692-7443
Toll-free TTY877-375-7139
Fax717-236-0192
Name of P&A Executive DirectorPeri Jude Radecic
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorRocco Iacullo
Person to contact regarding reportPeri Jude Radecic
Contact Person phone717-236-8110
Ext.302

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 areas255
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas501
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)756

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff8
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)241

1. 11/1/17 DRP staff gave a presentation to 45 health care professionals at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Lend Clinic on special education for students with disabilities. 2. 11/27/17 DRP staff gave a presentation to 20 students at Robert Morris University in Allegheny County on special education for students with disabilities. 3. 1/15/18 DRP’s CEO participated in a panel presentation at MLK Day at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia County. DRP’s CEO spoke on the services and communities DRP serves, DRP priorities, and how students can get involved with advocacy. The event was attended by 45 students. 4. 3/22/18 DRP staff gave a presentation on the Americans with Disabilities Act at Representative Dan Miller's Disability Summit in Allegheny County to 75 persons. 5. 4/11/18 DRP staff gave a presentation on pending legislation that might impact special education in Pennsylvania to 20 members and staff of the Special Education Advisory Committee. This event had statewide impact. 6. 5/10/18 DRP staff gave a presentation on DRP and its education work to 10 education advocates at Local Task Force on Education at Intermediate Unit 4 that serves Lawrence, Mercer, and Butler Counties in Western Pennsylvania. 7. 6/08/18 DRP’s CEO attended the Women’s Energy Network “Press for Progress” workshop in Washington County, where she provided an overview of DRP and the federal programs and services provided to 18 individuals. 8. 7/31/18 DRP staff gave a presentation on the basics of special education law and students' rights to 8 parents of students with disabilities in Allegheny County school district.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff9
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles6
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website29,218
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated631
6. Other (specify separately)3

Narrative

Radio (1): Interview with WHYY, public radio station in southeastern PA, regarding barriers to employment for people with disabilities. Educate public about barriers to employment for people with disabilities. DRP staff continues work our new website development and updating our publications. Reached an estimated 1000 people. Radio (8): DRP provided information on “Disability Matters with Joyce Bender,” a weekly internet talk radio show, for eight weeks this fiscal year. The show has an average of 5,000 listeners a week. Topics included Medicaid in Pennsylvania and expansion update, Guardianship and least restrictive alternatives, Work and Work waivers for CMS, Veterans with Disabilities and EEOC employment rights, Opioids Recovery issues and impediments to individuals with disabilities who have real needs for them (2 weeks), FEMA, disasters and the decrease in the number of disability experts that are sent to sites, and our Program Goals and Objectives. News articles (6): http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2018/04/19/Pittsburgh-accessibility-Americans-with-Disabilities-Act-city-council-step-Deborah-Gross-DJ-Stemmler-Paul-O-Hanlon/stories/201804190134 https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2018/03/23/does-the-ada-apply-in-the-internet-era/ http://www.philly.com/philly/news/mapping-wheelchair-access-in-philly-and-the-burbs-20180412.html https://observer-reporter.com/news/localnews/disability-rights-pa-to-host-listening-session/article_9b881652-9d7d-11e8-94aa-936a764c139b.html http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2018/05/disability-rights-pa-forum-planned/ http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/plastic-straw-ban-narbeth-pennsylvania-20181027.html Outreach: While presenting at Social Security’s Work Incentive Planning and Assistance Program events, we also bring and distribute Disability Rights PA general brochure. We advise individuals who we are and how they can contact our intake line for Disability related discrimination, abuse and rights violations. PADES Conference: On December 6 and 7, 2017, a DRP attorney participated with Work Incentive Planning and Assistance staff in an outreach event at the PADES Conference in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, which was attended by over 400 students with disabilities and their parents. We distributed Disability Rights PA general brochure and advised individuals how to contact our intake line. Transition Fair: On April 11, 2018, a DRP attorney and support staff participated in an outreach event at a transition fair in Westmoreland County for about 100 students and their parents from three school districts. We distributed DRP brochures and Transition Manuals. Disability Pride 2018: On June 16, 2018, DRP staffed an outreach table at the Disability Pride 2018 event in Philadelphia attended by about 100 people. We distributed 30 DRP brochures. Intake Line and Clients: On weekdays from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, DRP staffs an Intake Line. Publications and brochures are also provided to callers and clients through our client database system. Our website was visited 29,218 times with 22,156 unique visitors, 71,655 pages viewed, 21,904 first time viewers, and 4,539 publications were viewed. Other 1: Salsa email listserv: DRP continues to engage with people with disabilities, family members, and the general public through our SALSA email listserv. This year, our listserv had 1717 member with a total supporter count of 4477. We sent 136 email blasts and 80,640 emails, of which 15,589 were opened. Other 2: Facebook: DRP continues to engage with people with disabilities, family members, and the general public on social media and provide education and information on how they can be involved in public policy. Facebook keeps growing. This year, our Facebook had 2947 likes, reached 63,992 individuals, and had 1500 comments and sharing of our posts. Other 3: Twitter: DRP continues to engage with people with disabilities, family members, and the general public on social media and provide education and information on how they can be involved in public policy. This year, our Twitter had 915 followers and had 87,898 impressions.

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)32
2. Additional individuals served during the year345
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)377
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)9

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 6

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility17
2. Employment79
3. Program access27
4. Housing76
5. Government benefits/services64
6. Transportation21
7. Education39
8. Assistive technology3
9. Voting0
10. Health care20
11. Insurance4
12. Non-government services23
13. Privacy rights1
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse9
16. Neglect4
17. Other11

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor286
2. Other representation found13
3. Individual withdrew complaint20
4. Appeals unsuccessful4
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case0
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources30
8. Individual case lacks legal merit24
9. Other15

Please explain

12 - Not within priorities 3 - Other

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-advocacy272
2. Short-term assistance115
3. Investigation/monitoring0
4. Negotiation2
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution0
6. Administrative hearings0
7. Litigation (including class actions)3
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 - 43
2. 5 - 2247
3. 23 - 59206
4. 60 - 6455
5. 65 and over66

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females205
2. Males172

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race4
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native1
3. Asian3
4. Black or African American63
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White279
7. Two or more races11
8. Race/ethnicity unknown27

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent262
2. Parental or other family home71
3. Community residential home1
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home17
6. Public institutional living arrangement2
7. Private institutional living arrangement1
8. Jail/prison/detention center16
9. Homeless5
10. Other living arrangements1
11. Living arrangements not known1

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

1. Blind/visual impairment16
2. Deaf/hard of hearing35
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment114
5. Mental illness10
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation2
8. Learning disability18
9. Neurological impairment74
10. Respiratory impairment13
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment19
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment38
13. Speech impairment1
14. AIDS/HIV3
15. Traumatic brain injury4
16. Other disability30

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 changes110,568

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.

Pennsylvania Implementation Plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) - Previously, DRP reviewed and submitted comments to the draft Implementation Plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Comments submitted focused on ensuring equal opportunities for students with disabilities, making sure that graduation rates are not adjusted downwards by local districts if students with disabilities are not meeting the projected rates, focus on universal design for learning, requesting stakeholder input into the alternative assessment process, and ensuring that schools that are consistently underperforming with certain subgroups (including students with disabilities) are identified annually. The plan was approved and DRP is now monitoring implementation. Adult Protective Services - DRP continued to monitor implementation of our state’s Adult Protection System (APS) to identify systemic issues. DRP is a member of the Liberty Healthcare Adult Protective Services Advisory Board. DRP staff attended the quarterly meetings of the Advisory Board and continued to monitor implementation of APS and to push for final APS regulations. DRP staff raised concerns about data presented that showed disproportionately low Reports of Need (RON) by adults enrolled in Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (“OMHSAS”) community services systems. Liberty Healthcare looked into the concerns and verified that there were access issues to parts of OMHSAS’ incident management system that contribute to under-identifying at intake. DRP also raised an issue with whether Liberty Healthcare is receiving RONs associated with youth 18 and over who remain in the Office of Children, Youth, and Families (“OCYF”) system of services. Liberty has no access to the OCYF incident management system to access these reported incidents and monitor related investigations. Liberty agreed to discuss OMHSAS and OCYF access issues at their APS Stakeholder monthly meeting, which includes OMHSAS and OCYF program office staff. DRP will continue our follow-up to improve the APS reporting and investigation systems. Discriminatory Taxi Charges - DRP previously filed and settled an ADA lawsuit against Reading Metro Taxi on behalf of a man who uses a wheelchair to challenge its charging higher rates for use of its wheelchair accessible cabs. DRP was then contacted by Abilities in Motion to advise that the company is charging higher rates to other individuals who use wheelchairs. DRP then contacted the manager of the company who assured us that it was not charging higher rates, but he agreed to our request to re-educate the dispatchers to assure that wheelchair users are not charged discriminatory rates. DRP then spoke with an individual who re-contacted the company after DRP intervened and he was quoted the correct fare. Accessibility of Public Park - Philadelphia and the Center City District (CCD) recently completed and opened to the public Phase I of the Rail Park, a recreation area converted along unused railroad lines. L.M., a Philadelphia woman who uses a wheelchair, advised us that the park was not accessible because the surface uses deep gravel. DRP wrote to the City and CCD to advise them that this was not compliant with the ADA. The CCD invited us to meet with them at the location to discuss our concerns, which we did. They subsequently indicated that they would make some modifications, but we need to assess whether it is adequate. In addition, DRP is researching whether the failure to install an elevator at one end of the Rail Park where it installed a new stairway for access violates the ADA. Community HealthChoices Implementation - DRP continues to monitor the start of the rollout of the Community HealthChoices program in the Office of Long Term Living (OLTL). This is the switch to managed care for services within the OLTL system and aims to serve more people in the community as opposed to nursing homes. DRP attended monthly meetings to get updates on progress and provide feedback on proposals as they are released for public comment. DRP monitored implementation issues related to the program at these meetings and remained in regular communication with other relevant stakeholder groups. DRP was also invited to participate in the DDC Advisory Group monitoring implementation of Community HealthChoices. The group met quarterly to discuss issues and concerns to address with the Department of Human Services on the rollout in the Southwestern part of the state. Transportation issues remain in the southwest as the Managed Care Organizations did not execute contracts with transportation providers. After advocacy efforts and continued discussions, the transportation issues are being addressed. As the Southeastern part of the state prepares for Community HealthChoices to roll out in January 2019, advocacy is focused on ensuring that the transportation issues do not arise again in that part of the state. Issues are also arising related to the provision of service coordination. The Advisory Group is also concerned about the provision of effective communication for individuals with various disabilities who have limited ways to contact service coordinators. DRP continues to discuss and strategize as part of this Advisory Committee. Coordination of Licensing and Certification of Providers Public Comment - DRP continues to monitor licensing issues and reviews waiver renewals and amendments for changes to provider qualifications. DRP raises licensing issues regularly with the Department of Human Services as issues and trends are identified to ensure that DHS responds appropriately. DRP responded to a request for public comment on the coordination of licensing and certification of providers and incident management, suggesting that the State focus on ensuring access to information for families and individuals with disabilities regarding licensing violations and incidents. Amtrak Accessibility - Amtrak is in the process of acquiring new high-speed rail cars to replace the cars on its Acela line. Amtrak has reached out to disability stakeholders, including NDRN, to assess the accessibility of the new cars and NDRN, in turn, asked DRP to participate. DRP attorneys reviewed a full-size mock-up of the proposed rail car and provided comments and input to NDRN to provide to Amtrak. Census Disability Issues - DRP attended an initial planning meeting this quarter to discuss strategies on ensuring an accurate census count in 2020. Discussions also included possible advocacy at the State level to ensure that adequate funding is allocated to support census count. DRP voiced concerns about individuals with disabilities being able to participate in the census if various strategies are implemented. DHS Licensing Ad Hoc Quarterly Workgroup - DRP staff participated on the DHS Licensing Ad Hoc Quarterly Workgroup, which met October 6, 2017. DRP staff discussed and commented on information about the new Department of Human Services' (DHS) licensing guidelines and Plan of Correction (POC) process that will impact the Office of Developmental Programs (ODP), Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF), Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (OMHSAS), and Bureau of Human Service Licensing (BHSL). DRP and the workgroup gave input on the factors that should be considered for a short inspection including: history of compliance, nature of violations, complaints/incidents (DRP suggested); other evaluations/accreditation (JACHO); age of the population served; and disability of the population served. Human Services Provider Directory Website Improvement - As part of the Department of Human Services Licensing Review work group, DRP staff was invited and participated in a state-run meeting on improving the Human Services Provider Directory website held on January 23, 2018. DHS is revising their licensing process and tools with the focus of making them consistent across program offices and able to be consistent when collecting, tracking and reporting data. The objective is to provide a uniform process for licensing/surveying residences and to have reportable incident data on individual DHS licensed facilities in a clear, understandable manner on the DHS website. DRP staff successfully advocated for DHS' licensing website to contain information that will allow viewers, when looking for a placement, to be able to assess the quality of the provider or of a particular residence or facility. DHS Licensing - Assisted Living Workgroup - DRP staff participated in the DHS Licensing workgroup on Assisted Living settings on December 18, 2017. DRP provided input and support to the workgroup for three final outstanding issues including reducing the cost to providers on certifying beds for use as Assisted Living beds, refusing opt-out from assistive living regulations to personal care homes who want to become assistive living settings, and not allowing reduction of square footage for personal care home rooms to become assisted living rooms. Pittsburgh Parking Accommodation Policy - DRP is assisting a Pittsburgh resident with physical disabilities to investigate Pittsburgh’s policy of denying requests for reserved residential parking spaces for individuals with disabilities when they do not own vehicles but, instead, rely on vehicles owned by family or aides to transport them.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts55,461
2. Number of individuals named in class actions6

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.

Mosley v. Miller (E.D. Pa.) - DRP continues to monitor the settlement agreement and addendum to assure procedural due process protections for individuals who apply for the Attendant Care Waiver, COMMCARE Waiver, Inde¬pendence Waiver, and OBRA Waiver (OLTL Waivers). Under the initial settlement, DHS is required to make eligibility determinations for the OLTL Waivers within 90 days of the application and the addendum requires DHS to use revised forms to provide denial and approval. Harper v. 118-122 Market Street Corp. (E.D. Pa.) - DRP has been monitoring implementation of a settlement agreement in this Title III ADA lawsuit challenging the inaccessibility of a Center City Philadelphia restaurant with a single step entrance. The agreement required the owner to install an ADA-compliant ramp. Following the defendant’s installation of the ramp, our inspection identified issues with the slope and with the threshold. The defendant made modifications and we inspected it again this quarter. DRP found that the defendant had fixed the threshold and made the ramp’s slope more accessible, bringing this case to a close. Keller v. City of Lancaster (E.D. Pa.) - DRP continues to monitor implementation of the supplemental settlement agreement in this ADA lawsuit that challenged Lancaster’s non-compliance with curb ramp requirements. The supplemental settlement imposes a timetable for Lancaster to retrofit 700 non-compliant curb ramps to meet ADA requirements by 2022. Defendant provided DRP with required progress reports demonstrating that it has retrofitted approximately 452 curb ramps to date and is on track with the agreed to timelines for installation of the curb cuts. McLaughlin v. Borough of Conway (W.D. Pa.) - The parties finalized a Consent Decree to resolve this Title II ADA lawsuit on behalf of five residents of Conway Borough who have physical disabilities which challenged the Borough’s revocation of the previously-authorized designated, reserved accessible parking spaces. The Borough rescinded the residents’ designated spaces after it repealed its ordinance that allowed residents to apply for designated spaces. The Consent Decree requires the Borough to maintain the plaintiffs’ designated residential parking spaces and to adopt a new procedure to allow other residents to make requests for those parking spaces in accordance with the ADA. Leahy v. Garces Restaurant Group, LLC (E.D. Pa.) - The parties entered into a Consent Decree to resolve this Title III ADA lawsuit challenging the inaccessibility of a newly constructed Philadelphia restaurant. The Consent Decree required the defendants to install a ramp at the patio entrance and improve accessibility in the parking lot and at the ground floor entrance. DRP, the client, and our expert inspected the restaurant to assess its compliance. The restaurant installed a ramp at the patio entrance, fixed issues with the ramp located at the rear of the building, and increased the number of accessible parking spaces. McGann v. Cinemark USA (W.D. Pa. & 3d Cir.) - In October 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a significant victory for our client in this lawsuit filed on behalf of a man who is deafblind to challenge the refusal of Cinemark to provide him with a tactile interpreter for a movie. The lower court held that Cinemark did not violate Title III of the ADA by refusing to provide a tactile interpreter on the basis that a tactile interpreter was not an auxiliary aid or service required by the ADA. The appellate court strongly rejected the lower court’s analysis, holding that tactile interpreters constituted an auxiliary aid or service that entertainment facilities were required to provide when necessary for effective communication; that our client had established that he needed tactile interpreters for effective communication; and that Cinemark had failed to demonstrate that providing such interpreters to our client would result in a fundamental alteration. The court, however, remanded the case to the lower court to asses Cinemark’s undue burden defense since the lower court had not decided that issue. The appellate court also rejected Cinemark's request for rehearing. The parties then reached a settlement whereby the defendant agreed to provide the client with tactile interpreters whenever he requests them at any of the defendant’s theaters in the country. Fair Housing Council of Suburban Philadelphia v. Wagner Enterprises, Ltd. (E.D. Pa.) - DRP continues to monitor implementation of the settlement agreement signed to resolve this Fair Housing Act (FHA) design and construction lawsuit challenging the failure of a developer to comply with the FHA’s accessibility requirements for newly-constructed condominiums in Northampton County. The developer reported that it substantially completed installation of the ramps at the units it owns as well as retrofitting common areas that were inaccessible. DRP’s expert conducted a site visit to inspect the accessibility modifications and our expert identified several areas of non-compliance. After repeated inquiries, the defendant has taken steps to remedy some of those issues. DRP continues to follow up with defendant to resolve the remaining issues. Fair Housing Rights Center in Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Morgan Properties Management Co., LLC (E.D. Pa.) - DRP is co-counsel in this Fair Housing Act case challenging a management company’s refusal to make reasonable accommodations to allow individuals who receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) to pay their rent upon receipt of their SSDI checks rather than at the beginning of the month. The parties completed discovery and defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Oral argument occurred in April 2018. DRP and private co-counsel secured a significant victory as the court, in denying the defendant's summary judgment motion, held that changing the rental due date was a reasonable accommodation for tenants' disabilities. The defendant filed a motion to seek an interlocutory appeal, but the court denied that motion in September. A status conference was then scheduled with the Court for October 2018. Lewis v. Social Security Administration (SSA EEO) - DRP filed a Section 504 employment discrimination administrative complaint on behalf of a Social Security employee with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety to challenge her employer's refusal to grant her request for a reasonable accommodation by transferring her to another office after she was sexually assaulted in the workplace. The EEO issued its investigation report, following which the employer transferred our client to another office closer to her home. DRP is awaiting the final decision by the EEO regarding her damage claim.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

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

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

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

Priority I 1. Priority: Protect and advocate for people with disabilities who are subject to abuse, neglect, exploitation, and rights violations. 2. Need Addressed: Advocacy focused on ensuring that individuals with disabilities are not subject to abuse, neglect, exploitation, and rights violations. 3. Indicators: A. Individual and systemic reports of abuse or neglect will be addressed through technical assistance, follow-up, monitoring, investigation and/or litigation, including enforcing DRP’s authority to access facilities, residents, and records. B. Systems for reporting, investigating, and responding to abuse or neglect will be improved and expanded and full implementation of an adult protective services system will be ensured. C. In all cases of systemic incidents of abuse, neglect, and rights violations in licensed facilities, PAIR had no challenges to our authority to access facilities, residents, and/or their records. 4. Collaborations: 1) Adult Protective Services - DRP continued to monitor implementation of our state’s Adult Protection System (APS) to identify systemic issues. DRP is a member of the Liberty Healthcare Adult Protective Services Advisory Board. DRP staff attended the quarterly meetings of the Advisory Board and continued to monitor implementation of APS and to push for final APS regulations; and 2) DRP began serving on the Department of Human Services licensure workgroup and its Adults with Intellectual Disabilities licensure sub-workgroup. DRP is coordinating with our partner organizations that are serving on other licensure sub-workgroups (Dependent and Delinquent Children, Adults with Mental Illness, and Adults Served in Personal Care Homes and Assisted Living Facilities). Each sub-workgroup will provide recommendations on how the Department can improve: 1) the health and safety of those who are served through these facilities; 2) how the Department measures and rewards high quality services; and 3) the efficiency and structure of licensing processes. 5. Number of cases: Cases: 14; Class Actions: 0. 6. Case summaries: 1) DRP staff responded to the needs of a client who requested adult protective services intervention due to flooding of his apartment and his inability to get the help he needed to ensure his safety. The individual was receiving in-home services but was not receiving help needed from those service personnel to be physically safe and to protect his belongings, many of them already damaged from a busted water pipe. His landlord also was not responding to his requests for help. When DRP staff learned that the individual could only text due to his disability, we facilitated APS contacting our client via text. APS substantiated his report of need and our client was provided the support and services he needed to ensure he was safe; and 2) DRP staff received a report from a state representative’s office regarding a 25-year-old man with a degenerative genetic condition who was hospitalized due to alleged abuse/neglect. The representative’s office became involved after a trusted friend of many years had gone to visit the young man and found him in deplorable conditions, undernourished, needing medical treatment, and living in filth. 911 was called and he was transported to a local hospital in very serious condition. The state representative asked a DHS program office for help on his behalf, however, their request for intervention was declined citing HIPPA violation concerns. DRP was then contacted and DRP staff reviewed with the representative’s staff the young man’s rights to file a report with DHS, offered to assist, and requested that he contact us directly. However, in the meantime, the state representative’s staff had been in contact with the Governor’s office who convinced DHS get involved. They launched their own investigation into the provider agency and SCO, told both they could have absolutely no contact with the individual, and to secure his belongings until he again needed them. The young man was supposed to begin receiving care in his home but his provider failed to deliver care and his Supports Coordinator (SC) failed to ensure he was receiving the care. APS and AG’s office were notified and an investigation was started. DRP staff was able to contact client in the hospital and DRP staff explained his rights and discussed what assistance he wanted from us. He advised us that he asked his friend to be his Power of Attorney (POA). He signed a release allowing DRP to speak to his POA. DRP staff offered information and advice to the POA about how to find a new SC, a new provider, and how to report the additional alleged crimes that are being uncovered (stolen property that was supposed to be secured after he went into the hospital, possible stolen money, etc.). DRP staff also had subsequent conversations with the POA, emphasizing their responsibility to include the young man in all decision-making about his life. The young man has since moved into rehab and is looking forward to again living in a home of his own. Priority II 1. Priority: Eliminate institutionalization and segregation of people with disabilities and address treatment issues relating to institutionalized persons. 2. Need Addressed: Integration is preferred and too often people with disabilities are put in or directed to institutional settings. Changing the attitudes of policy makers, involvement of persons with disabilities in the design and implementation of services, and rebalancing appropriation of funding is necessary to achieve integration. 3. Indicators: A. Advocate for integrated community services, supports, and treatment for children and adults with disabilities who are institutionalized, at risk of institutionalization, or in segregated settings. B. Assure that children and adults with disabilities who are incarcerated or at risk of incarceration receive appropriate treatment and access to necessary services and diversion from incarceration. C. Develop plans for community integration. 4. Collaborations: 1) Community HealthChoices - DRP was invited to and participated in the Developmental Disabilities Council (“DDC”) Advisory Group monitoring implementation of Community Health Choices. DRP met once with the group to discuss issues and concerns to address with the Department of Human Services on the rollout in the Southwestern part of the state. Transportation issues remain in the southwest as the Managed Care Organizations did not execute contracts with transportation providers. After advocacy efforts and continued discussions, the transportation issues are being addressed. As the Southeastern part of the state prepares for Community HealthChoices to roll out in January 2019, advocacy is focused on ensuring that the transportation issues do not arise again in that part of the state. Issues are also arising related to the provision of service coordination. The Advisory Group is also concerned about the provision of effective communication for individuals with various disabilities who have limited ways to contact service coordinators. DRP continues to discuss and strategize as part of this Advisory Committee. 5. Number of cases: Cases: 11; Class Actions: 0. 6. Case summaries: 1) DRP successfully assisted a Montgomery County man with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, who was at risk of losing his home and community-based services through the OBRA Waiver and being placed in a nursing facility. His landlord, who also was his service provider, notified him that it would no longer provide him services or housing after January 2018. DRP staff drafted a complaint and preliminary injunction motion and contacted DHS to advise it that we intended to proceed unless it acted to assure that was able to remain in the community. After that, he was able to find accessible housing and a willing provider, so DRP staff worked with his service coordinator, the new provider, and DHS to assure that his plan included the services he needs. Client moved into his new home in January 2018; 2) DRP staff assisted an individual in connecting with is nursing home transition (NHT) coordinator. The individual had been waiting over 7 months to get all services in place to be transitioned from the nursing home to the community. Client’s discharge was inexplicably delayed despite him finding a place to transition to. DRP staff contacted his NHT coordinator to assist client with obtaining a discharge date and to ensure that the NHT coordinator was assisting in providing necessary services to client to help him transition to his new community home. Priority III: 1. Priority: Promote an array of quality consumer-controlled, consumer-driven, person-centered, and recovery-oriented services to enable people with disabilities to live and thrive in their own homes and communities. 2. Need addressed: People want to live in their homes and communities. In order to do so, they need state-funded services and supports. Especially in tight budget times, and given competition with institutions, it’s critical to engage in focused budget advocacy. People with disabilities need to lead in the designing of service delivery systems and have control over the provision and implementation to ensure satisfaction and full community inclusion. 3. Indicators: A. Advocate for access to programs and services that support people with disabilities in making their own choices and directing their own services. B. End waiting lists and remove other barriers to community services for people with disabilities who are unserved or underserved. C. Ensure that people with disabilities make their own decisions to the maximum extent possible. D. Assure and expand access to health and mental health care and related services for people with disabilities including, but not limited to, Medicaid services, transportation, and assistive technology. 4. Collaborations: 1) ABLE Act - DRP was invited to and is participating in advisory committees to ensure appropriate implementation of the ABLE Act; 2) DHS Licensing - Assisted Living Workgroup - DRP staff participated in the DHS Licensing workgroup on Assisted Living settings on December 18, 2017. DRP provided input and support to the workgroup for three final outstanding issues, including reducing the cost to providers on certifying beds for use as Assisted Living beds, refusing opt-out from assistive living regulations to personal care homes who want to become assistive living settings, and not allowing reduction of square footage for personal care home rooms to become assisted living rooms; 3) DHS Licensing Ad Hoc Quarterly Workgroup - DRP staff participated on the DHS Licensing Ad Hoc Quarterly Workgroup, which met October 6, 2017. DRP staff discussed and commented on information about the new Department of Human Services' (DHS) licensing guidelines and Plan of Correction (POC) process that will impact the Office of Developmental Programs (ODP), Office of Children, Youth and Families (OCYF), Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (OMHSAS), and Bureau of Human Service Licensing (BHSL). DRP and the workgroup gave input on the factors that should be considered for a short inspection. They were: history of compliance, nature of violations, complaints/incidents (DRP suggested); other evaluations/accreditation (JACHO); age of the population served; and disability of the population served; 4) Meeting with Acting Secretary Miller at Department of Human Services - DRP met with the Acting Secretary to discuss priorities for people with disabilities in the Commonwealth, including ensuring access to home and community based services, protecting CHIP funding, Community HealthChoices implementation and monitoring, and closure of institutions; 5) Human Services Provider Directory Website Improvement - As part of the Department of Human Services Licensing Review work group, DRP staff was invited and participated in a state-run meeting on improving the Human Services Provider Directory website held on January 23, 2018. Although the original intent was to improve the website for service providers, DRP staff suggested that the website be improved for the general public as well. The work group noted several concerns about user-friendliness issues with websites and DRP provided recommendations about improving the licensing process for service providers and about improving citizens' access to information about service providers and licenses. 5. Number of cases: Cases: 91; Class Actions: 0. 6. Case summaries: 1) DRP staff assisted a woman who wanted to move out of a personal care home into her own home. She apparently had a stroke last year and has difficulty walking and writing. She was interested in knowing about services she could receive in her own home. DRP staff explored supports with her and personnel at the PCH that might be able to help her. She and DRP staff discussed her ability to perform ADLs and IALDs and other independent living considerations. DRP staff advised her to contact OLTL to learn about services and programs that she would be eligible for and DRP sent her a follow-up letter with information about how to contact OLTL; 2) DRP staff assisted a caller who could no longer work as an EMT because of complications from spinal surgery but she had recovered enough to do other work. DRP staff provided her with information about OVR services including job interest assessment, skill assessment and training, job search, job coach, etc. Client was unaware of OVR services. DRP staff provided client with contact information for OVR and information on how she could apply for OVR services. Client re-contacted DRP staff to thank us for our assistance in learning how to apply for OVR services; 3) DRP staff successfully intervened on behalf of a 47-year-old inmate at SCI-Fayette who uses catheters due to his disabilities. The client informed us that the prison does not provide him with an adequate supply of catheters to meet his medical needs. DRP wrote to the Department of Corrections (”DOC”) about the issue and DOC’s counsel advised us that it would re-evaluate client and all inmates who need catheters to assure that they have the right type of catheters and an adequate number to meet their needs; 4) DRP staff assisted a client who wanted help with resources in the community, including how to appeal a denial for a chair lift through a contact from CYS in that county. Client lived at home but did not have any services. DRP staff educated caller about the Office of Long Term Living and waiver services in Pennsylvania. DRP staff also connected caller to the PA Health Law Project for help with the Medicaid denial; 5) DRP staff provided assistance to a client who has aphasia regarding getting the Independent Enrollment Broker to respond to him. The client has limited ability to speak on the phone. He received notice that the level of care assessment had not been completed and the AAA was unable to reach him. His wife tried to reach out on his behalf but neither AAA nor Maximus would speak to her. Client signed a release so that DRP could advocate on his behalf. DRP staff reached out to OLTL and they agreed to provide our client a form to sign to have his wife act as his representative. Our client filled out the form and moved forward with the assessment for an Independent Enrollment Broker. Priority IV 1. Priority: Eliminate disability discrimination and promote integration of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. 2. Need Addressed: Laws protecting equal access by people with disabilities are not always enforced and are not always known by attorneys and people with disabilities. Education, self-advocacy and rights training, and enforcement are needed to ensure people with disabilities have equal access to government services, programs and activities, housing, transportation, public accommodations, effective communication, quality education, employment and that they have equal opportunity to vote. 3. Indicators: A. Address disability discrimination in government services, programs and activities, in housing, transportation, and by public accommodations including, but not limited to, assuring physical access to facilities and addressing the failure to provide effective communication or reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures. B. Address disability discrimination in education and assure access to quality education for students with disabilities including, but not limited to, early intervention, special education, transition, and post-secondary education services. C. Promote and expand employment of persons with disabilities. D. Assure that persons with disabilities have equal opportunity to vote. 4. Collaborations: 1) PA Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) Training and Technical Assistance Team - DRP staff participated in a stakeholder meeting sponsored by PA Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) Training and Technical Assistance Team in a cross-discipline meeting as we identified needs and priorities for addressing sexual violence in the lives of people with disabilities and older adults. This was an initial meeting with follow-up activities and meetings planned; 2) Special Education Advisory Panel - A DRP attorney sits on this Panel, which works to improve special education in Pennsylvania. SEAP advises the Secretary of Education on unmet needs of students with disabilities, funding, and developing and implementing policies to improve coordination of services to these students; 3) Philadelphia Coalition of Special Education Advocates - DRP con¬tinues to partici¬pate in this Coalition to address special education issues in Philadelphia public schools; 4) DRP previously filed and settled an ADA lawsuit against Reading Metro Taxi on behalf of a man who uses a wheelchair to challenge its charging higher rates for use of its wheelchair accessible cabs. DRP collaborated with Abilities in Motion (“AIM”), the Center for Independent Living in Berks County, who advised DRP that the company was still quoting higher rates to other individuals who use wheelchairs, to ensure that the company was not discriminating again by charging higher fares for wheelchair service. DRP contacted the manager of the company with the information provided by AIM to determine why their dispatchers were quoting higher rates for wheelchair service. The manager assured us that it was not charging higher rates and he agreed to DRP’s request to re-educate the dispatchers to assure that wheelchair users are not charged discriminatory rates. DRP then spoke with an individual, who was previously quoted a higher fare, who advised DRP that he re-contacted the company after DRP intervened and he was quoted the correct fare. 5. Number of cases: Cases: 250; Class Actions: 0. 6. Case summaries: 1) DRP successfully intervened on behalf of a client who is hard of hearing to secure an accommodation for meetings of his borough council in Carbon County. He had requested that the council members wear microphones to amplify sound, but they never did. After DRP wrote a letter to the solicitor, the council readily agreed to make the accommodation; 2) DRP successfully intervened on behalf of an elderly Philadelphia man with Alzheimer's disease who is deaf to secure a sign language interpreter in his senior day program; 3) DRP successfully intervened on behalf of a man with epilepsy, who was hired to work at a warehouse in Carlisle. Our client disclosed that he was not able to operate commercial machinery due to his disability, but when he showed up for work he was told to operate a forklift. When he again explained that he could not do so, he was sent home. After we wrote a letter to the employer advising it that its actions violated the ADA, it agreed to reinstate our client and give him full back pay; 4) DRP successfully intervened on behalf of a Delaware County resident to secure a parking accommodation at the townhouse development where he lives. The development provides each townhouse owner with two parking spaces, but they are not designated. Our client has a disability that substantially limits his ability to breathe and walking long distances compromises his breathing. After we wrote to the homeowners’ association to request that it provide our client with a reasonable accommodation under the FHA by designating a reserved parking space for him close to his townhouse, it agreed to do so; 5) DRP successfully intervened on behalf of a Dauphin County man with orthopedic disabilities to secure a reasonable accommodation so that he can complete the drug court program. Our client’s disability results in his inability to work and he has been determined eligible for SSI on that basis. Yet, his probation officer insisted that he apply for work and get a job in order to complete his drug court program. After we wrote a letter explaining that he was entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA to relieve him of the work obligation, the probation officer agreed that he would not have to seek work to complete the program; and 6) DRP successfully assisted an 85-year-old man with orthopedic disabilities that limit his ability to walk to secure a reasonable accommodation at a private golf course in Dauphin County so that he could drive his golf cart closer to the greens. After we sent a letter to the golf course, it agreed to expand the areas where the client could drive his golf cart. Priority V 1. Priority: Conduct outreach, training, and education activities. 2. Need Addressed: Increase consumer’s knowledge of their rights and available services to enable them to live independent and productive lives. 3. Indicators: A. Identify and work with unserved and underserved communities. B. Provide presentations and trainings to educate people with disabilities, family members, advocates, and professionals about disability rights, services, and issues. C. Conduct in-person outreach at community events to enhance the public’s knowledge of DRP and its services and to provide information to the public about disability rights, services, and issues. D. Develop and distribute publications (that are also accessible and multilingual) on disability rights, services, and issues to facilitate knowledge and self-advocacy. E. Develop and disseminate information important to people with disabilities via DRP’s electronic mailing lists, website, and social media 4. Collaborations: 1) On December 6 and 7, 2017, DRP staff participated with WIPA staff in an outreach event at the PADES Conference in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, which was attended by over 400 students with disabilities and their parents, and distributed 50 DRP general brochures; 2) On January 15, 2018, DRP’s CEO participated in a panel presentation at MLK Day at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia County. DRP’s CEO spoke on the services and communities DRP serves, DRP priorities, and how students can get involved with advocacy. The event was attended by 45 students; 3) On June 8, 2018, DRP’s CEO attended the Women’s Energy Network “Press for Progress” workshop in Washington County, where she provided an overview of DRP and the federal programs and services provided to 18 individuals; and 4) On June 16, 2018, DRP staff held an information table at Disability Pride 2018 in Philadelphia. Staff provided information on DRP to 50 persons attending the event. 5. Number of Cases: Cases: 0. Class action: 0. 6. Case Summaries: as this priority is informational, we do not have case reports; See Part I, Sections B and C for further description of PAIR outreach, training, and education activities.

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year

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

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

Priority I: 1. Priority: Protect and advocate for people with disabilities who are subject to abuse, neglect, exploitation, and rights violations. 2. Need addressed: Pursue advocacy to protect individuals with disabilities from abuse, neglect, and rights violations. 3. Activities: A. Respond to individual and systemic reports of abuse, neglect, exploitation or rights violations (including, but not limited to, the inappropriate use of restraints — chemical, physical, mechanical, and behavioral) through the provision of information, resources, referrals, technical assistance, individual assistance, follow-up, monitoring, investigation and/or litigation, including enforcement of DRP’s authority to access facilities, residents, and records. B. Routine monitoring of systems, advocating necessary improvements for reporting, investigating and responding to abuse or neglect. This includes protections for individuals with disabilities of all ages (child, adult, older adults) along with the full implementation of Adult Protective Services. C. Provide advice and/or information and referral services, as appropriate, to clients who contact our intake system regarding abuse, neglect, or exploitation of individuals with disabilities. Priority II: 1. Priority: Promote alternatives to institutionalization and segregation of people with disabilities and address treatment issues relating to institutionalized persons. 2. Need addressed: Integration is preferred and too often people with disabilities are put in or directed to institutional settings. Changing the attitudes of policy makers, involvement of persons with disabilities in the design and implementation of services, and rebalancing appropriation of funding is necessary to achieve integration. 3. Activities: A. Advocate for integrated community services, supports, and treatment for children and adults with disabilities who are institutionalized, at risk of institutionalization, or in segregated settings. B. Advocate for the closure, downsizing, or reduce admissions to state-operated hospitals for individuals with mental illness and state-operated centers for people with intellectual disabilities, nursing facilities, and other congregate state or privately-operated congregate, segregated facilities, and residential treatment facilities. C. Advocate for the development, full implementation of, and funding for a comprehensive/integrated Pennsylvania Olmstead Plan which includes affordable, accessible and integrated housing options for community living that covers all Pennsylvanians with disabilities regardless of age or other demographic factors. D. Assure that children and adults with disabilities who are incarcerated or at risk of incarceration receive appropriate treatment and access to necessary services and diversion from incarceration. E. Provide advice and/or information and referral services, as appropriate, to clients who contact our intake system regarding issues relating to individuals with disabilities who are unnecessarily institutionalized or segregated, at risk of unnecessary institutionalization or segregation, or subject to mistreatment in an institutional setting. Priority III: 1. Priority: Promote an array of quality, consumer-controlled, consumer-driven, person-centered, and recovery-oriented services to enable people with disabilities to live and thrive in their own homes, and communities. 2. Need addressed: Advocacy is imperative to ensure that individuals with disabilities receive appropriate services and supports they need so that they can live in their homes and communities. 3. Activities: A. Advocate for access to programs and services that support people with disabilities in making their own choices and directing their own services. This encompasses support for Independent Living (IL) options in our long-term care system, including, but not limited to managed care programs. B. Advocate to end waiting and interest lists along with removing other barriers to community services for people with disabilities who are unserved or underserved. C. Assure and expand access to health and mental health care and related services for people with disabilities including, but not limited to, Medicaid services, transportation, education supports, employment accommodations, home modifications and assistive technology. D. Advocate to ensure that people with disabilities make their own decisions to the maximum extent possible and receive appropriate supported and/or substitute decision-making when necessary, including but not limed to alternatives to guardianship, end of life care and financial matters. E. Provide advice and/or information and referral services, as appropriate, to individuals who contact our intake system regarding community services for people with disabilities. Priority IV: 1. Priority: Eliminate disability discrimination and promote integration of people with disabilities in all aspects of society. 2. Need addressed: Laws protecting equal access by people with disabilities are not always enforced; and are not always known by attorneys and people with disabilities. Education, self-advocacy, rights training, and enforcement are needed. 3. Activities: A. Address disability discrimination in government services, programs and activities, in housing, transportation, healthcare and by public accommodations including, but not limited to, assuring physical access to facilities and addressing the failure to provide effective communication or reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures. B. Address disability discrimination in education and assure access to quality education for students with disabilities including, but not limited to, early intervention, special education, transition, and post-secondary education services. C. Address disability discrimination in employment and promote and expand access to employment of people with disabilities including advocating for the implementation of Employment First and other competitive and supported opportunities for individuals in segregated employment. D. Assure that people with disabilities have equal opportunity to vote and removing voting barriers through collaboration, training and advocacy. E. Provide advice and/or information and referral services, as appropriate, to individuals contacting our intake system regarding issues relating to disability discrimination in and/or access to government services, public accommodations, housing, healthcare, employment, education, voting, transportation, and other aspects of community life. Priority V: 1. Priority: Conduct outreach, training, and education activities. 2. Need addressed: Increase consumer’s knowledge of their rights and available services to enable them to live independent and productive lives. 3. Activities: A. Identify and work with unserved and underserved communities. B. Provide presentations and trainings to educate people with disabilities, family members, advocates, and professionals about disability rights, services, and issues. C. Conduct in-person outreach at community events to enhance the public’s knowledge of DRP’s work, its services and to provide information to the public about disability rights, services, and issues. D. Develop and distribute publications (that are also accessible and multilingual) on disability rights, services, and issues to facilitate knowledge and self-advocacy; distribute those publications through our website and at trainings and outreaches and, on request, by mail; and, as requested, make those publications available in alternative formats and in other languages, including ASL formats. E. Develop and disseminate information about DRP’s work to people with disabilities via DRP’s electronic mailing lists, website, press, and social media.

Part VI. Narrative

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

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

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

A. Sources of funds received and expended: Federal funds: Amount received - $411,119 Amount spent - $411,119 Program Income: Amount received - $203,515 Amount spent: $203,515 Total received: $614,634 Total spent: $614,634 B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by the report: Prior Fiscal Year, 2017-2018: Wages/Salaries - $394,734 Fringe Benefits - $156,404 Materials/Supplies - $11,450 Postage - $1,000 Telephone - $4,000 Rent - $55,500 Travel - $2,000 Copying - $500 Bonding/Insurance - $7,200 Equipment - $9,664 Legal Services - $0 Indirect Costs - $0 Misc. - $57,600 Total Budget - $700,052 Current Fiscal Year, 2018-2019 Wages/Salaries - $365,001 Fringe Benefits- $130,398 Materials/Supplies - $9,600 Postage - $1,000 Telephone - $3,000 Rent - $42,000 Travel - $2,000 Copying - $500 Bonding/Insurance - $5,600 Equipment - $6,500 Legal Services - $0 Indirect costs - $0 Miscellaneous - $62,200 Total Budget - $627,799 C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years) FTE % of year filled person years Professional - Full-time (26 )4.64 100% 4.64 Part-time (0) 0.00 100% 0.00 Clerical - Full-time (5 ).70 100% .70 Part-time ( ) 100% D: Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act Implementation Advisory Committee. Adult Protective Services (APS) Advisory Board. Department of Human Services Licensure Workgroups. Department of Human Services Provider Directory Website Improvement. Developmental Disability Council (DDC) Advisory Group monitoring implementation of Community HealthChoices. Information Sharing Advisory Committee of the Office of Developmental Programs (ODP). Liberty Healthcare Adult Protective Services Advisory Board. PA Coalition Against Rape (PCAR) Training and Technical Assistance Workgroup. Pennsylvania Transportation Alliance. Philadelphia Coalition of Special Education Advocates. Special Education Advocates Panel (SEAP). E. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure: 1. An informal grievance was filed by a client who disagreed with DRP’s decision not to represent him on prison medical services problems. DRP’s CEO upheld the decision to not provide representation to client due to issues being outside of DRP’s expertise and advised him of his right to appeal the decision to DRP’s Board President. 2. An informal grievance was filed by a client who disagreed with DRP’s decision not to provide representation to him for issues related to conditions and treatment in Federal prison. DRP’s CEO upheld the decision to not provide representation to client due to lack of resources and advised him of his right to appeal the decision to DRP’s Board President. 3. An informal grievance was filed by a client who disagreed with DRP’s decision not to provide representation to him regarding prison medical service issues. DRP’s CEO upheld the decision to not provide representation to client due to issues being outside of DRP’s expertise and advised him of his right to appeal the decision to DRP’s Board President. 4. An informal grievance was filed by a client who disagreed with DRP’s decision not to represent him on an administrative complaint that he filed with HUD regarding possible housing discrimination. DRP’s CEO upheld the decision to not provide representation to client due to lack of resources and advised him of his right to appeal the decision to DRP’s Board President. 5. An informal grievance was filed by a client who disagreed with DRP’s decision not to represent him on an employment discrimination matter. DRP’s CEO upheld the decision to not provide representation to client due to lack of resources and advised him of his right to appeal the decision to DRP’s Board President. 6. A grievance was filed by an individual who was denied representation by DRP because he was adversarial to the interests of another DRP client on the same matter. DRP’s CEO upheld the decision to deny this individual representation because of his adversarial interests in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney ethics and advised him of his right to appeal the decision to DRP’s Board President. The individual appealed to the DRP Board President who upheld DRP’s CEO’s decision to deny him representation because of his adversarial interests to a DRP client. F. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State long-term care program, if these programs are not part of the P&A agency: DRP informs callers, as appropriate, about the services provided by the CAP. We are also available as a resource to CAP and its clients. DRP and CAP staff discussed ways to for the organizations to collaborate as well as improve case referrals between the organizations to better assist people with disabilities. DRP maintains a lead advocacy role in the work of the community in its attempts to be a part of the administrative process and design of long term services and supports. DRP maintains individual assistance for many clients through our intake department, while other staff work on providing input through the federally mandated Medical Assistance Advisory Committee or MAAC, and its subcommittees. Throughout the year, DRP staff also participated in several “coalitions” with similar missions of enhancing or expanding home and community-based services and supports, including, but not limited to, the DDC Community HealthChoices Advisory Group, the Department of Human Services Licensing Review work group, and ABLE Act advisory committees. DRP staff continue to provide input when possible on proposed regulations and policy directives through the direct submission of written comments and through legal actions and settlements when necessary.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByPeri Jude Radecic
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/14/2018