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

Mississippi (MISSISSIPPI P and A SYSTEM, INC.) - H240A140025 - FY2014

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights MS
Address210 E. Capitol St. Suite 600
Address Line 2
CityJackson
StateMississippi
Zip Code39201
E-mail Addressinfo@drms.ms
Website Addresshttps://www.drms.ms
Phone601-968-0600
TTY 601-968-0600
Toll-free Phone800-772-4057
Toll-free TTY800-772-4057
Fax601-968-0665
Name of P&A Executive DirectorAnn Maclaine
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorAnn Maclaine
Person to contact regarding reportAnn Maclaine
Contact Person phone601-968-0600
Ext.226

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 areas222
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas8
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)230

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff6
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)285

DRMS conducted several trainings to various audiences, including a session on Medicaid at the MS disAbility Megaconference, a presentation at an Annual Dyslexia Conference, a training to special education staff in a particular underserved district in the state, a representation to Vocational Rehabilitation staff, and a training to counselors who advise high school students seeking to prepare for, apply to, and succeed in college.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff1
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles4
3. PSAs/videos aired3
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website9,000
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated2,824
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

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)22
2. Additional individuals served during the year51
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)73
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)7

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 21

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility5
2. Employment2
3. Program access6
4. Housing5
5. Government benefits/services2
6. Transportation9
7. Education43
8. Assistive technology1
9. Voting0
10. Health care4
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services0
13. Privacy rights1
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse0
16. Neglect0
17. Other2

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor30
2. Other representation found0
3. Individual withdrew complaint11
4. Appeals unsuccessful2
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.2
6. PAIR withdrew from case3
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit6
9. Other2

Please explain

Reopened under more specific issue Reopened under different funding source

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-advocacy11
2. Short-term assistance20
3. Investigation/monitoring3
4. Negotiation14
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution3
6. Administrative hearings1
7. Litigation (including class actions)2
8. Systemic/policy activities2

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 - 2237
3. 23 - 5922
4. 60 - 645
5. 65 and over9

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females29
2. Males44

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race0
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian1
4. Black or African American27
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White45
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown0

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent19
2. Parental or other family home48
3. Community residential home1
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home1
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center1
9. Homeless1
10. Other living arrangements1
11. Living arrangements not known1

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

1. Blind/visual impairment9
2. Deaf/hard of hearing6
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment14
5. Mental illness3
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability8
9. Neurological impairment22
10. Respiratory impairment0
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment0
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment3
13. Speech impairment2
14. AIDS/HIV0
15. Traumatic brain injury2
16. Other disability4

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities12

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes16,500

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.

It is often hard to exactly measure specific policy or practice changes resulting from DRMS non-litigation systems advocacy projects. However, the numbers reported above include the following projects and estimates: , several will continue into 2015 and have a potential for significant changes affecting a number of people. For example: 1) The Coast Transit project involves ensuring that individuals with disabilities have a great transportation system on the Gulf Coast. This committee has been active in seeking more funding to meet increased demand for these services, which go cross county. Estimated number of people who are or may be served by this system: 5000. 2) Another project reviewed policies and practices to ensure that a regional housing authority was following the US Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines requiring it to provide admissions preferences to people with disabilities. Although DRMS cannot claim it caused the policy to be followed and practices changed, it is likely that our review and communication with the housing authority about this issue benefited the estimated 500 people affected. 3) In two education related projects, DRMS monitored school district’s implementation to come into full compliance with corrective action plans developed after being found in violation of IDEA by the MS Department of Education in response to complaints filed by DRMS in the prior year. An estimated 5 policies/practices were changed in each district, affecting 11000 students. In addition, several systems project were begun in late FY 2014 and continued into 2015 which are expected to yield changes in the futures. These include: 1) Continued advocacy to improve accessibility of sidewalks in the City of Jackson (1000 potentially affected); 2) Advocacy to remove accessibility barriers in the City of Biloxi (2000); 3) Monitoring planning and implementation by MS Medicaid agency of new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services rules on settings and service for home and community based waiver services, specifically (for PAIR clients the Indepdent Living, Elderly and Disabled, and Assisted Living Waivers and newly planned 1915(i) Medicaid plan services (approximately 1500) , several will continue into 2015 and have a potential for significant changes affecting a number of people.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts2,000
2. Number of individuals named in class actions8

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.

DRMS continues to monitor the City of Jackson’s compliance with the Consent Decree in the case of Crawford vs. City of Jackson, which was filed in 2008. Consent decree monitoring by an outside independent Monitor continued through the spring of 2014. He found substantial compliance with the Consent Decree, but the US Department of Justice, which intervened in the case, and DRMS as plaintiffs counsel have continued to collect and seek remedy for reports of non-compliance that suggest continued systemic problems as well as to insure that improvements that have been made are maintained.

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.

Priorities and Objectives for the Fiscal Year 2014 Priority 1. Education 1. Statement of priority. PAIR eligible children with disabilities receiving or in need of special education services will receive a free appropriate public education. 1. 2. The need addressed by priority: School systems often fail to provide appropriate services to PAIR eligible students with disabilities. Description of the activities to be carried out under each priority: 2. 3. Indicators and Outcomes: Indicator: 1) Provide individual representation in at least thirty (30) cases in the following areas: Outcome: DRMS represented a total of 43 students in cases with issues of education in the following areas: (a) Meaningful education benefit in the Least restrictive environment (LRE) (b) Discipline (c) Testing/evaluation (d) Transition (e) Physical and programmatic accessibility. Indicator: (2) Continue Systems advocacy related to the following issues: a) Transition: Continue work on Transition Project and file an Individual with Disabilities Education Act State Complaint with the Mississippi State Department of Education against a school district which has been found to have systemically failed to provide appropriate Transition Services to enable children with disabilities in special education to transition into employment and a life in the community upon completion of their education. Outcome: Did not pursue this due to inability to find appropriate complainants. b) Monitor compliance with state complaint findings and remedy in Rankin County (LRE issue) Outcome: Continued to Monitor Rankin compliance to insure that required policy and practice changes were made. c) Complete research and file a state complaint on district (Lee County) which automatically sends students to alternative schools when exiting treatment facilities. Outcome: Monitored compliance to insure required policy and practice changes were made. 4. Collaboration: DRMS education advocates collaborate with the Parent Training and Information Center and other special education advocates by making and receiving referrals, sponsoring joint outreach and training events and conferences, and sharing information. 5. Number of Cases Handled: 43 No class actions. 6. Case Summary: DRMS represented a nine year old child seeking appropriate assessments and support services. The child had an IEP, but failed reading for a whole school year and needed appropriate testing/evaluations. The DRMS advocate reviewed records, attended meetings, and assisted the parent with obtaining a comprehensive reevaluation. As a result, the child’s IEP eligibility category was changed to Other Health Impairment (ADHD) and Language/Speech. After beginning to receive appropriate supports, the child made improvement in academic areas, especially reading. Priority 2: Community 1. Statement of priority --Individuals with disabilities will be able to live in the least restrictive environment in the community with appropriate services and supports. 2. The need addressed by this priority: PAIR eligible individuals in Mississippi are often not aware of their right to live in the community, or are discriminated against or denied appropriate services when they choose to do so. 3. Indicators and Outcomes: Indicator (1) Provide individual representation in at least 25 (25) cases in the following areas: (a)Community Integration and Healthcare, which includes freedom of choice to live independently in the least restrictive environment in the community; freedom from abuse, neglect and exploitation; access to community-based services such as Medicaid, Medicare, mental health services, medical services, long-term care, transportation, and home-based services; full and equal physical access to buildings, sidewalks, and transportation in accordance w/ ADA; and fair housing. (b) Employment discrimination and reasonable accommodations in the workplace. Outcome: DRMS provided representation in these areas in 35 cases. (2) Continue with Ongoing Systems Advocacy in the following areas: (a) JATRAN lawsuit—Continue to represent the plaintiffs in this case against the city to enforce their rights to a fully accessible transportation system by seeking remedies for items not yet fully complied with. Outcome: Continued to monitor compliance; efforts increased after Monitor’s contract ended. (b) Public Housing — DRMS will meet with the HUD Housing and Equal Opportunity Office to determine if they are enforcing HUD directives to give preference in public housing admission and receipt of housing vouchers to individuals leaving facilities. If they are not enforcing the national HUD directive, a complaint will be filed with HUD. Outcome: Verified/insured that policy was being followed. (c) Community “clubhouses” for individuals with mental illness: DRMS will resume regular visits to clubhouse day programs to address any concerns voiced by participants and to obtain information about illegal personal care homes that need investigation. Outcome: DRMS continued to visit clubhouses and investigate allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation in personal care homes. (d) Jackson street and sidewalk accessibility. Continue efforts to insure that public streets and sidewalks in Jackson MS meet ADA standards, and that efforts to improve them proceed according to a plan that prioritizes high usage areas. Outcome: Consulted with City on its plans, surveyed areas of concern and shared findings. Will insure that concerns are remedied in 2015. 4. Collaboration: DRMS collaborates with the US Department of Justice on the JATRAN lawsuit and on the state’s independent living center on accessibility issues. 5. Number of cases handled. Thirty five (35) including one class action. 6. Case Summary: DRMS represented a woman with neurological disorders who needed assistance in obtaining a ground floor apartment from the Biloxi Housing authority. She had a doctor’s order, but the housing provider was refusing to accommodate her before DRMS become involved. The DRMS advocate worked with the woman and the housing provider to resolve the issue. The client was moved to a ground floor apartment as a result of DRMS advocacy. Priority 3 — Facilities 1. Statement of priority -- The rights of individuals with disabilities who reside in facilities will be protected and advanced 2. The need addressed by this priority: Individuals residing in facilities in Mississippi often experience abuse, neglect and discrimination, and are not encouraged to transition to less restrictive settings 3. Indicators and Outcomes: Indicator 1). Individual advocacy/investigations — a. Abuse and neglect investigations: Ensure that all allegations of abuse and neglect that are reported and/or discovered by DRMS in which there is a possibility of death or injury, or misuse of seclusion and restraints, are investigated . Outcome: No formal investigations on these issues in the past year for PAIR clients. b. Individual advocacy: Provide individual representation to at least eight (8) individuals living in facilities with issues related to transitioning into the community; and abuse, neglect, or rights violations within the facilities. Outcome: Individual advocacy was provided in two (2) cases. Indicator 2). Systems Advocacy — a) Representatives from DRMS will continue to participate in Medicaid’s Money Follows the Person grant, Bridge to Independence (B2I), by serving as members of the stakeholders group which meets monthly. Advocates will refer PAIR-eligible people to this program and will monitor their progress. The team will work closely with Medicaid’s Transition Coordinators of the B2I program offering training and assistance. Outcome: Ongoing although very few of people being served are PAIR eligible. No individual cases. b) DRMS will continue to contract and co-counsel with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s monitoring of juvenile detention and residential treatment centers. Outcome: Continued with previous facilities. Suit filed to gain access to private juvenile residential treatment facility for rights training and monitroing. Temporary agreement granting access was reached at end of fiscal year; visits will begin in early FY 2015. c) The Facility Team will continue to monitor the Jaquith Nursing Home at Mississippi State Hospital and will further monitor the nursing home at East MS State Hospital. The team will pay close attention to treatment and activity of the residents. Advocates will notify the administration of issues and suggest changes to the program as needed. Outcome: Monitoring visits were made and concerns communicated. No systemic concerns were discovered. 4. Collaboration: DRMS collaborates with the Southern Poverty Law Center to monitor juvenile detention and private residential treatment facilities. 5. Number of Cases Handled: Three (3) including one class action. 6. Case Summary: DRMS assisted a client who is deaf to obtain interpreter services for his criminal justice proceedings after he was arrested and jailed without fully understanding what was going on. The DRMS made numerous call to Pearl River County to insure there would be an interpreter for the client . He received the requested interpreter services and, with the assistance of his criminal attorney, was released on probation. He was reported to be back at home and doing well. Priority 4: Intake and I&R 1. Statement of Priority: To support and enhance quality advocacy services for Mississippians with disabilities. 2. The need addressed by this priority: Need for reliable, accurate information and referral, organized for quick access; need for better understanding of community services and resources; need internal mechanism to insure highest quality and consistency of intake and I&R services provided. 3. Indicators and Outcomes: a) Staff will formally share information learned at outside training events. Outcome: Met b).Intake staff will continue to assist callers according to the intake policy. Outcome: Met c) Staff will use, update, and improve community resource directory for the disability community. Outcome: Met d). Managing attorneys will randomly review intakes to ensure that callers are given complete and proper information and referrals. The intake supervisor will randomly call intakes to make certain that callers were pleased with the service from DRMS and that they understand the resources which were given to them. Outcome: Met e) Administrative and outreach staff will continue to improve and update the agency website, blog, facebook and Twitter accounts. Outcome: Met 4. Collaboration: DRMS’ work on the Community Resource Directory was done in collaboration with the Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Institute for Disability Studies at the University of Southern Mississippi. Intake and I&R involve collaboration on a regular basis with other disability advocacy and services agencies to ensure that referrals are appropriate and information provided is accurate. 5. Number of cases: This priority does not involve case work. 6. Case Summary: N/A

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. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year (2015)

Priority 1. Education Statement of prioirty. PAIR eligible children with disabilities receiving or in need of special education services will receive a free appropriate public education. The need addressed by priority: School systems often fail to provide appropriate services to PAIR eligible students with disabilities. Description of the activities to be carried out under each priority: 1) Provide individual representation in at least twenty-five (25) cases in the following areas: (a) Meaningful education benefit in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (b) Discipline (c) Testing/evaluation (d) Transition (d) childcare/early intervention (e) accessibility. (2) Continue Systems advocacy related to the following issues: a) Transition: Continue work on Transition Project and file an Individual with Disabilities Education Act State Complaint with the Mississippi State Department of Education against a school district which has been found to have systemically failed to provide appropriate Transition Services to enable children with disabilities in special education to transition into employment and a life in the community upon completion of their education. b) Monitor compliance with state complaint findings and remedy in Rankin County (LRE issue) c) Complete research and file a state complaint on district (Lee County) which automatically sends students to alternative schools when exiting treatment facilities. (3) Begin new systems advocacy projects on the following issues: a) Media campaign with local reporter on School to Prison Pipeline Issues. b) Systemic Department of Justice Complaint (with the MS Center for Justice) against the MS School for the Deaf for discriminatory admissions policy which screens out students who have physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities and/or mental illness co-occurring with their hearing impairments/deafness. Priority 2: Community Integration a. Statement of priority --Individuals with disabilities will live in integrated and inclusive settings in the community with appropriate services and supports. The rights of individuals with disabilities who reside in facilities will be protected and advanced. b. Needs --PAIR eligible individuals in Mississippi are often not aware of their right to live in the community, or are discriminated against or denied appropriate services when they choose to do so. Individuals residing in facilities in Mississippi often experience abuse, neglect and discrimination, and are not encouraged to transition to less restrictive settings. c. Description of activities to be carried out under the priority: (1) Monitor conditions and provide rights trainings and outreach in a minimum of 12 different group homes and nursing homes, and 20 different sheltered workshops, personal care homes, clubhouse programs, and other settings that provide services to people with disabilities. (2) Conduct investigations of all reported and/or discovered allegations of abuse, neglect or inappropriate use of seclusions or restraints, serious injuries, and deaths of individuals with disabilities in any setting where they received services and supports. (3) Coordinate all DRMS outreach and public relations activities, and maintain the agency website, facebook group and page. (4) Individual advocacy: Provide individual representation in at least thirty-five (35) cases in the following areas: Community Integration and Healthcare, which includes freedom of choice to live independently in the least restrictive environment in the community; freedom from abuse, neglect and exploitation; access to community-based services such as Medicaid, Medicare, mental health services, medical services, long-term care, transportation, and home-based services; full and equal physical access to buildings, sidewalks, and transportation in accordance w/ ADA; housing discrimination based on disability; employment discrimination and reasonable accommodations in the workplace related to disability; access to necessary medications while in jail or prison; transitioning to less restrictive residential and service settings. (5) Systems Advocacy (a) Continue with Ongoing Systems Advocacy in the following areas: (i) JATRAN lawsuit—Continue to represent the plaintiffs in this case against the city to enforce their rights to a fully accessible transportation system by seeking remedies for items not yet fully complied with. (ii) Crisis services for vulnerable adults in MS. (iii) CARES lawsuit and resulting rights trainings and monitoring (b) New systems advocacy projects in the follow areas: (i) Seek prompt evaluations for people facing criminal charges whose mental competency is in question. (ii) Monitor state’s implementation of the new Medicaid waiver rules about community settings and programs. (iii) Advocate for improved services for veterans with disabilities. (iv) Jackson street and sidewalk accessibility. Continue efforts to insure that public streets and sidewalks in Jackson MS meet ADA standards, and that efforts to improve them proceed according to a plan that prioritizes high usage areas.

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

I. Introduction and Overview of Agency Accomplishments Disability Rights Mississippi (DRMS) had another good year in its PAIR program in FY 2014. It continued its efforts to work effectively and strategically in all of its protection and advocacy programs, and to collaborate with other agencies to obtain maximum impact with limited resources. During fiscal year 2014, Disability Rights Mississippi (DRMS) continued its leadership in in cross-agency collaborative projects, each addressing different needs in the community, thus maximizing resources and impact. DRMS was again key sponsor and planner of the Third Annual MS disAbility Megaconference, which was attended by over 500 people and featured over 40 speakers from Mississippi and beyond, including many self-advocates who told their own stories. This successful event brought together agencies and self advocates from a variety of systems to hear the same messages about their rights and opportunities. Another multi-year project, funded by the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, focuses on systems change to improve competitive employment outcomes for youth and young adults with developmental disabilities. This project is managed jointly by DRMS, the Council on Developmental Disabilities and the University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD). In its third year, it built upon the work of the first two yeasr to encourage and support interagency communication and collaboration, and to promote Employment First as an initiative for Mississippi. In January 2014 an Executive Order was signed requiring all state agencies that serve people with any type of disability, or which provide employment services, to make integrated competitive employment the first and priority option when planning services and supports. While this effort was not funded by PAIR, if successful, it will positively influence people with all types of disabilities, including many who are PAIR eligible. DRMS staff contributed heavily to all these efforts while maintaining high levels of individual and systems advocacy. DRMS also completed the third year of a Five Year Strategic Plan. DRMS completed its Community Resource Database project by launching the site and educating people around the state about it and encouraging them to use it. Many PAIR projects, in particular outreach, training, and systems advocacy projects, were funded by other programs such as PADD and PAIMI in addition to PAIR. Conversely, some projects funded entirely by other programs benefit PAIR clients. Again this year, DRMS and its DD network partners sponsored a series of public forums to obtain input from the community about issues and concerns affecting people with all types of disabilities, including PAIR-eligible residents. This year, a special session was held in the Mississippi delta, a rural area with a high minority and poverty population and which is typically under/unserver. Efforts to raise unrestricted funds to support DRMS activities, begun in 2011, continued during 2014. II. Sources of funds received and expended PAIR work was substantially funded by the grant from RSA. A very small amunt ($100) in other income, came from discounts, refunds, or rebates on supplies that were prorated back to funding sources. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report The charts below details the actual PAIR expenses for 2014 and the projected expenses for 2015. FY14 Actual Revenues Carryover 27789 Federal Grants 171598 Other Income 331 Program Income 0.00 Total Revenues 199,718 Expenses Salaries 106028 Sub-Contract Supp Srvcs 2000 FICA Tax 6242 Medicare 1460 MESC Tax 1805 SIRA ER 3170 Insurance - Group 17382 Insurance - General 1517 Worker’s Compensation 338 Instate Travel 2958 Out of State Travel 1021 Professional Development 556 Furniture and Equipment 769 IT Support Services 848 Equipment Maintenance-Support 248 Office Supplies 868 Online Law Subscriptions 1381 Legal Consultants 1645 Consultants 2976 Printing 0 Instate Travel-Board 405 Out of State Trvl - Board Mem 0 Training - Board Members 0 Production Expenses 12 Public Awareness/Outreach 11 Accounting Services 2975 Membership Fees and Dues 1634 Telephone 1326 Postage/Shipping 120 Rent & Utilities 13294 Parking 149 Conference-Cosponsor 523 Miscellaneous 130 Advertisements 0 Bank Fees 243 Legal Expenses 19 Staff Morale 150 Total Expenses 174203 Revenues over Expenses 25515

FY 2015 Projected Revenues Carryover 25515 Federal Grants 171598 Other Income 200 Program Income 0 Total Revenues 197313 Expenses Salaries 111,000 Sub-Contract Supp Srvcs 249 FICA Tax 6882 Medicare 1609 MESC Tax 1564 SIRA ER 3330 Insurance - Group 19000 Insurance - General 1330 Worker’s Compensation 500 Instate Travel 4212 Out of State Travel 370 Professional Development 633 Furniture and Equipment 1240 IT Support Services 852 Equipment Maintenance-Support 270 Office Supplies 954 Online Law Subscriptions 1200 Legal Consultants 750 Consultants 0 Printing 38 Instate Travel-Board 430 Out of State Trvl - Board Mem 0 Training - Board Members 60 Production Expenses 32 Public Awareness/Outreach 381 Accounting Services 2731 Membership Fees and Dues 1680 Telephone 909 Postage/Shipping 156 Rent & Utilities 12124 Parking 201 Conference-Cosponsor 240 Miscellaneous 124 Bank Fees 186 Legal Expenses 120 Staff Morale 60 Total Expenses 175417 Revenues over Expenses 21896

As this demonstrates, PAIR expended appoximately $25,000 less than awarded during FY 14. And carried that amount into FY 2015 (subject to audit adjustments). It is projected that DRMS will carry over approximately $21,000 from FY 15 into FY 2016. C. Description of PAIR staff: The agency has three teams -- Education, Facilities, and Community, and members of those teams handle cases that fall within case selection criteria for PAIR eligible clients. The PAIR coordinator monitors this work, and the time charged, to insure that priority goals are being met and that resources used for PAIR clients stay within the available budget. The list below is a compilation of the staff time spent on PAIR activities. DRMS spent a total of 2.12 FTE’s working for PAIR eligible clients, an increase from the previous year. DRMS did not find it necessary to turn away any PAIR eligible clients whose issues fit within case selection criteria due to lack of resources. Actual staff time per program continues to be monitored each pay period, and the program coordinator will closely review that data and seek corrections in new cases and projects to ensure that funds last throughout the year. The PAIR program had a total of 2.12 FTE staff working for it in 2014. This included eleven full time and one part- time (80%) Advocates for a total of 1.45 FTE Three full time attorneys for a total of .34 FTE’s Five administrative staff (including the ED/Program Coordinator) for .33FTE D. Involvement with advisory boards PAIR does not currently have an advisory panel/board. The Board of Directors and PAIMI Advisory Council hold a joint meeting annually to approve priorities for the coming year for all programs. E. Grievances filed There were no grievances filed by PAIR clients or prospective PAIR clients during Fiscal Year 2014. F. Coordination with the CAP and the State long-term care program: The CAP program is not housed within DRMS. Efforts continue to coordinate efforts with that program. DRMS has begun to make more referrals to CAP and asked clients to report back to us if their needs are not met by the CAP program. CAP is a member of the MS Partnerships in Employment (MSPE) Project funded by AIDD; however, DRMS continues to have serious concerns about both the Vocational Rehabilitation and CAP services provided in Mississippi. It is seeking to provide input into improving those systems through the MSPE project. The state Long Term Care Ombudsman served on the DRMS Board from November 2009 through December 2014. DRMS makes appropriate referrals to ombudsmen for issues that do not require individual representation, and receives referrals from it. DRMS plans to continue active collaboration with the Long Term Care Ombudsman program through other methods now that this person is no longer on the Board.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByAnn Maclaine
TitleAuthorized Certifying Official
Signed Date01/07/2015