|
|
The Council for Disability Rights |
| Advancing rights and enhancing lives of people with disabilities |
|
CDR HOME NEWS BOOKS VIDEO USEFUL LINKS ABOUT CDR HOW TO HELP |
February 2006
US Access Board News New Accessibility Standards Adopted for Federal Facilities The General Services Administration (GSA) has adopted new accessibility standards for federally funded facilities based on updated guidelines the Board issued in 2004. The adopted standards will apply to a wide range of new or altered buildings under the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), which requires access to facilities designed, built, altered or leased with Federal money. GSA was eager to adopt the new standards, noted David L. Bibb, Acting GSA Administrator and Vice Chair of the Board, because they will ensure greater access to all types of Federal buildings while making compliance easier. The standards apply to the design and construction of new facilities, altered areas of existing facilities, and leased facilities. As indicated in a notice GSA published in the Federal Register on November 8, the new standards will apply to construction and alterations that commence after May 8, 2006, and to leases entered into after this date. Compliance with the previous standards, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, will be permitted for construction and alterations that begin before this date and for projects whose design is substantially complete by this date. As adopted by the GSA, the standards apply to all federally funded facilities, except residential, postal, and military facilities, which are covered by standards maintained by other Federal agencies. Last May, the U.S. Postal Service similarly updated its standards which govern post offices and other postal facilities. The departments of Housing and Urban Development and Defense will follow suit and complete the implementation of new standards under the ABA. New standards based on the Board's guidelines also must be adopted under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which complements the ABA by ensuring access to facilities in the private and state and local government sectors. ADA standards are maintained by the Department of Justice and, in the case of transit facilities, the Department of Transportation. The Board updated its ABA and ADA guidelines jointly in order to establish a uniform level of accessibility under both laws. Further information on the status of efforts to issue new standards under the ABA and ADA, including the recent action by GSA and links to its notice, is posted on theBoard's web site Board Adopts Priorities for Research and Information Gathering At its November meeting, the Board approved its research agenda for 2006. Every year the Board sponsors or promotes research on various aspects of accessibility. Through its work maintaining accessibility guidelines and standards and its provision of technical assistance, the Board regularly identifies issues or questions that merit further study. A public forum the Board held on its programs and services as a part of a series of ADA anniversary events also identified research priorities. Several projects focus on issues pertaining to public streets and sidewalks, the subject of new guidelines the Board is developing for public rights-of-way. Some of these efforts will expand existing projects undertaken by other agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These include an assessment of available technologies for pedestrian signals at traffic roundabouts, which by their design and continuous traffic flow patterns pose challenges to pedestrians with vision impairments, and the development of guidance on selecting accessible pedestrian signal devices based on the type of intersection and site conditions. In addition, funds will be budgeted to advance existing research on the relative effectiveness of various way-finding cues, including returned curb edges, curb ramp orientation, tactile surfaces, and guide strips, for people with vision impairments in outdoor environments. The Board also plans to commission an analysis of standard human factors protocols for measuring the effects of slope and surface on manual wheelchair maneuvering. Topics proposed by members of the public at the forum last July are also on the Board's agenda. They include a study of communication access in transportation facilities, including airports and rail stations, and on transit vehicles to gather information for the Board's use in updating its vehicle guidelines. Another project will build upon a major Board-funded study on indoor air quality completed this summer. Conducted by the National Institute of Building Sciences, this study explored ways to improve indoor environmental quality for people with multiple chemical or electro-magnetic sensitivities through specification of building products, materials, ventilation, and maintenance. Attendees of the Board's forum strongly endorsed such a follow-on project. Other projects will cover areas not previously addressed by the Board's research program, including a review of existing research on lighting. The Board's facility guidelines do not address lighting levels, and the results of this project will help to develop guidance material on the subject. The Board also seeks to convene an expert panel on the topic of assisted transfer of people with disabilities. Specifications in the Board's guidelines for toilet and bathrooms are based on independent access and transfer, and questions have arisen about compliance in some types of medical care and assisted living facilities where bathrooms are designed specifically for aided transfer. In addition to these information collection efforts, the Board will explore a pilot program to provide translations of select Board materials in American Sign Language through web-based videos. The project priorities will be initiated in 2006 to the extent that funding permits. Where possible, the Board seeks to undertake research in partnership with other organizations or to build upon existing projects in order to maximize available opportunities with limited funds. For further information on these projects or other aspects of the Board's research program, contact Lois Thibault, the Board's research coordinator, at 202/272-0023, or 202272-0082 TTY. Information on completed Board research is posted on the Board's web site. Board Places Draft Right-of-Way Guidelines in Docket In November, the Board released a draft of guidelines for accessible public rights-of-way to facilitate its work preparing an impact analysis. This analysis must be completed before the Board can officially release the guidelines for public comment. The guidelines cover pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets, including crosswalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way. In developing guidelines and regulations, Federal agencies often must prepare an assessment of the cost and impacts before a proposed version can be made public for comment. The Board's aim in this rulemaking is to ensure that access for persons with disabilities is provided wherever a pedestrian way is newly built or altered, and that the same degree of convenience, connection, and safety afforded the public generally is available to pedestrians with disabilities. The draft guidelines are based on recommendations from an advisory committee chartered by the Board. The Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee included representatives from disability groups, public works departments, transportation and traffic engineering groups, civil engineers, government agencies, and others. The Board prepared draft guidelines based on the committee's recommendations and made them available for public comment in June 2002. Over 1,400 comments were received. The revised draft incorporates many recommendations from these comments. After it completes its cost analysis, the Board will proceed to publish the guidelines in proposed form and make them available for comment. Further information, including the draft guidelines, are available on the Board's web site. Questions on this rulemaking should be directed to Scott Windley at 202/272-0025, 202/ 272-0082 TTY. Courthouse Advisory Committee to Hold February Meeting in D.C. The Courthouse Access Advisory Committee will hold its next quarterly meeting February 9th and 10th in Washington, DC. This committee, which is comprised of designers, disability groups, members of the judiciary, and court administrators, among others, is examining challenges to accessibility in courthouse design in preparing design solutions and best practices. In addition, the committee also is exploring outreach and partnership opportunities for disseminating the information to be developed. The meetings, which are open to the public, will be held at the Doubletree Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The meetings will start at 9 AM both days and end at 5 PM on the first day and at 3 PM on the second. For more information, contact Dave Yanchulis, 202/272-0026, or 202/272-0082 TTY. Elizabeth Stewart, Board Legal Counsel, Returns to Private Practice Elizabeth Stewart, an attorney with the Access Board for almost 20 years, has resigned her position to return to the practice of family law in her home state of Florida. Stewart was active in a number of Board rulemakings, including those underway on public rights-of-way and passenger vessels, and was instrumental in the organization and operation of the Board's Advisory Committee on Courthouse Accessibility. She also supervised the Board's Compliance and Enforcement Office and served as the Board's Ethics Officer. Information on Disaster Preparedness and Response The devastation wrought by hurricane Katrina, like the terrorist attacks of 9/11, has highlighted the importance of accommodating people with disabilities in disaster preparedness and response. A congressional briefing on this issue took place in November. In addition, information from previously scheduled conferences on emergency notification and evacuation is now available. On November 10, a congressional briefing was held on the topic of emergency management and response and the needs of people with disabilities. Hosted by the Co-chairs of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, the event featured a panel discussion by representatives from the National Council on Disability, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Organization on Disability, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the US Department of Homeland Security, and the American Red Cross. A transcript of the briefing is available. The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Telecommunication Access held a state-of-the-science conference on November 2 and 3 at Gallaudet University on ways to improve the accessibility of emergency notification and communication systems. Participants included representatives from the Board, accessibility experts, industry representatives, researchers, and others. Further information on the conference is available. The Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR) promotes coordination and cooperation among Federal departments and agencies conducting rehabilitation research programs. Last year, the ICDR's Subcommittee on Technology held a workshop on emergency evacuation which provided a forum for discussion on research recommendations to improve available data, building and life safety codes, evacuation technologies, and evacuation practices for people with physical disabilities. The conference proceedings are now available. Other resources on evacuation planning and disaster preparedness for people with disabilities are available. Out of State and Out of Mind By Ken Ervin On Wednesday, October 12th my friend Mike O'Brien called to say that a young lady we had been working with for five years had passed away out of state in Pennsylvania. Her parents had never wanted to send her away. Their dream and her dream was that she would be allowed to remain in her own home with her family with the supports around her, which would have enabled her to live a full rich life. When the family had first approached us asking for assistance, we had thought that the MRDD Waiver was the obvious option. She had a developmental disability (a rare neurological disorder) which left her often confused with irregular sleep patterns. She would often run away. This required almost constant monitoring. Once again, this seemed a perfect match for the MRDD Waiver which allows for 24-hour care. We were shocked when the application was denied both by the hearing officer and a circuit court judge. The judge even refused to hear the case because the young lady was no longer considered a citizen of West Virginia. Out of State and Out of Mind. A recent Charleston Gazette Article entitled Nursing Home Exiles chronicled the stories of two women who have been sent to The Arbors, a nursing home in Marietta, OH, because a 1994 law makes it acceptable for individuals who use ventilators to be moved out of state automatically, based on the cost. According to the article, Specialty Select Hospital in Charleston has sent 15 people to Ohio in the last three years. Joan Welldon, one of the women profiled has told me that all the ventilator patients currently housed at The Arbors are West Virginia residents who have been forced to surrender their citizenship simply for the right to breathe. She has said on several occasions that she feels that her home state has forgotten her and that she is no longer wanted. The exile imposed on Joan by the State of West Virginia has forced her to leave her home, her pets, and her elderly mother, who she helped care for and worries about everyday. Once again, our state has employed its out of state/out of mind policy. Currently, there are 389 children from West Virginia in out of state placement. Adults who are sent out of state are given out of state Medicaid and then simply forgotten by West Virginia. I guess our Governor and policy makers aren't concerned because this tactic allows them to defray the cost of care for these individuals. The burden of the cost is placed on the state where they are imprisoned — a cost savings for the state of West Virginia. This strategy, however, fails to take into account the families which are torn apart, the holidays that are missed, or the mother from the Charleston Gazette article who only gets to see her children once every four months, if she is lucky. How would Governor Manchin feel if he were faced with this existence on a daily basis? West Virginia's Policy of pushing citizens out of state based on their diagnosis is not just immoral, it is illegal. According to the 1999 Olmstead decision every individual has the right to live in the home of their choice. I wonder how many people, like my friend, will pass away never having the opportunity to return to their home and those they love. Source: National ADAPT Mailing List - Adapt MiCASA List The ADA and Personality Testing by Employers Karraker v. Rent-A-Center Many employers use personality testing in assessing job applicants. However, a recent precedent-setting case held that the use of a personality test for potential employees is prohibited by the ADA. Karraker v. Rent-A-Center, 411 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2005). In Karraker, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) held that the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) violates the ADA as it is a "medical examination" that has the effect of screening out individuals with mental illness. Under the ADA, employers may not require "medical examinations" of job applicants prior to extending a job offer. Medical examinations that are given to people who have received job offers or who are current employees must be "job-related and consistent with business necessity." When given to job applicants, medical examinations must be given to all potential employees for that position. For medical examinations of sitting employees, there must be a reasonable basis for the examination. As with any employment-related activity, reasonable accommodations and modifications must be provided for medical examinations. While this decision involved the use of the MMPI personality test at the job application stage, the courts decision calls into question the use of all personality tests at any stage of the employment process. It is recommended that employers examine their current employment practices to ensure that these practices do not violate the ADA by using personality tests that tend to reveal and/or screen out certain disabilities. What the Court Stated The MMPI is an impermissible medical examination that violates the ADA when given prior to making a job offer. The MMPI is considered a medical examination even if it is not interpreted by a health care professional. The MMPI is a medical examination even if the employer attempts to use it as a personality test by utilizing a vocational, and not a medical, grading system. The MMPI has the effect of screening out individuals with mental illness. The use of personality tests in general may not be job related or consistent with business necessity. Issues For Employers Are personality tests beneficial in evaluating potential employees? Do the benefits of personality testing outweigh the risks of litigation? Do personality tests violate the privacy and confidentiality rights of job applicants? Are there less risky or more effective methods available for evaluating potential employees? In addition to tending to screen out people with mental illness, do personality tests discriminate against individuals with cognitive, developmental, communicative, or other disabilities? Employers with questions can contact the Illinois ADA Project at 877/ADA-3601, TTY 800/610-2779; E-Mail: ContactUs@ADA-IL.org, www.ADA-IL.org The Illinois ADA Project is administered by Equip for Equality and funded by the Great Lakes ADA & Accessible IT Center and the National Institute for Disability and Research Rehabilitation (NIDRR). Individuals with disabilities or other people with questions regarding personality testing, or who are aware of an employer that uses the MMPI or other personality test, can contact the Illinois ADA Project at the contact information listed above, or Equip for Equality at 800/537-2532, TTY 800/610-2779, E-Mail Contactus@equipforequality.org. This resource material is intended as a guide for people with disabilities and is available in alternative formats. Nothing written here shall be understood to be legal advice. For specific legal advice, an attorney should be consulted. Murderball nominated for Oscar MURDERBALL nominated for 2005 best documentary feature academy award SMASHING every stereotype about the diSabled IN A HEART-WARMING STORY ABOUT LOVE OVER LOSS "TWO THUMBS WAY UP."-Ebert & Roeper "GRIPPING. FAST-PACED AND FLUID. UNUSUALLY DEEP." -New York Times TORONTO (January 31, 2006) - The critically acclaimed Murderball, from independent distributor THINKFilm, has been nominated for a Best Documentary Feature Academy Award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it was announced today. Murderball features fierce rivalry, stopwatch suspense, and larger-than-life personalities while smashing every stereotype associated with the disabled in this in-depth look at a group of tough, highly competitive quadriplegic rugby players. The film is currently available on DVD. "We are ecstatic at the honor of having Murderball nominated," said Jeff Sackman, president and CEO, THINKFilm. "Filmmakers Dana Adam Shapiro, Jeffrey Mandel and Henry-Alex Rubin delivered a film that is as action-packed as it is inspirational, and we are proud of their accomplishment." This marks the third year in a row that THINKFilm has been nominated by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in the Best Documentary Feature category. In 2003 THINKFilm was honored with a nomination for spelling bee documentary Spellbound, and in 2004, Born Into Brothels took home the Academy Award(r) for Best Documentary Feature. Featuring a cast of professional, determined athletes including Mark Zupan, Joe Soares, Keith Cavill, Andy Cohn, Scott Hogsett and Bob Lujano, Murderall also won the Documentary Audience Award and a Special Jury Prize for Editing at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival. Synopsis: From the gyms of middle America to the Olympic arena in Athens, Greece, Murderball tells the story of a group of world-class athletes unlike any ever shown on screen — they are forced to live life sitting down. In their own version of full-contact rugby, these athletes smash the hell out of each other in custom-made gladiator-like wheelchairs. The film demolishes every stereotype about the disabled. It is a film about family, revenge, honor, sex and the triumph of love over loss. But most of all, it is a film about standing up, even after your spirit — and your spine — has been crushed. DVD Special Features:
More information about TH!NKFilm can be found at www.thinkfilmcompany.com. mPRm Public Relations 5670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90036 323/933.3399 ext. 225 fax 323/939.7211 www.mprm.com Proof can be a burden Costs are the sticking point in a special education lawsuit By James McCusker, Seattle Herald columnist There are some interesting parallels between football and our justice system. The similarities aren't really accidental, but the result of our efforts to preserve a sense of fairness in fierce contests that have such clearly defined winners and losers. In its pursuit of fairness during this college football season, for example, the National Collegiate Athletic Association broadened its experimentation with instant replay to increase the accuracy of the officials' calls, which are often significant and sometimes decisive in a game's outcome. Instant replay has been in use in the National Football League for some time now, and NFL officials, coaches, teams and fans have gotten used to the process. Still, the NCAA chose to make one aspect very specific. Its rule change states, "There must be indisputable video evidence for an on-field officiating decision to be changed..." This is the sports rule equivalent of what we call the "burden of proof" in our justice system. In the NCAA football standard, the ruling of the officials on the field stands, unless whoever is challenging that decision can produce, via the video replay, indisputable evidence that it was wrong and should be overturned. In our justice system, the burden of proof concept is a bit more complicated. In a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cited a legal authority ("McCormick on Evidence") as describing burden of proof as one of the "slipperiest members of the family of legal terms." The case, Schaffer vs. Weast, involved a special-education student whose parents were unhappy with their school district's instructional plan for him. More specifically, the case focused on the legal question of whether the school district or the parents had the obligation to prove the instructional plan was either inadequate or acceptable. The court decided the parents had the burden of proof. One aspect of the case has a direct parallel to football's instant replay system. There is a separation of the burden of proof into two aspects: burden of evidence and burden of persuasion. A football coach who challenges a call by the officials has no ability to produce evidence. The video record is entirely in someone else's hands and, to a large degree, controlled by the same officials whose judgment is being challenged. In the same way, a student or a parent who brings a dispute over special education to court has very little access to the statistical data or other information that might have an impact on the decision. That is generally in the hands of the school district being challenged. In cases involving special education, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) anticipated the burden of proof issue and gave the school districts primary responsibility for producing the evidence, even when it was defending itself. What the IDEA legislation didn't anticipate were the economic implications of special education - more specifically, the burden of cost. And the economics involved in that burden is another of those "slipperiest" of things. The Everett School District is one of 12 now suing the state for failing to provide adequate funding for special education. According to the school districts' calculations, the state is short-changing them by about $100 million a year. From a direct economic cost standpoint, the outcome of this case - in the sense of who wins - is not significant. It matters very little to the economy generally, or to taxpayers who end up with the bill, whether the money comes out of the state's treasury or the school district's. Of far greater economic interest will be any unintended consequences of the state's defense in the lawsuit, which involves audits and analysis of actual expenditures by school districts. This could underscore a key shortcoming of the special-education system: control of economic costs. Because Congress chose to ignore the costs of special education when it created the IDEA law, states and school districts were legally bound to provide the education, essentially without regard to economics. For the most part, parents of special-education students are reasonable people, and this has helped keep budgets from bursting. Still, special education manages to be heartwarming, heart-breaking, effective, questionable and often staggeringly expensive - all at the same time. And it has been extremely difficult, both emotionally and legally, to establish any real standards of cost-effectiveness for it. Ultimately, the economics of special education will force us to confront the issue. This confrontation will take place in our courts, and the key legal issue will be the burden of proof: who gets to say how much is effective, and how much is enough. And that is when, just as in a hotly contested football game, all our efforts to ensure fairness will pay off. James McCusker is a Bothell economist, educator and consultant. He also writes "Business 101" monthly for the Snohomish County Business Journal. Source: Seattle Herald, 1/01/06. DOJ settles with Ticket Master The US Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has reached a settlement agreement with Ticket Master regarding various aspects of their business practices. A copy of the settlement agreement is available. Source: Great Lakes ADA and Accessible IT Center US Chamber Case Studies The US Chamber of Commerce has posted case studies from local Chambers who have been involved in efforts to increase the employment of people with disabilities. This information can be viewed online. Finding and keeping good workers are among the greatest challenges facing businesses in the 21st century. Today, more than ever, businesses need access to a skilled and diverse workforce. They cannot stay competitive and increase profitability without qualified personnel. People with disabilities are a source of qualified workers that is frequently overlooked. This pool of workers represents one of the largest groups seeking employment in today's market -- some 9 million unemployed Americans with significant disabilities want to work. Chambers of commerce can bridge the gap between employers and public sector disability service providers. Below are case studies of local chambers meeting the needs of their business members:
Medicaid Commission Update, 1/24-26/06 When the Medicaid Commission met in Washington, DC, last week to begin their deliberations on making recommendations to the Administration and to Congress on the future of the Medicaid program that ensures the long-term sustainability of the program, their focus was on eligibility populations. This was consistent with a schedule that had been adopted in October for the next five meetings of the Commission. It included:
At this past week's meeting, the Commission heard from many experts and representatives about Medicaid eligibility, private insurance's role, and state practices. Dr. Diane Rowland, Executive Director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, and Nina Owcharenko of the Heritage Foundation both addressed who should and should not be covered by Medicaid and why. Joy Johnson Wilson, a member of the Commission, who is the Federal Affairs Counsel and Health Policy Director at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and Jim Frogue, chief liaison to state policy projects for the Center for Health Transformation (a group headed by Newt Gingrich), spoke about state responses to increased pressure on Medicaid enrollment and public financing. In addition to their presentations, we heard from the states of Idaho, Massachusetts, and West Virginia about their own state reform efforts, usually involving 1115 waivers [waivers are state programs approved by the Center for Medicaid/ Medicare Services that depart from ordinary eligibility or benefit rules for temporary periods to test new, innovative policies but often also to expand eligibility, coverage or services or save on budget expenses]. These states were represented by their governors, secretaries of health and human services, and Medicaid directors. At one point, we had two sitting governors testifying, two sitting governors on the Commission listening and two former governors chairing the meeting, not to mention that Secretary Leavitt is also a former governor. Throughout the Medicaid debate, the states have pushed for increased flexibility to administer and implement the Medicaid programs within their own states. The 1115 waiver programs are presently a means with which states have some flexibility to "experiment" with Medicaid. A report by Congressional Quarterly after the Commission's October meeting noted that many people believed it "was a 'sham' commission controlled by people hostile to Medicaid." But the article went on to say that after the two-day meeting, "members of the panel displayed the kind of concentration, curiosity, and passion that suggested their concern about the stakes involved." The questioning of witnesses was "sharp and detailed and interspersed with commentary that reflected a range of opinion on long-term changes." As evidenced by the National Governors Association, recommendations on Medicaid reform can cross state and political boundaries. The next meeting of the Commission will be March 14 and 15 (tentatively) and will be held in Atlanta, GA (place not specified yet). Once the date and location are official, it will be available online. The focus of that meeting has been changed from the original schedule and will be on long-term care. It is always possible for anyone to make public comments during the Commission's meeting, as well as to submit in writing any proposals or testimony for the Commission's consideration. For example, ADAPT submitted a proposal to the Medicaid Commission very early in its deliberations entitled "Program-matic/Cost Efficient Medicaid Changes to End the Institutional Bias." This proposal focuses on "how Medicaid's long-term services and support system can more effectively serve more people with disabilities and older Americans in the community by reforming the institutional funding bias that has existed since1965 and without block granting or arbitrarily capping Medicaid funding." A member of ADAPT will be testifying at the March meeting. Recommendations made by the NCD in its December report should also be submitted to the Commission. NCD states in their report summary, "the development of long-term services and supports (LTSS) comprehensive policy will define the future economic independence of Americans with disabilities. The United States is a world leader in extending life and eradicating disease, but it has failed to develop an LTSS public policy that truly integrates disability as a natural part of the human experience." Written submissions to the Commission should be sent to Stacie Maass, Executive Director of the Medicaid Commission, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201, phone 202/401-5879, Stacie.Maass@hhs.gov. MTW and Accessible/Affordable Housing Info. Bulletin #100 (1/06) Twenty eight public housing authorities listed below have a "Moving to Work" (MTW) Agreement with HUD. Congress permits these 28 public housing authorities great flexibility in administering both conventional public housing and housing choice vouchers. These MTW public housing authorities can use their federal funds in ways that have not traditionally been used. For example, MTWs can far exceed the minimal accessibility and affordability mandates that non-MTW housing authorities must comply with. Here are some affirmative suggestions disability advocates could consider to increase the number of affordable and accessible units in these 28 housing authorities. You must convince your MTW housing authority that implementing these are within their MTW authority AND helps them comply with S. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 1. Housing authorities can set rents and subsidies for housing vouchers in accessible units far higher than for non- accessible units. Thus, in order to assure persons with disabilities have equal access to use a housing voucher, these housing authorities can IF NECESSARY set housing voucher rents, for example, well higher than 120% of the fair market rent. Most important for advocates, this change could be system-wide and not on a unit by unit basis, as exists presently. Are accessible units in your city too expensive for regular housing vouchers? Has your MTW housing authority requested HUD for permission system-wide to increase housing voucher subsidies for accessible units? 2. MTW housing authorities can offer unique services to private landlords to assure the availability of accessible housing for persons with housing vouchers. This could include providing grants for home modifications to achieve accessibility. Thus, if persons with disabilities with housing vouchers find a private unit that will accept the voucher but the unit is not accessible, these MTW housing authorities could make home modification funds available. This could be accomplished either with grants directly to landlords or through tenants, or with low interest loans to landlords. Has your housing authority begun such a program? 3. MTW housing authorities could establish priority housing for persons with disabilities who are in nursing homes solely because they cannot find affordable and accessible housing. These MTW housing authorities could, together with your state's Medicaid office, identify persons in nursing homes and provide them either with accessible conventional public housing or increased vouchers. 4. MTW programs could also use funds to determine how many persons with disabilities on SSI are residing in inaccessible private housing (as well as conventional public housing) and begin a citywide program to remedy this. These are only a few of the affirmative handles MTW programs could use for persons with disabilities. Each suggestion requires that disability advocates collectively decide what you need and then decide on a strategy to convince your MTW to implement it. Remember, allocations of MTW programs are the result of local organizing and education. Moving To Work (MTW) Housing Authorities:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
