RSA-509 - Protection & Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Performance Report

Michigan (MICHIGAN PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES, INC. -- CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM) - H240A120023 - FY2012

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameMichigan Protection and Advocacy Service Inc.
Address4095 Legacy Parkway
Address Line 2Suite 500
CityLansing
StateMichigan
Zip Code48911
E-mail Addressecerano@mpas.org
Website Addresshttp://www.mpas.org
Phone517-487-1755
TTY 517-487-1755
Toll-free Phone800-288-5923
Toll-free TTY800-288-5923
Fax517-487-0827
Name of P&A Executive DirectorElmer L. Cerano
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorMark A. Cody
Person to contact regarding reportMark A. Cody
Contact Person phone517-487-1755
Ext.

Part I. Non-Case Services

A. Individual Information and Referral Services (I&R)

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas1,075
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas1,243
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)2,318

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff29
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)751

Describe the trainings presented by PAIR staff. Be sure to include information about the topics covered, the training methods used, and the purpose for the training. Use separate sheets if necessary

Topics Covered Training Methods Purpose of Training

Special Education Rights, MAF Webinar, 02/15/2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, CEC, Kent County, 03/01/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training — F2F, Hillsdale, 01/14/2011 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, Common Ground, 01/18/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training , Cooley Law School, 03/13/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, Detroit, 03/24/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, Flint, 12/03/2011 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, Grand Rapids, 09/12/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, Lenawee, 02/11/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, Listening Ear, 01/31/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar Archive Access, FY 2011-2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, 01/25/2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, 02/23/2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, 03/14/2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, 03/22/2-12 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, 04/12/2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, 05/16/2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, 06/28/2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, 07/26/2012 Webinar Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MI Ass’n of Foster, Adoptive, Kinship Parents, 04/27/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, MSU School of Social Work, 03/29/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, Muskegon County, 05/19/2012 Presentation Train attendees on special education

Special Education Rights Training, Oakland County, 01/28/2012 Presentation Train attendees on rights of elders

Special Education Rights Training, Saginaw, 02/25/2012 Presentation Train attendees on rights of elders

Special Education Rights Training, U of M Law School, 02/20/2012 Presentation Train attendees on rights of elders

Special Education Rights Training, U of M, 09/27/2012 Presentation Train attendees on rights of elders

Special Education Rights Training, Vista Maria Center, 03/21/2012 Presentation Train attendees on rights of elders

Special Education Rights Training, Vista Maria, 09/25/2012 Presentation Train attendees on rights of elders

Special Education Rights Training, Warren, 01/14/2012 Presentation Train attendees on rights of elders

Note: Not all of these presentations were funded 100% by PAIR. They were collaborative activities with other MPAS funding areas and staff.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff4
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles23
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website96,852
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated1,293
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

MPAS maintains a Facebook page. The number of “friends” of MPAS has steadily increased since the site was launched and we now have 570 Likes/Friends. This has proven to be an effective means of communicating with many individuals.

PAIR funding also supports the activities of the Great Lakes ADA Steering Committee. GLADA distributes mini-grants that promote accessibility in the community.

Part II. Individuals Served

A. Individuals Served

Count individual once per FY. Multiple counts not permitted for lines A1 through A3.

1. Individuals still served as of October 1 (carryover from prior FY)41
2. Additional individuals served during the year49
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)90
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)1

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 23

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility2
2. Employment6
3. Program access1
4. Housing4
5. Government benefits/services15
6. Transportation1
7. Education10
8. Assistive technology1
9. Voting0
10. Health care3
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services0
13. Privacy rights2
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse9
16. Neglect35
17. Other2

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor33
2. Other representation found1
3. Individual withdrew complaint10
4. Appeals unsuccessful3
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case1
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit14
9. Other6

Please explain

Other: Closed and reopened to appropriate grant

E. Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.

1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy8
2. Short-term assistance18
3. Investigation/monitoring21
4. Negotiation6
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution3
6. Administrative hearings3
7. Litigation (including class actions)9
8. Systemic/policy activities0

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. 0 - 40
2. 5 - 2211
3. 23 - 5941
4. 60 - 649
5. 65 and over29

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females39
2. Males51

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race4
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian2
4. Black or African American19
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White58
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown7

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent25
2. Parental or other family home14
3. Community residential home1
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home31
6. Public institutional living arrangement2
7. Private institutional living arrangement2
8. Jail/prison/detention center5
9. Homeless2
10. Other living arrangements8
11. Living arrangements not known0

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

Identify the individual's primary disability, namely the one directly related to the issues/complaints

1. Blind/visual impairment4
2. Deaf/hard of hearing5
3. Deaf-blind1
4. Orthopedic impairment30
5. Mental illness9
6. Substance abuse2
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability6
9. Neurological impairment19
10. Respiratory impairment0
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment3
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment2
13. Speech impairment2
14. AIDS/HIV0
15. Traumatic brain injury1
16. Other disability6

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities5

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes25,000

Describe your systemic activities. Be sure to include information about the policies that were changed and how these changes benefit individuals with disabilities. Include case examples of how your systemic activities impacted individuals served.

Statewide Nursing Home Project

After receiving complaints involving egregious acts of neglect of residents in nursing homes, MPAS issued a public report with recommendations to inform the public, Michigan legislature and Congress about abusive/neglectful conditions in Michigan nursing homes. The report, which featured 38 examples of abuse and neglect, got local, statewide and national media attention. MPAS worked to develop a statewide strategy to address abuse/neglect in nursing homes on individual and systemic levels. Information about the report and strategy was also featured in MPAS’ newsletters, the Exchange. Meetings were held with 7 State Representatives and 8 members of staff from Congress regarding the nursing home investigations and needed expansions to background check legislation. MPAS also met with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs — Bureau of Health Systems to address concerns related to conditions in nursing homes. Over 1,000 licensing surveys were reviewed which helped identify numerous new investigations which are ongoing in 2013. MPAS referred a number of incidents to local prosecutors resulting in investigations and follow-up by local police. In an effort to prepare for project sustainability the focus was narrowed to pursue facilities with high concentrations of residents with mental illness. MPAS staff met with the State Long Term Care Ombudsman to discuss the more focused strategy and opportunities for collaboration in 2013. As a result of MPAS advocacy, legal authorities are aware of abuse occurring in nursing care facilities and investigating incidents reported by MPAS. MPAS filed 24 complaints against individuals with professional certifications or licenses resulting in two Licensed Practical Nurses being placed on 1-yr probation, a fine, and requirements for continued education. For those complaints not resulting in a substantiated finding, the allegations will remain on file for five years in case other allegations arise. Already in 2013, MPAS has seen an increase in the responsiveness of the professional licensing bureau and successful outcomes resulting from complaints. Systemic problems within the licensing bureau have also been identified along with strategies to correct these deficiencies.

Dept. of Nat. Resources- Accessibility Advisory Council

As a result of MPAS input at DNR-AAC meetings regarding legislative proposals, laws were passed and policies were updated to expand recreational and hunting opportunities for individuals with disabilities in Michigan. The Dwarf World Games will be hosted by Michigan State University in 2013 and over 500 athletes with dwarfism will participate. The Council hosted an event featuring adaptive archery and shooting equipment which will be used at the 2013 Games, a bass fishing event, and the Paralympics which is a cross-disability event. Members of the Council are also working with producers of a show which airs on public television to feature various disabilities and conditions (e.g. cancer) and the variety of adaptive equipment and accessible opportunities for people to participate in outdoor activities in Michigan. The program also has an active YouTube site which is viewed internationally and promotes Michigan’s outdoor opportunities.

The Council also influenced changes made to the Michigan 2012 Fishing Guide. In the past, the Guide included language taken from federal law which included derogatory terms referring to individuals with intellectual disabilities. The Guide was updated in 2012 to include more person-first language. Similarly, the Michigan 2012 Hunting Digest was revised to provide clarification about regulation changes for individuals with disabilities which was an improvement from years past.

On the legislative front, a bill was passed during 2012 to allow for people with walking disabilities to use an off-road vehicle on game bird hunting preserves, to carry a loaded gun, no longer wear a helmet while hunting. Prior to this legislation, someone had to walk beside the hunter/driver of the off-road vehicle, the person walking had to carry the firearm, and the driver had to wear a helmet which interfered with shooting. With these new changes, an individual can now hunt independently and enjoy it without unnecessary restrictions or barriers.

Integrated Care for Medicare and Medicaid Eligible Individuals

The State of Michigan is one of 15 states that are actively pursuing a plan to integrate services for individuals who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. This creates both great opportunities and great risks for Michigan residents. MPAS provided valuable input to workgroups convened by the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH). Many of the suggestions offered by MPAS were incorporated in the plans developed by MDCH. The focus of our efforts was to ensure choice, flexibility, quality, and effective due process and grievance systems.

Probate Court Alternatives to Guardianship Workgroup

As noted in last year’s PPR, MPAS was asked to participate in a workgroup to identify strategies to reduce the number of guardianships. The workgroup was formed at the request of a prominent probate judge. Several proposals made by MPAS were adopted, including an improved process of educating petitioners seeking guardianship as to alternatives and improved consumer-friendly means of allowing those under guardianship to alert the probate court that a guardianship may no longer be needed.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts5,000
2. Number of individuals named in class actions0

Describe your litigation/class action activities. Explain how individuals with disabilities benefited from your litigation activities. Be sure to include case examples that demonstrate the impact of your litigation.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals long maintained a difficult test for employees or potential employees to bring claims of disability based discrimination in federal court. The Court had required that the plaintiff be able to prove that his/her disability was the “sole reason” for an adverse action taken by an employer. The issue of whether this was the correct test came before the Sixth Circuit in the case of Lewis v. Humboldt. MPAS filed an amicus brief urging the Court to adopt a more lenient and realistic test. In the decision which adopted the position of MPAS, Judge Sutton noted, "The longer we have stood by this standard, the more out of touch it has become with the standards used by our sister circuits. At this point, no other circuit imports the ’solely’ test into the ADA.” The decision by the Court to loosen the standard will ensure that many individuals with disabilities will have their day in court.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

A. Priorities and Objectives for the Fiscal Year Covered by this Report

For each of your PAIR program priorities for the fiscal year covered by this report, please:

  1. Identify and describe priority.
  2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.
  3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.
  4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.
  5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.
  6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

A. Priority: Eliminate Abuse/Neglect

1. Describe the priority.

Prevent consumers from being subjected to restraint and/or seclusion or otherwise abused and/or neglected.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

People with disabilities too often are subjected to abuse and/or neglect. This can occur in facilities or in the community. In addition, the use of restraint and/or seclusion is an ongoing problem, particularly in schools and some types of facilities that are virtually unregulated. Abuse/neglect is especially prevalent in nursing facilities.

3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.

If abuse and/or neglect is confirmed, whether appropriate corrective measures are taken to prevent future incidents.

4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.

MPAS works collaboratively with the Office of Recipient Rights of the Michigan Department of Community Health, the State Long Term Care Ombudsman, as well as licensing and certification agencies.

5. Provide the number of cases handled under this priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.

Twenty-Four cases, no class actions.

6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

A review of a licensing survey revealed that a 51-year- old resident of a nursing facility in Detroit died as a result of the failure of staff to properly and timely check his insulin levels. MPAS began an investigation of this death. The facility was reluctant to provide records and referred our request to their corporate counsel. An MPAS attorney was able to convince the facility’s counsel that we were entitled to the requested records.

Although the state’s licensing and survey unit should have reported the neglect to the Bureau of Health Professionals (BHP), they had failed to do so. MPAS therefore filed a complaint with the Bureau. After investigation, BHP placed two LPNs on probation, imposed a monetary fine on one, and required one to take continuing education.

A. Priority: Improve Rights Protection Systems

1. Describe the priority.

Advocacy for effective systems and proceedings to safeguard the rights of consumers.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

People with disabilities frequently have their civil rights compromised by ineffective rights protection systems and overreaching guardians. 3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.

Whether the client received effective assistance from rights protection systems and/or whether the client was protected from a loss of personal rights as a result of a guardianship.

4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.

No significant collaboration.

5. Provide the number of cases handled under this priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.

Three cases, no class actions.

6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

An 86 year old gentleman had been placed under a guardianship order. Although it was clear that he had the capacity to make personal decisions and only required minimal assistance, the corporate guardian was overly controlling and demanding. MPAS negotiated a Stipulated Order allowing the client’s guardian to resign and be replaced by client’s chosen family members. The client now has guardians who respect him and his fiancĂ©.

A. Priority: Eliminate Employment Barriers and Protect Rights

1. Describe the priority.

To ensure that consumers have access to competitive employment and their rights under state and federal law are protected.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

Nationwide, the data indicates that persons with disabilities continue to be underemployed and unemployed compared to persons without an identified disability. Although legal protections exist to address this issue, individuals with disabilities are most likely to receive assistance and representation from the private bar when they have been discharged. For these individuals, legal assistance that is most effective focuses on negotiating reasonable accommodations with an employer prior to discharge. Unfortunately, many individuals with significant disabilities are unable to secure legal representation for any employment related issue. Finally, many individuals with disabilities are employed in settings that allow for deviated wages based on level of productivity and they are not compensated as fully as is required by law.

3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.

Whether the client was able to secure or maintain competitive employment.

4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.

No significant collaboration.

5. Provide the number of cases handled under this priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.

Ten cases, no class actions.

6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

A client with a mild learning impairment had been discharged by an employer. After review, MPAS assisted the client in filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that resulted in a monetary settlement.

A. Priority: Improve Access to Necessary Services

1. Describe the priority.

Advocacy for services to maintain consumers in the community and for obtaining accommodations in critical services.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

Particularly in a time of severe funding shortages, the availability of services and supports for consumers is being compromised. In addition, many providers of critical services, such as hospitals, units of local government, etc. are not making needed physical and/or programmatic accommodations.

3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.

Whether the client was able to gain or maintain needed services.

4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.

No significant collaboration.

5. Provide the number of cases handled under this priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.

Sixteen cases, no class actions.

6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

MPAS attempted to negotiate with the landlord for the installation of a solid-surface transition between the patio and sidewalk. When the landlord did not agree to this, MPAS filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. When that process stalled, MPAS filed a complaint in U.S. District Court requesting injunctive and monetary relief. The client moved out of the apartment, rendering some of the actions moot. MPAS successfully negotiated a settlement for the client, resolving the case.

A. Priority: Ensure the Right to a High Quality Education

1. Describe the priority.

Advocacy to ensure that students with disabilities will receive the highest and best education possible and they will be fully prepared for entry into the competitive workforce.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

Students with disabilities are too often placed in segregated learning environments, are suspended or expelled for disability related conduct, or are not adequately prepared for work.

3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.

Whether the client was able to gain or retain access to general education or is prepared to enter the workforce.

4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.

MPAS has worked extensively with the Michigan Alliance for Families to provide training for parents of children with disabilities and to identify systemic issues.

5. Provide the number of cases handled under this priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.

Nine cases, no class actions.

6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

A 15-year-old client with learning disabilities and a speech impediment had been expelled from school. The school was unwilling to provide services, but MPAS intervened and convinced the district to provide speech therapy and other services.

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year

Please include a statement of priorities and objectives for the current fiscal year (the fiscal year succeeding that covered by this report), which should contain the following information:

  1. a statement of each prioirty;
  2. the need addressed by each priority; and;
  3. a description of the activities to be carried out under each priority.

B. Priority: Eliminate Abuse/Neglect

1. Describe the priority.

Prevent consumers from being subjected to restraint and/or seclusion or otherwise abused and/or neglected.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

People with disabilities too often are subjected to abuse and/or neglect. This can occur in facilities or in the community. In addition, the use of restraint and/or seclusion is an ongoing problem, particularly in schools and some types of facilities where regulations are ineffective in curtailing these practices.

3. Description of the activities to be carried out.

Advocacy with policy makers for better measures to protect consumers and to eliminate the use of restraint and/or seclusion; investigations into suspected abuse/neglect cases and follow-up as needed; and appropriate litigation.

B. Priority: Improve Rights Protection Systems

1. Describe the priority.

Advocacy for effective systems and proceedings to safeguard the rights of consumers.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

People with disabilities frequently have their civil rights compromised by ineffective rights protection systems and/or overreaching guardians.

3. Description of the activities to be carried out.

Advocacy in individual cases of abuse/neglect, financial exploitation, or forced treatment by guardians, and education of policy makers.

B. Priority: Eliminate Employment Barriers and Protect Rights

1. Describe the priority.

To ensure that consumers have access to competitive employment and their rights under state and federal law are protected.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

Nationwide, the data indicates that persons with disabilities continue to be underemployed and unemployed compared to persons without an identified disability. Although legal protections exist to address this issue, individuals with disabilities are most likely to receive assistance and representation from the private bar when they have been discharged from employment. For these individuals, legal assistance that is most effective focuses on negotiating reasonable accommodations with an employer prior to discharge. Furthermore, many individuals with significant disabilities are unable to secure legal representation for any employment related issue. Finally, many individuals with disabilities are employed in settings that allow for deviated wages based on level of productivity and they are not compensated as fully as is required by law.

3. Description of the activities to be carried out.

Representation in individual or systemic litigation and, as needed, assistance to consumers in asserting their rights.

B. Priority: Improve Access to Necessary Services

1. Describe the priority.

Advocacy for services to maintain consumers in the community and for accommodations needed to access critical services and discharge planning including access to services in facilities (e.g., nursing homes).

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

Particularly in a time of severe funding shortages, the availability of services and supports for consumers is being compromised. In addition, many providers of critical services, such as hospitals, units of local government, etc. are not making needed physical and/or programmatic accommodations.

3. Description of the activities to be carried out.

Representation in individual and systemic cases involving denial or termination of critical services needed to avoid institutionalization or to secure discharge to the community.

B. Priority: Ensure the Right to a High Quality Education

1. Describe the priority.

Advocacy to ensure that students with disability related behavior will remain in school and that students will receive appropriate transition services to be fully prepared for entry into the competitive workforce.

2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.

Students with disabilities are too often placed in segregated learning environments, are suspended or expelled for disability related conduct, or are not adequately prepared for work.

3. Description of the activities to be carried out.

Advocacy in systemic and individual cases and policy advocacy.

Part VI. Narrative

At a minimum, you must include all of the information requested. You may include any other information, not otherwise collected on this reporting form that would be helpful in describing the extent of PAIR activities during the prior fiscal year. Please limit the narrative portion of this report, including attachments, to 20 pages or less.

The narrative should contain the following information. The instructions for this form outline the information that should be contained in each section.

  1. Sources of funds received and expended
  2. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report
  3. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)
  4. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)
  5. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure
  6. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State long-term care program, if these programs are not part of the P&A agency

A. Sources of funds received and expended :

U.S. Department of Education (FY 2010-2012)(Carryover) $43,082

U.S. Department of Education (FY2011-2012) $478,929

Total Available for FY 2012 $522,011

Total expended for FY 2012 $511,952

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report $473,154

C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)

1. Duties

PAIR supports both advocates and attorneys who provide information and referral, direct advocacy and legal representation to PAIR eligible clients. The advocates who provide information and referral services discuss a variety of legal issues related to the disability of the client. Advocates and attorneys providing direct advocacy and legal representation do so in these areas: (1) Community integration and community supports; (2) Abuse and Neglect; (3) Discharge Planning; (4) Rights Protection; (5) Employment; and (6) Education.

2. Person Years

PAIR had 7.6 FTEs of direct advocacy staff during FY 2012. PAIR pays a federally approved indirect cost rate of 10.2%, which funds administration, finance, human resources, and information systems.

D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)

MPAS staff was actively involved with the Statewide Independent Living Council, the Michigan Disability Housing Workgroup, the Michigan Disability Network, the Transition and Education Advisory groups of the Michigan Department of Career Development, the Community Housing Network, the Juvenile Justice Waiver Workgroup, and the NISH Institute on Economic Empowerment for People with Severe Disabilities.

E. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure

MPAS received no grievances from PAIR eligible consumers.

F. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State long-term care program, if these programs are not part of the P&A agency.

The CAP agency is part of MPAS. MPAS works in cooperation with the State Long Term Care Ombudsman.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByElmer L. Cerano
TitleMPAS Executive Director
Signed Date12/11/2012