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

Utah (DISABILITY LAW CENTER -- THE COMMUNITY LEGAL CENTER) - H240A180045 - FY2018

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 areas601
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas0
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)601

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff3
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)89

FY18 Week of Action Against School Pushout 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 21-29, 2017) 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. This year DSC members and allies will call on the federal government, states, districts and schools to: shift funding from school police to counselors, peace builders, and positive discipline; fund and use transformative and restorative justice, mediation, and positive interventions;stop arresting and pushing out students of color, LGBTQ youth, students that are homeless, and students with disabilities at higher rates; make sure states and districts focus on school climate under the new federal law -- the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); end paddling and physical punishment in all schools; invest in public education, not privatization and charter schools. The DLC helped raise awareness of these issues, especially the issue of students with disabilities being pushed out of school at higher rates. By participating in this effort, we raised awareness of DLC services and strengthened relationships with community partners. 2. Training at Education Primero support group on educational rights for students with disabilities, with a focus on Section 504 rights. A total of 14 parents were in attendance. 3. Educated 55 students and their parents at the combined Cache and Logan school districts transition fair about their rights and options available to them as they enter adult services, including advocacy services available at the Disability Law Center.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff19
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles83
3. PSAs/videos aired9
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website47,236
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated380
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

The Disability Law Center's email distribution list grew by 382 subscribers during FY18 to reach a total of 3,195 subscribers. We also maintained an active social media presence on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter with a combined total of 3189 followers. During FY18, we published 276 Facebook posts, making 134,799 impressions. We also published three press releases and held one press conference.

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)44
2. Additional individuals served during the year146
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)190
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)6

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 51

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility25
2. Employment118
3. Program access3
4. Housing1
5. Government benefits/services10
6. Transportation6
7. Education7
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting0
10. Health care8
11. Insurance1
12. Non-government services12
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse2
16. Neglect2
17. Other0

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor104
2. Other representation found0
3. Individual withdrew complaint26
4. Appeals unsuccessful0
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case2
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources1
8. Individual case lacks legal merit10
9. Other1

Please explain

Individual filed charge with Utah Anti-Discrimination and Labor Division alleging disability, race, and age discrimination. Age seemed to be the main issue. The DLC gave him information on ADA and how it relates to the charge he has filed w/ UALD, also provided list of other employment attorneys that may be able to help.

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-advocacy54
2. Short-term assistance60
3. Investigation/monitoring2
4. Negotiation11
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution5
6. Administrative hearings9
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 - 40
2. 5 - 227
3. 23 - 59135
4. 60 - 6422
5. 65 and over26

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females95
2. Males95

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race23
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native4
3. Asian3
4. Black or African American5
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander2
6. White132
7. Two or more races1
8. Race/ethnicity unknown19

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent170
2. Parental or other family home12
3. Community residential home1
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home5
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center1
9. Homeless1
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 impairment12
2. Deaf/hard of hearing5
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment117
5. Mental illness7
6. Substance abuse1
7. Mental retardation2
8. Learning disability2
9. Neurological impairment18
10. Respiratory impairment6
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment3
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment11
13. Speech impairment1
14. AIDS/HIV3
15. Traumatic brain injury2
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 activities3

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes75,000

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

1. Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) During FY 18, the DLC continued to engage in the transition process by attending meetings with the Department of Health, the Division of Services for People with Disabilities, and other stakeholders such as legislators. The DLC was also invited by the State to train state employees and providers on the Settings rule. Over the course of the year the State made significant progress in transition planning to ensure individuals in HCBS services are truly integrated as a result of several years of HCBS advocacy by the DLC. Due to our efforts to encourage the state to engage in more vigorous transition planning the state held numerous stakeholder meetings, focus groups, and public hearings. Additionally the state has worked over the last year to develop a plan to transition sheltered workshops to integrated employment. Because of our work and status as an expert on the settings rule the DLC has been integral part of the process and has supported the state in its efforts to change how nonresidential services are provided. 2. WINGS WINGS is a committee formed through a grant by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The committee continues to look at a number of options that will help strengthen the guardianship process and monitoring and support for guardians once they are appointed. During FY 18, the DLC contributed to the development of higher guardrails against full guardianship. This project is on-going. 3. Alternative District of Residency Under Utah State Code sec. 53G-6-302, and Utah Admin. Code R277-621, a student may have an alternative district of residency other than where their custodial parent resides, if they meed certain criteria. These criteria, in our view, tend to screen out children with disabilities from receiving educational services in an alternative district. We have had two clients denied an education in one particular district; however, their access was restored due to our advocacy and some guidance from Utah Sate Board of Education and the Utah Attorney General's Office. Unfortunately, that guidance, while helpful to our clients, still could lead to discrimination of children with disabilities and prevent them from receiving educational services in a district they need to reside to receive treatment. Specifically, we believe this has a chance of impacting children with mental illness, and it has impacted children with ID/DD. This project is on-going. Although we have received letters from USBE and the Utah AG for guidance due to our advocacy for two clients, we hope to modify the policy to avoid future confusion. 4. Salt Lake County Homeless Resource Centers & Operation Rio Grande During FY 18, the DLC actively participated in the design and operational stakeholder groups, and provide ongoing input and feedback to project and political leadership. This project will impact homeless individuals with disabilities. Specifically, we provided recommendations to the architects designing the city's three new homeless resource centers. To date, the design team appears to have already implemented a good number of our recommendations in plans for the facilities. 5. ADA Education and Reform Act The DLC provided information and feedback to Utah's congressional delegation concerning how HR 620 would undermines the fundamental goal of the ADA to provide equal access to private businesses and other places of public accommodation for Americans with disabilities. We submitted written comments, educated our community partners, members of the business community and the public at large about how HR 620 undermines the fundamental civil right of Americans with disabilities to equal access to the community.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts100
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.

We partnered with the ACLU of Utah as co-counsel to challenge Utah's status leaving it up to a judge to determine whether a proposed protected person needed counsel on due process/equal protection grounds. Our goal in this systemic litigation is to restore the right of proposed protected persons to counsel in guardianship proceedings.

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. 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 18, the DLC team will provide 1:1 advocacy to a total of 5 PAIR eligible individuals. By the end of FY 18, 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 FY18, 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 — 6 Short term Assistance — 3 Abuse and Neglect Investigations — 0 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 1 During FY 18, the DLC’s Abuse and Neglect Team launched a project aimed at investigating the conditions of confinement and other issues affecting deaf inmates in the Utah State Prisons system (Draper and Gunnison locations). DLC identified several impacted individuals and has worked to help them understand their rights and obtain accommodations and assistive technology (A.T). DLC has also worked with UDC and the US Department of Justice on systemic solutions to lack of A.T. and accommodations. As a result of our advocacy, the Utah Department of Corrections committed to installing videophones and other assistive technology in the new prison currently under construction. Individuals with disabilities will have access to videophones, face-to-face communication devices, identification vests or cards, and other assistive technology. Example2 The DLC received a complaint against a nursing home that takes power-chairs away from its patients as a way of discipline. Caller described many other issues, including patients not being properly taken care of, Medicaid approved equipment that hasn't been provided or has been withheld from patients (power-chair). He gave us a couple names in specific but said that they do not have a way of contacting us. Caller would like us to go to the facility and contact them in person. The DLC gathered the initial information and plans on opening an investigation into this matter. 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 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 18, the AR team will provide 1:1 AR-1 advocacy to 20 PAIR eligible individuals. By the end of FY 18, 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. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. Information and Referral — 43 Short Term Assistance — 31 Representations at Meetings — 8 Legal Clinics- 5 Litigation on behalf of clients - 0 5. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example 1 After meeting with several individuals from the blind community, it became clear that Utah Transit Authority (UTA)’s paratransit service may be violating the ADA. More specifically, UTA may not be provided service to all areas required, and they also may be failing to provide reasonable accommodations to certain individuals. We sent a demand letter to UTA, and we received a response. UTA denies allegations that they are violating the law in any way. They have offered to sit down with us to discuss the matter. After continuing to speak with members from the blind community, we determined that UTA had taken some steps to engage in a process to potentially accommodate some issues. In addition, UTA created a new form for requesting accommodations. Because of these changes, we agreed to meet with UTA, and will do so in early FY19 to get a better idea of their new policies and what can be done to better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Example2. A client with a neurological impairment sought an accommodation on a licensing test to become a barber/stylist. The DLC received the request just before the exam. A DLC attorney scheduled a clinic with the client’s mom, who we were given permission to speak with, and discussed the cosmetology school’s denial of ADA accommodations for the final practicum exam for her daughter. Fortunately, our client passed the exam without accommodations and therefore no further legal advocacy services were needed. Example3 Regional Access and Mobility Council The DLC continues to be a member of this Council, which works to retain and improve accessible transportation for underserved individuals with an emphasis on serving individuals with disabilities. FY 18 projects included: 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.) During FY 18, the DLC representative on the Council successfully advocated to increase the medical provider transportation rate for service providers and supported the Association of Governments in advocating for federal funding to be spent on rural needs. Example 4 During FY 18, members of the Access and Rights team participated in the Salt Lake County Homeless Resource Centers & Operation Rio Grande stakeholder group. Our goal was to ensure that Salt Lake County's homeless resource centers are designed to fully accommodate residents with a range of disabilities, and that the state maintains its commitment to fund and operationalize the treatment and housing components of Operation Rio Grande. The Access and Rights team members provided recommendations to the architects designing the city's three new homeless resource centers. To date, the design team appears to have already implemented a good number of our recommendations in plans for the facilities. 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 2018, 12 PAIR eligible clients will receive healthcare/assistive technology services that have been denied or reduced. By the end of FY 2018, 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. The Olmstead class action law suit is a collaboration with the law firm of Parsons & Behle and Latimer. 5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, class actions were. • Information and Referral — 13 • Short term assistance — 5 • Legal clinics- 0 • Representation at Meetings — 0 • Fair/Administrative hearings —2 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example 1. In January 2018, the team filed the Christensen, Weakly, & DLC v. Miner, et al. lawsuit challenging the State of Utah’s unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities, in violation of the ADA’s integration mandate. After agreeing to enter into settlement negotiations, the parties also agreed to a 6 month stay of the litigation in order to facilitate discussions. The State and the DLC retained a joint expert and held regular settlement meetings. The parties were able to resolve the substantive issues in the matter during the fourth quarter and expect to finalize a formal settlement agreement in the beginning of the next fiscal year. The team anticipates that the next fiscal year will be spent doing legislative work to ensure the successful implementation of the settlement agreement. During FY 18, we secured a private grant to work on this litigation project. PAIR funds may me used to fund this project in FY19. Example2. The CI team made significant impact through its work with the HCBS settings rule, which now has a delayed implementation date of 2022. As a result of DLC advocacy, both state agencies have begun to strive to implement the settings rule in earnest. In January, the Division of Services for People with Disabilities (DSPD) issued a new provider contract that eliminates sheltered work and creates new opportunities for community integration and integrated employment. Sheltered workshop providers mobilized family members against the provider contract and settings rule (and continue to do so). In response, DLC staff have met with stakeholders, provided feedback about ongoing strategy, and attended numerous stakeholder meetings hosted by Department of Health (DOH) and DSPD. The DLC was asked to train all DSPD staff on the settings rule and was also invited to train all DSPD providers at the annual provider conference. DLC staff has engaged in legislative advocacy by providing testimony and written feedback asserting the State’s obligations under Olmstead and Title II of the ADA to provide integrated services for people with disabilities. DOH and DSPD have since issued a joint plan to establish integrated non-residential options that seem to comply with the settings rule. The DLC has been asked to participate in a workgroup with DSPD and other stakeholders to change the person-centered planning process to help implement the Settings Rule and has also been asked to sit on a committee for the newly formed state Supported Employment Leadership Network. The DLC continues to monitor the ongoing implementation process and to advocate for full implementation of the rule. Example 3. Client, via his mother, reached out to us because he had been denied hospice services by his managed care organization (MCO), Select Health. The client is an individual with degenerative muscular atrophy, and his needs are medically complex. In order for him to remain in his home, he received hospice services because that was the only way for a pediatric patient to receive in home physician services, according to Select Health. However, hospice usually requires a terminal illness, and the client, while medically fragile, would not be terminal if he could receive these services. Without them, however, his prognosis would not be good, forcing him and his family into the difficult task of getting him to the hospital, as well has having him receive all his care there. This would also have potential to give him a terminal illness. Unfortunately, he had gone through the internal appeal with his MCO, and they were standing by the denial. The next step is the State Hearing process, and the client and his mother needed our assistance. After talking with the family, and doing some initial research, we attended the first prehearing conference on his behalf. We requested that the Managed Care Case Review Committee (MCCR Committee) review the case to determine how they would handle this if he was not on managed care, but rather receiving his services from the State on fee for service (FFS). The MCCR Committee determined that if he were an FFS client, they would recommend approving the hospice care. Select Health backed off their denial at this point, suggesting that they wanted to find the appropriate care for the client, as he does not use all the services provided by hospice. Select Health has agreed work internally to find appropriate physician services and nursing services to meet his needs outside of hospice. The family is satisfied that he will continue to receive services in the home. Example 4 This is a cross-collaboration between the CI and Fair Housing teams. A member of the CI team can also practice under the Fair Housing Grant. The client was residing at an Assisted Living Facility—she has multiple physical disabilities as well as mental health disabilities and Alzheimer’s. The client had a medication change and became increasingly agitated. She was accused of assaulting another patient during this time period; however, she has no history of physical aggression and the evidence is questionable as to whether such an assault occurred. The client was admitted for an inpatient stay at a psychiatric hospital—she was stabilized, and her medications were changed. The patient requested to return to her assisted living and was denied. The patient requested to return to her assisted living until she could find other housing and was denied. This resulted in the client losing her community housing in assisted living and having to move into an institution/nursing facility. The Fair Housing team began a testing investigation into possible fair housing violations based on disability and may file a complaint based on the outcome of the testing and the investigation of the client’s circumstances. The CI team also plans to file a complaint with state licensing about the wrongful discharge of the client. PAIR PRIORITY — Special Education — Access to free appropriate public education 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 18, 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 18, 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 18, 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 — 1 • Short term assistance — 2 • Representation at Meetings — 1 • Fair/Administrative hearings —0 • Legal clinics -2 • Litigation on behalf of clients —0 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example1. The parent of a PAIR eligible student contacted the DLC because the computer lab at his student’s high school is in a portable unit and it is not accessible. His daughter, who has physical and orthopedic impairments is routinely sent to the office while the other students have computer class. After extensive and unsuccessful negotiations with the high school and the district officials, a DLC attorney wrote a demand letter and sent it to the school district and their attorney. Within a couple of weeks, the district sent a response informing us that they will provide ramps. They provided a schedule to have the ramps completed by March 2019. They will also provide appropriate accommodations to our client and other students in the interim. Example 2 Utah Parent Center (UPC) Restraint and Seclusion Webinar On December 14, 2017 a DLC Education Attorney presented a webinar to parents on restraint and seclusion of students with disabilities. The presentation included information about alternatives to restraint and seclusion, school districts’ legal obligations, and what parents can do if their student is inappropriately restrained or secluded. The UPC requested this webinar from the DLC, and they organized and promoted it. Nineteen individuals attended the webinar. Example 3 Educacion Primero Presentation A DLC advocate attended a Spanish speaking Educacion Primero support group and provided training on educational rights for students with disabilities with a focus on Section 504 to 14 parents. Example4 Alternative District of Residency Under Utah State Code sec. 53G-6-302, and Utah Admin. Code R277-621, a student may have an alternative district of residency other than where their custodial parent resides, if they meet certain criteria. These criteria, in our view, tend to screen out children with disabilities from receiving educational services in an alternative district. We have had two clients denied an education in one district; however, their access was restored due to our advocacy and some guidance from USBE and the Utah Attorney General's Office. Unfortunately, that guidance, while helpful to our clients, still could lead to discrimination of children with disabilities and prevent them from receiving educational services in a district they need to reside to receive treatment. Specifically, we believe this has a chance of impacting children with mental illness, and it has impacted children with ID/DD. Although we have received letters from the Utah State Board of Education and the Utah AG for guidance due to our advocacy for two clients, we hope to modify the policy to avoid future confusion. This project is on-going. 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 focus1: 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 18, 80 PAIR eligible clients will receive 1:1 advocacy service 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 18, 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 18, 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. In FY18, the DLC’s Employment team provided assistance to eligible PAIR individuals who faced barriers in obtaining, regaining and/or maintaining employment. Services provided by the program included: education and training, outreach, short-term assistance, direct legal representation and systemic advocacy. We also sought out opportunities to provide information and training to members of unserved and underserved disability, ethnic, and rural populations. Though PAIR funds were preserved mostly for individual case work, we utilized other funding sources to reach the wide range of people with disabilities — including those with physical and mobile impairments that would otherwise meet PAIR eligibility criteria. We are confident that PAIR-eligible individuals received information about our services in relation to their rights in employment, including how to obtain reasonable accommodations needed to work and how to file complaints of disability-related discrimination. During FY18, we are pleased to report that PAIR funds were used to help 160 individuals with 1:1 advocacy services from our agency. The following PAIR-funded case work was performed in FY18: • Information and Referral — 36 • Short term assistance — 21 • Representation at Meetings —33 • Fair/Administrative hearings — 28 • Legal Clinics-40 • Litigation on behalf of clients — 2 (1 class action) 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example 1. Client is 37 years old and has orthopedic/physical impairment. Client worked for employer for approximately 4 months. The client made his disabilities known to his employer at the beginning of his employment and informed his manager that he would need to miss work frequently for flare-ups for his back condition, as well as regularly scheduled medical appointments at the VA hospital. Although the client submitted paperwork to request an accommodation for an adjustment to the company’s no-fault attendance policy (where each absence counts as an occurrence and can affect employment status, raises, promotions, etc. regardless of if absence is caused by a disability) as well as a special chair. The client received neither of these accommodations and later experienced a need for a leave of absence based on his disability. The employer ultimately terminated his employment for excessive absences. The DLC wrote a demand letter on the client’s behalf and informed the employer that we would file an EEOC charge if necessary. In exchange for a confidentiality agreement, the company agreed to speak with the employee’s former manager and human resources department regarding the requirements of the ADA, paid the client approximately two months’ wages, agreed to provide a neutral employment reference for the client, and changed the employee’s personnel file to reflect a voluntary separation instead of an involuntary termination. Example 2 Client is 49 years old and has a neurological disorder. Client worked for the State of Utah as a computer operator since 2008. She had a condition known as trigeminal myalgia, which caused her to often use FMLA leave to cope with nausea, light sensitivity, and dizziness. Her doctor also suggested that she request the ability to work from home, which she requested as a reasonable accommodation. The client was granted this reasonable accommodation and worked from home from 2012 to 2015, until she received a new supervisor. Despite requesting reasonable accommodations multiple more times in 2016 and 2017, the employer denied her request for accommodation and maintained that working from home was only available as a reward, 1 day per week, to employees. The employer terminated the client’s employment in late 2017 for being “disrespectful to coworkers and managers.” The DLC agreed to represent this client and write a demand letter to the employer. This was a challenging case, as the employee was alleged to have yelled at her managers and there were witness statements to support these accounts. However, the client was typically discussing her request for accommodation and need to work from home when she became overly passionate. The DLC was able to engage in productive discussions with opposing counsel regarding her requests for accommodation and that, while her alleged conduct may have escalated to arguably being inappropriate, she was objecting to perceived discrimination - a protected right under the ADA. While working with the DLC, the employee was able to find acceptable alternative employment and the DLC settled this matter for $7,000 (approx. 2.5 months’ pay). The client was thrilled with this result and has stated her intention to donate money to the DLC from her settlement. Example 3 Our client worked as a flagger for a construction company for approximately 5 months. The company had a practice of hiring employees during the busy season for construction and then laying them off each year. In December of 2017 our client tore her rotator cuff and fractured her collar bone. Our client made her supervisor, manager, and HR aware of her injury and requested assignments to work that did not require her to hold a sign all day long. The company accommodated this request for several days. Later in December 2017 our client realized that any work was causing her to aggravate her injury and requested information regarding long term disability benefits, as well as leave to recover from some necessary surgeries. The employee made several requests to the company’s HR manager for this paperwork and an explanation of her benefits, but her requests were ignored. When our client scheduled a meeting with HR to obtain the paperwork to request leave and short term and long-term disability benefits, the HR professional did not arrive for the meeting and said he was already on vacation. Our client subsequently received a phone call from her manager, informing her that HR had instructed them to terminate her employment. The DLC wrote a demand letter to the employer claiming wrongful termination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The company denied any discrimination, stating that our client was simply laid off in compliance with their typical procedures. With further discussion, however, the company’s attorney acknowledged that our client should have been provided with access to her short-term disability and long-term disability benefits. We worked with the company’s attorney and our client to apply for these benefits retroactively. The benefits were given to our client retroactively who received full payment for all her short-term disability benefits, backdated long term disability benefits, continuing long term disability benefits, as well as a modest amount of damages to cure the company’s failure to provide the client with a reasonable accommodation and wrongful termination. The client was thrilled with the outcome and has since been able to finally receive the surgeries for her rotator cuff and collar bone with time and money to properly recover from these procedures. Example4 D.O. v. O’Reilly Autoparts, Inc., Filed October 27, 2016 in federal district court This is an employment discrimination action under Title I of the ADA. In May of 2014, D.O. applied and interviewed for a Parts Specialist position with O’Reilly’s at the Hurricane, Utah store location. In his interviews, D.O. disclosed his injuries and his limitations and was hired. On February 24, 2016, D.O. was orally terminated, then, on February 26, he received a letter stating that his inability to perform repetitive motions or lifting more than 3 pounds created a hardship on O’Reilly, and that those actions were essential functions of his position. D.O. contacted the DLC which filed an ultimately unsuccessful EEOC complaint on his behalf. This law suit followed. On March 8, 2017 defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings; briefing and oral argument followed. On November 15, 2017, Judge Furse issued a Memorandum Decision and Order denying defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion. We are pleased to announce that this case has been settled! After concluding factual discovery, the parties agreed to meet with a professional mediator. During mediation the parties agreed to a confidential settlement which included payment to the client of $25,000 in damages. This is approximately 2 and ½ years wages for the client, based on his part time position. Despite being a seemingly modest amount for a settlement, this was a strong victory for this client whose case the DLC undertook based on its principle and knowing that the client might have trouble obtaining monetary damages for his injuries. While several of his underlying complaints were very strong, his probability of receiving significant damages were low given his failure to mitigate damages and some causation questions that would have proven extremely heated and difficult during trial. Example 5 Our client came to us after having been placed on several months of administrative leave as a result of complications related to her pregnancy. Although she had attempted to return to work more than once, her employer had refused to provide other accommodations she had suggested that would allow her to work. The only accommodation they were willing to provide was leave. After she exhausted her FMLA leave, she was granted 90 days of unpaid “ADA leave.” The 90-day period appeared to be a standing policy but could not be found in her employer’s leave policies nor does a specific 90-day period have any concrete basis in the ADA. As her 90 days were near expiring, our client was told that she would be terminated if she was unable to return to work at that time. Without other accommodations (and with her delivery date also approaching) our client knew that she would not be able to return to work and feared that her employment, including her health care coverage, would be lost. While on leave, our client was told that her employer would hold her employment but could not hold her specific position. This was supported by the ADA, but it was unfortunate that it was not communicated to our client until long after the fact. After meeting with the client, we were able to open a dialogue with her employer’s attorney. Our primary concern was extending the period of leave so the client could deliver her baby and recover before returning to work. After some negotiation, her employer agreed to extend her leave. Additionally, so long as there is a position open in her original unit, her employer has been amicable to placing her in that position again. Although that part is not certain at this point, the client was excited that her employment has been maintained and that she will be able to retain her income and insurance coverage. Our client will be returning to work at the beginning of September, and we remain hopeful that she will be able to return to her original position. And, if not, we have agreed with her employer that she will receive adequate training to allow her to meet the minimum requirements for a host of positions she can choose from. Our outreach and education efforts included the following: Cache/Logan Transition Fair The Employment team understands the importance of quality transition services to youth moving from high school to higher education and/or employment opportunities. In an effort to provide information to this key group, the DLC operated information tables and/or presented information to students, parents, and service providers at the Cache/Logan Transition Fair and provided information to 55 attendees of the event. Outreach to DSBVI DLC staff toured and met with students at the Division of Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired (DSBVI) to gain a better understanding of the employment barriers facing people with visual impairments and blindness. During this visit, we provided the staff and students with information about our services related to employment discrimination. EM - TA to professionals The DLC works closely with the Utah Work Incentive Planning Services (UWIPS) staff. We stay in frequent communication about emerging trends and individual case issues. We met six times during this fiscal year to discuss areas of collaboration and what makes for an appropriate referral to each agency. During FY18, we provided technical assistance to benefits planners with questions related to overpayments, employment discrimination, and problems with the Ticket to Work program. We also discussed staff shortage concerns and an ever-growing waitlist for beneficiaries needing benefits planning assistance. EM Spanish Presentation The DLC continues to make efforts to reach members of the Latino community, which is Utah’s largest minority group. In FY18, we began developing a comprehensive presentation on employment rights information to use at future Latino community outreach and education events. 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 — 613 • Short Term Assistance — 87 6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Example 1. The STAT team received a call from a PAIR eligible individual who was camping and was told by the host of the campground that he could not run his generator at night and that if he did, the campground host would call the police. Our caller needed the generator to use a concentrator that provides him oxygen for breathing. He goes to this same campground approximately 10 times per year and wished to keep going. Our STAT team consulted with the Access and Rights team and provided our caller with language and process to make a request for accommodation and tips for self-advocacy for if this issue arises again. Example 2 Our STAT team received a call form an individual who lost vision in one eye due to multiple sclerosis. She was on family medical leave but was moving to long-term disability. She works at a pharmaceutical company and writes reports and stated that if she could get to her job and be provided accommodations then she would gladly return to work. She called seeking questions on how going back to work could possibly affect her benefits. A STAT advocate gave her information about requesting reasonable accommodations at work. She was referred to Utah Work Incentive Planning Services for further assistance. Additionally, our STAT team sent her our Requesting Reasonable Accommodations in Employment Fact sheet via email.

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.

The Disability Law Center (DLC) developed a two-year advocacy goal plan (FY18-19), therefore our goals and priorities have not changed significantly for the current year. During FY 19, the DLC will conduct a statewide, comprehensive needs assessment process that will inform our FY 20-22 advocacy goal plan. 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 FY19, 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. 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: Employment rights trainings. The Employment team will provide education and training to consumers, service providers, and other employment-related agencies about the rights of people with disabilities in employment. 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 2018 Budget 2019 A. Sources of funds received and expended Federal Funds Received: $178,356.79 $141,800.00 Federal Funds Expended: $178,356.79 State Funds Received & expended All other funds received: 29,254.00 All other funds expended 29,254.00 Total funds received: $207,610.79 $141,800.00 Total funds expended: $207,610.79 - B. Budget for fiscal year covered by this report Actual 2018 Budget 2019 Wages & Salaries $143,553.00 $ 98,160.00 Fringe Benefits 30,866.00 24,040.00 Materials/Supplies 3,328.00 3,580.00 Postage 492.00 310.00 Telephone 1,282.00 750.00 Rent 6,135.00 3,770.00 Travel 6,120.00 3,110.00 Copying 1,211.00 1,370.00 Bonding/Insurance 516.00 430.00 Equipment rental/purchase 871.00 110.00 Legal Services 6,997.00 830.00 Indirect Cost - Miscellaneous 6,241.00 5,340.00 Total $207,612.00 $141,800.00 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 fourteen 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 ten and half years. Laura Henrie-Associate Legal Director: 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 Team, Education and Employment teams. Laura has worked for the DLC for twelve years. Evelyn Owen -Advocate: Serves primarily as a Short Term Assistance Advocate; also works on the Access and Rights Team and assists with agency outreach and education efforts. Evelyn has been with the DLC for 7 years. Aaron Kinikini-Legal Director: he provides legally based advocacy services to individuals who face discrimination in core areas—housing, employment, voting and transportation. Aaron supervises all legal work in our agency. Aaron has worked for the DLC for eight years. Vard McGuire - 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 six years. Nayeli Munoz-Receptionist: Answers all calls for Community Legal Center (CLC) (Disability Law Center, Legal Aid Society, and Utah Legal Services), checks voicemails for CLC, receive clients, staff and volunteers into the building, stamp and distribute all mail and packages, keeping building roster current, maintain security using video system, unlock front and back doors. Selva has worked for the DLC for four months. Viviana Cacere is the morning receptionist. She has been at the DLC for one months. Sheri Newton- Advocate: is responsible for directing the DLC’s PAVA program and coordinates rural outreach efforts for the DLC. She has worked for the DLC for nineteen 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 eleven years. Alberto Muller is the DLC's para-legal. He has worked at the DLC for two and half years. 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 FY18: Geena Arata, Law Clerk, was hired on August 20, 2018. Selva Bailey, STAT Advocate, was hired on August 3, 2015. Craig Blake, Attorney, hired on November 1, 2017. Katie Bushman, Attorney, was hired on November 16, 2015. Brian Bankhead, Law Clerk, was hired on February 26, 2018. Susana Canton, Support Staff, was hired on September 12, 2012. Katie Cox, Law Clerk, was hired on June 21, 2017. Nathaniel J. Crippes, Attorney, was hired on April 6, 2015. Amberly Datillo, Attorney, was hired on October 26, 2015. Mary Anne Davies, Attorney, was hired on December 15, 2014. Erin Hough, Advocate, was hired on March 11, 2013. Her last day was April 2, 2018. Timothy Hurty, Network Administrator, was hired on July 17, 2014. His last day was September 21, 2018. Nick Jackson, Attorney, was hired on February 3, 2014. Helena Jordan, Law Clerk, was hired on June 1, 2016. Ashley Magana, Advocate, hired on September 27, 2017. Michelle Marquis, Attorney, hired on April 3, 2018. Diana Mejia-Martinez, Receptionist, hired on April 7, 2017 and left the DLC on March 30, 2018. Eric Mitchell, Specal Projects, hired April 30, 2018. Katherine Panzer, Law Clerk, hired October 27, 2016 and lef the DLC on May 16, 2018. Kim Rehman, STAT advocate, hired July 20, 2018. Blanca Rios, Receptionist, hired September 25, 2017 and left the DLC on May 4, 2018. Madeline Sandt, Law Clerk, hired February 27, 2018. Sydney Sell, Law Clerk, hired May 24, 2017 and left the DLC on February 6, 2018. Jeffery Simcox, Attorney, was hired on December 14, 2015. Eliza Stauffer, Advocate, hired May 29, 2018. The FTEs in the PAIR program for FY18 were as follows: Professional Full-time 1.86 Professional Part-time 0.22 Clerical Full-time 0.26 Clerical Part-time 0.16 Total 2.50 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. 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. F. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program The DLC is the CAP Agency for Utah. We coordinate our programs through internal planning, needs assessment and public comment activities and by cooperating on specific projects as reflected in the annual objectives and priorities. PAIR funds are maximizing our efforts in several goals by allowing us to serve clients who would otherwise be ineligible for services.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByADINA ZAHRADNIKOVA
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/17/2018