RSA-227 for FY-2025: Submission #26

3. Describe training presented by the staff. Include the following information: 1. 2024 National Federation for the Blind Ohio Convention: DRO staff provided information to 45 conference attendees regarding DRO’s services, including current organizational goals and objectives with a focus on employment, assistive technology and access barriers.

2. 2025 Ohio CASA Advanced GAL Training: DRO provided information to 20 Ohio Guardians ad Litem as part of training to explore how to provide a culturally competent approach when working with different populations, including those who are deaf/hard of hearing and physically disabled.

3. 2025 OPD Youth Defense Leadership Summit: DRO staff provided training to 65 Ohio Public Defenders on the needs of/issues affecting students with disabilities in congregate care, including how to navigate processes in facilities and advocate for their client's educational requirements to be met/maintained throughout their incarceration.

4. 2025 University of Cincinnati Social Justice in the City class: DRO staff delivered a presentation to 25 college students working on public administration, city planning and similar degrees about accessibility needs, societal barriers to access for people with disabilities, and ideas for best practices for public officials and services.

5. Bhutanese Community of Central Ohio collaboration, trainings: DRO staff engaged with staff of this local organization via two webinars to learn about the community’s needs, collect data, and provide training to 15 staff and community members regarding DRO’s services and disability issues.

6. Delaware Transition Fair at Olentangy Berlin High: DRO staff provided a presentation to 65 attendees regarding the Ticket to Work program and Social Security Work Incentives and conducted outreach at vendor table, with the goal of ensuring that adults and transition age youth know about various options for postsecondary education and employment, particularly DRO's CAP and Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (VR agency).

7. Multiple Perspectives Conference Presentation: Two DRO advocates gave a 1.5 hour presentation to 20 participants at Ohio State University (OSU)'s Multiple Perspectives On Access, Inclusion, & Disability Conference. The topic was housing and the implications of the Olmstead decision for students who are pursuing Post-Secondary Education at OSU and receiving assistance from Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD).

8. Ohio F2F (Family to Family) Special Education Training: DRO staff presented a 1.5 hour webinar on 1. parent rights in special education; 2. the transfer of rights; and 3. advocacy tips and how to use parent rights in the special education process. Attendees were 50 parents and families who are part of the Ohio Family to Family program organized by University of Cincinnati Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCCEDD); the presentation was also recorded and placed on the UCCEDD website.

9. Ohio Olmstead Taskforce CAP Presentation: DRO CAP staff presented a virtual training to 16 members of the Olmstead Taskforce on how CAP supports people with disabilities in accessing vocational rehabilitation and independent living services. DRO advocate explained how CAP works, the rights it protects, and how it connects with the goals of the Olmstead decision—especially helping people live and work in the community. The presentation helped taskforce members see how CAP can be a valuable resource for individuals wanting to live and work independently in the community.

10. OOD CAP Training: DRO CAP staff provided a 47-minute online training session on CAP to 518 Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (OOD) staff and counselors from all regions across the state, to ensure that OOD workers throughout the state are aware of the availability of CAP services, as well as opportunities for the two organizations to collaborate. Powerpoint slides were made also available to all attendees after the training.

11. ProKids CASA/GAL training on special education: DRO senior attorney provided training to 26 court-appointed special advocates and guardians ad litem regarding special education rights and how they can better advocate for their clients, who are youth in the foster care system.

12. Reynoldsburg Bhutanese-Nepali Parent Group: DRO's CEO and Education Team Leader were invited by this central Ohio community group to speak to them about what DRO does. DRO representatives provided an overview of its P&A and CAP work, DRO's goals and objectives, and how we can help children with disabilities and their families, furthering awareness of DRO to this local community. In turn, the 35 parents and other family members of people with disabilities shared information about the needs of people with disabilities in their community. DRO is better informed on how to serve this community and is now providing more targeted education and outreach.

13. Summer Education/Employment Training Series: DRO's Education and Employment teams created a series of summer Zoom trainings on special education and employment rights, reaching approximately 125 people with disabilities and their families, on topics such as Transition to College, Title I accommodations, Extended School Year, advocacy tips, behavior, and discipline/preparing for a Manifestation Determination Review. Trainings were provided live and also were recorded and put on DRO website.

14. Toledo Law School Disability and Education Law Association Education Forum: DRO staff participated in a "speed-dating" style forum to educate 10 Toledo Law School students about the work of CAP, vocational rehabilitation services, and DRO's work.

15. Wayne County DD Transition Presentation: DRO staff presented a training on transition from school to post-secondary supports, VR support, and the DRO CAP program for members of the Wayne County Board of Developmental Disabilities. The presentation was delivered over Zoom to 2 live participants and recorded so an expected 20 additional individuals can watch.

16. Wood County CASA Special Education Training: DRO staff provided training to 38 court-appointed special advocates on special education law (IEPs, how to get evaluated) and how CASAs can provide advocacy to the vulnerable students in foster care that they work with.

2. Describe the agency's on-going and completed systemic litigation activities involving individual representation. DRO represented four clients in informal hearings with OOD this year. DRO appeared with one client at the informal hearing because the client had been denied her self-employment goal: being a photographer. OOD stated that the client had not completed the procedures necessary to be approved for self-employment, and it had concerns that the client had no means of transporting her photography equipment to photo shoots. The DRO advocate demonstrated that OOD had not followed all procedures required to assist the client in completing forms and procedures. The client withdrew her request for a formal hearing because she received a scholarship to attend a photography training class and planned to move forward with that.

Next, DRO appeared with the client at her informal hearing because she had been denied the purchase of self-employment equipment. The client is an artist who has sold art to hotel chains to decorate their rooms. The client was seeking to start her own business, selling her art, but needed assistive and computer equipment to make that happen. The client stated that OOD had delayed in providing her with equipment, which made it difficult if not impossible to make her art and get her business going. Unfortunately, the denial was upheld because OOD found that the client did not complete basics steps in her IPE, including getting a vendor’s license and filing taxes.

In another case, the client was seeking funding from OOD to purchase home exercise equipment to help him rehabilitate from injuries. The client maintained he could not work out at a nearby gym because it was not open in the evenings. DRO appeared with the client at the informal hearing to learn more about the denial of funds to purchase his exercise equipment. DRO and the client learned that OOD was willing to pay for the client’s gym membership at a nearby gym that was open 24/7 5 days per week. Also, OOD did not have enough information to establish that the client needed the equipment to achieve the job goal in his IPE. As a result, the denial was upheld; however, DRO advocates advised client on how to get medical documentation to support his need for equipment related to his job goal for future discussions with OOD.

Finally, DRO worked with a client who was needing OOD’s assisting with car repairs so she could get to work and school. OOD denied the repairs because it said the repairs needed, when combined with prior repairs, would have cost more than the car’s Kelley Bluebook value. DRO appeared with the client at the informal hearing because OOD’s interpretation of its rules allowed too long a “look back” period on repairs – repairs for regular maintenance done two years ago was counted toward the total cost. The denial was upheld; however, because OOD found that the client did not complete necessary warranty repairs and the client’s anticipated costs did not include estimates for all needed repairs.

DRO, along with other organizations, signed on to an amicus brief authored by The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Y.A. v. Hamtramck Public Schools in support of the plaintiffs-appellants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc to affirm the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In this case, a group of parents of children with disabilities sued their public school district and the Michigan Department of Education for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The State of Michigan moved to dismiss the parents’ claims against it before the federal district court, which denied the State’s motion. With respect to the parents’ ADA Title II claim, the district court held that the ADA abrogated states’ sovereign immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that states can be sued under Title II of the ADA. Michigan filed an interlocutory appeal with the Sixth Circuit, where the panel reversed the district court’s decision. Amici argue that the case should be reconsidered by the full Sixth Circuit because state education agencies do not have immunity from suits brought pursuant to Title II of the ADA, as a state’s obligations under the IDEA create a “service” or “program” under Title II, thereby triggering the state’s liability for ADA violations. As the amicus brief explained further, all other federal circuit courts of appeals that have considered this question have held that “Congress validly abrogated sovereign immunity for [ADA] Title II public education discrimination claims, consistently holding that the documented history of disability discrimination in educational settings provides sufficient constitutional foundation for congressional action under the Fourteenth Amendment.” The brief was filed this summer and we are waiting for the Court’s decision

Since 2023, DRO has participated in current litigation that a coalition of 100+ school districts filed against the Ohio EdChoice (Voucher) program, filed in a county common pleas court, through the submission of an Amicus brief addressing how the voucher program impacts students in poverty and with disabilities. This past fiscal year, the Court granted the Plaintiff's summary judgment motion with an order finding that the EdChoice voucher program is unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution. The defendants have appealed the decision. DRO and its fellow amici are currently drafting another amicus brief to be submitted to the court of appeals.

1. Provide a description of all CAP positions CAP FTE % Year Filled Person Years
Professional part time 0.1 29% 0.0
Professional full time 3.9 96% 3.7
Clerical part time 0.2 100% 0.2
Clerical full time 0.2 100% 0.2
Total 4.4 95% 4.2