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

Mississippi (MISSISSIPPI P and A SYSTEM, INC.) - H240A160025 - FY2016

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 areas226
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas3
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)229

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff6
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)313

Examples of training: DRMS provided Disability Sensitivity Training to 97 Americorps Volunteers as part of a panel discussion. DRMS provided information about DRMS services to 15 parent members of The Arc of Northwest MS. This included a presentation, group discussion, and questions and answers. DRMS provided a one hour session on Individualized Education Program meetings as a part of the 5th MS disAbility Megaconference, reaching 45 participants.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff1
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles1
3. PSAs/videos aired9
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website13,411
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated2,600
6. Other (specify separately)40,531

Narrative

Other includes Social media follower, friends, members, etc, including hits on posts from Take Your Legislator to Work Day

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)19
2. Additional individuals served during the year40
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)59
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)3

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 27

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility1
2. Employment4
3. Program access2
4. Housing3
5. Government benefits/services1
6. Transportation8
7. Education21
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting0
10. Health care3
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services0
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse1
16. Neglect2
17. Other0

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor23
2. Other representation found0
3. Individual withdrew complaint3
4. Appeals unsuccessful0
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.2
6. PAIR withdrew from case0
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit5
9. Other1

Please explain

Issue was the focus of a systems project so the individual service request was subsumed by that project.

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-advocacy2
2. Short-term assistance12
3. Investigation/monitoring2
4. Negotiation11
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution3
6. Administrative hearings0
7. Litigation (including class actions)3
8. Systemic/policy activities1

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 - 2224
3. 23 - 5918
4. 60 - 646
5. 65 and over11

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females26
2. Males33

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race1
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian0
4. Black or African American25
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White29
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown4

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent22
2. Parental or other family home31
3. Community residential home2
4. Foster care0
5. Nursing home1
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement1
8. Jail/prison/detention center0
9. Homeless0
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 impairment10
2. Deaf/hard of hearing3
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment8
5. Mental illness1
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation1
8. Learning disability11
9. Neurological impairment14
10. Respiratory impairment2
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment1
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment6
13. Speech impairment1
14. AIDS/HIV0
15. Traumatic brain injury0
16. Other disability1

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities2

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes12,000

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.

. DRMS used PAIR funds, along with other funds, to support two systems change projects that resulted in changes to policies and practices. 1. Monitoring and providing input into Mississippi’s development of Transition plans to comply with the Home and Community Based Services Waiver Settings rule promulgated by CMS. DRMS attended public meetings and submitted written comments about all the affected waivers, including the three — the Traumatic Brain Injury and Spinal Cord Injury waiver, the Elderly and Disable Waiver, and the Independent Living waiver — which most often serve PAIR eligible individuals. The crux of DRMS concerns about these was that they failed to develop any plan at all, asserting that because they serve people in homes in the community rather than congregate settings, the rule did not apply to them. DRMS vigorously and repeatedly asserted that the settings rules require that service provided under those waivers must assist the recipients in being integrated into the community as much as possible. CMS twice rejected the proposed MS plans, and required submission of a joint plan for all waivers, which has been submitted and was awaiting approval at the end of the fiscal year. DRMS counts this as a “policy” change because our advocacy prevented adoption of a policy that would ignore requirements of the settings rule for PAIR eligible persons and required creation of a unified plan. This will benefit those receiving services in individual homes who are nevertheless isolated from the broader community because their waiver services fail to ensure integration. The implementation of these rules is expected to impact approximately 11,000 people who receive home and community based waiver services. 2. Transition services in Yazoo City School System. DRMS successfully contested a policy in one school district of denying special education students to Vo-tech programs because of alleged “safety” issues, which unfairly discriminated against those students trying to fulfill the requirements of a Mississippi Occupational Diploma as part of Transition planning. The policy was changed as a result of DRMS advocacy and impacted many individual clients in this school system by enabling them to obtain more beneficial Transition planning and services while in school.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts1,000
2. Number of individuals named in class actions9

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 serve as local counsel for the class affected by the Crawford v. JATRAN litigation. The term of the independent monitor was due to end during FY 2016 but was extended for two more years because of ongoing significant issues with maintenance on the fixed route buses. A new management company took over the fleet of aging buses in disrepair, and problems maintaining buses with functioning lifts on major routes intensified. This created a crisis situation. Counsel from the US Department of Justice and DRMS negotiated a continuation of the Consent Decree and Monitoring for two more years to insure that repairs are made and new vehicles obtained. This affects all riders with mobility impairments who prefer to use fixed route bus service.

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.

Priority 1. Education Statement of priority: Children, ages 3-21, with disabilities who are receiving or are in need of special education services will receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The need addressed by priority: School systems often fail to provide appropriate services to PAIR eligible students with disabilities. Indicators and Outcomes: Indicator: 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. Outcome: Represented PAIR eligible students in twenty-four (24) cases involving education issues. Indicator: Continue Systems advocacy related to the following issues: a) Dyslexia Project: research systemic denials of a FAPE to children with Dyslexia and determine the appropriate means for remedying this systemic issue Outcome: DRMS advocated for several individual children to receive dyslexia services at school. It also filed a complaint in one school district and obtained appropriate dyslexia therapy for the client via Skype with a certified dyslexia therapist. DRMS also began using, and plans to continue to use, a “Dear Colleague” letter from the OSERS confirming that dyslexia is a specific learning disability, as authority for requesting dyslexia services. Collaboration: DRMS collaborates on education issues with the Parent Training and Information Center, the MS Center for Justice, the Southern Policy Law Center, and various Youth Court administrators, prosecutors, judges and public defenders. It has also collaborated with media interested in education issues. Number of Cases Handled: 24 No class actions. Case examples: a) DRMS assisted a 15 year old student with dyslexia and autism to obtain service to appropriately address behaviors that were impeding academic progress. When DRMS was contacted, he was failing two subjects and not receiving supports needed. As a result of DRMS advocacy through attendance at IEP meetings and classroom observations, the district placed the student in a setting where he receives daily counseling, 1:3 student-teacher ratio, family counseling, intensive behavior therapy and social skills training. b) DRMS represented a 14 year old with ADHD who had been expelled from an alternative school for behavior related to his disability. DRMS met with the parent, reviewed records, attended eligibility, IEP and discipline hearings, and advocated for the child to have a comprehensive evaluation for special education services. As a result, he was found eligible for services, was not expelled, a Behavior Intervention Plan was developed, and he was returned to his home school. He is receiving psychological services at school and is in inclusion classes doing very well. c) DRMS represented an 11 y.o. student with behavioral issues who was facing possible expulsion from school. The advocate attended meetings and an expulsion hearing and assisted the parent with obtaining a comprehensive evaluation, which resulted in a finding of eligibility for special education services and a change in placement to address his needs. Priority 2: Community Integration 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. 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. Indicators and Outcomes Indicator: Monitor conditions and/or provide rights trainings and outreach in a minimum of 2 different group homes and nursing homes where PAIR eligible people reside, and 2 different sheltered workshops, personal care homes, clubhouse programs, and other settings that provide services to PAIR eligible people with disabilities. Outcome: DRMS did not use PAIR program funds for any monitoring this year; however, it did monitor one clubhouse and three sheltered workshops using funds from other programs. Indicator: Conduct investigations of all reported and/or discovered allegations of abuse, neglect or inappropriate use of seclusions or restraints, serious injuries, and deaths of PAIR eligible individuals with disabilities in any setting where they received services and supports. Outcome: Allegations of financial exploitation in one personal care home were investigated using non-PAIR funds. The home was unlicensed and it was discovered that the home operators did maintain total control over residents’ funds. However, residents insisted they were satisfied with living conditions and with monetary control. Indicator: Coordinate all DRMS outreach and public relations activities, and maintain the agency website, facebook group and page. Outcome: This activity was ongoing, using PAIR as well as other programs’ funding. Indicator: Individual advocacy: Provide individual representation in at least twenty-five (25) cases in the following areas: (a) allegation of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a person with a disability residing in a facility; (b) advocacy on behalf of a persons living in facilities, including nursing homes, who want to transition into the community, focusing on the need for proper discharge plans and community services; (c) issues related to proper medication for a person with a disability who is residing in a jail or prison; (d) allegations of violations of the rights of a person who is living in a community or residential facility setting; (e) housing discrimination based on disability; (f) physical access for individuals with disabilities in accordance with the ADA to buildings, sidewalks, and transportation (where the case will have broad impact or vindicate essential rights); (g) employment discrimination in hiring practices based on disability or refusal to grant reasonable accommodations on the job; (h) denial of eligibility for and/or termination of eligibility for Medicaid waiver programs which would allow the person to live independently in the community. Outcome: DRMS represented PAIR eligible clients in thirty-three (33) cases related to Community Integration issues. Indicator: Systems advocacy in the following areas: Monitor state’s implementation of new Medicaid waiver rules about community settings and programs. Review and provide input and oversight to in Mississippi’s development and implementation of its transition plan for conforming to new CMS guidelines for waiver services. Outcome: DRMS made comments at public meeting and submitted written objections to plans that were posted for input. Based in part on this input, the first two plans submitted were rejected by CMS, with instructions to complete a much more detailed unified plan, to provide better opportunities for public input. Advocate for improved services for veterans with disabilities, especially traumatic brain injuries. (PAIR, TBI) (Beth, Amelia, Veronica) Work to improve P&A access and relationship with the VA informing staff and patients about our services. Observe VA’s internal process in handling appeals. Outcome: None City of Jackson Sidewalks: Negotiate with the City of Jackson to upgrade its sidewalks to be in compliance with the ADA. Prepare for litigation if negotiations are not successful. Outcome: Identified co-counsel and sent demand letter to the City. Continuing to prepare for litigation. WINGS Guardianship Steering Committee: serve as a member of the steering committee which is examining Mississippi's guardianship/conservatorship statutes. Outcome: Attended several meetings and provided input. JATRAN Lawsuit —Continue to represent the Plaintiffs in this case against the City of Jackson to enforce the Plaintiffs’ rights to a fully-accessible transportation system. Outcome: The Consent Decree with the City of Jackson was extended until September 30, 2018. This project is ongoing. Collaboration: In its Community Integration work, DRMS collaborates with LIFE, the independent living center for MS, the US Department of Justice, the MS Attorney General, various state agency stakeholder and advisory committees, The Arc of MS, and the City of Jackson’s Disability Advisory Committee. Number of Cases Handled: 33 Case examples: a) DRMS represented a young adult with cerebral palsy who had been placed in protective custody when her mother was arrested. The client was placed in a nursing home and under a temporary conservatorship. She wanted to leave the nursing home to live with a family member. DRMS assisted her in making her wishes known in court, and worked behind the scenes to facilitate her application and approval for “Bridge to Independence” (B2I) (Medicaid money follows the person) services and placement in a group home in the community. The advocate visited frequently with the client, and urged the nursing home social worker, conservator, and B2I navigator to work together to finalize arrangements. The client moved into a less restrictive setting and was satisfied with this placement until a possible family placement out of state can be arranged. b) DRMS assisted a woman who is legally blind to resolve issues with a local transportation service which had refused to continue to serve her. The Advocate mediated with the transportation service and the issue had been resolved. As a result, the client is successfully riding the transit system again. c) DRMS represented a visually impaired college student who needed accommodations from the Community College she attended. The Advocate investigated her issues, spoke with and wrote to the ADA Coordinator seeking resolution. Finally she set up a meeting with the Dean, the ADA Coordinator and teachers to advocate for the needed accommodations. As a result, client received the accommodations and was receiving good grades for her work. The next semester, the client called with similar problems and the Advocate was able to coach her to successful self-advocate and obtain what she needed.

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.

Priority: Education — Children, ages 3-21, with disabilities who are receiving or are in need of special education services will receive a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Need: School systems often fail to provide appropriate services to PAIR eligible students with disabilities. Activities: Individual Representation: Provide individual representation in at least twenty (20) cases in the following areas: (a) Meaningful education benefit in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (b) Discipline (c) Testing/evaluation (d) Transition (e) accessibility Materials Development: DRMS will develop, print and distribute at least two brochures which include information about select issues involving educational rights of students with disabilities. Priority: Community Integration 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. Need: 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. Activities: (1) Monitor conditions and/or provide rights trainings and outreach in a minimum of 2 different group homes and nursing homes where PAIR eligible people reside, and 2 different sheltered workshops, personal care homes, clubhouse programs, and other settings that provide services to PAIR eligible 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 PAIR eligible 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 twenty-five (25) cases in the following areas: (a) allegation of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a person with a disability residing in a facility; (b) advocacy on behalf of a persons living in facilities, including nursing homes, who want to transition into the community, focusing on the need for proper discharge plans and community services; (c) issues related to proper medication for a person with a disability who is residing in a jail or prison; (d) allegations of violations of the rights of a person who is living in a community or residential facility setting; (e) housing discrimination based on disability; (f) physical access for individuals with disabilities in accordance with the ADA to buildings, sidewalks, and transportation (where the case will have broad impact or vindicate essential rights); (g) employment discrimination in hiring practices based on disability or refusal to grant reasonable accommodations on the job; (h) denial of eligibility for and/or termination of eligibility for Medicaid waiver programs which would allow the person to live independently in the community. 5) Systems advocacy in the following areas: Monitor state’s implementation of new Medicaid waiver rules about community settings and programs. Review and provide input and oversight to in Mississippi’s development and implementation of its transition plan for conforming to new CMS guidelines for waiver services. Advocate for improved services for veterans with disabilities, especially traumatic brain injuries. Io improve P&A access and relationship with the VA informing staff and patients about our services. Observe VA’s internal process in handling appeals. Secondary Education clients DRMS will continue to keep track of the individuals who need assistance with getting accommodations in college. Monitor implementation of Workforce Innovations and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Ensure that Mississippi’s Department of Employment Security, Department of Rehabilitation Services, and Department of Education fully implement the requirements of WIOA by monitoring services provided to promote competitive integrated employment for people with disabilities. City of Jackson Sidewalks: Negotiate with the City of Jackson to upgrade its sidewalks to be in compliance with the ADA. Prepare for litigation if negotiations are not successful. JATRAN Lawsuit —Continue to represent the Plaintiffs in this case against the City of Jackson to enforce the Plaintiffs’ rights to a fully-accessible transportation system.

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 a successful PAIR program in FY 2016. It continued its efforts to work effectively and strategically and to collaborate with other agencies to obtain maximum impact with limited resources. Many activities benefitting PAIR eligible people were funded by other programs with more resources. During fiscal year 2016, Disability Rights Mississippi (DRMS) continued its leadership in cross-agency collaborative projects, including the Fifth Annual MS disAbility Megaconference, which was attended by over 500 people. Another multi-year project, funded by the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, focused 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 fifth year, it built upon the work of the first three years to encourage and support interagency communication and collaboration, and to promote Employment First as an initiative for Mississippi. It also created a number of high quality videos about employment issues which can be used to continue to education the public and policy makers. While this effort was not funded by PAIR, 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 fifth year of a Five Year Strategic Plan, and developed a new Strategic Plan for the next three years 2017-2020. 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. This year, DRMS obtained community input into priorities and projects via in surveys which were widely distributed on line and at events. Input was sought via a variety of other methods, including social media and discussions with key collaborators. II. Sources of funds received and expended PAIR work was substantially funded by the grant from RSA. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report The chart below details the actual PAIR expenses for 2016 and the projected expenses for 2017. Some amounts for overhead have increased because the loss of two revenue sources results in PAIR bearing a higher percentage of administrative costs than in the past several years. REVENUE PAIR 2016 Budget 2016 Actuals 2017 Budget Unrestricted Funds - Carryover 9,419.77 3533.13 Federal Grants Budget/Actual 171,598.00 171,598 Program Income TOTAL REVENUE: 181,017.77 181,017.77 175131.13 EXPENSE Approved Budget Salaries 104,500.00 105358.82 104,196 Sub-Contract Supp Srvcs 1,700.00 1753.8 1940.95 FICA Tax 6,500.00 6416.44 6460.41 Medicare 1,525.00 1500.65 1511 MESC Tax 1,600.00 107.62 1588.05 SIRA ER 3,150.00 3238.95 3125.87 Insurance - Group 18,400.00 16244.64 20232.91 Insurance - General 1,305.00 1242.85 1235.15 Worker's Compensation 305.00 27.1 317.61 Instate Travel 3,500.00 1952.25 2940.83 Out of State Travel 400.00 1217.83 470.53 Professional Development 415.00 438.58 294.08 Furniture and Equipment 1,200.00 767.61 58.82 IT Support Services 325.00 649.1 352.9 Equipment Maintenance-Support 60.00 67.23 58.82 Office Supplies 700.00 635.97 588.17 Online Law Subscriptions 1,125.00 1150.81 1117.52 Legal Consultants 50.00 0 117.63 Consultants 120.00 0 117.63 Printing 60.00 0 58.82 I/S Travel - Board 600.00 781.6 588.17 O/S Travel - Board Training - Board 60.00 112.98 47.05 I/S Travel - Advisory Council O/S Travel - Advisory Council Training - Advisory Council Production Expenses 27.00 0 29.41 Public Awareness/Outreach 100.00 370.95 117.63 Accounting Services 2,300.00 2363.16 2176.21 Membership Fees and Dues 1,660.00 1658.34 1529.23 Telephone 1,100.00 1276.38 1058.7 Postage/Shipping 245.00 139.6 129.4 Rent & Utilities 13,000.00 13088.55 12939.65 Parking 240.00 255.55 176.45 Conference-Cosponsor 240.00 200 235.27 Miscellaneous 120.00 143.32 117.63 Bank Fees 250.00 263.19 235.27 Legal Expenses 75.00 0 117.63 Staff Morale 0 0 0 Fundraising 0 0 0 166,957.00 163423.87 166,281 Difference/Carryover 3,533.13 8,850 As this demonstrates, PAIR expended approximately $9419.77 less than awarded during FY 15. And carried that amount into FY 2016 (subject to audit adjustments). It is projected that DRMS will carry over approximately $ 3533.13 from FY 2016 into FY 2017. C. Description of PAIR staff: The agency has two teams — Education and Community Integration -- 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 1.96 FTE’s working for PAIR eligible clients, a slight decrease 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 1.92 FTE staff working for it in 2016. This included: eleven (11) full time and one part- time (80%) Advocates for a total of 1.5 FTE; three (3) full time attorneys for a total of .325 FTE’s; and three full administrative staff (including the ED/Program Coordinator) for .092 FTE. 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 2015. 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 a variety of methods. DRMS makes appropriate referrals to ombudsmen for issues that do not require individual representation, and receives referrals from it. DRMS continues to communicate 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
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/23/2016