City of San José Disability Equity Issues
February 3, 2024
RE: 2/4/2024 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 3.3 25–085 Options for Expanding Alternative Response and Co-Response Programs to 911 Calls for Service
Dear Mayor Matt Mahan and City Councilmembers:
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing treatment of disability in our city. As a longtime advocate and community leader, I have seen how local policies and reports overlook or mishandle the needs of individuals with disabilities. This systemic bias harms the disability community and reinforces harmful stereotypes, excluding disabled people from fully participating in the life of our city.
The report in question highlights multiple issues with its framing and analysis. Outreach efforts continue to fall short because the disability community knows we are not valued or understood. This report is just another example of how community priorities are sidelined, allowing structural ableism to persist unchecked.
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a mental health crisis occurs when someone’s behavior puts them at risk of hurting themselves or others, and/or prevents them from caring for themselves. Despite this clear definition, City Council directed staff to exclude situations where a person may be at risk to themselves from the 911 call analysis and evaluation of alternative response options. By omitting these situations, the report fails to address the risks disabled individuals face during mental health crises, meaning the default response will continue to be law enforcement intervention. This limited scope perpetuates a harmful cycle where police are called during mental health crises, particularly when suicidal thoughts are involved.
In Bread for the City v. D.C., the court ruled that sending police rather than qualified mental health responders to individuals in crisis may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Bread for the City v. District of Columbia, No. 1:23-cv-01945-ACR, Feb. 22, 2024). The U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in support of this position, emphasizing that police-led responses to mental health crises are not compliant with the ADA. This is consistent with findings from the Department of Justice’s investigations into the Minneapolis and Louisville police departments, which highlighted the risks of harm, trauma, and even death when law enforcement responds to behavioral health issues. These cases underscore the urgent need for mental health professionals, not police, to be the primary responders in such crises.
The data cited in the report significantly underrepresents the prevalence of disability. The report states that disability prevalence in San José is 10.1%, based on Census data. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that 26.6% of California adults have a disability, more than double the rate stated in the report (Disability and Health Data System, select California and Disability Estimates). This discrepancy impacts how resources are allocated. If decision-makers believe only 10.1% of people are disabled, they may treat disability as a niche issue rather than a widespread concern. In reality, over one in four adults in California has a disability, making accessibility, inclusion, and crisis response a public health and civil rights priority.
The CDC’s Disability and Health Data System (DHDS) uses data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a more comprehensive source for state-level disability data than the Census. Continuing to rely on Census data minimizes the true scope of disability and its intersection with systemic inequities. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the American Association on Health and Disability have called for improved data collection, yet recent federal actions have started to suppress these efforts. Additionally, the National Governors Association published “Promising Practices for State and Territory Disability Data Collection and Use” in December 2024. Moving forward, all levels of government must address the undercounting of disability populations and prioritize accurate data collection. This issue is a priority on the Disability Equity Inclusion Pledge that must be funded and addressed in San José.
CDC 2022 Disability Prevalence in California:
Any disability: 26.6%
Cognitive disability: 12.4%
Hearing disability: 5.8%
Mobility disability: 11.1%
Vision disability: 5.1%
Self-care disability: 3.3%
Independent living disability: 7.0%
No disability: 73.4%
The urgency of addressing a problem that affects over a quarter of the adult population is vastly different from one affecting only 10%. The more disability is undercounted, the easier it becomes for governments to deprioritize reforms and funding, placing already marginalized community members at greater risk. This report fails to address the systemic inequities in crisis response, healthcare, and community support, and it does not offer an equitable solution for disability inclusion.
Language and descriptions play a critical role in shaping perceptions of individuals, and when discussing disability, they can perpetuate harmful biases and stereotypes. For instance, the framing of individuals with developmental disabilities and intoxication together can sensationalize the situation and create an implied link between disability and substance use. This not only distorts the reality of the crisis but also raises the question: is the perceived issue the disability or the intoxication? Such framing often fails to address the underlying need for appropriate care and support and instead reinforces existing biases that individuals with disabilities are inherently problematic or in crisis. Similarly, terms like “wheelchair-bound,” which is an outdated and no longer used term, increase the risk for individuals by emphasizing their disability in a way that suggests they are limited or incapable, rather than highlighting their agency and right to full participation in society. For more accurate and respectful language, individuals are encouraged to refer to the City of San José Disability Affairs Glossary. These types of language choices, though often unintended, contribute to a cycle of harm by framing disabled individuals as subjects of surveillance and control rather than individuals entitled to dignity, support, and appropriate responses in times of crisis.
On page 17, the report presents a misleading interpretation of accessibility requirements, suggesting that an ASL interpreter is an optional “co-responder.” Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, law enforcement is legally required to provide effective communication for d/Deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Interpreters are not optional — they are a legal requirement for any interaction with d/Deaf individuals, and this must be integrated as a standard service, not an “add-on.”
People with disabilities and their families are facing significant challenges. Pending budget cuts and policies that treat disabled individuals as burdens reflect a dangerous return to outdated beliefs that devalue disabled lives. The framing in this report mirrors these biases — portraying people with disabilities as problems to be managed rather than individuals with rights and agency. If we do not actively challenge these narratives, they will continue to harm disabled communities.
The harmful stereotypes disabled people face today are rooted in historical practices like eugenics, where they were seen as burdens. This ideology fueled the atrocities of the Holocaust, with disabled individuals among the first to be targeted for extermination. Acknowledging this history underscores the urgency of changing how we view disabled individuals. Recent actions by President Trump, including rolling back DEIA programs and blaming disabled people for incidents like the plane crash near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, show a troubling shift in societal attitudes. These actions highlight the need to stay vigilant against dehumanizing views and ensure disabled individuals are treated with dignity and respect.
I urge you to direct the City Manager’s Office to revise this report to accurately reflect the needs of the disability community, not an analysis with limited input and biased language. Reports like this perpetuate the harmful idea that disabled people are invisible in San José. The City of San José must take intentional steps to address the historic ableism that has marginalized this community.
It is essential to prioritize alternative response programs over co-response, with clear budget recommendations to support this shift. Increased training and research across City departments are urgently needed, with funding that should be directed away from institutionalization and incarceration. Direct staff to conduct thorough research on how emergency responses can meet the needs of all people with disabilities, including those with blindness, d/Deafness, mobility disabilities, autism, or mental health conditions. This research must also address the intersection of disability and mental health, ensuring that response systems don’t default to law enforcement during crises. Lastly, the City must allocate funds for a community education campaign to raise awareness of 988 and the TRUST line, ensuring proper crisis support access.
Sincerely,
Michele Mashburn
District 3 Resident
