Strengthening the Roles of Independent Living Centers as Advocates for
People with Disabilities Through the Implementation of Legal Services
1999
by Adam Brown
Community Resources for Independence (CRI) was established in 1976 by
a group of disabled and non-disabled individuals to empower people with
disabilities to achieve maximum independence through self-help and self-determination.
CRI's service area includes the Counties of Sonoma, Mendocino, Lake and
Napa in Northern California. This area is diverse in both population and
geographical makeup. Our populations include Native Americans, Asians,
Hispanics - our geography covers suburban, urban, rural and coastal areas.
This diversity presents a wide variety of challenges. Communication styles,
social structures and value systems are often contrary to the orientation
and service models of the traditional agency and community professionals.
Addressing the needs of these populations has provided the impetus for
CRI to continually assess our approaches and our sensitivities, and to
remain flexible and creative in seeking to support the needs of individuals
with disabilities in these communities.
Like other independent living centers, CRI strives to provide people
with disabilities quality representation and support through strong and
effective advocacy. CRI has a rich history of challenging those individuals
and entities seeking to deny people with disabilities the civil rights
that have been bestowed upon them. From addressing disability-related
issues before the State Legislature to organizing protests of discriminatory
programs, CRI continually seeks to develop and/or adopt better approaches
to meeting the needs of people with disabilities in our region. Following
in this tradition, CRI has developed the Disability Law Clinic, an innovative
program providing consumers and the community at large an affordable resource
for legal representation and expertise on the law as it pertains to people
with disabilities.
Development of Program
I. Identification of Need
The Disability Law Clinic was born out of the frustration felt by CRI
staff who were unable to secure affordable and knowledgeable legal representation
for consumers in matters involving disability laws. Repeatedly, people
with disabilities would enter CRI seeking legal assistance with issues
ranging from disability discrimination to special education. Until 1998,
CRI had no attorneys on staff, and could offer only non-legal advocacy
and a referral to the local bar association. Affordable legal services
were not available to these individuals. Our local Legal Aid offices only
assisted with unlawful detainer actions, and the Protection and Advocacy
group assigned to our region rarely involved themselves with individual
matters. Furthermore, of the few local attorneys practicing in the area
of Disability Law, most required retainers far exceeding the consumer's
means. As a result of being unable to secure legal representation, these
consumers were forced either to surrender their claims or represent themselves
on a pro per basis.
The lack of affordable legal representation in the area of Disability
Law became increasingly problematic. Not only were consumers placed at
a tremendous disadvantage in their respective legal actions, but many
offending parties were beginning to see this lack of representation as
an invitation to continue discrimination against people with disabilities.
In theory, the solution to this problem seemed quite simple. All CRI
had to do was hire a few attorneys who were well versed in disability
law and make them available to consumers. Of course, in practice, things
would not be so easy.
II. Planning
CRI was faced with several obstacles in establishing a legal service
program, the largest of which was a lack of funding. CRI had a limited
amount of monies available to allocate towards the program's resources,
staffing and operations. A plan was devised wherein the program would
begin operations within an extremely limited budget and grow as resources
allowed. Raising revenue would need to be an integral part of the program
and the agency, as a whole.
As the majority of our consumers had limited financial resources, it
was important to keep our program as affordable as possible. It was decided
that, outside of situations where back benefits or damages were awarded,
all legal representation would be free of charge. Nominal fees, however,
would be charged to public or private entities seeking technical assistance
or expert testimony. Mediation services would be provided on a sliding
scale basis. The revenues collected from these fees would be used to help
pay salaries, supplies and overhead. Additionally, CRI would explore funding
opportunities through legal services related grants and would seek to
establish contracts to provide legal services to other organizations working
with people with disabilities. Our calculations forecasted that the program
would be fully self-sufficient within two years, with the strong possibility
that the program, in this time, would have generated a considerable surplus
of funds.
Another major obstacle to overcome was a lack of guidance. No other
CIL program could be found that was similar to that which we sought to
create. Having no established design to follow, we could not be certain
of the viability of our concept. We anticipated needing to alter aspects
of our program throughout its development and beyond. As such, the program's
parameters were set broadly enough to allow for significant alteration
and growth of operation.
III. Implementation
In September of 1998, CRI established the Disability Law Clinic. The
program's role was to be: 1) an advocacy unit dedicated to helping people
with disabilities better understand and utilize the laws and programs
that affect them; 2) a community resource for public and private entities
wishing to gain a better understanding of their legal obligations towards
people with disabilities; and 3) a mediation service available to facilitate
the resolution of disability-related disputes.
The Disability Law Clinic opened to a litany of legal questions and
requests for representation. News of its inception had spread quickly
through the local communities via word of mouth and distribution of brochures.
Within weeks the Disability Law Clinic had been retained in over a dozen
actions involving Social Security, the ADA, Special Education, and Fair
Housing laws. In addition to providing direct representation, the Disability
Law Clinic was being asked to provide technical assistance to other area
attorneys, businesses and governmental agencies on the law as it pertained
to people with disabilities.
To better handle a growing caseload, CRI recruited a number of private
attorneys to volunteer their time and expertise to the Disability Law
Clinic. Such assistance has provided the program the opportunity to take
cases otherwise too large to handle for a small operation. Additionally,
in situations where the Disability Law Clinic has a high volume of open
active cases or receives requests for assistance in matters beyond the
scope of its representation, these private attorneys provide us with additional
avenues of referral.
In seeking to ensure the continued development of the Disability Law
Clinic, CRI identified several grants able to help fund an expansion of
the Clinic's operations. Applications were submitted and, although not
awarded, provided the agency with valuable information on the grant maker's
decision process, which will be incorporated into future applications.
IV. Level of Success
Several scenarios illustrate the positive impact the Disability Law Clinic
has had on the lives of people with disabilities in our region.
A. Judy, a woman with mental and physical disabilities, had been trying
for several years to secure Social Security disability benefits. Social
Security denials had been based largely on the reports of consultative
examiners who had dismissed almost all her of allegations of disability.
Judy learned of our services only a week before she was to appear before
an administrative law judge. We agreed to represent her and immediately
petitioned the judge for a continuance. With the continuance, we were
able to discover inconsistencies in the consultative examinations and
collect favorable medical evidence. Following her hearing, Judy was
awarded the monthly benefits she sought as well as a lump-sum payment
of benefits dating back to the onset of her disability.
B. John sought employment as a teacher. He applied for a job and was
informed in the interview that, in spite of his credentials, he would
not be offered the job because he did not have a driver's license. John
informed the employer that the reason he did not have a driver's license
was because of his visual disabilities. The employer informed him that
there were no exceptions to the license requirement. John felt that
he was being discriminated against and called the Disability Law Clinic
to find out if he had any legal recourse. John really wanted this job.
The Clinic wrote a letter to the school formally requesting that the
license requirement be waived for John. In this letter, we explained,
in part, the obligations owed employees with disabilities under state
and federal law and the potential consequences of non-compliance. Less
than a week later, John was offered the job and informed that the license
requirement had been dropped.
C. Debra's ex-husband petitioned the Court for sole custody of their
child. Her ex-husband argued that Debra's disability (cerebral palsy)
and the fact that her only source of income was SSI, made her unfit
to raise their child. Debra approached several legal service organizations
and private attorneys for assistance, but no one would represent her
on an affordable basis. Debra contacted the Disability Law Clinic, which
agreed to represent her without charge. Following our Court appearance,
the Judge not only denied Debra's ex-husband's petition, but also issued
an order authorizing the investigation of the ex-husband's parental
fitness.
Of course, not every situation in which the Disability Law Clinic gets
involved ends in success. We understand that it is not possible to win
every legal action. What is imperative to us, however, is that we provide
the highest quality services to those seeking our assistance. In doing
so, we are convinced that our program will do much to curb discrimination
and raise awareness in our communities.
V. Future Operations
At the Disability Law Clinic we are continually looking to expand operations.
In the coming year, we expect to be awarded at least one major advocacy
grant. So far, every grant for which we have applied will enable us to
add at least two additional staff to the program. Also, revenues received
through technical assistance fees and legal victories will continue to
fund staffing and operations.
The Disability Law Clinic will be devoting more time towards training
groups and individuals in the law as it pertains to people with disabilities.
We have been asked to prepare a course on the ADA for the local Bar Association
and have nine advocacy trainings planned for this year. Additionally,
the Disability Law Clinic will continue to meet with local government
officials (i.e. board of supervisors, city architects, police) regarding
legal obligations towards people with disabilities.
The Disability Law Clinic will continue to provide effective legal representation
to as many individuals as possible. As mentioned above, we expect to have
additional staff to help with our advocacy efforts. Also, several local
attorneys have indicated to us their desire to have a closer working relationship
with our program.
The Disability Law Clinic will continue to grow and expand until its
services are no longer needed. Through vigorous and extensive advocacy,
our program will help secure the civil rights bestowed upon people with
disabilities. We welcome the assistance of other CILs in this area. Together
we can establish a just and accessible society.
Contact Information
Community Resources for Independence
2999 Cleveland Ave., Suite D
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
707.528.2745 (v); 528.2151 (TDD); 528.9477 (fax)
or
1040 North State St., Suite E Ukiah, CA 95483
707.463.8875 (v); 462.4498 (TDD); 463.8878 (fax)
|