In this edition of Policy Perspective, ADVOCACYDENVER shares some details on the second of two proposed pieces of legislation that would provide additional protection’s for students in Colorado. ADVOCACYDENVER stands in support of this legislation.

A group of federal laws establish the rights and protections for students with disabilities who attend public schools. These include Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Since their enactment, these laws have been clarified in numerous decisions by federal district courts and the U.S. Supreme Court and in rules and regulations issued by the federal government. Collectively, federal law provides robust, though certainly imperfect, guidance and requirements for schools as they provide a free and appropriate education (FAPE) to each student with a disability from ages 3 to 21. Further, federal law provides clear accountability processes for students and their families to use when schools fail to meet their obligations for students with disabilities.

The earliest of the laws above, Section 504, establishes fundamental civil rights for students with disabilities:

“No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States… shall solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…” 29 USC 794(a).

Since the creation of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in 1980, complaints about violations of these civil rights have been investigated and resolved by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), a unit within the ED. The complaint process through OCR is notoriously slow and has been backlogged for many years. Cuts to the ED and OCR by the current administration, along with its shifts in federal priorities, have further exacerbated the challenge of resolving OCR complaints. By the government’s own reporting, OCR received over 9,200 new complaints between March and September 2025 and opened investigations on only 635 of those complaints. During this same period, OCR resolved over 7,000 backlogged cases. About 90 percent of the dated cases were not actually resolved. Rather, ED outright dismissed these cases.

Aside from submitting complaints to OCR, families have the option of pursuing civil litigation in federal court against schools that violate anti-discrimination laws. Doing so usually requires families to put up substantial financial resources and to find an attorney who specializes in education law. As such, families who are marginalized are rarely able to pursue this option.

Four members of the Colorado General Assembly, Senator Chris Kolker (D-Arapahoe & Jefferson Counties), Senator Janice Marchman (D-Boulder & Larimer Counties), Representative Jennifer Bacon (D-Denver), and Representative Jacque Phillips (D-Adams County) are putting forth a bill this session to help provide Colorado’s students with disabilities and their families the opportunity to pursue state-level enforcement of the civil rights established in Section 504. SB26-125: Disability Rights Protections in Public Schools, if enacted, would enshrine these civil rights in state law and provide state-level procedures to follow when students and families experience discrimination based on disability in public schools in Colorado.

Bill sponsor Senator Chris Kolker has stated,

The federal government has decimated the oversight and investigation pathways for 504 and ADA complaints. Now, Colorado will step in to protect the rights of our disabled students and staff by enshrining these protections into our state law. This bill is paramount for the protection of those with disabilities in our public education system, and I am proud to be a co-sponsor.

Specifically, SB26-125 would:

• Establish in state law the rights and protections granted to students with disabilities by Section 504, IDEA, and the ADA. The rights and protections enumerated in these federal laws are more specific and, at times, extend beyond what is currently written into state law.
• Require districts to establish a grievance process for disability-related discrimination complaints they receive. Following the grievance procedures articulated in Section 504 fulfills this requirement. 
• Require schools to investigate and intervene in cases of disability-based harassment.
• Gives the Colorado Department of Education the authority to investigate and resolve complaints of disability-based discrimination in public schools. Students and families may submit a complaint after completing a district’s grievance process or if the district has not resolved the grievance within 60 days. 
• Allows the Colorado Department of Education to implement corrective measures and conduct monitoring for compliance if a district is found to be in violation.
• Requires each school district to provide annual training on disability rights to relevant staff on an annual basis.

The Senate Education Committee unanimously passed SB26-125 in March, and the bill has been waiting to be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee since that time. Given the state’s budget challenges this year, the Appropriations Committee may be challenged to find the funding for the bill’s relatively meager $668,000 price tag.

ADVOCACYDENVER is in strong support of SB26-125. Our reasons for doing so, which are consistent with our reasons for supporting HB26-1141, include:

• The bill would make up for a serious gap in the enforcement of federal laws that prohibit disability-based discrimination in public schools. The bill would do so by both enshrining federally established civil rights and protections into state law and by creating a process for resolving complaints at the state level. This process helps to ensure that students with disabilities in Colorado are welcome, safe, and well-served in our schools. 
• By starting with a grievance process, the bill would provide all Colorado families, regardless of background, with a more accessible point of entry into resolution of disability-based discrimination complaints.
• The grievance process will allow for collective problem-solving and serves to promote collaborative relationships between families and schools. Students and families are tethered to the same schools for years at a time. Grievance processes can help to avoid the development of contempt between families and schools that can linger on and on. That said, when families feel the discrimination is severe enough and blatant enough, they can forego the grievance process and enter the formal complaint process right away.
• Grievance processes conduced at a district level are far less expensive than ongoing investigations and litigation. As such, the bill would possibly save districts and families a substantial amount of money over time.
  Finally, the bill would not preclude any federal or civil action. State processes would be put on hold should any federal investigation start.
• Families would still be able to pursue civil litigation against school districts should they feel it is warranted.

ADVOCACYDENVER is concerned by the presumption in the bill’s fiscal note that the legislation excludes Colorado’s Universal Preschool Program. Section 504 and IDEA are explicit on this matter: All public school programs that receive federal financial assistance may not discriminate against students with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21. While excluding the Universal Preschool Program from the provisions or SB26-125 would save costs for the state, doing so violates a core tenet of existing federal law.

Note from the Executive Director:  The Colorado Department of Early Childhood proposed a fiscal note of 1 million dollars in order for the supervising agency and preschool sites to develop nondiscrimination policies and procedures in relation to children with disabilities.   According to the 2023 Memorandum of Understanding between the Colorado Department of Education and the Colorado Department of Early Childhood Education, these nondiscrimination policies and procedures should already be in place, and all preschool staff should have received training. ADVOCACYDENVER is concerned that with their testimony, The Colorado Department of Early Childhood admits that they are not in compliance with state and federal law. 

https://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/mou-cde-cdec-preschoolspecialeducationservices

Pamela Bisceglia, Executive Director
ADVOCACYDENVER

Policy Perspective is a publication of ADVOCACYDENVER. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Baumann, Policy Outreach Specialist, at pbaumann@advocacydenver.org or 303.974.2535.

The post Colorado Proposes Disability Rights Protections for Students in Public Schools appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

This edition of Policy Perspective, provides some details on one of two proposed pieces of legislation that would provide additional protection for students in Colorado. ADVOCACYDENVER stands in support of this legislation.

Federal and state laws protect Colorado’s students in PK-12 schools and institutions from discrimination across a wide range of characteristics. Among these laws, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in all schools that receive federal funding. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex-based discrimination in these same schools. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and other state statutes prohibit discrimination in public schools that is based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, religion, or national origin.

Although these laws have been enacted for years, enforcement of these laws is notoriously slow, inconsistent, and costly for both families and school districts. Federal databases show that the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the U.S. Department of Education, which handles all discrimination complaints about schools for the federal government, currently has 223 open investigations for the state of Colorado alone. Some of these investigations were opened as far back as 2014. In fact, ADVOCACYDENVER has a complaint that has been pending since 2020. These delays have been further exacerbated by severe staffing cuts made at OCR by the Trump administration since January 2025.

Aside from submitting complaints to OCR, families have the option of pursuing civil litigation against schools that violate anti-discrimination laws. Doing so usually requires families to put up substantial financial resources and to find an attorney who specializes in education law. As such, families who are marginalized are rarely able to pursue this option.

Two members of the Colorado General Assembly, Representative Jennifer Bacon (D-Denver) and Senator Chris Kolker (D-Arapahoe & Jefferson County) put forth a bill this session to help provide families and schools with tools to and enforcement procedures when they are discriminated against in the state’s public schools and universities. HB26-1141: Discriminatory Practices in Public Schools, if enacted, would allow state-level enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in ways that are currently not authorized in state law.

Specifically, HB26-1141:

• Defines and clarifies discriminatory education practice beyond what is currently contained in state law.
• Allows a person who is alleging discrimination in education in both public schools and higher education institutions to file a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.
• Allows the Colorado Civil Rights Division and the state Attorney General to file complaints on behalf of groups of students.
• Requires school districts to first offer families a mediation process before the Civil Rights Commission initiates an investigation into the complaint. Families may decline the mediation offer.
• Requires the Civic Rights Commission to coordinate with the Colorado Department of Education in investigating disputes, as well as determining and implementing how these disputes are to be resolved.
• Requires institutions of higher education to designate a Title VI coordinator and to establish procedures to resolve Title VI disputes.

The House Education Committee passed HB26-1141 in February, and the bill has been waiting to be heard by the House Appropriations Committee since that time. Given the state’s budget challenges this year, the Appropriations Committee may be hard pressed to find the funding for the bill’s relatively meager $815,000 price tag.

Colorado House Assistant Majority Leader and bill sponsor, Representative Jennifer Bacon (D-Denver) stated,

“Colorado schools should be a safe place for children to learn and grow, and if they experience discrimination based on their race, sexual orientation or disability, they should absolutely have a path to righting the wrongs made against them. This bill would create a positive learning environment and ensure access to the quality education that Colorado children deserve, uplifting all students and preparing them for success.”

“It’s really important for state governments to make up for the lack of federal enforcement by strengthening civil rights protections.”

ADVOCACYDENVER is in strong support of HB26-1141. Our reasons for doing so include:

• The bill would make up for a serious gap in federal enforcement of discrimination law in schools and universities by enacting a state process. This process helps to ensure that ALL of Colorado’s students are welcome, safe, and well-served in our schools.
• By starting with a mediation process, the bill would provide all Colorado families, regardless of background, with a more accessible point of entry into resolution of discrimination complaints. Families will not need to hire attorneys to file a claim or engage in mediation.
• Mediation also allows for collective problem-solving and serves to promote collaborative relationships between families and schools. Students and families are tethered to the same schools for years at a time. Mediation can help to avoid the development of acrimonious relationships that can linger on and on. That said, when families feel the discrimination is severe enough and blatant enough, they can forego the mediation and enter the formal complaint process right away.
• The mediation process is far less expensive than ongoing investigations and litigation. As such, the bill would possibly save districts and families a substantial amount of money over time.
• Finally, the bill would not preclude any federal or civil action. State processes would be put on hold should any federal investigation start. Families would still be able to pursue civil litigation against school districts should they feel it is warranted.

In an upcoming issue of Policy Perspective, we will cover the companion bill to HB21-1141. SB-125: Disability Rights Protections in Public Schools would provide state-level protections to students with disabilities that are currently only available through federal law.

ADVOCACYDENVER encourages you to make sure that your voice is heard in the legislative process by writing or calling your state legislators. Tell your story about how legislative decisions will impact your life. To find the names and contact information for your state legislators, look here.

Policy Perspective is a publication of ADVOCACYDENVER. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Baumann, Policy Outreach Specialist, at pbaumann@advocacydenver.org or 303.974.2535.

The post Colorado Proposes Anti-Discrimination Measures for Public Schools and Universities appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

An Interview by Paul Baumann

For this issue of Policy Perspective, I had a conversation with Senator Judy Amabile (D-Boulder), a member of the Colorado General Assembly Joint Budget Committee (JBC). A primary responsibility of the JBC is to prepare the state’s budget for consideration by the Colorado House and Senate. Since the state is facing a budget shortfall of over $1 billion, the JBC will be making numerous budget cuts, including significant cuts to Medicaid. Senator Amabile and I focused our conversation on this issue of importance for Colorado’s disability community.

We have heard that significant cuts to Medicaid in Colorado are necessary and cannot be avoided. Can you please help us understand why this is the case?

We have a situation where Medicaid costs are growing a lot faster than our population plus inflation. It’s growing too fast for us to keep up without surpassing TABOR caps and crowding out everything else. “If we don’t do something, within a few years Medicaid costs will crowd out everything else in the budget.”

Colorado has expanded Medicaid benefits beyond what some other states do, and these expanded benefits are beyond what we can cover. For example, we pay family caregivers. Few states do this, and it results in fewer providers available through agencies in our state. Family caregivers may be better for many individuals, but we also need a provider network for people without family caregivers available to them.

Overall, we are not cutting people off from Medicaid, we are “just slowing growth… but to families, that’s a distinction without a difference.”

What are your priorities for Medicaid budget cuts? What should be preserved? Why?

I want to be sure “that we are spreading cuts across recipients… not all directed at one group.” It’s also important to me to make cuts “in a way that allows people to get the services they need to keep their kids healthy.”

I am particularly concerned about maintaining “robust mental health care” as a part of Medicaid. “I don’t want to go back to how it was, even 5 years ago.”

Would you please expand on that?

“There are smarter ways” for Colorado to go about providing mental health services. Right now, the state has mental health programs for teachers, for police, for children, for all these groups, and they all operate independently. I’d like for us to set up a “mental health system that serves all groups.” Take a look at other medical specialties, like cancer care. “There’s no cancer care that is only for the police, or children, or anyone else… Cancer care is cancer care.” We need that for mental health.

Mental health also has “parity problems” with other healthcare areas, even though the law says that reimbursement for mental health and substance use treatment services must be treated equally to physical health services.

We also have to be sure that we are spending Medicaid dollars effectively. For example, “talk therapy is often considered something that anyone can do. That’s not true.” Talk therapy requires deep expertise. “Not everyone can do it.” We need to recognize that when funding mental health services within Medicaid.

What would you like to say to an individual or family who faces uncertainty because of these cuts? How can they ensure their voices get heard in the budget process?

We need a plan from the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF)—and a plan for a rollout. Announcing cuts day by day does not work. Families need time to be able to plan and “make adjustments… My heart breaks for these families.” They need some level of certainty.

We appreciate families showing up at hearings. “They make a difference.” So does meeting with legislators in person. Legislators and their staff are genuinely feeling for these families.

How can Colorado protect the long-term stability of Medicaid? Has HCPF presented a plan and are you satisfied with that plan?

We have seen “pieces of a plan” from HCPF, “but that’s not a plan… They are looking at different ways to roll things out.”

Members of the JBC “are trying to be thoughtful about what we are doing.” So is HCPF. “We are listening. We are hearing. We are making adjustments. At the end of the day, it is hard. It’s going to hurt.”

I appreciate the disability rights groups that have come to the table. They have helped us identify which cuts would be most harmful, and which would be less harmful.

What would you like to see as part of a Medicaid sustainability plan from HCPF?

I would like to see Colorado consider “utilization management tools” that help us control costs for the rest of the Medicaid population. An example of this could be a copay for certain types of services. This would encourage choices that save costs. For instance, a $10 copay for emergency room visits would likely encourage people to see a doctor in their office prior to needing an emergency room visit. That’s a significant cost savings. “We’re not doing that in Medicaid. We need to be creative.”

I would like to consider reorganizing HCPF, the Department of Human Services, and several other offices to promote efficiencies and less “siloing.” These departments all work independently but often on very similar concerns for clients. Better coordination would ensure efficiency where it is possible, which would bring about better care. “It’s not organized in the best way possible.”

Yes, there’s administrative bloat, fraud, abuse. We’re working on addressing these, which will bring some savings. But these savings alone “won’t bend the curve” enough to solve the shortfall we face.

As these and other bills move forward, a key part of committee hearings is public testimony. We encourage you to provide testimony for bills that are important to you. Look here to sign up to testify in person, remotely, or in writing.

Policy Perspective is a publication of ADVOCACYDENVER. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Baumann, Policy Outreach Specialist, at pbaumann@advocacydenver.org or 303.974.2535.

The post Discussing Colorado’s Medicaid with Senator Judy Amabile (D-Boulder) appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Each year, the Colorado Legislature meets for a 120-day session to revise and create laws and to develop and adopt an annual budget for the state. Monday, March 16 marked the 60th day of the 2026 legislative session.

In this issue of The Policy Perspective, I want to share with you some of the current policy developments that are happening in our state legislature. Below you will find several mid-session highlights on several key issues that impact Colorado’s disability community.

2026-2027 Budget

Colorado faces a significant budget shortfall of nearly $1 billion for 2026-2027. Because of requirements in Colorado’s constitution, the legislature must approve a balanced budget and may not raise taxes without voter approval. As a result, the legislature will be making cuts this year and is severely limiting new spending.

Currently, the most significant proposed cuts to the state’s budget are directed at Medicaid.

Several disability community-serving organizations have released a Community Guide that contains recommendations for Medicaid spending in Colorado for 2026-2027. The Guide provides discussion of how budget changes will impact people with disabilities, families, and providers.

As budget discussions move forward in the legislature, ADVOCACYDENVER encourages you to make sure that your voice is heard in the budget process by writing or calling your state senators and representatives. Tell your story of how budget decisions will impact your life. To find the names and contact information for your state legislators, look here.

Senate and House Bills

ADVOCACYDENVER has been following and is in strong support of the following bills:

HB 26-1040 The Sterilization Rights of a Person with Intellectual and Developmental Disibilities

Colorado is one of only two states that allows forced sterilization of people with disabilities. This legislation would end this practice except in cases where there is an imminent threat to the individual’s life and health. This bill has passed the House and the Senate and should be sent to the Governor for signature in the near future.

HB26-1141 Discriminatory Practices in Public Schools

HB26-1141 institutes Title IV and Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 into state law. In doing so, the law creates mechanisms for enforcement of civil rights protections at the state level.

This bill has been passed by the House Education Committee and is waiting to be heard by the House Finance Committee before consideration by the entire House.

HB26-1043 Transportation Network Company Discriminatory Practices

This bill would strengthen accountability and reporting for consumers’ complaints of discrimination when using transportation network companies, such as Uber and Lyft. These companies would be required to include on their apps a place where consumers can report complaints when they are denied a pickup by a driver. Companies then must provide monthly reports of these complaints to the state, with all personal information removed. The state may also fine companies should they discriminate against people with disabilities or fail to submit monthly reports.

This bill has passed committee and is waiting to be brought to the floor for consideration by the House.

HB26-1045 Disability Housing Protections

HB26-1045 would put protections into state law for renters who have service animals, including both assistance animals and emotional support animals. While such protections have previously existed at the federal level, this law would permit the state to enforce these protections.

This bill has passed the House and is waiting to be heard by the Senate Committee on Local Government & Housing.

HB26-1147 Host Home for People with Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities

HB26-1147 requires the state to create a database containing information about host homes and their service agencies. The database must be made available and accessible by host home providers, service agencies, and those looking for host homes. The bill requires HCPF to allow for submission of complaints on its website and to establish a process for tracking each complaint and its resolution.

This bill was passed by the House Health & Human Services Committee and is waiting to be heard by the House Appropriations Committee before moving to the full House.

SB26-125 Disability Rights Protections in Public Schools

SB26-125 puts federal laws relating to disability rights protections into state law. Specifically, SB26-125 incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the American with Disabilities Act. In doing so, the law requires mediation efforts at the local level prior to enforcement by the State Department of Education.

This bill has been passed by the Senate Education Committee and is waiting to be heard by the Senate Appropriations Committee before consideration by the full Senate.

As these and other bills move forward, a key part of committee hearings is public testimony. We encourage you to provide testimony for bills that are important to you. Look here to sign up to testify in person, remotely, or in writing.

Since joining ADVOCACYDENVER last September, I have spent much of my time tracking national, state, and local policy developments, especially those that are important to the disability community. I am thrilled to get do this work every day and see my role with ADVOCACYDENVER as a natural “next step” in my 30+ year career in education and state policy. As a parent of a child with a disability, I also have a personal commitment to the work that extends well beyond that of a “job.”

Policy Perspective is a publication of ADVOCACYDENVER. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Baumann, Policy Outreach Specialist, at pbaumann@advocacydenver.org or 303.974.2535.

The post Mid-Session Updates appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Due to the continued federal government shutdown, people who rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Women, Infants and Children program (WIC) may not receive their full food benefits starting on November 1, 2025.

Nationally, SNAP feeds more than 4 million people with disabilities. WIC provides necessary nutrition for young children that supports their healthy development and growth. Even short disruptions to these benefits can be very harmful for both of these groups.

In this issue of the Policy Perspective:

• Find out how Colorado and the City and County of Denver are addressing this crisis.
• Learn about food resources that are available. 
• Learn how to engage your members of Congress to encourage them to restore funding for SNAP and WIC as soon as possible.

What are Colorado and Denver doing to address this crisis?

Governor Polis has proposed using $10 million in General Fund revenue to support food banks and pantries, and $7.5 million for WIC. These funds are sufficient to supplement SNAP benefits for six weeks and WIC for four weeks.

Colorado and Denver both have websites through which users can search for food resources. 

• Denver – Food Assistance 
• Colorado – Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

What food resources are available while SNAP and WIC are paused?

Several websites allow you to search for available food resources that are close to you. You will need to either enter your zip code or address to see what is available close to you. Several of these also allow you to filter your search for organizations that deliver to your home, should you need this service. You can also find organizations that will help with specialized dietary needs or offer specific types of resources, such as a food bank, a meal service, or emergency food support. 

• Feeding Colorado
• Hunger Free Colorado
• Food Bank of the Rockies
• FoodFinder
• Find Help

Contact your members of Congress to request that they restore funding for SNAP and WIC as soon as possible.  

Congress has the power to prevent this crisis. Send a message now urging them to take action today to protect food assistance programs before it’s too late 

How to contact your members of Congress!

Policy Perspective is a publication of ADVOCACYDENVER. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Baumann, Policy Outreach Specialist, at pbaumann@advocacydenver.org or 303.974.2535.

The post Food Resources for Denver Residents appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Colorado’s 2022 legislative session came to a close on May 11th. In a year where continued COVID recovery and an upcoming midterm election loomed, legislators across the aisle came together and championed efforts to advance inclusion, options, and services for individuals with disabilities. Thanks to the exhaustive work of self-advocates, families, community advocates and policymakers alike, five key bills made their way to the governor’s desk and will be highlighted below. 

These summaries are not exhaustive.

For the full content of each bill, please visit: http://leg.colorado.gov/bills. 

House Bill 22-1376: Supportive Learning Environments for K-12 Students

In an effort to increase transparency and address the emotional and physical wellbeing of students, HB22-1376 aims to improve policies and data collection in relation to issues including chronic absenteeism, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to law enforcement, and perhaps most importantly for students with disabilities, the use of physical restraint (including handcuffing) and seclusion. The Colorado Department of Education will be required to compile and accessibly share data annually while maintaining student privacy standards. Colorado’s Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Board will develop and distribute a model policy for the hiring, training, and evaluation of School Resource Officers (SROs).

HB22-1376 also provides updated definitions, new provisions, and protections regarding restraint and seclusion including that:

• The Colorado Department of Education has the authority to enforce complaint decisions regarding the improper use of restraint and/or seclusion. 
• Schools must provide written notice to parents and guardians for physical restraints lasting for more than a minute (see full bill text for specific reporting requirements and timeline for implementation).
• Seclusion rooms must include either a window, or video camera if a window is not feasible, to facilitate continual monitoring.
• Seclusion rooms must be safe spaces and not otherwise used for storage, custodial, or office space.

Representative Mary Young (D) – “Thanks to AdvocacyDenver, the Arc of Colorado, Stand for Children and the Children’s Campaign for all of their work that led to the successful passing of HB22-1376. Schools play a crucial role in fostering safety, connectedness, and healthy conditions for students’ learning and development. HB22-1376 will make data about students’ experiences at school more transparent and ensure that students receive targeted support and learn in an environment that is positive, safe, and inclusive. This bill lays a foundation for understanding our learning environments across the state and will provide actionable information to improve the student and educator experience.”

House Bill 22-1107: Inclusive Higher Education Opportunities

In 2016 Colorado legislature established a 5-year pilot for three colleges and universities to run inclusive higher education programs for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Programs focus on four key areas: academic growth, social development, independence, and career advancement. As of 2022, 70 students with IDD have enrolled in these programs where they participate in traditional courses, live on campus, and work towards future career goals. Students who complete their respective program earn a Comprehensive Higher Education Certificate rather than a traditional diploma.

HB22-1107 authorizes a grant program where schools across the state can apply for funding to establish, or expand existing, inclusive higher education opportunities. It requires that the administering entity awards grants to maximize “access and opportunity for all students regardless of demographic or geographic diversity.” The bill also provides for reporting and evaluation of the long-term outcomes of those funded programs and the students who participate.

Representative Mary Bradfield (R) – “As a retired teacher I was happy to support this legislation that expands access to higher education for all learners in Colorado. A good education and the future doors it opens are crucial to the success of our youth.  I’m proud to see these opportunities being given our students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.” 

House Bill 22-1114: Transportation Services for Medicaid Waiver Recipients

Access to reliable, affordable transportation is a major barrier for many individuals with disabilities when trying to reach vital services, employment, and their communities at-large. For those who rely on transportation services available under a Medicaid home- and community-based waiver the options are limited and “often inefficient and overburdened.” 

HB22-1114 seeks to expand the available options for Medicaid waiver recipients by authorizing and reimbursing transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft to provide nonmedical transportation. This authorization will occur no later than July 2024 after a state reporting process to identify a reimbursement system, compliance with federal law and waiver requirements, and best practices.

Representative Alex Valdez (D) – “HB22-1114 improves the lives of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities by eliminating barriers when it comes to choices in transportation. Many adults with disabilities lack sufficient access to reliable, accessible, and safe modes of public and private transportation. This bill addresses these barriers by offering the same choices in transportation that are already available to people without IDD.  Covering private transportation under certain Medicaid waiver services will allow people with IDD to participate more fully in their communities, employment, recreation, and relationships.”

House Bill 22-1320: Achieving A Better Life Experience Savings Account

Income and asset limits for assistance programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid have significantly hindered individuals with disabilities’ ability to save money, make large purchases, and plan for the future. Since 2017, Coloradoans who were determined disabled before the age of 26 have had access to tax-free Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts that allow an individual and their families to save and invest without losing eligibility for those needs-based benefits.  

HB22-1320 makes three major modifications to the existing law that improves accessibility and benefits for those who are eligible:

• A person other than the account owner (such as a family member or other support) can establish and administer an account on behalf of the individual with a disability.
• As of January 2023, accounts will be protected from “Medicaid claw-backs”, or the practice of the state claiming and retrieving funds for reimbursement of Medicaid expenses upon a beneficiary’s death.
• Contributions made to an ABLE account may be deducted when determining state taxable income.

Representative Colin Larson (R) – “I was honored to work with Rep. Cathy Kipp and Senators Zenzinger and Woodward on this bipartisan bill.  It is a historic step forward for providing financial stability, certainty, and independence for thousands of  individuals with disabilities and their families. By bringing tax deductibility to and ending the claw-back provisions for 529 ABLE accounts, Coloradoans with disabilities can now earn and save without fear of losing the services they rely on.”

House Bill 22-1303: Increase Residential Behavioral Health Beds

Ensuring appropriate care for the mental and behavioral health needs of all Coloradoans has been an issue for the state both prior to and compounded by the COVID-10 pandemic. Lack of available beds in treatment facilities has left many, including those with a dual diagnosis and those awaiting competency restoration, without access to critical stabilization and longer-term care.   

HB22-1303 appropriates nearly $42 million in federal funds received by the state through the American Rescue Plan Act for renovations and the creation of at least 16 additional inpatient beds at the Fort Logan mental health institute and at least 125 additional beds at residential facilities across the state. Beds at Fort Logan must first be used to address the backlog of those awaiting competency services before accepting civil patients. Residential facility beds are prioritized for those with severe mental illness or co-occurring diagnoses.

Statute includes additional provisions such as:

• Minimum standards for services at mental health residential facilities including assistance with medication and activities of daily living, case management services, life skills trainings, and non-medical transportation.
• Future establishment of admissions criteria, discharge planning, quality assurance monitoring, and federal compliance for mental health residential facilities.
• Licensing entities and timelines, including that aa of July 1, 2023, the Behavioral Health Administration will be responsible for licensing of those facilities.

Senator Jim Smallwood (R) – “HB22-1303 is critically important, bi-partisan legislation that should make real progress statewide helping adults with urgent behavioral health needs who need long-term services and support. We have heard from citizens and law enforcement for years about the lack of facilities to provide integrated care to these populations and specifically, individuals awaiting competency restoration services.”

Additional Successes to Celebrate

• Senate Bill 22-127 appropriates $80 million to the Department of Education for special education programs across the state. The bill provides an increased per-student distribution of $1,750 and requires that amount to increase by the rate of inflation each budget year beginning in 2024.
• Key language in the amendments of House Bill 22-1278 (creation of the Behavioral Health Administration) ensures that people with co-occurring IDD and mental health diagnoses are not turned away from services due to their primary diagnosis or need for assistance with activities of daily living.

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 Disability Policy Marches On appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

The 2021 Colorado legislative session began with uncertainty. Amid COVID protocols that required distancing and virtual testimony, economic concerns, and fear that any bill with a fiscal note may not make it to the governor’s desk, advocates and community members were unsure how far their efforts to promote legislation for the disability community would go. In the end there was cause for celebration as the session closed officially on June 8th and the state saw major legislation, some years and decades in the making, passed in order to support and advance the rights of Coloradoans with disabilities.

In this issue of the Policy Perspective, we will highlight four priority wins and the legislative champions that made them possible. All legislators highlighted in this issue received an “A” grade from The Arc of Colorado in a groundswell of bi-partisan support. The descriptions are not exhaustive.

For full descriptions of each bill, please visit: http://leg.colorado.gov/bills. 

Senate Bill 21-075: Supported Decision-Making Agreement

Colorado joins 10 other states and the District of Columbia that legally recognize supported decision-making agreements and outline their implementation as a less-restrictive alternative (or supplement) to guardianship. People with disabilities and older adults may voluntarily enter into an agreement with chosen supports who the individual trust to assist with understanding options and consequences, answering questions, communicating the individual’s decisions, and ensuring the execution of those decisions. The act includes protections and limitations such as: 

• Agreements will not override existing authority by a court-appointed guardian, conservator, or power of attorney, and do not create a fiduciary relationship.
• Members of the supportive community are not entitled to compensation for their role. 
• Agreements may not be used as evidence of incapacity of the individual.

With this new option, adults can retain their independence and authority over decisions while also receiving the support they need to lead healthy, safe, and self-determined lives.

Senator Bob Gardner (R) – “As a legislative advocate for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and a supporter of their rights, I was happy to lead on the voluntary agreement to advance independence and self-determination for people with I/DD. This bill creates a less restrictive approach, which is required to be considered before rights are removed through other legal arrangements. I am happy that older adults and people with disabilities in my district and across the state, have another tool to remain in charge of their own lives.”

Representative Kerry Tipper (D) – “We had a lot of work to do this session and I am particularly proud of this bill. Supported Decision-Making gives people with disabilities the help they need to make choices about their own lives, such as where they want to live; the services, supports, and medical care they want to receive; whom they want to live with; and where they want to work.”

House Bill 21-1166: Behavioral Health Crisis Response Training

A 2014 statewide study revealed significant gaps and barriers for Coloradoans that are dually diagnosed with both an intellectual/developmental disability and a mental health diagnoses, especially in obtaining timely, high-quality, and effective care. This bill directs the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (HCPF) to obtain a training vendor in order to provide statewide, teleconferenced training on behavioral health crisis response management to case management agencies, mental health centers, and program-approved support providers. The training will reach 20 providers, including 10 additional providers from underserved areas of the state. 

Representative Mary Young (D) – “This bill was introduced in the 2020 session to address the ongoing need to remove significant barriers and bring needed training to communities to help people with I/DD with co-occurring disorders access needed behavioral health case management and crisis response services. The pandemic has increased the already identified need of this community. The need for quality care for individuals in crisis is a statewide issue and thus demands a statewide solution. It was a tremendous pleasure to work with the state, families, advocates, mental health providers, school personnel, and individuals to enhance the safety-net for people with I/DD.By training behavioral health providers to meet the unique behavioral health needs of this population we reduce the likelihood of their involvement in the justice system and jail, in an out of home placements away from their community, or a psychiatric placement.  Prison inmates are 4 times as likely to report cognitive disabilities as the general population and jail inmates six times more likely.  This bill provides essential training to continue to increase mental health parity for individuals with cognitive disabilities.”

Representative Perry Will (R) – “It was a tremendous honor to bring the challenges faced in rural communities to the forefront with this bill. When cross-system responses have been implemented, they have proven to support key outcomes, such as reduced jail admission, access to supportive services, and less system fragmentation.  This bill allows individuals to remain in community settings with their friends, family, and loved ones, rather than using the emergency department, inpatient psychiatric facilities, regional centers, and the State Mental Health Institutes far from home.”

Senate Bill 21-039: Elimination of Subminimum Wage Employment

Federal law has long allowed employers to pay people with disabilities substantially less than the minimum wage if their disability impacts their earning or productivity capacity. Now, 10 employers in Colorado who retain special certificates to pay subminimum wage must develop plans to phase out these models by 2025. The bill also allocates dollars and development toward Medicaid waiver supported employment options to ensure successful transitions and reduce barriers to competitive integrated employment. Under this act, Colorado affirms its position as an Employment First state dedicated to the advancement and economic justice of workers with disabilities across the state.

Senator Rachel Zenzinger (D) – “The inequity of subminimum wage, which dates back to 1938, has finally been addressed. This bill, which I was proud to carry, aligns Colorado with national policy. As Gov. Jared Polis signs this bill into law, countless individuals with a wide range of physical and intellectual disabilities will finally take their rightful place in the workforce, with equal opportunities. By implementing these changes over the course of four years, I believe we will soften any impact on employers, and they will find that this is a law worth supporting. Additionally, the positive impact on the whole community will be significant, as the beneficiaries of the bill become less reliant on public support.”

Senator Dennis Hisey (R) – “I was honored to continue the work. Colorado has declared itself an Employment First state, and this bill promotes competitive, integrated employment for people with disabilities. Research shows that 85% of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are not employed. Employment opportunities should be available to all people with who wish to explore opportunities to work, regardless of the nature and extent of their disabilities.”

Joint Budget Committee: Developmental Disability Waiver Slots

A significant indent was made to the list of over 3000 individuals across the state on the waitlist for the comprehensive Developmental Disabilities waiver. The Joint Budget Committee allocated enough money to open 667 slots, allowing for individuals and families—some who have waited decades, to finally access vital supports in their community.

Senator Bob Rankin (R)— “I have worked for several years to provide resources and supports in the person’s home and community to help with activities of daily living like bathing, getting dressed, finding and getting to work, and participating in community life. Especially in rural Colorado, these supports are critical to ensuring that people with I/DD can access the services they need to fully participate in the communities of their choice.”

Senator Dominick Moreno (D)— “In a difficult budget year with so many unknowns, I was happy to advance more support and resources for people with I/DD. Unfortunately, despite the intensive level of care needed by people on the waiting list, it continues to grow each year. Many of these individuals have been waiting for more than a decade for the critical supports they need to fully participate in their communities. Each year we chip away at the list and I am honored to support the most vulnerable in our communities yet again this session.”

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 Legislative Wins and a Brighter Future appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Nearly one year after COVID-19 changed our world and impacted lives globally, the release of two FDA-approved vaccines has offered hope to many. For Colorado’s intellectual and developmental disability community, the relief offered by the vaccine has become imperative to a population more impacted by social isolation, where the function of essential services and supports has changed, and many live with co-occurring or underlying conditions. In these interviews, AdvocacyDenver seeks to understand the development of Colorado’s vaccine priority schedule, along with the perspective of advocates and family members.

What kind of discussion is taking place in the statewide advocacy community around vaccine distribution?

There is ongoing discussion in terms of priorities and where individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and the larger community of individuals with significant health impairments, fall in line as the vaccine is phased in. All of the Arc chapters have launched awareness campaigns. We want self-advocates, parents and providers to have information, in people-friendly terms, in order to make an informed decision in relation to the vaccine. Several of The Arc Chapters, Community Centered Boards, and other disability groups have volunteered with the state to help with vaccine distributions as resources become more plentiful. This collaboration may potentially help with targeted outreach and assist with getting “shots in arms” by trusted providers with whom people have relationships. Collectively, we are excited about the opportunity; however, timing still remains a question. The Governor’s Medical Advisory Committee, The Colorado National Guard, and the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing will continue dialogue as new information becomes available, as Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) guidance evolves, and as vaccines become more abundant. Together, we have been successful in prioritizing individuals that have difficulty wearing masks and adding Down Syndrome to the priority list.

What are the major areas of concern for advocates looking forward?

In many respects, the plane has taken off and we do not have a flight plan. The flight plan is dependent on so many factors. Vaccine availability is limited and variable week-to-week, the logistics of getting vaccines out given the ultra-cold temperatures required, different systems for signing up, the vast geography of the state, communication and transportation challenges in getting to vaccination sites. The world, and Colorado, has never deployed a vaccination distribution scheme on the scale and scope that we see today. A major challenge is that when the vaccine is offered, some individuals decline the resource. We are all looking forward to a world where the majority of our communities are vaccinated to achieve “herd immunity.” Although specific conditions are called out in the priority schedule, we look forward to a schedule that incorporates settings, the ability or lack of ability to social distance, and a more inclusive definition of Intellectual and Developmental Disability (“I/DD”).

Are there any recommendations being made by advocates in regards to the re-opening of in-person services and client safety?

As the pandemic stretches into the coming months, several changes have been made in the waiver programs to offer one-on-one services in lieu of congregate services. This is a protective factor for many people and the flexibility of providing services are an important change. Social isolation and the challenges associated with limited opportunities are top of mind for advocates statewide.

From the larger community, there seems to be a disconnect in understanding why those with intellectual and developmental disabilities should receive priority in the vaccine schedule. As a parent, can you speak to the importance of that priority for your son in particular?

I have a 17-year-old son; his name is Kennedy. Kennedy has Down syndrome and obstructive sleep apnea. It’s terrifying to think as a parent that he wouldn’t receive highest priority, to think of him in a hospital room with very poor outcomes at a potential greater than the average person in the population. There’s a university of Oxford study that looked at 8 million adults in England and identified that people like my son have four to five times the risk of very severe COVID versus the average person in that population, and also a 10 times greater risk of death. The way they’ve done the priorities they think they’ve captured my son and others, but they haven’t. If you look at “1B.3”, while Down syndrome is listed as a condition, in 1B.3 you have to have two conditions. Well, most people with Down syndrome don’t have cancer. They don’t have kidney disease. They don’t have sickle cell anemia. They don’t have organ transplants. Those are all pretty specific singular conditions, and most people with Down syndrome have a range of conditions that aren’t listed there- from obstructive sleep apnea to respiratory issues and compromised immune systems.

The other thing they try to point to is that people with disabilities have difficulty wearing masks. Well guess what? Most people with intellectual and development disabilities really don’t have difficulty wearing masks. My son doesn’t have difficulty wearing a mask. So as it turns out, Kennedy would be in Phase 2 after me. I’m a relatively healthy 65-year-old who plays tennis and walks, but my son, who’s a greater risk than me is prioritized after me. I would like to see is equity and parity for my son and others. There have been over one million people prioritized. Our population of adults (with intellectual and developmental disabilities) is maybe 10- to 20,000, so over a million have been prioritized, and somehow Kennedy is in Phase 2. Most people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, are in Phase 3. They’re in Phase 3 because they don’t have difficulty wearing masks, they don’t have Down syndrome, and they don’t have the very specific conditions listed in 1B.3 and 1B.2. So while the state thinks they’ve addressed this, they haven’t, and they put people like my son at risk.

How has Kennedy and your family’s life been affected by both the pandemic and its risks, as well as this delay in vaccination and getting back to the community?

Kennedy is extremely social. He’s a hugging machine for one thing, so the only people that he can hug now are people in the house. His ability to get together socially with his friends and schoolmates is drastically limited. If he were 18 his ability to be employed would be greatly impacted. The ability to go out and have birthday parties, go out to Chuck E Cheese and Red Robin, all of that’s been severely impacted. Those are things that are very meaningful in his life. Not the least of which is school, where his typical classmates are hybrid, so he doesn’t get to see them and he has difficulty with remote learning. He’s not contracted COVID, but he’s been in quarantine two or three times because others have.

As a parent, what action would you urge state officials to take in response to these concerns?

They have Down syndrome in 1B.3 and they have “PWD” (people with disabilities) who have difficulty with wearing masks. Just call it “PWD” or call it people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. What is the harm in going the extra distance? Spell out our population who is probably more severely impacted, or as severely impacted as anyone else, to resume more of a normal life. What’s the harm in doing that? It’s a small population. I don’t understand why this is such a struggle with HCPF, CDPHE, and the governor’s office. I don’t understand.

Colorado’s current vaccine distribution schedule is available here

Apart from the addition of Down syndrome to Phase 1B.3, what considerations are being discussed in Governor’s office in regards to the vaccine priority schedule and people with disabilities?

Josh Winkler: As you’ve already seen, things change. The original phasing came out in early January with very limited knowledge of what the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) was putting out and how many doses a state would be getting per week. There’s been a couple of revisions since, including about two weeks ago when Down syndrome was added. The 1B.1, 1B.2, and 1B.3 categories were all added, and those were largely based on CDC guidance, and revisions to that guidance, which included Down syndrome in particular as one of the conditions that data has shown has a correlation between mortality and that underlying condition.

All of those conditions [in those categories] are the same. Those are the conditions the CDC has found strong, scientific evidence that there’s a correlation. So at any given time the CDC could upgrade their recommendations. As we get changes on dosing, or another vaccine is approved- all those things could influence when there’s more revisions to the phasing. Nothing is set in stone. There’s a whole team of epidemiologists and doctors that are reviewing all of the information. We are trying to balance out the recommendations from the CDC and the numerous groups that are lobbying for why they think they should be moved higher in the priority, making sure that there’s a prioritization that preserves life and understanding how many doses we have coming into the state. Ideally we vaccinate everybody as quickly as possible, but we still only get about 100,000 doses a week at this point.

In terms of disability, how is that being defined? Is it like the Rehabilitation Act that defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that significantly limits a major life activity?

Josh Winkler: Unlike a lot of other states, we haven’t gone with that broad of language. Again, it’s been that balance of going specific and calling out the specific things the CDC has identified as underlying conditions, and being broad enough that you’re not missing somebody who has some kind of rare disorder that’s very similar to, but not quite, the exact label. Rather than saying ‘intellectual and developmental disabilities’, for example- that’s not really what the evidence has shown there’s been the correlation of death with. It’s the underlying conditions that many people with I/DD might have. So if somebody has a heart condition and I/DD, they could be in that category because it’s the heart condition that puts them at a higher risk based on the CDC data.

Is there any current or projected data around COVID-19 incidence or cases in Colorado’s community of individuals with disabilities?

Bonnie Silva: We have two pieces of data around COVID that are specific to people with disabilities. Early on, Colorado realized that people with disabilities and older adults residing in congregate settings would be disproportionately impacted by this pandemic, so we immediately began tracking data specific to those settings to understand where the impact was the most significant and how to deploy our resources to mitigate the spread of COVID and to save lives. There’s also the data that HCPF has for people who reside in home- and community-based waivers, so not those in group congregate settings, but in community-based programs. So you would ask, ‘what does that data show us?’ Our data shows that people who reside in high-density group settings are at high risk for poor data outcomes from COVID. We also see that age in the disability population, similar to the non-disability population, is a high correlating factor for death.

First and foremost, hats off to the people of Colorado, because what our data shows is that people with disabilities who received services in Colorado are at a fairly low risk for mortality from COVID. That means they have done a good job with social distancing and adhering to the infection prevention guidelines that are out there. How this community has shown up and our data is not necessarily replicated in other states. I think it’s something that we, as a community, should be very proud of.

When looking at those group settings, by far people in nursing homes have been the most impacted, followed by people who reside in assisted living residences, then followed by group homes serving people with I/DD. More specifically, it’s 23% of the deaths have been from people in nursing homes, followed by 10.7% in assisted living, and 0.1% for the group homes serving people with I/DD. Of course all of those deaths are tragic, but we’ve worked hard to make sure that, on the prevention side, we take this holistic approach. We didn’t separate out a response for a nursing home from a response for people serving I/DD, we provided the same level of support across the board. Group homes are licensed to serve around eight to 10 people, whereas a nursing home might have 200 beds, so there’s a pretty big continuum when talking about group settings. We very intentionally included all of these early on in our holistic response and I think our data supports the outcomes for that.

In which of those three data sets would the state regional centers, for example Wheat Ridge Regional Center, fall?

Bonnie Silva: In the group home category, so that 0.1% group.
In terms of people in the community, the adult waivers serving people with I/DD had the lowest mortality rate when we’re looking at cross-disability population. That rate would increase when we look at, for example, the Elderly, Blind, and Disabled waiver, where we’re serving more older adults than we are in the I/DD waivers. If you’re looking for where the concentrated risk is, it’s the combined factors of disability, age, and setting that was the greatest risk for people.

Josh Winkler: One thing that surprised me on the data was that the general Medicaid population actually saw that deaths were at twice the rate of what they were in the waivers. So of the deaths in the general Medicaid population, twice as many were from COVID as the deaths in any of the waivers. Again, it goes to show how in-home care and people on Home and Community Based (“HCBS”) waivers in Colorado have done a great job of staying home, practicing social distancing, and wearing masks.

Looking at service providers and the future of service provision in the state, what expectations or recommendations are being made to service providers regarding the vaccine?

Bonnie Silva: Colorado made the decision, in terms of priority, to make sure that the direct support professionals providing care to people with disabilities were in that top-tier priority. If they provided care in group homes, they were in Phase 1A. If they provided in-home care to people on waivers, they were in that 1B.1 category. While there’s a lot of hope on the horizon in terms of vaccines finally being deployed, we need to have a good percentage of Colorado vaccinated in order to reach that “herd immunity.”

What we know is that the vaccine doesn’t necessarily stop the spread of COVID. It stops people from dying from COVID if they get it. I imagine for some time, at least at this juncture, that the infection prevention measures we have in place now will need to remain in place- the smaller group delivery of services, wearing masks, hand washing, social distancing- until we have a much larger percentage of the Colorado population vaccinated.

What discussion or planning is in place should a provider or a client refuse the vaccine? Is there an expectation from the state around disclosure from service providers in regards to whether they receive the vaccine or not?

Bonnie Silva: Vaccine confidence has been one of our key strategies that’ we’ve been working across trade provider organizations. We’ve hosted several Q&As to help people get trusted information in a way that helps them to make informed decisions. I know many of the trade organizations, in addition to the state efforts, are hosting their own campaigns to help the direct care providers, as well as members, understand the vaccine. There’s so much misinformation out there, so we’re working really hard to give people informed information to make solid decisions. That said, there’s no plans for us to require providers or members to take the vaccine or disclose whether or not they’ve taken the vaccine, at least not at this juncture. That might be something in the future to consider, but at this point we have seen that staff are pretty forthcoming about their willingness. We must continue to have those infection prevention plans in place because we don’t have vaccine acceptance across the board.

With the initial rollout of the vaccine in December, we had what I think we all found to be a fairly disheartening level of acceptance for the vaccine. Now here we are in February and it’s jumped leaps and bounds by 25-30%. We are hopeful that those acceptance rates will continue to jump up significantly in the coming months.

Josh Winkler: I would add that you don’t lose eligibility if you didn’t get it when you first became eligible. So whether that was residents or employees in a facility, they’re still eligible. When we move on to Phase 2 everybody in Phase 1A and the 1B categories will still be eligible. It’s a good thing but also adds to the need to err on the side of caution when we are figuring out the numbers on how far the doses will go and how long it’ll take to get through a phase.

Bonnie Silva: Our biggest constraint right now is the federal supply of the vaccine. We are ready! Give it to us, federal government, and we will deploy! We are all anxiously awaiting the day that any Coloradoan who wants a vaccine will be able to get one. Our biggest challenge right now is that we simply don’t have enough vaccine coming in.

Kaley Day is an Advocate for Adults with AdvocacyDenver.

She is a graduate of the University of Denver, majoring in Strategic Communication, 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 Priorities: The COVID-19 Vaccine appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

House Bill 20-1128, Sponsored by Representatives Bri Buentello
(HD-47) and James Wilson (HD-60) in the House and Senators Rachel Zenzinger (SD-19) and Kevin Priola (SD-25) in the Senate, aims to add the requirement of at least 10 hours of professional development regarding the laws and practices of educating students with disabilities to educator licensing for teachers, special services providers, principals, and administrators.

The bill recently passed out of the House of Representatives and was introduced in the Senate and assigned to the Education committee. In an interview with Sarah Havlicek, Representative Buentello, a special education teacher herself, explains the necessity of the bill and ways it will improve special education practices for diverse learners in the state of Colorado.

Why is this bill needed?

Colorado is miserably behind on current practices in special education. Frankly, it stems from our disconnect with the law. Right now in the state of Colorado, there are several ways you can get a teaching license without ever having any kind of special education training. It became painfully obvious when I became a teacher in Colorado that there is a fairly significant gap between teacher training and best special education practices for diverse learners. I have co-workers who are not recent college graduates, which means they weren’t subject to the mandate that we now teach education candidates special education best practices. These people already have their Master’s in different topics, they didn’t have any training in their undergraduate work in relation to special education and if it’s not mandated, we just don’t do it. We see the result of not having that mandate. So, I am really proud to introduce this bill to bring a fairly comprehensive overhaul.

Why did you decide to sponsor this bill?

I came to Colorado five years ago and it did surprise me, the disconnect, between best and most current practices in teaching and fostering an inclusive learning environment and teaching to those diverse abilities. I have talked a lot about my son as a student with a disability and his experience but the events that really stand out to me in my mind were actually when I was teaching. There was a math teacher who had absolutely no background in special education and my students, who were special education identified and had an Individualized Education Program (IEP), their IEPs were totally ignored by the math teacher. She had absolutely no regard for them and as a result, my students, their learning, and their graduation rates suffered. So That is when I first realized that the law was behind here in Colorado. Because there was no mandate, lots of people were not complying with federal law and I really want to close this gap for our exceptional learning learners.

What ways will the education requirements for educators change if this bill is passed?

It is actually pretty comprehensive. First of all, colleges will now be mandated to provide all education candidates a background in special education. I left that up to the boards and the curriculum department within universities’ education programs, they just have to demonstrate they are instructing teaching candidates. That is already the practice, it just is not reflected in Colorado law. So, I caught that up. A second requirement is, from now on, if you are licensed, whether as an administrator or a teacher in Colorado, you have to demonstrate that ten hours of your background training must have something to do with topics within exceptional student learning. I believe there will be a lot of overlap between the Colorado READ Act, just because the READ Act also requires teachers to learn about reading disabilities and how to teach to those capabilities. I strongly feel that we needed at least a thousand-foot comprehensive overview of what students with disabilities really looks like, because, it is as broad and diverse as our students.

In what ways will students be impacted by the new requirements for educators?

It will take a little while, it will be seven years, because there is a two-year ramp up in this program. Seven years from now, every licensed teacher and administrator in the state of Colorado will have training in special education and that is something I just couldn’t be prouder of.

Sarah Havlicek holds a B.A. in Communication and Journalism from the University of Saint Thomas and a M.A. in Communication Studies with an emphasis in Interpersonal and Organizational Communication from Saint Louis University. Sarah works on AdvocacyDenver’s Policy Perspective, interviewing key stakeholders and legislators about policy that are related to the work and mission of AdvocacyDenver.

For questions or comments, contact Sarah at shavlicek@advocacydenver.org

The post House Bill Aims to Add Special Education Requirements to Educator License appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.

Conducting a complete enumeration of the residents of the country is one of the few functions of the government written in the Constitution. The first Census, conducted in 1790 under Thomas Jefferson, has evolved over the centuries from door to door inquiries to nationwide mailings.

In March of 2020 however, the Census in Denver is going ‘high- tech’. This new process poses challenges for Denver’s Census staff who is dedicated to making sure everyone is counted. They say this development, along with Trump administration polices, will lower Denver’s Census response rate.

How will Denver’s 2020 Census be implemented?

Every housing unit address in Denver will receive a letter encouraging residents to go online and fill out the Census. The Census can be completed in ways other than online but that is the way people in Denver will be encouraged to respond. You will be provided with a code to do that. If you lose the code, you can still go online and type in your address and complete the Census. You also will be given the option to call a toll free phone number to complete the Census. In addition to English, you can answer the Census in 13 different languages. If you don’t respond to the letter, you’ll get another letter. Then you’ll get a postcard. The fourth time, you’ll receive a letter with a paper questionnaire. If you don’t respond to the paper questionnaire, the Census Bureau will institute a process they call ‘non responsive follow-up’. A Census Bureau worker will come to your door and try to complete the survey with you.

How will the new Census method impact the response?

In 2010, 76 percent of Denver residents completed the Census. We don’t know how many completed it after follow-up non response operations. The Census Bureau is predicting 56 percent of people will complete the questionnaire without intervention in 2020. That’s low. We expect the online aspect to be intimidating to some groups of people. We did an informal survey of older adults in Denver. About 45 percent of them indicated they didn’t feel confident in their ability to complete their Census online. We expect that without interventions being made by the City, the State, the nonprofit community and the Partnership Staff of the Census Bureau, the response will be lower than in 2010.

Which populations are challenging to reach?

The groups we used to call “hard to count.” We’re trying to shift the language to “historically undercounted.” That shifts the burden from it being your fault you weren’t counted, versus, your population has been undercounted. We are most worried about: people with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, communities of color, American Indians, Alaskan natives, immigrants and refugees, people with low income, adults 65 years and older, people who don’t have sufficient access or feel uncomfortable using the internet, individuals reentering from incarceration, the homeless, renters, and children under the age of five.

What is the process for providing accommodations for individuals with disabilities with a wide range of needs, including individuals with intellectual disabilities?

For folks with disabilities, there’s not a one-size-fits-all answer. Depending on the living situation of the individual with the disability and the severity, extent or type of the disability, the answer of how they’d answer the Census varies. Individuals living in an assisted living type facility would be counted under the Census Bureau’s “Group Quarters” operation. They would not receive an individual Census form. In this case, no individual action needs to be taken on behalf of the person with a disability. If an individual is living with a family member or other caregiver, we’d expect that care giver to include the individual with disabilities as part of their household. If an individual has a visual disability, the survey can be completed by phone or they can request a form in braille or large print. We don’t have all the answers yet. We are interested in having a conversation with individuals with disabilities, their advocates and their care givers to make sure no one is missed. They can contact us at: www.denvergov.org/Census2020.

Will the Trump administration policies impact response?

Yes. Trying to put a citizenship question on the Census was one action that has negatively impacted the Census. People are not excited about providing any information to the government because of the ICE raids and the rhetoric around immigrants. A second negative action is the Department of Commerce was denied the budget it requested to run the Census. It is running the 2020 Census with the same budget as 2010. This online operation is totally different than the 2010 Census which was all on paper.

What will be done to alleviate concerns on the local level?

Our job is to convince folks they can trust the Census Bureau’s data protection policies. The Census Bureau under Title 13 is not able to share individual level data with anyone else. They can’t share your data with ICE or with the IRS. Every person who works for the Census Bureau takes a lifetime confidentiality oath. The penalty for breaking confidentiality is a $250,000 fine or five years in prison. We are trying to convince people that answering the survey is important for their community. We need to know how many people and how many kids live in a community so Denver Public Schools can plan for how many kindergarteners there are going to be in 2023. Do we need to build another building or another health clinic or have more bus routes or expand a road? All that information is used in aggregate form to make decisions to allocate funding back to communities. If people hear the Census is good from their doctors, their pastor, from trusted voices in the community, that’s the way we will convince them to trust it.

Catherine Strode is Advocacy Denver’s Communications and Policy Specialist.  She holds a Masters degree in Public Administration with an emphasis in Health Care Policy. Catherine publishes Policy Perspective, featuring interviews with state policy makers on issues that affect the work and mission of Advocacy Denver.

The post Denver’s Online 2020 Census Poses Challenges for High Response appeared first on AdvocacyDenver.