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

Washington (Disability Rights Washington) - H240A180048 - FY2018

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

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

Part I. Non-Case Services

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

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas86
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas3
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)89

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff19
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)856

DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON TRAINS STUDENTS TO TEACH DISABILITY CURRICULUM

As an example of Disability Rights Washington’s training activities, DRW created the Portrait of the Whole Person Curriculum to educate youth in elementary schools about disability history and culture. DRW provided that training for a number of years. As a result of the training a student group supporting disability rights was created at a local middle school by students who had taken part in the training in elementary school. This fiscal year DRW trained students in this club to teach the Portrait of the Whole Person Curriculum. DRW trained the students and attended their presentation. DRW also provided guidance to the students who created the show materials. DRW then assisted the students in setting up the show and presenting to the parent and students at the show reception. At this point, the students can continue to teach the curriculum to elementary schools and to middle school students at their own school.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff125
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles446
3. PSAs/videos aired4
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website371,804
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated11,847
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

Disability Rights Washington worked on a number of issues including inadequate care at a state-run institution, decriminalizing disability, and the city of Seattle and Starbucks taking steps to eliminate access to straws. DRW worked with reporters to get extensive coverage of these issues affecting people with disabilities. The coverage of DRW's work on these issues resulted in a reach of 396,646,741 based on professional media software tracking.

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)5
2. Additional individuals served during the year468
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)473
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)162

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 13

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility17
2. Employment41
3. Program access35
4. Housing67
5. Government benefits/services50
6. Transportation11
7. Education12
8. Assistive technology15
9. Voting0
10. Health care181
11. Insurance4
12. Non-government services3
13. Privacy rights3
14. Access to records3
15. Abuse47
16. Neglect25
17. Other30

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor497
2. Other representation found0
3. Individual withdrew complaint14
4. Appeals unsuccessful0
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case1
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources33
8. Individual case lacks legal merit0
9. Other0

Please explain

Museum offers reasonable accommodation after Disability Rights Washington advocacy

Disability Rights Washington (DRW) represented a man who attended an event held by the Museum of History and Industry (MOHAI). The client had bought tickets to the event, only to learn later that it was not hearing accessible. He attempted to work with MOHAI to find a solution for the event, but MOHAI ultimately did not make the event accessible. There was another event the following month. The client attempted to work with MOHAI again to provide ideas to help make the second event accessible. MOHAI said that they would not be able to find a solution in time. The man wanted to attend the event, and asked for DRW’s assistance in getting MOHAI to ensure that their events are accessible for all.

DRW to MOHAI which confirmed that the event would not be accessible. MOHAI stated it would look for a solution, but they would not have a solution in place by the time of the event. After the conversation, DRW wrote a letter to MOHAI explaining the client’s right to an accessible event. Following DRW’s letter, the museum finally agreed to provide an assisted listening system to be available at the upcoming event and events going forward. 1 public place was made more accessible.

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-advocacy0
2. Short-term assistance520
3. Investigation/monitoring17
4. Negotiation0
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution7
6. Administrative hearings1
7. Litigation (including class actions)0
8. Systemic/policy activities0

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. 0 - 41
2. 5 - 226
3. 23 - 59382
4. 60 - 6452
5. 65 and over32

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females161
2. Males312

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race21
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native13
3. Asian9
4. Black or African American61
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander1
6. White281
7. Two or more races19
8. Race/ethnicity unknown67

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent169
2. Parental or other family home9
3. Community residential home13
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home3
6. Public institutional living arrangement4
7. Private institutional living arrangement2
8. Jail/prison/detention center239
9. Homeless11
10. Other living arrangements14
11. Living arrangements not known9

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

1. Blind/visual impairment23
2. Deaf/hard of hearing14
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment181
5. Mental illness41
6. Substance abuse3
7. Mental retardation1
8. Learning disability23
9. Neurological impairment57
10. Respiratory impairment14
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment22
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment60
13. Speech impairment2
14. AIDS/HIV1
15. Traumatic brain injury3
16. Other disability28

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities1

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes384,199

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.

Access to Catheters in DOC (200) (reported in Part V)

Abuse Response (119000) (reported in Part V)

Access to counsel in adminstrative hearings (77451+) (reported in Part V)

School disciple rules (187268)

Clark County Jail Advisory Commission (280)

The rights of every student with a disability in Washington protected through improved school discipline rules

The State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) proposed new rules regarding discipline, including corporal punishment, restraint, isolation, suspension, and expulsion. Disability Rights Washington (DRW) posted information on its website and social media platforms to inform people across the state of an opportunity to comment on these regulations and DRW submitted comments of its own to those proposed rules. DRW expressed concern about lowering the standard for using restraints, lack of protections for disparate use of suspension and expulsion on students of color and students with disabilities. OSPI decided to rewrite regulations and re-open for comment for a second round of rulemaking. The second round addressed several of DRW’s concerns including requiring reporting of classroom removal, clarifying that language access rights apply at all stages of disciplinary proceedings, limiting emergency expulsions to instances where the student’s behavior poses an imminent risk to students or staff, and requiring parental contact before an informal conference with principals when a student is facing long term suspension. In the second round, DRW joined a group of organizations signing on to a letter written by the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington chapter which commented on new regulations regarding administrative transfers of students, suspensions by other school districts, and culturally responsive discipline. When OSPI decided to push back the implementation date of new regulations beneficial to students due to negative feedback from superintendents, DRW signed onto another letter with ACLU-WA urging adoption of rules that would protect students from suspension and expulsion. OSPI decided to implement some of the rules this year. Now that all of the comment opportunities are closed and the regulations are moving forward, some of which have already been adopted, DRW closed the progress as a success that positively impacts 187,268 students with disabilities.

Jail asks Disability Rights Washington for help understanding needs of incarcerated with disabilities

Throughout 2018, Disability Rights Washington (DRW) Amplifying Voices of Inmates with Disabilities (AVID) program staff have been working with the Clark County Jail administration to address our concerns about the conditions of confinements for inmates with disabilities at the jail. In the spring of 2018, Clark County created a Corrections Facilities Advisory Commission (CFAC)--largely due to the efforts of the Jail's Chief--to examine whether and how a new jail should be built. DRW was appointed to this Commission and is actively involved in making recommendations that reflect our disability-rights perspective.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts395,253
2. Number of individuals named in class actions3

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.

Prison and Special Committment Center Access to VRS (60) (reproted in Part V)

Hooper v, City of Seattle Amicus (1,900)

Reynoldson v. Ciy of Seattle (Accessible Curb Ramps) (61,378) (reported in Part V)

Schley Amicus (900)

Yakima County Jail Conditions of Confinement (300)

Sports team and faciltiy accessibiltiy case (330,715) (reported in Part V)

Disability Rights Washington files two amicus briefs on Hooper v Seattle supporting class action to stop Seattle and the State actions that make mental health recovery and ending homelessness harder:

The City of Seattle and Washington State Department of Transportation have adopted policies and practices that unconstitutionally deprive homeless individuals of their property. The Americans Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal class action lawsuit to challenge the city’s practices of unreasonably removing, destroying, or disposing of private property without adequate notice or opportunities to recover personal belongings, but the district court denied class certification. If the court’s decision is not reversed, many individuals with disabilities will not have access to the legal system through a class action to challenge practices and policies that violate their rights. As a result, people will be at risk of suffering additional harm due to the loss of essential items that they need in order to gain housing, recovery, and employment. In support of petitioner's request for permission to appeal the District Court's denial of their class certification motion, Disability Rights Washington wrote and filed an amicus brief about the importance to people with significant mental illness that this court decision be reviewed by the Ninth Circuit. DRW’s brief was accepted by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit also accepted the request for an appeal. Disability Rights Washington then wrote and filed a second amicus brief, this time in support of the substance of the appeal, as opposed to the procedural question about whether the appeal should be heard at all, which was the focus of the earlier request. The Ninth Circuit also accepted this brief from DRW. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued its decision on the amicus brief. In fiscal year 2018, two amicus briefs were filed on an issue affecting an estimated 1900 people with significant mental illness who are homeless in the city of Seattle.

Washington Supreme Court relies on Disabiltiy Rights Washington argument

his systemic advocacy project was opened in order to collaborate with other legal services organizations to submit an amicus brief in a Washington State Supreme Court case regarding the Department of Corrections' process for alleging violations of a special sentancing araingement called Drug Offender Sentencing Alternatives (DOSA). The amicus was submitted and oral arguments were held in January 2018. In August 2018 the court issued a decision, upholding the lower court's determination that in a DOSA revocation proceeding where an infraction formed the basis for the DOSA treatment termination and revocation, the infraction itself had to be proved by the higher burden of proof. In coming to its determination, the court specifically cited an argument made by DRW in its amicus section. As a result of this project one amicus brief was signed onto or filed and as a result of the court's decision in the case, there has been one change in policy in relation to DOSA revocations aaffecting 900 people with disabilities.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

A3. Outcome Indicators:

a. People receiving technical assistance: 2

b. People receiving technical assistance to a third party: 1

c. People represented with alternative dispute resolution: 1

d. Systemic litigation cases: 2, impacting 60 people

A4. Collaboration involved? Yes, with co-counsel in systemic litigation cases

A5. Number of cases? 5

A6. Case summary: In Washington State, individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses may be indefinitely detained in treatment facility after they have served their criminal sentence. The state of Washington maintains a facility for this purpose on an otherwise uninhabited island that was previously used for a federal prison and then a state prison in the middle of the Puget Sound. Deaf people in this facility, the Special Commitment Center, had no way to call family, friends, attorneys, or anyone else as video relay was not provided. This was in part due to a lack of planning for this population, security needs of the facility, and the extremely remote location of the island as internet reception was very limited due to a lack of cell service and aging infrastructure in the cables running underwater form the mainland. Disability Rights Washington (DRW) advocated with the facility for several years and got the facility to upgrade its infrastructure sufficiently so that video relay was operable in FY 2017. This FY, FY 2018, DRW monitored the access to the video relay equipment installed as we suspected the location within the facility would result in limiting residents’ access. During this monitoring DRW met with facility staff, the Office of Deaf and Hard of Hearing staff, and the attorney for the facility regarding continued access issues. DRW recently received a report from a social worker with another resident who reported issues accessing the VRS as well. DRW has requested that the SCC move the VRS to the living units in order to provide more consistent access and SCC is assessing the cost of such a move. As a result of this ongoing advocacy during this fiscal year, three people with disabilities have had their rights enforced, retained, restored and/or expanded. This case remains ongoing.

Similarly, Deaf people in Washington’s prisons did not have access to call people. As it did with the Special Commitment Center above, DRW advocated with the state for years to get video relay set up in prisons. Despite saying they were interested in setting up video relay, the Department of Corrections (DOC) continually raised barriers to actually installing video relay. After many meetings, but very little progress, over a few years of collaboration, in FY 2017 DRW opened a case to build a systemic lawsuit in this area. DOC then finally started making significant progress. During this fiscal year, FY 2018, DRW monitor DOC’s implementation of video relay services. In March 2018, DRW attended a site visit with DOC and their technology staff, as well as their phone provider, to look at proposed locations for the video relay technology. In September 2018 video relay units were installed in four prisons: Monroe (where most inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing are housed), Shelton (the prison system’s receiving facility in which all people come upon entry to the state prison system before going to other prisons), and both women's prisons. The policies of these four facilities were changed to enforce the rights of Deaf people. Early next fiscal year, October 2018, these units are expected to be operational and accessible to inmates which will result in them having greater access to communication and have their rights enforced. Additional video relay units may be installed in other facilities in the future.

B1. Right to have full accessibility needs of participants met at public events, facilities, and in media

B2. Need: Equal access to and inclusion of people with disabilities in activities held in public spaces.

B3. Outcome Indicators:

a. People receiving technical assistance: 4

b. People receiving technical assistance to a third party: 3

c. People represented with alternative dispute resolution: 1

d. Systemic litigation: 1, changing the environment of 1 public venue, changing the policies of 1 sports team, impacting 258,000 people with disabilities

B4. Collaboration involved? Yes, co-counsel.

B5. Number of cases? 6

B6. Case summary: A major professional sports team’ programs and services and the public facility used for its home games were not fully accessible to people with physical and visual disabilities. Disability Rights Washington (DRW) opened this case after receiving a complaint from an attorney we have co-counseled with in accessibility cases in the past. The attorney reported that the team was not responsive to initial requests for information about accessibility problems in their services and at the sport facility. DRW conducted an initial investigation, then agreed to co-counsel to advocate for a resolution of the accessibility problems at the venue and in the team’s services. DRW and co-counsel conducted a site visit to take measurements and photographs of the venue and parking facility, and then proposed specific changes that would bring the stadium and parking facility in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and regulations. Proposed changes include modifying the placement and access to wheelchair-accessible seating, adding seating to certain sections, improving on-line access to ticket purchasing programs, making the ticketing kiosks fully accessible, bringing signage and parking spaces into compliance with ADA regulations, improving the accessibility of the team’s website, and other physical and program changes. The team agreed that its programs and facilities should be fully accessible, and hired a consultant to prepare a report describing accessibility problems and suggesting solutions. However, the team refused to share the report, and delayed responding to our written settlement proposal. After months of negotiation, the team retained outside counsel, who met with DRW and our co-counsel. The team agreed to create a detailed plan of correction and negotiation for a written settlement agreement, including their separate negotiation with the team’s "landlord," the public entity which owns and originally built the stadium, and is responsible for major renovations. DRW and co-counsel represented individual plaintiffs who have attended the team’s games. With co-counsel, we reviewed and negotiated revisions to a draft settlement agreement, which became a final written settlement this fiscal year, in November 2017, to ensure that the team’s programs and facilities are fully accessible and compliant with the ADA, the Washington Law Against Discrimination and all other applicable federal and state laws and regulations. One public place was made more accessible in multiple ways, and one sports team with over 2 million attendees each year, an estimated 12.9% or 330,715 of which have a disability, modified its practices relating to multiple features such as ticketing, lines, accommodations, movable seating, pricing, availability of seating at different level due to a lawsuit.

C1. Access to Public Transit

C2. Need: Readily available transportation to facilitate full community inclusion.

C3. Outcome Indicators:

a. People receiving technical assistance: 3

b. Resources developed: 1

c. Issues on which policy makers were educated: 1

C4. Collaboration involved? Yes, with two self-advocates.

C5. Number of cases: 4

C6. Case summary: The auditor of Washington State’s most populous county, King County, issued a report detailing problems with the county’s paratransit system. The county contract with its current paratransit providers was coming to a close so the county amended its request for proposals (RFP) for the new contact period. While the amended RFP included some improvements over the existing contract, it allowed for three tiers, the lowest of which would still allow for significant service delivery problems negatively impacting paratransit riders. Disability Rights Washington partnered with two self-advocates to write a report to educate policy makers, paratransit riders, and the general public about the policy implications of King County Metro's new paratransit contract. This report, "Fostering Independence and Community Integration" also featured vignettes from five transit riders detailing their experiences with paratransit to show how lax contract standards had affected them. 1 communication to people with disabilities explaining a policy initiative. 7 people with disabilities supported in expressing their own viewpoint on a policy related matter. The final RFP for the next contract period will be released in FY 2019, and DRW will continue to advocate and monitor county action to see if the final RFP and the ultimate contract(s) resulting form it benefit all people with disabilities who utilize paratransit across the county.

D1. ADA Curb Cut Compliance

D2. Need: Compliance with physical access requirements of the ADA

D3. Outcome Indicators:

d. People receiving technical assistance: 1

e. People receiving technical assistance to third parties: 1

f. Systemic litigation: 1

g. People benefiting from systemic litigation: 60,000

D4. Collaboration involved? Yes, with co-counsel

D5. Number of cases? 2

D6. Case summary: For decades, the city of Seattle failed to provide accessible curb ramps on sidewalks as required by the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. This resulted in tens of thousands of curbs that should have been accessible being inaccessible o people using mobility devices. Disability Rights Washington and its co-counsel surveyed many curbs and sent a demand letter to the city in a previous fiscal year. Disability Rights Washington and its co-counsel attempted to negotiate with the city prior to filing a lawsuit for two years. The city ultimately refused to come up with an adequate plan to fix the inaccessible curbs. Disability Rights Washington and its co-counsel filed a lawsuit and soon thereafter the city agreed to come up with a more acceptable solution. A settlement agreement was negotiated last fiscal year. This fiscal year, the federal court overseeing the case reviewed the settlement and approved it. The court approved Agreement lays out a plan for Seattle to fulfill the promise of the ADA by ensuring equal access to people with disabilities who live, work, or travel to Seattle. The City of Seattle must make widespread accessibility improvements by installing, repairing, and remediating Deficient Curb Ramps, beginning July 1, 2017, and continuing for the next 18 years. Specifically, the City must install or remediate 1250 ramps per year on average (the “Annual Commitment”). The Annual Commitment includes ramps built by third parties such as utilities, other public entities, and private developers. The city must also ensure that all new construction and alterations undertaken by the city, or by any third-party acting on the city’s authority or behalf, comply with federal and Washington state law, and requires the city to use its best efforts to ensure that all third-party construction, alteration, and development projects comply with state and federal law regarding the installation, repair, and remediation of curb ramps. The city must also maintain all accessible curb ramps over which it has responsibility, ownership, or control. The city will also maintain a system through which people with disabilities may submit requests for installation, remediation, and maintenance of accessible curb ramps, and subject to limited and specified exceptions, to use its best efforts to remediate or install each requested accessible curb ramp within 12 months of the request. Through the agreement adopted by the court this fiscal year, approximately 60,000 individuals with mobility disabilities in Seattle have had their rights enforced to access the pedestrian right of way throughout Seattle. Since the court issued its order approving this agreement, Disability Rights Washington has continued to enforce the agreement and monitor the implementation of the settlement.

E1. Olmstead: Right to Live in Community Compliance

E2. Need: Accessible and accommodating communities

E3. Outcome Indicators:

a. People receiving information and referral: 3

b. People receiving limited advocacy: 6

c. Written resources developed: 2

d. Trainings provided: 1

e. Other systemic advocacy projects: 2

f. Policy provisions modified or prevented to benefit people with disabilities: 1

g. People’s whose rights were enforced as a result of systemic advocacy: 11,200

E4. Collaboration involved? Yes, Developmental Disabilities Council, Community Residential Services Association, Arc of Washington State, Senior Citizens Foundation, Washington Area Agencies on Aging, AARP, People First, Self-Advocates in Leadership, DSHS

E5. Number of cases? 14

E6. Case summary:

Fighting efforts to actively exclude people with disabilities form certain communities

A couple communities in Washington have targeted adult family homes and other small house based care provision as undesirable and have attempted to restrict their placement in their communities and limit the ability of people who currently live in institutional settings form moving into their communities by using local and state legislative processes. DRW also worked very closely with other advocates and with the state Department of Social and Health Services in educate policy makers about the unconstitutionality and ableism built into these ugly efforts to exclude people with disabilities from living in real communities and not relegated to large institutions where they would be out of sight and out of mind. The work to successfully stop these efforts benefited the more than 11,200 people who rely on adult family homes services to live in the community of their choosing.

F1. Awareness of Disability Pride, Identity, History and Inclusion

F2. Need: Welcoming communities

F3. Outcome Indicators:

a) Number of views: 10,000+

b) People with disabilities who received advocacy skills training: 125

c) Self-advocacy materials published or revised: 50

F4. Collaboration involved?

F5. Number of cases? 50 blogs and several videos. Go to RootedinRights.org and to see all.

F6. Case summary: An example of our work on this priority is Rooted in Rights former Program Director Jordan Melograna’s participation in a webinar hosted by the Washington State Bar Association hosted which dealt with how to ethically represent client stories in a communications context. Jordan discussed ethically sound storytelling techniques for attorneys, program staff and communication professionals stressing how Rooted in Rights approaches disability rights storytelling by emphasizing authenticity and autonomy. The webinar was attended by approximately 125 people.

G1. Successful Transitions: Prisons, Jails and Treatment Facilities to Community

G2. Need: Adequate preparation and implementation of reentry plans

G3. Outcome Indicators:

a. People receiving information and referral: 2

b. People receiving technical assistance: 27

c. Issues on which policy makers were educated: 1

G4. Collaboration involved? Yes, 20 individuals in prison

G5. Number of cases? 1

G6. Case summary: Washington State does not have a parole system. This results in no mechanism available to review whether someone in prison should be released early. Washington State prisons, like all prison systems, is set up to protect public safety, not operate as a nursing home or residential care facility. However, with the aging prison population, and no means to show you are no longer a threat to others, people with disabilities and those who are older, especially older individuals who acquire disabilities in prison are left in prison far longer than needed and sometimes their entire lives. This project was opened to collaborate with individuals in prison and groups in prison, including the Concerned Lifers Organization and the Black Prisoner's Caucus at Monroe, to learn more about this issue form them and discuss how to educate policy makers around this issue which has come to be known as the need for “geriatric review” of people who have spent a long time in the prison system. Disability Rights Washington has met with stakeholders and staff in the Washington House and Senate and the Governor’s office, to learn about what aspects of this problem are important to them and explain how this issue affects people with disabilities in prison. As a result of this project, DRW collaborated with 20 people with disabilities on an advocacy objective. This project remains ongoing.

H1. Available and Affordable Housing Options for People with Disabilities

H2. Need: Affordable and available housing particularly in the large cities where housing costs are very high.

H3. Outcome Indicators:

a) Number of resources developed: 1

b) Website: 1,176 page views

c) Facebook: 230 likes, 9,467 people reached, 1,443 engagements, 6 comments, 194 shares

d) Twitter: 81 likes, 61 retweets

H4. Collaboration involved? No

H5. Number of cases? 1

H6. Case summary: Blogs are mentioned throughout this report and used to create awareness and inform self-advocacy efforts. We won’t print all here but the idea is to get people with disabilities sharing their lived experiences to help explain problems. Here’s an excerpt from one, “Homelessness is a Disability Justice Issue”, that related to this priority to provide a sense of kind of content we provide in a blog. “A few months after I left college, I found myself working for a short time at a men’s homeless shelter in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. I was a peer advocate, providing meals and conversation during late afternoon and overnight shifts throughout which I supported many residents who returned to the shelter at night inebriated and occasionally high on substances.”

“Given the shelter’s harm-reduction policy, this was a fairly common occurrence for which we were trained to accommodate residents. We only ever handed out punishments if the substances were found on the premises. It was not a treatment philosophy I had ever encountered before and the emphasis on acknowledging our residents’ humanity stuck with me. Long after I was forced to leave the job due to the same housing instability which these men experienced, I found myself wondering why such oppressed populations had never crossed my mind when considering issues of social justice. More importantly, why didn’t homelessness previously come to mind as a distinct disability issue?”

“Whether drawing from personal recollections or looking at recent research on the homeless, it is undeniable how central disability is to the lives of many homeless people. Whether it is Los Angeles homeless populations who deal with issues of substance abuse, the ubiquitous presence of those with psychiatric conditions in urban landscapes such as New York City, or those with visible disabilities such as wheelchair users in Santa Cruz, CA, disability is an integral part of the lives of many homeless people. To be clear, this is not to say that a majority of homeless people currently have a disability as, at least concerning issues of mental health, those with psychiatric disabilities are below 20% of the homeless population nationwide. However, with the overall increase of the homeless populations that has occurred over the past few decades - particularly those dealing with severe mental health issues -the need to address disability issues with the homeless is becoming more obvious.”

I1. Abuse and Neglect Response and Effectiveness

I2. Need: An abuse system that thoroughly investigates and responds to allegations of abuse and neglect in a timely and effective manner

I3. Outcome Indicators:

h. People receiving information and referral: 2

i. People receiving limited advocacy: 2

j. Written resources developed: 4

k. Trainings provided: 1

l. Other systemic advocacy projects: 2

m. Policy provisions modified or prevented to benefit people with disabilities: 2

n. People’s whose rights were enforced as a result of systemic advocacy: 5000

I4. Collaboration involved? Yes, Northwest Justice, DSHS, Columbia Legal Services, the Long-Term Care Ombuds, and PAS-Port

I5. Number of cases? 11

I6. Case summary:

Choice of individual provider limited by abuse registry:

In response to a report Disability Rights Washington (DRW) issued in 2012, the legislature convened a Joint Legislative and Executive Committee (JLEC) on Aging and Disability and in 2014 the Subcommittee on Abuse Response issued a report on needed reforms to the state’s abuse response system. DRW has worked ever since to inform policy makers of those recommendations and the need people with disabilities have to be safe from abuse. DRW participated again in 2018 as a member sitting on the JLEC. DRW and the Long-Term Care Ombuds are named as members on the committee and have participated for several years, including in the development of the JLEC reports and agenda. By sitting on the JLEC, DRW has access to important members of the Executive and Legislature, and as a result has been able to advocate for improvements. DRW continued to work with other stakeholders to obtain implementation of the recommendations and while most of the recommendations of the original report of the subcommittee have now been implemented, concerns that were identified with the abuse registry have not yet resulted in reform, and there are some additional concerns that have since arisen.

The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) which administers a registry of people who have been banned from serving as care providers informed DRW and other stakeholders that it would propose statutory language to address the ongoing problem of people not being able to use family members of fiends as care providers due to minor offenses in those individuals’ pasts that bar them for life from providing care. DSHS had said they would propose language in 2018 legislative session, but it did not do that. DRW and other stakeholders attended a conference call hosted by the DSHS after the session in which the department shared language for agency request legislation in 2019 that included abuse registry reform consistent with discussions with stakeholders in earlier meetings. DRW responded to a request for input in the conference call with written comments regarding the legislation DSHS intends to introduce in fiscal year 2019. DRW will work with stakeholders and advocates including Northwest Justice, DSHS, Columbia Legal Services, the Long-Term Care Ombuds, and PAS-Port to respond to legislator questions about the impact of DSHS’s language on the lives of people with disabilities looking for care providers.

J1. Improved Conditions in Residential Facilities

J2. Need: High quality care and conditions

J3. Outcome Indicators:

a. People receiving technical assistance: 5

b. Investigations of abuse and neglect: 1

c. Facilities monitored: 5, serving 385 people

J4. Collaboration involved? No

J5. Number of cases? 7

P6. Case summary: “My Son’s Disability Taught Me to Be Proud of My Own Disability”, a blog, written by Anna Zivarts, Program Director of Rooted in Rights, sharing her experience as a parent with a disability and of a child with disability modeling the need of other parents with disabilities to share their stories.

While many would jump to the conclusion that disabled parents aren’t equipped to raise children, there are so many benefits to growing up with a disabled parent.

Many families without any disabled family members tend to think of neuro-typical and able-bodied as the norm for parenting. “I believe we need to see more disabled parenting across the media landscape so it becomes part of the collective consciousness.“

Instead of taking away disabled parents’ rights, we need to make sure disabled parents have access to the resources they need to parent effectively.

Disabled parents have just as much to offer their children as non-disabled parents do, and we need to create societal support for accessibility and accommodations so that all parents have access to the necessary resources for their children.”

Q1. Self-Advocacy Support

Q2. Need: Responding to the expressed interest of PAIR eligible individuals to be supported in their own advocacy

Q3. Outcome Indicators:

e. People receiving technical assistance: 186

f. People receiving technical assistance to a third party: 27

g. People receiving technical assistance for a group: 2, impacting 285

h. Other systemic advocacy projects: 2

i. Trainings given: 3, impacting 25

Q4. Collaboration involved? Yes, Allies in Advocacy and Passport for Change

Q5. Number of cases? 193

Q6. Case summary: Disability Rights Washington (DRW) provided a training to a Narcolepsy Support group, including 6 individuals with disabilities and 3 community members who did not identify as having disabilities. The training provided information about DRW's services as well as strategies for requesting reasonable accommodations. DRW provided a ten copies of three different resources. The organizer reported via email that all individuals in attendance reported that the training was "extremely helpful." As a result of this training, 6 people with disabilities received a rights training, 9 people reported the training enhanced their knowledge and/or skill at the completion of the training, and 30 self-advocacy materials were distributed.

R1. Right to Financial Independence

R2. Need: Public awareness and self-advocacy support for helping people with disabilities achieve financial independence.

R3. Outcome Indicators: 1 video produced and we will report next year as work on the video happened in 2018 but it wasn’t launched until the new fiscal year.

R4. Collaboration involved? Yes. A number of people helped with producing the video.

R5. Number of cases? 1 video

R6. Case summary: In the video “Willing to Work?” Wilbert Johnson shares the doubts that he initially had, and how he overcame those apprehensions to reach his goals. Through this video, he encourages other people with disabilities to pursue fulfilling, fair employment (not just volunteer "work" because of having a disability). The landing page for the video shares resources for individuals with disabilities, employers, on applying for a job, career development programs, and employment rights.

S1. Right to be Rescued in an Emergency

S2. Need: Public awareness and self-advocacy support for ensuring communities are prepared to assist people with disabilities in emergencies.

S3. Outcome Indicators:

a) Video produced: 1

b) Website: 615 page views

c) Facebook: 51 likes, 3,783 people reached, 361 engagements, 3 comments, 37 shares

d) Twitter: 5 likes, 7 retweets, 1 comment

S4. Collaboration involved? Yes. There was collaboration with the individuals involved in producing the video.

S5. Number of cases? 1

S6. Case summary: DRW’s Rooted in Rights Program focus with this priority related to emergency preparedness was to develop a video, “A Disaster Waiting to Happen”, and use it on our website and in social media to draw attention to resources for use by self-advocates to advance their right to be rescued in an emergency situation. So in addition to addressing this priority it also contributed to the Self-Advocacy Support priority.

In the video the storyteller, Paul Tshuma, talks about how architects, building managers, and emergency planners can work together with people with disabilities to create safety solutions that work for all people. Many buildings and emergency plans do not prioritize the needs of people with disabilities, specifically people with limited mobility. By sharing his personal experience with inaccessible emergency exits, Paul hopes to encourage leaders in building design/management and emergency planning to involve people with disabilities in their plans.

The landing page where “A Disaster Waiting to Happen” lives a number of informational guides are linked. They include:

1. Emergency Preparedness (Disability Alliance BC)

2. Planning for safety: Evacuating people who need assistance in an emergency (Government of Canada)

3. An ADA Guide for Local Governments: Making Community Emergency Preparedness and Response Programs Accessible to People with Disabilities (ADA.gov)

4. Active Shooter Awareness Guide (Cal OES)

In addition a number of other related resources are linked. They include:

1. “The Right to be Rescued” a documentary produced by DRW.

2. Why Involving Disabled People in Disaster Planning Saves Lives

3. Ensuring Disabled People Return to Community Living After Natural Disasters

4. In Case of Emergency, What Happens to Disabled Students?

Here is the landing page for the video and resources linked: https://www.rootedinrights.org/videos/storytellers-series/a-disaster-waiting-to-happen/

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year

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

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

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

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

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

B1. Right to Have Full Accessibility Needs of Participants Met at Public Events, in Public Spaces, and in Media

B2. Need: Equal access to and inclusion of people with disabilities in activities held in public spaces.

B3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; and video production.

C1. ADA Curb Cut Compliance

C2. Need: Compliance with physical access requirements of the ADA

C3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; and outreach.

D1. Access to Public Transit

D2. Need: Readily available transportation to facilitate full community inclusion.

D3. Activity Types: Systemic litigation; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; public awareness; video production; and resource development.

E1. Physical and Programmatic Accessibility in Prisons, Jails, and the Special Commitment Center

E2. Need: The ability to fully participate in programs that could help in reducing time served and preparing for reentry.

E3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; investigations; monitoring; and other systemic advocacy.

F1. Medicaid Waiver Participant Rights

F2. Need: Accessible and accommodating communities

F3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; and video production.

G1. Successful Transitions: Prisons, Jails and Treatment Facilities to Community

G2. Need: Adequate preparation and implementation of reentry plans

G3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; investigations; monitoring; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; and video production.

H1. Awareness of Disability Pride, Identity, History and Inclusion

H2. Need: Welcoming communities

H3. Activity Types: Public awareness; video production; and resource development.

I1. Available and Affordable Housing Options for People with Disabilities

I2. Need: Affordable and available housing particularly in the large cities where housing costs are very high.

I3. Activity Types: Educating policy makers; training; and public awareness.

J1. Accessible Digital Spaces

J2. Need: Improved awareness of how to make digital spaces more accessible using the latest of means.

J3. Activities: Storytelling campaign

K1. Prevent Discriminatory Suspension and Expulsion of Students with Disabilities

K2. Need: Stop the disproportionately high number suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities and replace that with appropriate programs.

K3. Activities: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; monitoring; educating policy makers; and other systemic activities.

L1. Improving Effectiveness of Abuse and Neglect Response Systems

L2. Need: An abuse system that thoroughly investigates and responds to allegations of abuse and neglect in a timely and effective manner

L3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; individual advocacy; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; educating policy makers; and other systemic advocacy.

M1. Improving Conditions in Residential Facilities

M2. Need: High quality care and conditions

M3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; training; public awareness; and video production.

N1. Improved conditions in Juvenile Detention Facilities, Jails, Prisons, and the Special Commitment Center

N2. Need: High quality care and conditions

N3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; investigations; monitoring; systemic litigation; other systemic advocacy; outreach; training; public awareness; and video production.

O1. Improving Health Care, Gender Affirming Services, and Safety for Transgender People with Disabilities in Prisons, Jail, and the Special Commitment Center

O2. Need: Appropriate supports, services and treatment for transgender people with disabilities in prisons, jails and the Special Commitment Center

O3. Activity Types: Technical assistance services; individual advocacy; investigations of abuse or neglect; monitoring; other systemic advocacy; RiR storytelling campaign; video production; and resource development

P1. Improving Access to Services by Traumatic Brain Injuries

P2. Need: Addressing the gaps that exist in services for people with traumatic brain injuries.

P3. Activity Types: Technical assistance and educating policy makers.

Q1. Quality, available advocacy

Q2. Need: Quality of advocates serving people with disabilities on matters related to their disabilities

Q3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; and training.

R1. Decriminalization of Disability

R2. Need: An end to practices, policies and laws that criminalize disability and enhanced training or first responders to improve their interactions with people with disabilities.

R3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy makers; other systemic advocacy; and training.

S1. P&A Access Authority

S2. Need: Access to federally mandated protection and advocacy services

S3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; systemic litigation; and other systemic advocacy.

T1. Right to be a Parent

T2. Need: An end of assumption that people with disabilities cannot make good parents and beginning of providing supports and services when needed.

T3. Activity Types: Technical assistance services; individual advocacy; other systemic advocacy; RiR storytelling campaign; video production; and resource development

U1. Self-Advocacy Support

U2. Need: Responding to the expressed interest of PAIR eligible individuals to be supported in their own advocacy

U3. Activity Types: Technical assistance; educating policy; other systemic advocacy; training; public awareness; and video production.

V1. Right to Financial Independence

V2. Need: Public awareness and self-advocacy support for helping people with disabilities achieve financial independence.

V3. Activity Types: Public awareness; video production; and resource development.

W1. Right to be Rescued in an Emergency

W2. Need: Public awareness and self-advocacy support for ensuring communities are prepared to assist people with disabilities in emergencies.

W3. Activity Types: Public awareness; video production; and resource development.

X1. Rights of People with Invisible Disabilities

X2. Need: Public awareness and self-advocacy support for making known that just because a disability can’t be seen doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

X3. Activity Types: Public awareness; video production; and resource development.

Y1. Improved Access to Political Party Activities

Y2. Need: The need to end of the practice of political parties holding activities such as caucuses in inaccessible locations and not providing accommodations such as ASL interpreters

Y3. Activity Type: Educating Policy Makers

Z1. Ensuring Disabled People are the Decision-makers and Experts about their own lives.

Z2. Need: An end to assumptions based on stereotypes that disabled people can’t make their own decision.

Z3. Activity Type: Rooted in Rights storytelling campaign

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

FY2018 Award329,985

Actual FY2018Budget FY2019
A Sources of funds received and expended:
Federal (Section 509)329,985332,531
State
Program Income
Private2,1710
All other funds
Total (from all sources)332,156332,531
B.Expenditures

WAGES 186,973187,184
FRINGE BENEFITS 64,99265,066
Contractual Services - Operational 9,9489,959
Contractual Services - Program 15,56215,579
Staff Development w/ travel 2,7332,736
Staff Program Travel 6,1076,114
Board and Advisory Councils 3,2323,236
Communications 3,7693,774
Office Rent 18,36018,380
Postage 782783
Insurance 2,2122,214
Printing 1,3411,342
Publications and Dues 5,1895,195
Rental & Repair 1,3571,359
Fixed Assets and Software 6,0816,088
Office Supplies 2,0262,028
Miscellaneous 1,4931,494
Total EXPENDITURES332,156332,531
C Descrition of PAIR Staff
Type of PositionFTE% of year filledPerson Years
Professional
Full time 2.690100% 2.690
Part Time 0.043100% 0.043
Vacant 0.250 0.250
Support
Full time 0.624 1.000 0.624
Sudents
Part Time 0.420 0.200 0.420

D, Disability Rights Washington operates an advisory council for our PAIR and PADD funded activities. That council meets four times a year and particpates in our prioritty setting process. A majoirty of this council's membership consists of people who are either PAIR or PADD eligible. The council has two representatives on our Joint Planning and Evaluation Committee (JPEC) which guides are priority setting process and the full council makes formal recommedations to the DRW Board of Directors for consideration for the coming year priorities. At least one council member, the chair, is a full member of the Board of Directors and typically there is more than one. Current two members of this council service on the Board.

E. DRW had less than a half dozen grievances from PAIR eligible individuals and all were from inmates with disabilities. The Board has not found any circumstances or decisions by DRW staff thate were inconsistent with our policies.

F. DRW is familiar with the CAP program and its services and our intake staff make referrals to the CAP program when appropriate. Overlap between the two programs is limited as we try to limit duplication of services and the CAP is not involved in systemic advocacy. As far as the Long Term Care Ombuds, we have an active ongoing partnership which includes joint trainings, co-participation on an OVW grant and joint efforts on a systemic issues where our priorites and their's intersect. Most recently we have had training together on trauma informed advocacy.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByMark G. Stroh
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/26/2018