Blog

Comment on SGP (for Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities)

Comment sought on the DRM 2016-17 Statement of Goals & Priorities (for I/DD) until November 1, 2016.

§1326.22   Periodic reports: State Protection and Advocacy System.

(a) By January 1 of each year, each State Protection and Advocacy System shall submit to AIDD, an Annual Program Performance Report. In order to be accepted, the Report must meet the requirements of section 144(e) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 15044), the applicable regulation and include information on the System’s program necessary for the Secretary, or his or her designee, to comply with section 105(1), (2), and (3) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 15005). The Report shall describe the activities, accomplishments, and expenditures of the system during the preceding fiscal year. Reports shall include a description of the system’s goals and the extent to which the goals were achieved, barriers to their achievement; the process used to obtain public input, the nature of such input, and how such input was used; the extent to which unserved or underserved individuals or groups, particularly from ethnic or racial groups or geographic regions (e.g., rural or urban areas) were the target of assistance or service; and other such information on the Protection and Advocacy System’s activities requested by AIDD.

(b) Financial status reports (standard form 425) must be submitted by the agency administering and operating the State Protection and Advocacy System semiannually.

(c) By January 1 of each year, the State Protection and Advocacy System shall submit to AIDD, an Annual Statement of Goals and Priorities, (SGP), for the coming fiscal year as required under section 143(a)(2)(C) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 15043). In order to be accepted by AIDD, an SGP must meet the requirements of section 143 of the Act.

(1) The SGP is a description and explanation of the system’s goals and priorities for its activities, selection criteria for its individual advocacy and training activities, and the outcomes it strives to accomplish. The SGP is developed through data driven strategic planning. If changes are made to the goals or the indicators of progress established for a year, the SGP must be amended to reflect those changes. The SGP must include a description of how the Protection and Advocacy System operates, and where applicable, how it coordinates the State Protection and Advocacy program for individuals with developmental disabilities with other Protection and Advocacy programs administered by the State Protection and Advocacy System. This description must include the System’s processes for intake, internal and external referrals, and streamlining of advocacy services. If the System will be requesting or requiring fees or donations from clients as part of the intake process, the SGP must state that the system will be doing so. The description also must address collaboration, the reduction of duplication and overlap of services, the sharing of information on service needs, and the development of statements of goals and priorities for the various advocacy programs.

(2) Priorities as established through the SGP serve as the basis for the Protection and Advocacy System to determine which cases are selected in a given fiscal year. Protection and Advocacy Systems have the authority to turn down a request for assistance when it is outside the scope of the SGP, but they must inform individuals when this is the basis for turning them down.

(d) Each fiscal year, the Protection and Advocacy System shall:

(1) Obtain formal public input on its Statement of Goals and Priorities;

(2) At a minimum, provide for a broad distribution of the proposed Statement of Goals and Priorities for the next fiscal year in a manner accessible to individuals with developmental disabilities and their representatives, allowing at least 45 days from the date of distribution for comment;

(3) Provide to the State Councils on Developmental Disabilities and the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service a copy of the proposed Statement of Goals and Priorities for comment concurrently with the public notice;

(4) Incorporate or address any comments received through public input and any input received from the State Councils on Developmental Disabilities and the University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service in the final Statement submitted; and

(5) Address how the Protection and Advocacy System, State Councils on Developmental Disabilities, and University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education Research and Service will collaborate with each other and with other public and private entities.

Read more

DRM Issues Report on Behavior Support Services

DRM has issued a report on the Developmental Disabilities Administration’s Behavior Support Services, describing numerous problems and urging a series of reforms. The comprehensive report, authored by Managing Attorney Nancy Pineles, can be accessed HERE.

Read more

DRM on Steiner Show to discuss DOJ’s disability findings

DRM Executive Director, Virginia Knowlton Marcus, appeared on the Marc Steiner Show to discuss the disability aspects of DOJ’s Letter of Findings regarding the Baltimore City Police Department.

Access the podcast of the 8/31/16 interview.

Read DRM’s joint press release with NDRN on DOJ’s Findings of its investigation into the Baltimore City Police Department.

See DOJ’s full report at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/883366/download

 

Read more

CRSD Response to DOJ’s Baltimore City Police Investigation Report

As advocates for youth and families in Baltimore City, the Coalition to Reform School Discipline thanks the Department of Justice (DOJ) for its thorough investigation and applauds its recommendations for sweeping reforms in response to overwhelming evidence of decades of constitutional violations of citizens’ rights by the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) that significantly impact African-American communities and individuals with disabilities. While the DOJ report focuses on BPD, we are especially troubled by findings that the City has used the Baltimore School Police as an auxiliary of BPD and that there is a clear lack of coordination between the two forces. This raises questions about whether school resources allocated to school police are being used to support the role of BPD. City Schools’ resources would be better spent on academic services, restorative practices, and ongoing professional development involving administrators, teachers, and school police.

DOJ further found that the BPD policies, procedures, training, and oversight are significantly deficient, contributing to unconstitutional and illegal practices, including the excessive use of force against young people. At the moment, Baltimore School Police have no policies, limited training relevant to working with youth, and insufficient oversight. The concerns in the DOJ report apply to school police, and it should trouble parents that City Schools is moving forward with redeploying officers into schools without proper policies in place. The Coalition to Reform School Discipline has expressed concerns about the lack of policies, procedures and proper oversight for the Baltimore School Police for nearly two years. We believe that clear policies and training governing how and when school police interact with students, school employees and the community are critical. We encourage City Schools to move swiftly to implement comprehensive policies and procedures with input from the community, students and advocates that ensure that students’ rights are protected.

We acknowledge, and are hopeful, about the willingness of Acting School Police Chief Hamm to tackle these difficult issues. We are encouraged that school based arrests declined last year; however, there is significant work that still needs to be done to ensure that City Schools provides safe and positive learning environments for all students.

Alyssa Fieo, DRM, AlyssaF@DisabilityRightsMD.org, 410-727-6352 ext. 2507
Contact: Kimberly Humphrey, ACLU-MD, Humphrey@aclu-md.org, 571-331-8226
Read more

DRM Files Fair Housing Lawsuit Against Prince George’s County Housing Authority

DRM has filed a federal law suit against the Housing Authority of Prince George’s County (HAPGC) alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act, Fair Housing Act Amendments, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The lawsuit was filed by five public housing residents in Prince George’s County who have consistently requested wheelchair accessible housing units from HAPGC. HAPGC regularly failed to respond to the resident requests and transferred them from one inaccessible unit to another inaccessible unit. The residents continue to live in inaccessible housing units.

“I was homeless in 2010 and applied to public housing in Prince George’s County because I thought they would have accessible units and accommodations to offer me. I have never been offered an accessible unit. I cannot use my wheelchair in the bathroom and there are no grab bars in the bathroom for me to us so that I can safely transfer to my commode,” said one of the Plaintiffs, Alonzo Watts about why he is filing the case.

Another Plaintiff, Andre Phillips states, “I am just trying to have an accessible unit like I requested in 2013. I can’t do basic things in my unit. My bathroom is so small that I have to hurt myself just to get in there to do daily stuff like use the bathroom.”

“HAPGC has long acknowledged the lack of accessible public housing in its federal reporting requirements. HAPGC just hasn’t done anything about the lack of accessible housing and our clients have had to suffer because of it,” attorney David Prater said about the case.

By federal law, public housing should have accessible housing to offer to low-income people with disabilities. Disability Rights Maryland encourages other public housing residents who have been denied accessible housing or have not otherwise had their needs addressed by HAPGC to come forward by calling our office at 410-727-6352.

The lawsuit alleges that HAPGC has failed to maintain accessible public housing units in accordance with federal regulation, has failed to maintain policies that addresses the needs of persons with disabilities in public housing in Prince George’s County, and has offered housing on discriminatory terms to persons with disabilities.

The lawsuit was filed on the heels of 26th Anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the suit alleges HAPGC violated.

Media Coverage:

The Daily Record

NBC Washington

Read more