People with Disabilities Foundation

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy program: in 2023, we filed two new disability civil rights discrimination cases against the social security administration (ssa) in federal court for reasonable accommodations for clients who have schizophrenia as a primary disability. (case nos. 3:23-cv-01037 and 3:23-cv- (n.d. Cal.) in one case, plaintiff's supplemental security income (ssi) checks were initially held up for two years based on the ssa's false accusation that plaintiff had 1 million of real estate; this resulted in him being cast out on the streets homeless, being in four psychiatric hospitals and living in shelters, etc. In the other case, the ssa ceased plaintiff's benefits when she tried to work, eventually reinstating her but without the retroactive 12-months of benefits. The ssa should never have ceased her benefits, given her symptomatology, which includes disorganized thinking, visual, auditory, and olfactory hallucinations, and severe neuro-cognitive impairments putting her in the less than 2% in most categories. In both cases, the ssa had the medical information, which showed clear and convincing evidence, one for 27 years, that these individuals' symptomatology included hallucinations and/or delusions, including auditory, visual, and olfactory, in addition to psychiatric findings of constant disorganized thoughts lasting not less than 2 years at times. See social security listing 12.03 schizophrenia spectrum disorder, part 404, subpart p, app. 1. The ssa knew one person was homeless for 2 years and from the other individual's work cdr (review for cessation of benefits), that the stated reasons for terminating her ssdi check benefits were false. We filed these cases for reasonable accommodations to prevent the ssa from terminating these clients from benefits without "effective communication" for meaningful program access. These cases can take 5 years since the ssa usually delays discrimination cases. One case settled in march 2026 and the other has been remanded to the social security administration for further alj hearing, the fifth to be in april 2026. Pwdf represented a client who refused to take psychotropic medications, which the ssa used to support their conclusion that the client was not disabled. The right to refuse psychotropic medication is an important civil right. M.f. V. O'malley, commissioner, soc. Sec. Admin., case 3:20-cv-08742 (n.d. Cal. Nov. 11, 2021). Pwdf continues to consult with and represent individuals who have psychiatric, intellectual, and/or developmental disabilities including neurological, on cases that involve social security disability benefits, employment, and/or housing, including reasonable accommodations issues.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 92.1%; rating input score 92
• Program expense ratio: 95.7%; rating input score 96
• Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: 87.8%; rating input score 88; 37th percentile among comparable filings
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 18th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 5.2%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.66; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 48.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings