The Monday Report
Developmental Disability Civil Rights
This is a brief sample overview and official request toward the State of California for civil rights reasonable accommodations in the California Developmental Disability Services (CA-D.D.S) system. This short report and request for federal civil rights accommodations has been provided to the State of California Regional Center system, California State Senator Mike McGuire, Congressman Jared Huffman, California State Council on Developmental Disabilities, U.S Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and a disability rights Attorney with Disability Rights California (formally known as Protection and Advocacy of California) for the need of systemic accommodations while assessing service and support needs.
This American’s with Disability Act (A.D.A) request for reasonable accommodations under federal civil rights law is for persons who qualify for California Developmental Disability Services, also known as California (CA-D.D.S), pursuant to the clinical adaptive-behavior domain of self-direction. Self-direction needs can affect body awareness, learning, behavioral-attention regulation and overall concerns such as self-care resulting in neglect as well as developing and maintaining adaptive-behavioral skills, due to developmental disabilities including forms of autism. A common accommodation for self-direction is the accommodation of prompting and tailoring communication to be more concrete and specific, instead of abstract and general due to needs relating to self-direction like perseveration and also intellectual and or cognitive needs-based manifestations of the self-direction domain.
For example asking an individual if he or she needs help with community-participation or self-care may be to general. Instead the systemic reasonable accommodation asks that specific questions are asked and assessed more specifically. As is, what assessments take place, often are not regulated or are far to general to determine person-centered needs. Sometimes this results in blaming an individual with developmental disabilities for not making the system aware, but individuals entering into the service system were clinically diagnosed with self-direction and relating disabilities which must under federal law be reasonably accommodated for in ongoing practices and policies such as assessments and questionnaires. This is the responsibility under supreme court rulings of the State of California government, regardless of it’s devised outsourcing scheme to facilitate for needs.
A. Context Sphere (1)
California Law Welfare and Institutional Code relating to developmental disabilities. For context sphere (1) in this report and request for reasonable accommodation toward the state of California we will focus on several primary regulatory facets within California law pertaining to developmental disabilities to devise comparative civil rights rationale in relation to the ladder context spheres of 2 and 3 for federal law, supreme court rulings, U.S constitutional rights and general federal citizenry civil rights, respectively. California Welfare and Institution Code 4501 as a general omission and promise and the California Developmental Disability Bill of Rights (Assembly Bill Number 1687).
Approved by the California Governor Jerry Brown on July 23, 2014, AB-1687 was filed with the Secretary of State July 23, 2014 as an act to amend Section 4502 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to developmental services and secured as a public promise U.S federal constitutional rights of individuals with developmental disabilities within the State of California. Additionally we will focus on the SLS standardized questionnaire authored by the State of California as mandated toward the Regional Center system in the service coordination department. And finally this report will touch on mandated reporting laws under California Law.
B. Context Sphere (2)
For context sphere (2) the focus is on federal law relating to developmental disabilities such as the Congressional Developmental Disability Bill of Rights, Crime Victims with Disability Act and Federal Supreme Court Rulings on Developmental Disabilities such as Olmstead vs. LC in conjunction with Medicaid Federal Community-Based Waiver dollars California receives.
C. Context Sphere (3)
For context sphere (3) we will focus on overall disability and general American civil rights such as the Americans with Disability Act (A.D.A) Title II and Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, for all activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance; and general U.S federal civil rights applied to U.S citizens with or without disabilities in general such as 18 U.S. Code Chapter 13 Civil Rights in all contextually applicable subsections.
Sample Brief of:
Applied Civil Rights Analytical Report
Tier’s 1 and 2
For analytic purposes this sample and very short brief will focus on tier one and two depth comparative analysis beginning with tier 1 touching on the basics of civil rights law relating or relatable to developmental disabilities civil rights. Tier 2 will provide some interactions into the dynamic functionalism and parallelic reasoning given the structure of federal constitutional protections as enacted by congress in relation. Tier 3 is reserved for official case arguments and legislative research reports and would not be appropriate for a basic brief such as this.
Beginning of sample brief in conjunction to California Welfare and Institution Code Section 4501 for the request for reasonable accommodations for the self-direction clinical domain. Official state code is underlined in the text version of this presentation. _________________________________________________________________
Context Sphere (1)
Welfare and Institution code Section 4501 .
The State of California accepts a responsibility for persons with developmental disabilities and an obligation to them which it must discharge. Affecting hundreds of thousands of children and adults directly, and having an important impact on the lives of their families, neighbors, and whole communities, developmental disabilities present social, medical, economic, and legal problems of extreme importance. An array of services and supports should be established which is sufficiently complete to meet the needs and choices of each person with developmental disabilities, regardless of age or degree of disability, and at each stage of life and to support their integration into the mainstream life of the community. To the maximum extent feasible, services and supports should be available throughout the state to prevent the dislocation of persons with developmental disabilities from their home communities. Services and supports should be available to enable persons with developmental disabilities to approximate the pattern of everyday living available to people without disabilities of the same age.
Consumers of services and supports, and where appropriate,their parents, legal guardian, or conservator, should be empowered to make choices in all life areas. These include promoting opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities to be integrated into the mainstream of life in their home communities, including supported living and other appropriate community living arrangements. In providing these services, consumers and their families, when appropriate, should participate in decisions affecting their own lives, including, but not limited to, where and with whom they live, their relationships with people in their community, the way in which they spend their time, including education, employment, and leisure, the pursuit of their own personal future, and program planning and implementation. The contributions made by parents and family members in support of their children and relatives with developmental disabilities are important and those relationships should also be respected and fostered, to the maximum extent feasible, so that consumers and their families can build circles of support within the community. The Legislature finds that the mere existence or the delivery of services and supports is, in itself, insufficient evidence of program effectiveness. It is the intent of the Legislature that agencies serving persons with developmental disabilities shall produce evidence that their services have resulted in consumer or family empowerment and in more independent, productive, and normal lives for the persons served. It is further the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Developmental Services, through appropriate and regular monitoring activities, ensure that regional centers meet their statutory, regulatory, and contractual obligations in providing services to persons with developmental disabilities. The Legislature declares its intent to monitor program results through continued legislative oversight and review of requests for appropriations to support developmental disabilities programs.
Sphere-1 Analytic Notes:
The state of California has accepted responsibility. It is the intent of this request for reasonable accommodation that the State of California receive this request for accommodation pertaining to needs relating to the self-direction domain in it’s ongoing practices and policies when assessing needs. Assembly Bill Number 1687 publicly declared a right of U.S constitutional liberties for Californian’s with Developmental Disabilities. By means of this enactment it guaranteed the authorities of Congressional authority under the constitution. When their is a failure to assess needs in means and ways that can be understood by intended beneficiaries with developmental disabilities their lacks adequate accessibility under federal constitutionally authorized and congressionally authorized federal civil rights under the U.S federal constitution and it’s empowered laws. Under California Mandated reporting law a public servant including anyone working with persons with developmental disabilities must report incidences of potential abuse to the State of California. As is the California DDS system has a standardized supportive living questionnaire however it’s questions are to general to facilitate for reasonable accommodations in the self-direction domain. California acknowledges the complexities of developmental disabilities by stating that individuals with developmental disabilities present an ” important impact on the lives of their families, neighbors, and whole communities, developmental disabilities present social, medical, economic, and legal problems of extreme importance”.
The intent of this request for reasonable accommodations for the self-direction clinical domain is to address the extreme importance in general and the specifics of the legal importance of the civil rights of individuals with developmental disabilities in accessing and benefiting from services that are obligated under constitutional and U.S Supreme Court authorities.
Sphere-2 Analytic Notes:
Under the Olmstead vs. LC our U.S Federal Supreme Court ruled state governments are responsible for providing community supports for qualifying beneficiaries. This responsibility is regardless of how a state may outsource these responsibilities. Under the Congressional Developmental Disability Bill of Rights Act which California receives significant funding under the Medicaid Community-Based Waiver Program for community services individuals are guaranteed the right to services and supports which meet the needs of individuals. A reasonable accommodation in the assessment of services under the self-direction clinical domain, requiring individuals to be prompted about specific potential needs.
Without an assessment of needs which accommodates for the cognative-adaptive needs of the self-direction domain, the state of California puts at risk persons of criminal neglect of it’s own doing when failing to accommodate, including systemic neglect within it’s own service system, which violates civil and human rights of federal beneficiaries. Without knowing of the specific needs of qualifying federal beneficiaries which the state of California receives funding for the state cannot pursue the intents of Congress under the Crime Victims With Disabilities Awareness Act. This act declares that Congress; ”(1) although research conducted abroad demonstrates that individuals with developmental disabilities are at a 4 to 10 times higher risk of becoming crime victims than those without disabilities, there have been no significant studies on this subject conducted in the United States; It is reasonable to conclude that assessing the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities who experience self-direction domain difficulties would serve the congressional intent to prevent or reduce the risks of beneficiaries becoming victims of crime, including neglect and abuse. It is also reasonable to denote that it would provide for a basis of research and study of how often currently individuals rights may be criminally violated under the current services system, in relation to neglect and relating abuses. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the California Developmental Disability Services system is ill-equipped to report incidences of abuse and neglect in it’s own failures in accordance to criminal mandated reporting laws pursuant to it’s own criminal law.
It is reasonable to also conclude when individuals do not receive reasonable accommodations for the self-direction domain in the assessment and or communication of needs that the intents of congress in the Crime Victims with Disabilities Act cannot be fulfilled in context. Nor can it be said that the Congressionally authored Developmental Disabilities Bill of Rights is being fulfilled when the State of California Receives federal funding for these needs and rights.
Sphere-3 Analytic Notes:
According to the U.S Department of Justice Civil Rights division; ”Title II [of the Americans with Disabilities Act] applies to State and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities. Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance. “ A failure to accommodate an intended beneficiary who qualifies for services and supports, or has any degree of self-direction difficulty clinically found evident, may be grounds for reasonable accommodations.
California State government must provide reasonable accommodations in it’s assessment and communication with individuals with developmental disabilities who require accommodations for the clinical self-direction domain. By not doing so it discriminates against individuals unreasonably, even when not receiving federal dollars. The self-direction domain is in fact part of the entry criteria to receive California DDS services.
The State of California fully knowing of this need and not addressing this need when assessing and communicating with federal beneficiaries may be held responsible under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 13 Civil Rights, specifically at least as a conspiracy against rights of beneficiaries who require these reasonable accommodations. The such may be rectifiable under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 as a civil action for deprivation of rights as well as criminal prosecutions whether or not federal dollars are involved.
The intent of this report and request for reasonable accommodations under the clinical self-direction domain in the ongoing practices and policies of the California DDS system was to provide relevant information as well as means and ways to address an important concern of health and safety. It is highly suggested the State of California develop and maintain an inventory of activities pertaining to activities of daily living relating to self-care and community-participation which federal beneficiaries and when chosen their supports and or family may optionally mark as potential needs to be addressed.