from the desk of Pamela Bisceglia, Executive Director

November 29, 2025, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Public Law 94-142 Education for all Handicapped Children Act and reauthorized in 1990 and 2004 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. May 12, 2025, ADVOCACYDENVER celebrated our 71st anniversary. The Denver County Chapter was established in 1954, by parents to address the lack of access for children with disabilities to public education.

We stand on the shoulders of the parents before us.

My journey: I am the parent of a child who was identified as having a disability at birth. My daughter was premature; her health was fragile. I took life one day at a time, I did not think about or plan for her future because I wasn’t sure if she would be with me tomorrow. 

When my daughter was about two years old, a friend invited me to have lunch at her home. For the first time I left my daughter under the care of a grandparent. When I arrived for lunch, there were several other guests, but my friend said, “I want you to meet June. You and her have a lot in common.”  I looked at this woman, many years my senior, but soon learned what we had in common was we were both parents of children with disabilities. 

As we talked, I had reason to wonder out loud what school would look like for my child. She said your child will have every opportunity because of parents like me. She remembered when her son was young, he attended kindergarten at a Denver Public School. The next year, on the first day of school he insisted that he walk to school with the other children in the neighborhood. She watched as he walked down the path of their house, pencil box in one hand and writing tablet in the other. Each day at the evening meal he would talk about school; the teacher said this, a boy did this, a girl did that; today we learned…  He was excited about his learning. 

About two weeks into the school year his mom saw him walk up the path to the house. He had his writing tablet in one hand, but she noticed he had his pencil box in his other hand. This puzzled her because the pencil box always remained in his desk at school. When he walked through the door, she noticed a note pinned to the collar of his shirt. The note said “We have determined that your child cannot be educated. You will need to make other arrangements for him.”  The note was signed by the principal. She was outraged. 

She and her husband went to the school the next day and met with the principal. The principal said it is obvious that your child is an “imbecile” and as principal of this school, I have the authority to refuse enrollment. The parents reached out to district leadership, the Colorado Department of Education and everyone stood firm supporting the principal and the school district’s decision. The year was 1954, and in 1954, children with disabilities did not have a right to a public education.

June joined the movement and lobbied first at a local level and then at a national level for policy that would afford her child, and all children with disabilities, a public education. In today’s history classes educators teach our children the important history of the Civil Rights movement/demonstrations in the 50s and in particular the 60s. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. were leaders who led the community forwarding change. Because parents saw these leaders discussing civil rights, they recognized their own permission to talk about the human rights of their children with disabilities. 

 Public Law 94-142 Education for all Handicapped Children Act was passed in 1975. For the parents who stood firm in the 50s and 60s, their children were too old to go to school, but nevertheless they took pride in the fact that they had opened the door to public education for future generations of children with disabilities.

We stand on the shoulders of the parents who advocated, lobbied and brought litigation to demand that all children be provided a public education. 

 We stand on the shoulders of the generation of parents and educators who brought our children out of separate classrooms in the basements of public schools and into mainstream classrooms. 

We stand with the parents, teachers and educational leaders who refuse to compromise the promise made to our children 5 decades ago, the promise of a free appropriate public education. 

The post 50th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

from the desk of Pamela Bisceglia

When Donald Trump was elected in 2017 my daughter said she was scared because “he doesn’t like people with disabilities”. I hugged her and said I would do what I could to keep her safe. Flash forward 8 years 7 months. July 3rd my daughter walked into the kitchen, clearly upset and said that they passed “Orange’s Big Ugly”. No disrespect for the president, she calls them as she sees him “Orange”; she understands that the bill forwards deep cuts to one of her lifelines, disability benefits. I hugged her and said I would do what I can to keep her safe.

Readers Digest version, of the “Big Beautiful Bill”:

• Nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. (Approximately 17 million children and adults will lose coverage).
• Nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP food assistance.
• Defines a new private school voucher program that redirects public education funding to private schools. Private schools will not be required to provide protections to children with disabilities or to adhere to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and/or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Note: a state can opt out/choose not to participate in the program.

This morning, I put on my big girl panties in preparation for ongoing fight for disability rights. In anticipation of this bill, Colorado advocates started meeting months ago with public agencies to begin to define priorities for Colorado’s disability community. Although we will not immediately feel the impact of the decisions of this bill we know in the months to come, city, state and national budgets will need to be modified, worked, and reworked. We know that everyone will be touched by these cuts. ADVOCACYDENVER just celebrated our 71st anniversary, then and now a priority is to keep our children and adults in their home and community; then and now we spend our days and evenings advocating for the civil rights of individuals with disabilities. Today our work is to mitigate harm and to protect the human rights of individuals with disabilities.

For more information please read: The Arc US Budget Reconciliation Provisions Related to Medicaid, SNAP and Education

The post Big Beautiful Bill appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

The Arc Chapters, and other important advocacy agency partners including Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, Family Voices and the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, began meeting in November with HCPF. Meetings were initiated in response to their electronic (database) system transition and the critical concern that complete information in relation to children and adults with disabilities did not transfer over from the old to the new system.

Arc chapters and other advocacy agencies began to receive complaints where children and adults receiving LTSS received notice they were no longer eligible for LTSS. As a result, Colorado restarted Medicaid eligibility redeterminations for all Medicaid enrollees, including children and adults receiving Long Term Services and Supports (LTSS). Additional issues addressed included the confusion around the rollout of phase I case management redesign and desire to limit any disruption for people receiving service in future rollout phases.

More recently, we also addressed the serious problem of providers not being paid due because of the database transition.

February 27 Colorado Center on Law and Policy and advocacy agencies met with HCPF to discuss concerns. The Colorado Center on Law and Policy provided advocates an opportunity to discuss concerns; advocates asked that HCPF put a pause on (disability) Medicaid eligibility, phase II rollout of case management redesign and to determine why providers are not getting paid and to fix the CCMS.

February 28, 2024 HCPF said:

The Department of Health Care Policy & Financing (HCPF) recently became aware of an unintended occurrence specifically impacting LTSS members that resulted from a system update. The occurrence resulted in a subset of LTSS members being scheduled to have their coverage terminated as of February 29, 2024. HCPF is implementing a system workaround, which will reinstate and keep impacted individuals covered until an appropriate resolution is found for their case. We will be issuing new notice of action letters indicating an approval effective as of March 1, 2024 to all members who were impacted.  Electronic messages to impacted members are scheduled to be released Thursday, February 29 and USPS mail communications are scheduled for release on Friday, March 1.

The Arc chapters continue to come back to the table to resolve issues with HCPF, but we are ready to escalate issues and stand firm advocating that HCPF pause and make things right for our communities of individuals with disabilities. In addition, we have reached out to the Governor’s office for additional intervention should it be necessary.

If you have questions or concerns, please contact your local Arc chapter. We stand ready to make sure your concerns are heard and to provide advocacy for and with you where we can.

¡Las cancelaciones de Medicaid deben detenerse!

Como probablemente sepa, muchos miembros de nuestra comunidad han experimentado daños significativos debido a la convergencia de tres actividades principales dentro del mundo de Medicaid: el fin de la emergencia de salud pública, la implementación del rediseño de la gestión de casos y la transición de la base de datos de políticas y financiamiento de atención médica (HCPF).

Los capítulos de Arc y otras agencias de defensa importantes asociadas, como la Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, Family Voices y el Colorado Center on Law and Policy, comenzaron a reunirse en noviembre con HCPF. Las reuniones se iniciaron en respuesta a la transición de su sistema electrónico (base de datos) y a la preocupación crítica de que la información completa en relación con los niños y adultos con discapacidades no se transfiriera del antiguo sistema al nuevo.

Los capítulos de Arc y otras agencias de defensa comenzaron a recibir quejas en las que los niños y adultos que recibían LTSS recibían un aviso de que ya no eran elegibles para LTSS. Como resultado, Colorado reinició las redeterminaciones de elegibilidad de Medicaid para todos los inscritos en Medicaid, incluidos los niños y adultos que reciben Servicios y Apoyos a Largo Plazo (LTSS). Otros problemas abordados fueron la confusión en torno a la puesta en marcha de la fase I, el rediseño de la gestión de casos y el deseo de limitar cualquier interrupción para las personas que reciben el servicio en futuras fases de implantación.

Más recientemente, también abordamos el grave problema de que los proveedores no reciben el pago debido a la transición de la base de datos.

27 de febrero: El Centro de Leyes y Políticas de Colorado y las agencias de defensa se reunieron con HCPF para discutir sus inquietudes. El Centro de Derecho y Política de Colorado brindó a los defensores la oportunidad de discutir sus inquietudes; Los defensores pidieron que HCPF pusiera una pausa en la elegibilidad de Medicaid (por discapacidad), la implementación de la fase II del rediseño de la gestión de casos y que determinara por qué no se les paga a los proveedores y que corrigiera el CCMS.

28 de febrero de 2024 HCPF dijo:

El Departamento de Políticas y Financiamiento de la Atención Médica (HCPF, por sus siglas en inglés) recientemente se dio cuenta de un suceso no deseado que afectó específicamente a los miembros de LTSS como resultado de una actualización del sistema. El suceso dio lugar a que se programara la terminación de la cobertura de un subconjunto de miembros de LTSS a partir del 29 de febrero de 2024. HCPF está implementando una solución alternativa del sistema, que restablecerá y mantendrá cubiertas a las personas afectadas hasta que se encuentre una resolución adecuada para su caso. Emitiremos nuevas cartas de aviso de acción que indiquen una aprobación efectiva a partir del 1 de marzo de 2024 para todos los miembros que se vieron afectados.  Los mensajes electrónicos a los miembros afectados están programados para ser publicados el jueves 29 de febrero y las comunicaciones por correo de USPS están programadas para ser publicadas el viernes 1 de marzo.

Los capítulos de Arc continúan regresando a la mesa para resolver problemas con HCPF, pero estamos listos para escalar los problemas y mantenernos firmes abogando por que HCPF haga una pausa y haga las cosas bien para nuestras comunidades de personas con discapacidades. Además, nos hemos comunicado con la oficina del Gobernador para obtener una intervención adicional en caso de que sea necesario.

Si tiene preguntas o inquietudes, comuníquese con su capítulo local de Arc. Estamos listos para asegurarnos de que sus inquietudes sean escuchadas y para brindar defensa para y con usted siempre que podamos.

The post Advocacy in Action – Medicaid Terminations Must Stop! appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

While preparing for the rollout of the Pediatric Health Assessment Tool (PAT) in August 2012, Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) staff predicted that “…this is going to be ugly.”

When HCPF launched their new Medicaid Management Information System “The Colorado interChange”, for claims payment on March 1, 2017, for months providers complained of reimbursement problems threatening their financial sustainability and services continuation. HCPF reported the system underwent several hours of testing. However, the testing apparently did not catch a list of issues.

In July 2023 as HCPF launched a new IT system and Phase I Case Management Agency (CMA) transitions, Disability rights agencies such as Colorado Cross Disability Coalition and The Arc chapters predicted “…this is going to be ugly.”

July 2023, HCPF launched the Care and Case Management System (CCMS) which is said to be designed to take over the Benefits Utilization System (BUS), the electronic system used by Single Entry Point agencies. All community centered board case managers were provided training in the new system. Boots on the ground staff entered information into the new system but continued to rely on the BUS that provided additional detail and historical information in relation to each client that is not captured in the CCMS.

October 31, 2023, HCPF denied Single Entry Point leadership and staff access to the BUS.

November 1, 2023, Phase I CMA Transition for Denver, Adams, Aurora, Arapahoe and Douglas counties. Rocky Mountain Human Services (RMHS) became the case management agency for Denver and Adams Counties; the community centered board for Adams, North Metro Community Services closed; and Developmental Pathways (DP) became the single entry point for Aurora, Arapahoe, and Douglas counties. Some 4,000 clients were moved from RMHS to DP; all clients with intellectual and developmental disabilities that were served by North Metro were moved to RMHS. HCPF refused RMHS and DP bid to notify their clients of pending changes in case management. A letter from Health First Colorado was sent late September/early October to each client stating that their case management agency was changing. By the way, HCPF admits that because of zip codes crossing county lines, the guardian or authorized representative address vs. client’s physical address, some members were inadvertently electronically transferred to the wrong CMA. Nevertheless, the letter included the name of the new agency and said:

Changes to agencies will happen between now and July 1, 2024. You can expect to receive a letter with more information from your new agency about 4-6 weeks before your agency changes. If you are interested in using a different agency for your case management than the one listed above, please reach out to your current case management agency or case manager.

Late notice did not allow the CMA to provide any written information to clients. Instead, Phase I CMAs scrambled to call as many clients as possible to explain changes. Speaking with AdvocacyDenver clients, most do not remember receiving a letter from Health First Colorado. Many do not recognize this as an agency who shares important information, instead, they pay attention to notices from RMHS, DP or North Metro. Finally, some clients are frustrated or confused with the procedures to opt for a different case management agency. November 21, 2023, HCPF said:

The CMA is responsible for informing the member of their CMA including contact information. Outgoing CMAs were required to mail members a notification of their CMA changing and the incoming CMA receiving the member was required to send a welcome letter to the member. Agencies are still sending welcome letters to members currently.

HCPF asserts that each CMA was responsible to provide the new CMA with a list of member information that included pending case management tasks, including any financial eligibility concerns.

. . . to assist CMAs, HCPF is pulling data reports to ensure members are coordinated with their CMA and the agency is aware of the members’ identified 100.2 end date, prior authorization for services and financial redetermination status.

AdvocacyDenver questions whether complete information is included in the Care and Case Management System (CCMS) or whether more complete information is found in the Benefits Utilization System (BUS).
In response to a long list of questions/concerns submitted by metro advocacy agencies HCPF said:

Clients who are concerned their services were terminated inappropriately can file an appeal with the Office of Administrative Court and can continue to receive services during the appeal.

This response is inappropriate. That is, if a client’s services were terminated because of faults in HCPF’s rollout of Phase I CMA, their IT system and/or because a CCB closed their doors and failed to notify a client, HCPF must make it right. HCPF assumes that clients are in a position to file/forward an appeal because of HCPF’s failure to provide appropriate safeguards when implementing a conflict free case management system. AdvocacyDenver challenges HCPF to identify resources/peoplepower to support said clients in any appeal proceedings from start to finish. AdvocacyDenver challenges HCPF to examine their IT system, and review and modify their procedures so that Phase II and III communities have a smooth transition.

The post “This is Going to be Ugly” appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

On January 17, 2023, AdvocacyDenver filed a complaint against the Denver Public Schools (DPS) with the Colorado Department of Education alleging violations of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.  The complaint was filed on behalf of a family whose child had not received speech/language services (SLP) required by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) beginning August 2022 to the date that the complaint was filed.  In addition, AdvocacyDenver provided a list of other elementary schools where children were not receiving the IEP SLP services.

It is important to note that the parents exhausted other administrative remedies before reaching out to AdvocacyDenver, they worked with the school leader and left messages for central administration special education managers and directors in October and November.  The school leader reached out to district leadership and contacted The Children’s Hospital to see if the school could contract for services.  Central administration first spoke to the parents after receiving notice of the State Complaint.  The district offered to pay for a list of services contingent on the family withdrawing any pending complaints.  The family was concerned about their child, but they paused and thought about the larger school community and declined the offer.   The parents brought testimony to the Board of Education, organized a letter writing campaign; the shero and hero when forwarding the issues and demanding resolution were the parents. 

The complaint was accepted for investigation.  The district was provided with a list of interrogatories and an opportunity to respond.  District counsel submitted an admission to the allegations.  March 18, 2023, the State Complaint officer issued a decision and concluded that the district had failed to implement the IEP for the named student; this violation resulted in a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Conclusion to Allegation No. 2 (systemic complaint):

District failed to implement the IEPs of over 1,000 Students from January 17, 2022 to present, by failing to provide them with the SLP minutes required by their IEPs, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.323. This violation resulted in denials of FAPE.

The decision requires that the district submit a corrective action plan and provides a timeline for directives outlined in the decision.  AdvocacyDenver expects that the district will follow directives provided by the State Complaints Officer and IEP teams will meet with parents/guardians to discuss compensatory services (services that will place the child in the same position they would have been in if there had not been an interruption/denial of services).  

The decision provides the district an opportunity to consider the issues leading up to the complaint.  We hope the decision sparks the district’s thinking about staffing issues that are not specific to the pandemic, but rather speak to the culture of the district.  Over the past decade AdvocacyDenver observed the exodus of talented teachers (general and special education) and related service providers.  Superintendent Boasberg closed/redesigned neighborhood schools and bid farewell to the staff.  Boasberg cut millions of dollars (7, 3, 5, 17) out of the special education budget.  As caseloads, workloads and culture became impossible, some providers left the field, or moved to other school districts.  That same Superintendent forwarded a ruthless business culture that devalues staff and uncertainty is the norm.

The current Superintendent and leadership have an opportunity to forward a different culture.  When onboarding staff they should not only welcome the new member of the team, but assign a skilled mentor to support them in learning about and navigating a complicated system.  Negotiations with the Denver Classroom Teachers Association (DCTA) should include an accurate workload formula for each group of providers.  Weight should be given to the special education teachers and providers such as speech language pathologists that work with our youngest learners.  Consideration should be given to the fact that preschool and elementary school providers are implementing a multi-tiered service system/response to intervention and completing initial evaluations.  We look to professional staff to teach the child compensatory skills so that that eventually that child no longer needs specialized services.  Special education should not be a life sentence.  Weight should be given to the fact that many elementary providers are expected to serve students at multiple schools; school assignments should be clustered, a stipend provided for working in multiple buildings and a stipend for working with our youngest learners.  

Again, the current Superintendent and leadership have an opportunity to forward a different culture, where staff is valued and DPS becomes the district of choice for employment.  Such a change could result in better outcomes for all DPS students.

The post DPS Failed to Provide Speech Services to Over 1000 Students appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

It is important to know where you have been in order to know where you are going. The student pictured is a client. He is a Denver Public School (DPS) student, diagnosed with autism. In 2011 the student was assigned to an affective needs (AN) center program. The AN program is said to be designed for students with emotional disabilities, not students with autism, intellectual disabilities, other health impairments (e.g. ADHD) or other disabilities.

Each day, the bus ride home for the student was 45 minutes. One day he started crying “it’s too long”, got out of his seat and kicked the paraprofessional on the bus. The bus was minutes from the parents’ home, but the driver turned the bus around and returned to the school. The principal called the police and then the parents. When the parents arrived, their young child was in handcuffs. The police said that they could not take the handcuffs off, they loaded him into the police car, and because of his young age, drove him the hospital; they removed the handcuffs once he was in the care of a doctor. AdvocacyDenver worked with the family and district and the student was moved to a program designed for children with autism.

In 2011 and today a disproportionate number of Black male students are placed in the DPS AN center programs. AdvocacyDenver tried to work for systemic change with each superintendent and each special education director. We saw momentum in 2020 when the District initiated Project DISRUPT as a means to dismantle institutionalized racism. In the fall of 2020, DPS forwarded the following Problem Statement to district/school staff:

Affective Needs Center based programming is one of our most glaring examples of institutionalized racism with Denver Public Schools, which disproportionately impacts Black male students. In order to break historical and contemporary patterns of inequity, this system needs to be abolished, and we must reimagine how we serve Black students with known and suspected disabilities by designing and committing to the implementation of anti-racist, anti-ableist policies, structures, and mindsets.

The special education director promised systemic change. The project was established in 2020 and shut down June 2021. No steps were taken to resolve admitted issues of race and disability discrimination. Then and now the district admits that Black students are consistently overrepresented in AN center programs. AdvocacyDenver exhausted school and administrative remedies to try to resolve issues. AdvocacyDenver forwarded and resolved formal and informal complaints on behalf of individual students; however, outcomes did not result in systemic change.

On August 2, 2021 AdvocacyDenver filed a complaint of discrimination with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. The complaint was accepted, the investigation is pending.

On March 24, 2022, AdvocacyDenver filed a state-level complaint against Denver Public Schools on behalf of parents of Black students identified as children with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and placed in affective needs (“AN”) programs. The State Complaints Officer determined that AdvocacyDenver identified five systemic allegations subject to the jurisdiction of the state-level complaint process under the IDEA and its implementing regulations. Due to the significant number of identified Students and the voluminous documentation required to resolve the systemic allegations, the State Complaints Officer extended the 60-day investigation timeline due to exceptional circumstances. The decision was issued September 7, 2022.

• Conclusion to Allegation No. 1: District systematically failed to conduct comprehensive evaluations or make appropriate eligibility determinations for Students, in violation of 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304 and 300.306(c).
• Conclusion to Allegation No. 2: District systematically failed to educate Students in their least restrictive environment, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.114. District also systematically failed to ensure Students could participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities to the greatest extent possible, in violation of and 300.116 and ECEA Rule 4.03(8)(a) and 300.117.
• Conclusion to Allegation No. 3: District included Parents in discussions about placement changes, consistent 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.116(a)(1) and 300.327. However, District systemically failed to issue prior written notice of placement changes, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.503.
• Conclusion to Allegation No. 4: District failed to ensure teachers at two AN programs and (District) Facility School possessed required certifications and licenses, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.156 and ECEA Rule 3.03.
• Conclusion to Allegation No. 5: District systematically failed to develop, review, and revise IEPs tailored to Students’ individualized needs, in violation of 34 C.F.R §§ 300.320(a)(2), 300.324(a), and 300.324(b)(1)(ii)(A).

The State Complaints Officer provided the district a long list of corrective actions and the timeline for completing those actions. The Decision, when published can be found at: https://www.cde.state.co.us/spedlaw/decisions

The decision is far reaching and provides a long list of corrective actions including training facilitated by Colorado Department of Education to all special education leadership (e.g. Executive Director, Directors, Managers or any other central District staff who support building leaders at schools with AN programs), school building leaders at with AN programs, AN Program Teachers, Facility School Teachers and School Psychologists and Social Workers who support these programs.

No doubt, the Superintendent will honor the order issued by the State Complaints Officer. We are all lifelong learners, and we are certain that the training will be welcomed by many; the training will offer staff additional tools needed to appropriately serve marginalized communities of learners. Now that we have talked about where we have been, looking forward, professional development cannot and should not be a one-time activity. Denver Public Schools Superintendent has the opportunity to make a decision that will serve students well into the future. The Superintendent can honor school autonomy on some matters, but firmly forward a culture/procedures that demand professional learning and compliance when it comes to Individuals with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Denver Public Schools’ Consent Decree.

The post Students Prevail in Systemic Complaint Against Denver Public Schools appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Affordable housing in Denver—a seemingly contradictory statement and an issue that, at the very least, causes headaches for those trying to navigate it, and at worst leads to homelessness and displacement for our most vulnerable community members. Denver’s housing market is among the fastest growing in the country, and that growth leaves behind thousands of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) who are unable to keep up with rising costs and lack of inclusivity and accessibility.

In 2020 Denver Human Services’ Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Equitable Access to Services (IDDEAS) program Advisory Council, a group of community members that makes recommendations regarding the use of DHS Mill Levy funds, forwarded a recommendation regarding equitable housing access for the I/DD community in Denver. DHS then joined a community-led effort, with invitation from Laradon, to pursue the creation of the Inclusive Housing Denver report. Ten community organizations contributed to the design and generation of the final report as the process was facilitated by Neuro-Inclusive Housing Solutions and Autism Housing Network. Findings were compiled through a combination of data and market analysis, focus groups with members of the I/DD community and their families, and a cross-sector community leader workshop. The 53-page report was released in November 2021.

Report Highlights

Aging Caregivers  “73% of Colorado residents with I/DD live with and are supported by a family member…” Many of these households are led by aging caregivers who, currently and in coming years, may not be able to maintain their home and level of care for their loved ones. Individuals with I/DD, many who live below federal poverty guidelines, are unlikely to be able to afford the cost of maintaining that housing in the absence of their family member and caregiver. The aging caregiver dilemma is a long-known issue, as highlighted by the 2018 addition of aging caregiver criteria to emergency Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS) enrollment. This response, while providing a good safety net for those eligible, can also involuntarily displace and limit the options of the individual with I/DD who may be forced to move into a host home or other waiver-provided residential setting during what is already a difficult and emotional transition. 

Invisible Numbers  Individuals with I/DD are an often unrecognized group when it comes to affordable housing discussions and planning. This invisibility grows when taking into account the number of people who are not connected with LTSS and the Medicaid waivers, whether it be due to experiencing homelessness and lack of access to services, or ineligibility under program criteria- the reality for many individuals on the autism spectrum whose IQ places them outside of eligibility thresholds. The report estimates the number of people with I/DD in Denver county to be, conservatively, 2035, with the potential to be over 7778 due to those factors.

Range of Needs  Thirty-two percent of respondents reported needing a moderate level of level of support scattered throughout the day including help with meal planning, paying bills, cleaning, and other activities of daily living. Another 24 percent reported needing 24/7 care, whether through shared staff or 1:1 support. Remaining respondents had lower support needs or require specific care for physical disabilities, medical support, and memory care. It is imperative to consider this range of needs when looking towards future housing initiatives for Denver’s I/DD community. The principle of Universal Design, or the design of environments that can be accessed and used by all people regardless of age, disability, and other factors, can allow “more people to safely age in place in their community.”

Affordability  “The national standard for affordability is that an individual does not spend more than 30% of their total income on housing costs.” Almost all individuals with I/DD are deemed “extremely low income” by The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development standards, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) are many’s primary source of income. According to that national affordability standard and current maximum Social Security benefits, individuals with I/DD’s maximum affordable housing cost should not exceed between $252-276 monthly- a rate that is unfathomable in the current Denver housing market.

Community Engagement  Inclusive housing not only addresses affordability and physical accessibility, but provides opportunity to foster and engage in community and social settings. The report highlights two major barriers to community engagement for the I/DD community: lack of access to transportation and lack of friendship and meaningful personal relationships. In order to fully serve the community and its needs, future initiative will need to account for these barriers and seek to create housing that addresses them.

In asking what type of housing individuals hope to live in someday, the report elicited a variety of responses but trends emerged among those responses. Many said they would like to buy or rent their own home (not in a provider-controlled setting as currently available through Medicaid LTSS), in communities designed for, but not exclusive to, individuals with I/DD (“mixed-use neuro-inclusive communities”). Design features such as easy-to-clean environments, pedestrian-oriented planning, transit access, security and smart home features, and space for social gathering rank high and highlight a need to look beyond bare-bones ADA compliance in developing truly inclusive housing. 

Individuals responded favorably to the idea of supportive amenities, services tied to a property rather than one’s eligibility for Medicaid LTSS. These amenities could include on-site staff to help with benefit and resource navigation, free planned events to foster social engagement, help with cleaning and meals, and emergency support. 

In its entirety, Fair Housing Denver’s report identifies many more community needs and preferences, while also addressing the barriers and opportunities that exist in the current market. Overall it underlines a need for Denver, its housing development and I/DD service communities, and resources like the IDDEAS Mill Levy to get both creative and proactive. Families need support to identify options and plan for the future, developers and policymakers need education on community needs and incentive to address those needs, and individuals with I/DD deserve effective, inclusive housing solutions before they are left in crisis. The report can be read in full at https://inclusivehousingdenver.org/.

So what comes next? In light of the report’s findings, the IDDEAS Mill Levy Advisory Council forwarded seven recommendations to Denver Human Services on November 30^th, 2021. The recommendations are as follows (Note that the use of ‘housing’ refers to both renting and home ownership):

• Leverage Mill Levy funds to convert or upgrade already existing properties to tailor towards individuals with I/DD (Mom-and-Pop landlords, multi-unit housing, property managers, family homes, etc.). – High Priority
• Leverage Mill Levy funds to offer more housing vouchers or other funding mechanisms for individuals with I/DD, to encourage housing stability options. – High Priority
• Advocate to the State on issues that are critical to Denver, as they relate to housing (affordability, I/DD specific needs, etc.). – High Priority
• Leverage Mill Levy funds to incentivize builders to create I/DD inclusive housing.
• Investigate and identify landlord and builder concerns with renting and creating housing that is tailored to the I/DD community to inform an outreach and education plan.
• Create a housing and lifespan navigator program to help residents with I/DD understand, plan, and pursue housing options in Denver.
• The council recommends that housing becomes the priority for uncommitted Mill Levy funds.

These recommendations will guide efforts by DHS and the IDDEAS Mill Levy to explore, strengthen, and implement existing and new initiatives to increase housing access for the I/DD community in Denver.  

Housing is a human right for all, and providing inclusive, affordable housing for people with disabilities benefits the entire community. It is our hope these efforts can provide relief and a silver lining to the daunting and discouraging housing crisis for people with disabilities in Denver.

Note: Author of this publication, Kaley Day, is a voting member of the current IDDEAS Mill Levy Advisory Council.

Kaley Day is an Advocate for Adults with AdvocacyDenver.

She is a graduate of the University of Denver, and a sibling to a young man with disabilities. Kaley publishes Policy Perspective featuring interviews with state policymakers and community members on issues that affect the work and mission of AdvocacyDenver.

For questions or comments, contact Kaley at kday@advocacydenver.org

The post Inclusive Housing Report Highlights Need for Creative Action in Denver appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

When the Stay at Home orders were issued all persons, including AdvocacyDenver and community centered board staff transitioned from in-person to a remote workforce. We learned that for the day-to-day business or staff meetings we did not need to travel into the office, rather business could be conducted virtually. We became experts  learning to access and the new social norms when meeting via Zoom, Google Meets, etc. We also learned lessons in relation to access and equity.

We learned that there is a large community of adults with I/DD that does not have internet or technology.  We learned how much you miss when you call into a meeting; it is not easy to distinguish who is speaking, when it is appropriate to ask questions or provide input. When people turn their camera off to save “bandwidth” you miss the body language and facial expressions. We observed adult client’s expressions as they scan the screen and try to distinguish who is speaking; when participating by phone they listen in silence, or slam the phone down in frustration.

Over the course of the pandemic, Health Care Policy and Financing (“HCPF”) has issued different orders in relation to programs and agencies that enjoy public funding/bill for Medicaid services.  When the Stay at Home Orders were issued and day programs shut their doors, host home providers, parents and others who provide in-home care to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (“I/DD”) provided 24/7 care.  In time, the orders were lifted and some adults with I/DD returned to work and as day programs began to open again, other adults were excited to return and be with familiar staff and friends.  Staffing was and continues to be an issue and some programs can only offer adults programming for a few days a week.  The hope and the promise is as new staff is hired, additional days of programming will be added.

Beginning in March 2021 HCPF gave community centered boards permission to return to business/define a plan to bring staff back to the workplace. Rocky Mountain Human Services (“RMHS”) surveyed staff, defined policy, and in the end made the decision that RMHS is a remote workplace. What RMHS failed to do is survey, or consider the needs of the clients they serve. RMHS established policy that strives for equity in their workforce, but not the clients they are entrusted with. RMHS fails to provide individuals with disabilities a level playing field, let alone address the obvious issues of equity or lack thereof.

The first barrier for adults with I/DD is sometimes making it through the door, applications are completed virtually/over the phone and materials are shared electronically. Well over 90% of adults with I/DD live below poverty level; RMHS procedures assume that persons applying enjoy internet and telephone services. If you make it through the door, don’t expect to connect face to face with a Case Manager (also known as a Service Coordinator). AdvocacyDenver would assert that many of the essential duties of a Case Manager cannot be performed from the living room or study of a home or apartment. Case Managers are expected to visit or meet with their client four times a year. The Service Plan counts as one meeting but they are also expected to travel to the client’s home and walk through and confirm safety and other needs; this has not happened over the past two years. Once a year, the same Case Manager is also expected to visit the client at their place of work or day program or other community setting and again assess safety and needs. RMHS suggests that going forward, safety concerns should be reported to Adult Protective Services. A Case Management duty is to facilitate Individual Service Plan meetings; the barriers for clients and sometimes the family members who support them include lack of technology, accessibility and whether a remote meeting offers meaningful participation. RMHS Leadership asserts that they can and will make an exception, and, when appropriate, will meet with a client in-person. To date, Leadership has not shared this message with their staff; to date, no exception has been made.

AdvocacyDenver will continue to meet clients that we share with RMHS in the community and in our office, and remotely, as appropriate; we individualize according to the needs of the client.  AdvocacyDenver recommends that RMHS revisit their workplace policy and define practices that focus on, and meet the needs of the community they are charged with serving.

The post The New Norm? appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Periodically AdvocacyDenver forwards concerns to the Colorado Department of Education regarding their policies, rules/guidance, including the state assessment Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS).  The requirement for academic standards and a method to “measure” student progress was first defined in No Child Left Behind and remains in place under the Every Child Succeeds Act.  It is said that if a state does not comply that they could lose federal funds.  Some time ago California Department of Education weighed the loss of instruction time, the social emotional toll that “high states assessments” take on their students, did away with their state assessment and said keep the pennies of federal funds.   

AdvocacyDenver asked about the state assessment and whether CDE would ask for a waiver for the 2020-2021 school year.  CDE leaders said the state cannot waive the state assessment. A motion was put to CDE Board of Education to forward a request to the U.S Department of Education that the state assessment be waived this year; the majority vote was to stay the course.  AdvocacyDenver is disappointed that State Board of Education elected officials seem to have lost sight of our Colorado communities; this decision is clearly not focused on the best interest of our students.  If the CDE Board of Education will not take action, we must ask our representatives at the State Capitol and Governor Polis’ office to direct Colorado Department of Education to request a waiver.  

Our children, our students, were sent home almost one year ago.  For the first time, school districts were called on to provide technology and hot spots for remote learning.  The pandemic turned our world upside down.  One day our children were members of a community of learners in a brick and mortar school and for those with technology and internet access, two weeks later instruction was provided on-line, at-home, isolated from familiar school staff and peers and void of the rituals they knew as school.  Please be reminded that there was a large community of learners where it was months before they received technology, a hot spot and for some internet was, and is, spotty at best.  As a community, state, nation we must focus on making up for the academic instruction, but more important we must understand the trauma, the harm that this pandemic has caused in relation to the social/emotional development of our children.

Some of our children continue to participate in remote instruction, some children have just returned to school.  Just as teachers are reintroducing their students to in-person instruction and the new rituals of being a student during a pandemic, Department of Education leaders believe it is appropriate to interrupt instruction for 2 weeks to perform a state assessment; by the way – don’t expect the results to be released until late fall of the 2021-2022 school year.  Additionally, the results of the state assessments are likely meaningless given the absence of testing in 2019-2020 and the lack of access to meaningful instruction to measure student outcomes. In classrooms across the state and nation, teachers use nationally recognized screeners (not state assessments) to track student performance in content.  Screeners, work samples, myriad of tools take only a few minutes to administer and provide immediate results to inform instruction for that student.  

What can parents do?

Parents have until February 26^th to opt out of the state assessment at this website:  https://assessments.dpsk12.org/cmas/

Opting Out of Assessments

Families who wish to excuse their student from participation in one or more of the state assessments may do so by filling out the district’s opt-out application in Parent Portal from October to February. You may still opt out by scheduling an appointment with your principal or AP and request the Assessment Participation Exemption form to be printed off for you to sign (if your student has not begun taking tests). You may also write a letter and bring it with you to the meeting. If you have more than one child, you will need to fill out the form or write a letter for each child to opt out.

Your child will still attend school over the weeks that the assessment is scheduled, but rather than taking the state assessment, a teacher will actually be able to provide academic instruction and related service providers such as social workers and psychologists and counselors might have time to forward activities that support social and emotional development.  

What else can parents and community do?

Call or email your representative: https://leg.colorado.gov/find-my-legislator and Governor Polis’ office: https://colorado.gov/governor/contact-us and ask that that they require CDE to ask for a waiver from state assessment for 2021.  

The post Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) Parent OPT Out appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

From The Desk of Pamela Bisceglia

On February 6, 2020, a complaint of discrimination was filed by a member of Denver Public School (“DPS”) staff against the Principal of Inspire Elementary School. The complaint was filed in accordance with DPS Board of Education policy AC. The complainant alleged that the Principal discriminated against the student based on race (Black) and disability. AdvocacyDenver appreciates the staff that stood firm advocating for the appropriate treatment of the student and forwarded the complaint of discrimination.

The District conducted an internal investigation.  The investigation included a review of documentary evidence and interview of individual witnesses including the principal, the student, and his guardian.

June 16, 2020, the Investigator issued the findings; specifically, the Investigator found that the Principal used her authority to discriminate against the student based on his race, in violation of Board Policy AC and AC-R1, as evidenced by the following non-exhaustive list of incidents.

• The Principal used her authority to try to prevent the student from attending Inspire. The guardian provided the school with evidence of address.  Steps were taken by the Principal and her staff in contacting the Manager of the Apartment Complex in “Stapleton”, and informed them that the family was using that address as their place of residency, which caused the family to receive a ten-day eviction notice.
• The Principal documented the student’s behaviors in the District’s student reporting system, Infinite Campus, in a manner that appeared to build a case for removing him from the school under the appearance of safety concerns for staff and students. However, a white student with the same or similar behaviors was not documented in this same fashion.
• The Principal used improper student discipline and thereby failed to use the District’s discipline matrix outlined in Board Policy JK and JK-R.
• The Principal failed to follow hold/restraint protocols and implement Non-Crisis Intervention (NCI) guidelines which provide the circumstances under which holds and restraints may be used. The Principal failed to report the physical holds that were administered to the student’s guardian and failed to properly document the restraints as required by Board Policy JKA and JKA-R.
• The Principal repeatedly called DPS Safety and Security about the student. She also called the Denver Police Department (DPD), even though the student was only eight years old, and she allowed a DPD officer to interrogate this and other elementary students, without notifying parents in violation of Board Policy JIH. This led to the DPD Officer confronting the guardian and student and threatening the guardian about the possibility of her child being arrested and charged in the future. 
• The Principal demanded that school-based and District-based staff proceed with the testing process for an Individualized Education Program on an accelerated timeline so that the student could be placed in an intensive needs program outside of Inspire Elementary School.
• The Principal reported the guardian to the Denver Human Services on three separate occasions based on her assumptions that the student was not being picked up at the bus stop after school, being left alone until 9:00 p.m. and her own medical diagnoses of the student needing to be on medication and receive outside therapy.
• The Principal constantly called the guardian regarding the student’s behavior, asking that she come to the school in the middle of the day, knowing that if she came to the school the guardian would take him home because of the guardian’s concern for his safety and wellbeing. The guardian’s concern for his safety was amplified when she learned that he was being put in hold/restraints by the Principal and other staff at Inspire which caused her to keep him home and later request that be transferred to another school.

AdvocacyDenver understands that corrective measures were taken.  The Principal can appeal if she disagrees with the District’s findings.  Having said that, AdvocacyDenver expects that District leaders and the Board of Education will stand firm and will not entertain bringing this principal back to DPS in any capacity.  It is the guardian’s wish that the Principal, not be employed by any school district; the social, emotional, and educational harm caused by this staff is immense.  The student has always enjoyed school and although he expects he will no longer attend Inspire, he does not demonstrate the same thirst/love for learning.  It will take time for the District to restore their working relationship with the family.  It will take time for the family to trust that school is a safe, welcoming place.

The post Finding That Inspire Elementary School Principal Discriminated Against a Student Based on Race appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.