Speaking out for People with
 Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Ohio: OLMR (statewide family association) testimony (2006)

OLMR Response to the State Plan for the Ohio Legal Rights Service, Ohio's Protection and Advocacy System

Sonya Mawhorter, Executive DirectorOhio League for the Mentally Retarded (OLMR)
June 2006

The Ohio League For The Mentally Retarded (OLMR) is a consumer organization representing over 7000 Ohio citizens with disabilities and their family/caregivers.

We are pleased to have an opportunity to offer input into the state plan for the Ohio Legal Rights Service (OLRS), Ohio’s Protection and Advocacy system. We will provide some background in our comments, as well as make some recommendations.

Arkansas Testimonial 2006

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. SHERMAN
ATTORNEY FOR PARENT/GUARDIAN ASSOCIATION
STATE OF ARKANSAS

AR Bar No. 6406
Tel: (501) 372-3148

I am William F. Sherman, attorney at law. My address is 809 N. Palm Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205. I am a graduate of the University of Virginia Law School and I have been in the practice of law since 1964 in Arkansas.  In addition to federal and state courts in Arkansas, I am licensed to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court and the 4th, 6th, 8th and 11th Circuit Courts of Appeals. I have been admitted to appear pro hac vice in other state and federal courts.

CA Coffelt Case Study 2000

2006 Update to Coffelt Case Study

March 2000

William Coffelt v. California Department of Developmental Services:
A case study of one class action by Protection and Advocacy 

Executive Summary

This case study is designed to support the requests of Voice of the Retarded (VOR) for changes in the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) to assure health, safety and quality of care for people with severe and profound mental retardation. With these changes, VOR supports reauthorization.

VOR feels strongly that some DD Act program activities, including class action litigation, work against the best interests of some people with mental retardation by eliminating specialized services settings such as the Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR; a/k/a institution or developmental center).

CA Coffelt Case Study: 2006 Update

CALIFORNIA

June 6, 2006
To:      Tamie Hopp
 Director of Government Relations & Advocacy, VOR
From:  Bob Cross, Esq.
Vice President, CASH-PCR
Re: PAI

This is in response to your request for an updated perspective on PAI activities in California. The following comments reflect experiences common among families with relatives who reside or until recently have resided in California’s developmental centers (DCs).

DD Act Program Abuse and Human Consequences

Why Congress Should Care About the ICF/MR Program and the People It Serves
The Human Consequences of the DD Act Programs’
Ideologically-Based Attacks on ICF/MRs

________________________________________________________________

The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act)
________________________________________________________________

The DD Act authorizes three primary grant programs designed to “assure that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families participate in the design of and have access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in all facets of community life. . . ..”

The three primary programs authorized by the DD Act are the state Developmental Disabilities Councils (DD Councils), state Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems, and state University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD).