Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Go to
www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
| (i) Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 10 above (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
|
Total |
||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grant.") .. | 20,524,447 | 21,458,689 | 21,865,256 | 23,599,108 | 24,960,458 | 112,407,958 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf.... | 0 | |||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | 0 | |||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 20,524,447 | 21,458,689 | 21,865,256 | 23,599,108 | 24,960,458 | 112,407,958 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 0 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 112,407,958 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 20,524,447 | 21,458,689 | 21,865,256 | 23,599,108 | 24,960,458 | 112,407,958 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 51,390 | 41,110 | 58,642 | 47,901 | 94,818 | 293,861 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 0 | |||||
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10 | 112,701,819 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513 ..... | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5 | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2015 | (b) 2016 | (c) 2017 | (d) 2018 | (e) 2019 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e |
Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): |
|||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2019 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Distributable amount for 2019 from Section C, line 6 | ||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2019 (reasonable cause required-- explain in Part VI). See instructions. |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2019: | ||||
| a From 2014....... | ||||
| b From 2015....... | ||||
| c From 2016....... | ||||
| d From 2017....... | ||||
| e From 2018....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2014 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2019 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2019 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2019, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2019. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. If the amount is greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions. |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2020. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a Excess from 2015..... | ||||
| b Excess from 2016..... | ||||
| c Excess from 2017..... | ||||
| d Excess from 2018..... | ||||
| e Excess from 2019..... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | 17005038 |
| Software Version: | 2017v2.2 |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Form 990, Part III, Line 4d: Other Program Services Description | OTHER PROGRAM SERVICES 4: OTHER PROGRAM SERVICES TO PROMOTE THE RIGHTS OF, AND ADVOCACY FOR, PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. OTHER PROGRAMS INCLUDE: PROTECTION & ADVOCACY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR BENEFICIARIES OF SOCIAL SECURITY, PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR VOTING ACCESS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES TRUST FUND PROGRAM - IOLTA TRUST FUND AND THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL SERVICES TRUST FUND PROGRAM - EQUAL ACCESS, US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, AND STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA BANK HOUSING, WORK INCENTIVES PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 11b: Form 990 Review Process | The Form 990 draft is presented to the Finance Committee for review and to the full Board for review and approval prior to filing. Auditors, the Executive Director, and the Finance Director or designee are available to answer questions. Form 990 review materials are provided. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 12c: Explanation of Monitoring and Enforcement of Conflicts | CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, QUESTIONNAIRE AND STATEMENT ARE COMPLETED BY EACH BOARD MEMBER ANNUALLY, AND REVIEWED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTORS, PROGRAM DIRECTORS, MANAGING ATTORNEYS, OFFICE MANAGERS AND OTHER STAFF AS DETERMINED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALSO ANNUALLY AND AS DETERMINED NECESSARY COMPLETE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM. A VENDOR LIST OF MAJOR PURCHASES/SERVICES IS PROVIDED TO STAFF. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 15b: Compensation Review and Approval Process for Officers and Key Employees | The Board of Directors annually evaluates the Executive Director. The Board reviews external market comparability data, job performance, and job duties to determine appropriate compensation. Other Officers and Key Employee salaries are based on a Board approved competitive salary scale. Each position in the organization is placed on the salary scale which is based upon external market rates, job duties, and internal comparability. The scale is evaluated for market comparability and cost of living adjustments on a scheduled basis. Annual salary increases for staff are per the salary scale and based on the employees annual evaluation. |
| Form 990, Part VI, Line 19: Other Organization Documents Publicly Available | AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. |
| Other Changes In Net Assets Or Fund Balances - Other Decreases | UBIT - TRANSPORTATION FRINGE = -$94408 |
| About Us | Disability Rights California (DRC) advocates, educates, investigates, and litigates to advance the rights, dignity, equal opportunities, and choices for all people with disabilities. We use all of our advocacy tools to ensure that all people with disabilities enjoy the power of equal rights and opportunities; freedom from abuse, neglect, and discrimination; dignity; and respect for their choices based on their own goals and values. As the federally mandated protection and advocacy system, we protect rights and access to services by filing lawsuits, representing clients at hearings, and advocating for policy changes. We conduct investigations and monitor service delivery to prevent abuse and neglect, and empower communities by providing culturally appropriate and accessible publications while promoting self-advocacy.We have more than 27 offices statewide and employ a diverse staff of over 250 dedicated, creative, and passionate attorneys, advocates, and support staff. More than 37% of our staff identify as having a disability, 61% of staff are from ethnic communities, and 12% identify as LGBTQ. |
| Individual Advocacy | Individuals with Intellectual or Developmental DisabilitiesWe provide advocacy to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities through our Office of Clients Rights Advocacy (OCRA) and staff in our Legal Advocacy Unit funded by the federal Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities (PADD grant) OCRA is funded through a contract with the Department of Developmental Disabilities and provides advocacy services to people with developmental disabilities who are consumers of the 21 regional centers. In 2018, OCRA resolved 10,190 issues for people with developmental disabilities.For example, OCRA helped Greg, who lives in a developmental center. He is working hard to meet his goals so he can transition to a less restrictive setting. Over the holiday season, Gregs brother passed away unexpectedly. Greg had great respect for his brother who was a Marine Corps veteran. It was very important to Greg and his mother that he get permission to go home and attend his brothers memorial services. Greg and his mother struggled to get staff at the developmental center to respond to their requests for Greg to attend the service. OCRA helped connect with the developmental center and the regional center to ensure Greg attended his brothers funeral services alongside his family. Greg found peace and closure after losing hisbeloved brother.OCRA also helped Haliah and her family who are refugees from the Middle East. As monolingual Dari speakers, they struggled to access any public benefit or service. Haliah has Down syndrome and her parents made multiple attempts to get a regional center eligibility evaluation. However, they never received a call back from the regional center. OCRA contacted the local regional center and requested Haliah be assessed for eligibility. The regional center contacted the family the next day and scheduled an intake visit for thefollowing week. OCRA also assisted DShaun, a first-grader placed in a classroom for children with severe autism. Most of his peers still needed support to pair socks and recognize colors. However, DShaun could read, add, and subtract nearly at grade level. DShauns mother had repeatedly asked that he be moved into a less restrictive setting. Her requests were ignored for most of the school year. OCRA attended DShauns next IEP meeting. OCRA assisted DShauns mother with compiling and presenting work samples to show DShauns readiness for a less restrictive placement. The district agreed to move DShaun into a less restrictive classroom setting and also developed a transition plan to support DShaun with the change. Our Legal Advocacy Unit, with the support of the Protection & Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities (PADD) grant, served 1,352 individuals with disabilities in fiscal year 2018 and impacted more than 600,000 people through systemic work which is discussed above.DRC helped Alvin, a 13-year-old Hispanic student who had undergone several facial surgeries in his young life to correct his congenital genetic condition. Because of his appearance, he is often the target of bullying. He has several disciplinary referrals in his record for fighting and other physical altercations with bullies. After one of these fights in the fall of 2017, the school district recommended Alvin for expulsion, and referred him the districts alternative school. Alvins father did not fully understand his rights, and consented to the alternative placement. He felt pressured to consent and was not aware of his sons right to an expulsion hearing. The family called DRC for assistance. After reviewing records and speaking to the family, DRC contacted the school district and its counsel to resolve the matter. The parties agreed to enter settlement negotiations, and quickly reached an agreement where Alvin could immediately return to school. The district has agreed to conduct a professional development training for its entire staff on how to identify and address bullying.Individuals with Mental Health DisabilitiesWe assist individuals with mental health disabilities through our Legal Advocacy and Peer Self Advocacy Units with the support of the federal Protection & Advocacy for individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) grant and our California Office of Patients Rights funded through a contract with the Department of State Hospitals. With the support of the Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) grant, DRCs Legal Advocacy Unit provided direct services to 780 individuals while approximately 591,990 others were impacted by our systemic advocacy.For example, we assisted Leslie after she was denied Full Service Partnership (FSP) services by her Countys Behavioral Health program. FSP services are intended to provide whatever it takes services to help clients with serious mental health disabilities and at risk of homelessness, hospitalization or criminal justice involvement, live in the community. DRC staff met Leslie and other witnesses, including people who know Leslie, and reviewed Leslies mental health records that documented her long history of psychiatric hospitalization and unstable housing. DRC attorneys filed a grievance and met with County Behavioral Health staff to present Leslies case. Her eligibility for FSP services was granted and Leslie was admitted into the program and assigned a case manager.Our Peer and Self-Advocacy work supports clients in community facilities like Steve, a member of a peer-self advocacy group that discusses work incentives, rights in higher education and employment, and Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) services. Steve was attending the meetings and wanted to begin utilizing DOR services to become a security guard. He learned about community services and how to advocate for his rights. The self-advocacy skills he acquired from participating in the group gave him confidence to advocate for DOR services. Knowing that a strong support system was important to help him in his self-advocacy efforts, he mentioned he had the encouragement of his parents and peers who helped him access services. Steve described many of the DOR services he received such as assistance with transportation to and from work, practice with interviews, and help writing a resume. The self-advocacy group and DOR helped him better understand work incentives and how they would benefit him. Hoping more people learn about these services and their benefits, Steve plans to inform and encourage others to advocate for themselves. Steve wants other people to know their mental health disabilities do not have to limit their endeavors. With the support of California Office of Patients Rights (COPR) funded by the Department of State Hospitals, we provided assistance on 10,117 resident inquiries. Our patients rights advocates provide services to individuals with psychiatric disabilities at each of the five state psychiatric hospitals. COPR staff reviews and helps resolve patient complaints and ensure that their rights during involuntary medication review hearings are protected. At one of the state hospitals, a resident did not take his medications for 5 days because he didnt like the side effects and wanted to find a better medication. The treating doctor filed for an Involuntary Medication Hearing stating the resident had been non-compliant with medications and lacked insight into his mental illness. The notice also said that he has delusional beliefs and because of this, did not understand the risks and benefits of treatment. The COPR advocate worked to prepare the resident for the hearing. The resident was able to explain that his side effects included visible tremors, excessive thirst, unclear thinking and upset stomach. He also explained his diagnosis and symptoms when not on the medications, knows he needs the medications or the symptoms will come back, and is willing to meet with his doctor to change his medications if needed. The Hearing Panel unanimously decided the patient did not lack capacity and did not issue the involuntary medication order. The resident was so happy and told the advocate that he couldnt wait to tell his mom that he is making good decisions and won his hearing.Individual Advocacy for Individuals with Physical Learning or Sensory DisabilitiesWith the support of the Protection & Advocacy for Individuals Rights (PAIR) grant, DRC provided direct services to 1,626 individuals while 1,709,247 others were impacted by our systemic advocacy.DRC assisted Stacy, who has lived in her downstairs unit in Oakland for 10 years. One of the reasons she chose this particular unit is because Stacy has a physical disability that makes walking very difficult. When her disability became worse, the previous owner of the property installed a ramp to her backdoor so that she could easily access the street with her walker. When the property was purchased by a new owner, the new owner took away the gate that provided access to the back street for Stacy and put up a solid fence. The only other |
| Systemic Advocacy Work | Our systemic advocacy work advanced the civil rights of Californians with disabilities in critical areas to end discrimination and stop abuse and neglect, increase access to housing, healthcare, education, mental health services, and other benefits. Our most significant work this year included efforts to end abuse and protect rights in facilities and jails; ensure rights for youth in educational settings and immigration facilities; reduce discriminatory practices aimed at people experiencing homelessness; advocate for residents at risk of homelessness and institutionalization; and help individuals who are blind and visually impaired obtain access to information. Stopping Abuse and Neglect Matter Where It OccursOne of our initiatives is to stop abuse and neglect of people with disabilities who are in jails. Sadly, in many counties in California, significant numbers of people with mental health and other disabilities are housed in jails and too often receive inadequate mental health and health care. For example, DRC launched an investigation into the high rate of reported suicides at the San Diego County Jail, the highest in any California jail system over several years with more than 30 suicide deaths since 2010. The inmate suicide rate has been many times higher than the rate in similarly sized county jails in California, the State prison system, and jails nationally. DRC hired two prominent correctional suicide prevention experts to review records from the seventeen (17) suicides that occurred from 2014-2016. The experts prepared their own expert report, including forty-six (46) recommendations that were issued with our April 2018 report. DRC called for the creation of a new independent oversight entity to review such incidents and ensure accountability. Our report brought significant local attention to the conditions at the jail and how those conditions harm people with mental health needs. The local media continues to aggressively cover issues we raised in our report. Many deficiencies we found persist there were at least 4 suicides at the jail in 2018. It is a system DRC continues to monitor and advocate for meaningful reform.Our staff also represents five prisoners with disabilities through a class action lawsuit against Santa Barbara County Jail, claiming conditions do not meet minimum standards under federal law and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lead plaintiff, Mr. Murray, is a U.S. Army veteran who requested, but received no meaningful treatment to help him manage his post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Franco, another class member, was denied prescribed psychiatric medications that he had taken prior to his arrest. Despite jail staff documenting his reports of an exacerbation of his mental health disability, his condition worsened and a few days later, Mr. Franco attempted suicide by cutting his wrist. The inmates are seeking an order from the court requiring Santa Barbara County officials to improve jail conditions to comply with constitutional and statutory standards. In June, the U.S. District Court granted DRCs motion for class certification. The county agreed to retain nationally recognized subject matter experts to conduct independent evaluations regarding jail conditions and the provision of mental health and medical care. As the federal case moves forward, we are also meeting with county officials regarding a potential settlement. DRC staff conducted monitoring visits of all 10 facilities housing immigrant youth in California in response to the U.S. federal immigration policy separating undocumented immigrant children from their parents. We also interviewed the one foster care service provider that placed immigrant youth in foster care homes. Agency staff confirmed that a number of youth had disabilities, including physical disabilities and hearing impairments. During these monitoring visits, our staff interviewed facility administrators about their programs and the youth served, and interviewed over 150 youth. DRC staff conducting the interviews were Spanish speakers and interviewed most of the youth in Spanish. While there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, the monitoring team uncovered troubling practices. Newly admitted youth often receive brief social, psychological, developmental, and educational assessments. At most facilities, youth receive basic health services and minimal educational services on the facility campus. Youth at several facilities operated by a national chain, reported only being afforded two phone calls each week monitored by staff. The call is automatically terminated after ten minutes. Children are granted few opportunities, if any, to leave facility grounds. Facilities often have rigid house rules, such as requiring staff permission to use the bathroom, and rule infractions are written up. We also conducted a monitoring visit at one adult detention center, Adelanto to review the care and treatment provided to detainees with disabilities. Our monitoring included a tour of Adelantos facilities and interviews with Adelanto detainees, ICE and the leadership and facility staff of GEO Group which is the contractor responsible for the day to day operations at Adelanto. We also reviewed thousands of pages of relevant policies, procedures, and forms as well as individual detainee records. Our investigation found, that individuals held at Adelanto are subjected to punitive conditions that harm people with disabilities; a lack of adequate mental health care and a medical care system made worse by the facilitys counter-therapeutic conditions and practices including segregation units that put people with mental health disabilities at substantial risk of psychological and physical harm including suicide attempts; serious delays and gaps in the provision of medical care; and under-reporting of the number of suicide attempts. |
| Systemic Advocacy Work (Continued) | Protecting ADA and Other Access RightsDRC filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court on behalf of nine named plaintiffs in San Diego that alleges that the plaintiffs had been discriminated against and subject to wrongful ticketing for living in their vehicles. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in August 2018 halting all ticketing and enforcement of a San Diego ordinance affecting homeless people, many with disabilities, who use their RVs or other vehicles as shelter. DRCs class action lawsuit, Bloom et al. vs. City of San Diego, seeks to end the ticketing and impoundment of vehicles of homeless people. The court ruled San Diegos Vehicle Habitation Ordinance does not clearly state what is required to violate the ordinance. The court also found the city arbitrarily enforced the ordinance against homeless people. Recently, the City unanimously voted to repeal its homeless ticketing ordinance.DRC and its co-counsel represent a coalition of blind advocates in a federal class action lawsuit challenging the failure of the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and three counties to provide Medi-Cal notices in accessible formats, such as Braille. The complaint alleges that when blind individuals request accessible versions of Medi-Cal notices, DHCS and its county agents either fail to provide accessible versions or fail to do so in a timely manner. For example, plaintiff Lena Hinkle waited more than eight months to receive a Braille version of a Medi-Cal notice containing time-sensitive information. These delays may cause blind Medi-Cal consumers to lose their benefits. Providing information to blind individuals in alternative formats such as Braille or large print is required by federal and California anti-discrimination laws. To solve the problem, DHCS, counties, and Medi-Cal health plans need to (1) identify people who need communication in Braille or other accessible formats, and (2) respond appropriately to requests for accessible formats. Our goal is to ensure that DHCS and California counties institute a comprehensive plan to properly identify and accommodate blind Medi-Cal recipients.Preventing the Use of Restraints in Schools Absent an EmergencyDRC used a multi-disciplinary approach to address the serious injuries that can occur to students with disabilities when they are inappropriately restrained in school. For example, DRC helped Aaron, a student with Autism, who was in elementary school when his family first contacted DRC for help in 2014. Aaron was placed in a non-public school (NPS) that was part of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) that subjected its students to numerous and unnecessary restraints. DRC quickly helped negotiate a change in placement for Aaron. DRC filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights against both the NPS and OUSD. Because of DRCs advocacy, the school district entered into a settlement agreement with the Office of Civil Rights in June 2016 and agreed to no longer refer children with disabilities to schools that use prone restraints. In addition, OUSD agreed to provide Aaron an evaluation to determine what services he would need to compensate him for the injury and trauma he experienced. After some delays with the evaluation, DRC helped Aarons family negotiate with the district for compensatory services recommended in the evaluation. OUSD ultimately agreed to fund Aarons compensatory services over the next six years. Aaron and his parents get to choose his service providers and the district has agreed to contract with and pay the providers directly. Aaron starts high school this fall at a prestigious, college preparatory school for students with neurocognitive disabilities. His compensatory services will give him a strong start.DRC also sponsored AB 2657, authored by Assembly Member Dr. Shirley Weber. Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation limiting the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. It grants students the right to be free from the use of seclusion and behavioral restraints of any form imposed for coercion, discipline, convenience, or retaliation by staff. Seclusion and restraint may only be used when there is a clear and present danger of serious physical harm. The bill also prohibits the use of particularly dangerous restraint practices and locked seclusion. The bill also requires that close staff monitor when the student is restrained or placed in seclusion and requires the collection of data regarding their use. Access to ServicesDRC and our co-counsel are representing two children with significant disabilities in a federal class action lawsuit against the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), claiming that the State has failed to fulfill its commitment to provide them with sufficient Medi-Cal in-home nursing services to keep them safely at home. The case, I.N. v. Kent, seeks to hold the state accountable to arrange for legally required services to children with complex medical needs.Plaintiff I.N. is seven years old and lives with her adoptive family. Due to her cerebral palsy and epilepsy, she needs help with all of her daily needs, uses a wheelchair, and receives food and nutrients through a feeding tube. She requires round the clock care, including 63 hours per week of in-home nursing care as prescribed by her doctor and approved by the Medi-Cal program. But DHCS has not met its legal obligation to supply those hours. To fix this problem, DRC filed a class action suit against DHCS and its director, Jennifer Kent, for its failure to take steps to arrange for the in-home nursing services I.N. and others like her need to live safely with their families. After the judge rejected DHCS efforts to dismiss the case, the parties agreed to settlement talks, which culminated in a settlement agreement that will ease the enormous strain faced by families who struggle to secure critical nursing care. I.N.s story is not unique. More than 4,000 Medi-Cal-eligible children have been approved by the state to receive Medi-Cal in-home nursing care. Yet the state lacks an effective system for arranging for needed nursing, placing the burden on families to recruit nurses and, when they are unsuccessful, provide the care themselves. This creates an unacceptable risk of medical complications, hospitalization, and placement outside of the family home. According to DHCS own study, 29 percent of authorized Medi-Cal nursing hours go unstaffed.The agreement requires DHCS to work with contracted case management agencies to arrange for approved in-home nursing services for children who need them. DHCS will also monitor the case management services delivered by these agencies and establish an email address for families to seek help directly from DHCS. The parties will ask the court to approve a plan to notify impacted families about the settlement agreement. The court will then decide whether to approve the agreement. The hearing on final approval is expected in spring or summer of 2019. |
| What We Achieved in 2018 | Largest Programs $ - Office of Clients Rights Advocacy: $6,997,694$ - Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities - $3,649,750$ - Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness - $3,028,565 Overview of WorkIn 2018, DRC staff directly served 26,266 individuals with disabilities and our systemic advocacy work impacted millions more. We conducted over 1,771 outreach and training events to over 51,000 Californians. We developed or revised 53 publications and 38 of these publications were translated into at least one other language. Our disability-related information about rights as well as tools to enforce them, are powerful tools that helped tens of thousands of Californians advocate for themselves or their family members. Many of our publications are posted online at: https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/publications. Publications are available in English as well as the following 12 threshold languages: Armenian, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian, Hmong, Tagalog, Cambodian, Russian, Spanish, Korean, and Farsi. We have an active online presence that includes our new, fully accessible website www.disabilityrightsca.org, with 792,495 page views. As of December 2018, DRCs Facebook page had 7,125 likes with 7,095 followers, and 6,560 followers on Twitter. |
| Software ID: | 17005038 |
| Software Version: | 2017v2.2 |