[nfbmi-talk] {Spam?} mpas pair (sec 509) fy 213 report
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Wed Feb 26 13:34:10 UTC 2014
RSA-509
Protection & Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Performance Report
MICHIGAN PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES, INC. - FY2013
General Information
Designated Agency Identification
Name
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service Inc.
Address
4095 Legacy Parkway
Address Line 2
Suite 500
City
Lansing
State
Michigan
Zip Code
48911
E-mail Address
ecerano at mpas.org
Website Address
http://www.mpas.org
Phone
517-487-1755
TTY
517-487-1755
Toll-free Phone
800-288-5923
Toll-free TTY
800-288-5923
Fax
517-487-0827
Name of P&A Executive Director
Elmer L. Cerano
Name of PAIR Director/Coordinator
Mark A. Cody
Person to contact regarding report
Mark A. Cody
Contact Person phone
517-487-1755
Ext.
628
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 areas
362
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas
1,829
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)
2,191
B. Training Activities
1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff
50
2. Number of individuals who attended these trainings (approximate)
1,596
Training – Topics Covered
Training
Methods
Number of
Individuals
Trained
CIL Training/Outreach Activities
Training
25
CIL Training/Outreach Activities, FY 2013
Training
71
Outreach – Disability Advocates Kent County, Grand Rapids, 02/25/2013
Training
25
Special Education Rights Training – Mecosta/Osceola DHS, Big Rapids, 07/30/2013
Training
46
Special Education Rights Training – University of Michigan Law School, 09/26/2013
Training
12
Special Education Rights Training, ACMH Lansing, 10/23/2012
Training
25
Special Education Rights Training, ARC Statewide Conference, 06/20/2013
Training
18
Special Education Rights Training, CASA State Conference, 11/02/2012
Training
40
Special Education Rights Training, Detroit, 04/23/2013
Training
35
Special Education Rights Training, Detroit, 04/24/2013
Training
48
Special Education Rights Training, Detroit, 04/25/2013
Training
39
Special Education Rights Training, Detroit, 04/30/2013
Training
34
Special Education Rights Training, DHS Muskegon, 01/23/2013
Training
59
Special Education Rights Training, F2F Livingston County, 10/04/2012
Training
20
Special Education Rights Training, F2F Macomb County, 11/12/2012
Training
10
Special Education Rights Training, F2F Otsego County, 10/29/2012
Training
19
Special Education Rights Training, Flint, 04/11/2013
Training
75
Special Education Rights Training, MAF – Staff Webinar, Lansing, 09/17/2013
Webinar
18
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Hancock, 10/13/2012
Training
16
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Houghton, 10/12/2012
Training
12
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Ironwood, 10/10/2012
Training
15
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Lansing, 10/27/2012
Training
32
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Saginaw, 12/01/2012
Training
34
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Traverse City, 11/02/2012
Training
21
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Warren, 02/09/2013
Training
19
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, Lansing, 02/12/2013
Webinar
20
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, Lansing, 03/12/2013
Webinar
19
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, Lansing, 03/21/2013
Webinar
33
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, Lansing, 04/09/2013
Webinar
33
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Webinar, Lansing, 05/14/2013
Webinar
15
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Benton Harbor, 04/13/2013
Training
19
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Jackson, 02/23/2013
Training
25
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Lansing, 04/17/2013
Training
27
Special Education Rights Training, MAF Ludington, 04/03/2013
Training
29
Special Education Rights Training, MAF-Leadership Seminar, DeWitt, 08/09/2013
Training
20
Special Education Rights Training, MAFAK Lansing, 04/26/2013
Training
7
Special Education Rights Training, MDCH Lansing, 02/28/2013
Training
44
Special Education Rights Training, MDRC AT Webinar, Lansing, 02/21/2013
Webinar
28
Special Education Rights Training, MI Primary Care Transformation Webinar, Lansing, 06/21/2013
Webinar
41
Special Education Rights Training, MI-TOP Lansing, 10/09/2012
Training
140
Special Education Rights Training, MORC 10/26/2012
Training
35
Special Education Rights Training, MSU Social Work Training, Flint, 02/22/2013
Training
30
Special Education Rights Training, NDRN Annual Conference, Texas, 06/13/2013
Training
102
Special Education Rights Training, Oakland County CMH, Troy, 09/16/2013
Training
8
Special Education Rights Training, PAC Washtenaw, 01/15/2013
Training
50
Special Education Rights Training, University of Michigan Law School Pediatric Advocacy Initiative, 02/04/2013
Training
11
Special Education Rights Training, University of Michigan Law School, 03/19/2013
Training
25
Special Education Rights Training, Vista Maria, Dearborn Heights, 06/15/2013
Training
20
Special Education Rights Training, Wayne County PAC, 05/23/2013
Training
17
Special Population Conference, Kellogg Center, East Lansing, FY 2013
Training
30
NOTE: Not all of these trainings/webinars 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 staff
0
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles
9
3. PSAs/videos aired
0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website
9,921
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated
704
6. Other (specify separately)
The MPAS website, which is supported by PAIR, PAIMI, and PADD funding, was substantially improved this year. The analytics and feedback indicate a positive response to the new website. This is a new, all-agency website.
MPAS maintains a Facebook page. The number of “friends” of MPAS has steadily increased since the site was launched and we now have 798 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.*
*NOTE: This is a new, all-agency website.
798
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)
23
2. Additional individuals served during the year
65
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)
88
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
1. Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above
47
C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served
1. Architectural accessibility
3
2. Employment
5
3. Program access
2
4. Housing
5
5. Government benefits/services
5
6. Transportation
1
7. Education
1
8. Assistive technology
0
9. Voting
0
10. Health care
8
11. Insurance
0
12. Non-government services
1
13. Privacy rights
1
14. Access to records
0
15. Abuse
11
16. Neglect
46
17. Other
0
D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files
1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor
20
2. Other representation found
1
3. Individual withdrew complaint
1
4. Appeals unsuccessful
2
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.
0
6. PAIR withdrew from case
1
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources
0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit
10
9. Other:
Closed and reopened to different funding source
Service requests consolidated
6
1
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-advocacy
7
2. Short-term assistance
2
3. Investigation/monitoring
22
4. Negotiation
5
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution
1
6. Administrative hearings
0
7. Litigation (including class actions)
5
8. Systemic/policy activities
0
Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served
A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1
Multiple responses not permitted.
1. 0 - 4
0
2. 5 - 22
1
3. 23 - 59
33
4. 60 - 64
3
5. 65 and over
51
B. Gender of Individuals Served
Multiple responses not permitted.
1. Females
50
2. Males
38
C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served
1. Hispanic/Latino of any race
1
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native
1
3. Asian
1
4. Black or African American
20
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0
6. White
61
7. Arab American
1
8. Race/ethnicity unknown - For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only
3
D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served
Multiple responses not permitted.
1. Independent
21
2. Parental or other family home
2
3. Community residential home
1
4. Foster care
2
5. Nursing home
56
6. Public institutional living arrangement
1
7. Private institutional living arrangement
0
8. Jail/prison/detention center
4
9. Homeless
1
10. Other living arrangements
0
11. Living arrangements not known
0
E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served
Identify the individual's primary disability, namely the one directly related to the issues/complaints
1. Blind/visual impairment
3
2. Deaf/hard of hearing
0
3. Deaf-blind
1
4. Orthopedic impairment
34
5. Mental illness
0
6. Substance abuse
0
7. Mental retardation
2
8. Learning disability
2
9. Neurological impairment
24
10. Respiratory impairment
3
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment
10
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment
4
13. Speech impairment
0
14. AIDS/HIV
4
15. Traumatic brain injury
1
16. Other disability
0
Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation
A. Systemic Activities
1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities
4
2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes
2,000
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.
Elder Abuse Coordinated Response Team
MPAS has a long history of cooperating with elder advocacy groups on such issues as community integration, elimination of abuse and neglect in nursing homes, and access to services. However, there is a growing recognition of the reality that seniors with disabilities in the community are a very vulnerable population. MPAS participated in the local Elder Abuse Coordinated Response Team. This became a vehicle for local organizations, including social services agencies and law enforcement, to become aware of MPAS and our role in responding to abuse/neglect.
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Accessibility Advisory Council
Outdoor recreation is of great importance to many Michiganians. However, access to beaches, trails, and the facilities of many parks has been lacking. In an effort to expand access, MPAS has participated in the DNR Accessibility Advisory Council. Through our participation, MPAS was able to review and provide input on the DNR's Strategic Plan on Accessibility. This plan will increase awareness of DNR employees on access issues. Funding for modifications remains a barrier to full accessibility.
Florida facility
Michigan’s automobile insurance law provides lifelong benefits for those individuals who are seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident. For many individuals, this has provided critical services that allow them to remain in the community and in their home. However, there are also a small number of facilities that see this provision as an important revenue source.
These facilities actively solicit guardians to place their wards, often out of state. Guardians in Michigan are given almost unfettered discretion when it comes to placement decisions. Out of state placement requires only that the guardian notify the court and seek its approval. The ward is not guaranteed a hearing.
The auto insurance companies provide almost no oversight of the services being provided to their insured. The probate court relies upon the guardian. This lack of oversight means that facilities that would not meet Michigan licensing standards are allowed to accept Michigan citizens and bill Michigan’s insurance carriers.
One resident who had been sent to a facility in Florida was able to contact us. She described the loss of her basic rights and the facility’s lack of treatment. An action to contest the placement was brought. While that action was ultimately unsuccessful, it led MPAS to P&As from other states with residents in that facility. By working with those P&As, as well as the Florida P&A, pressure was brought on the State of Florida, which reluctantly began a licensing action. This action resulted in the facility filing for bankruptcy and the discharge of residents, including those from Michigan.
Flint Outreach Project
There are a number of communities in Michigan that are in fiscal crisis. This impacts everything from the provision of police and fire protection, housing, and education. One of the hardest hit communities is the City of Flint. To increase the visibility of MPAS in this community, MPAS has begun a weekly clinic. Located in a building that houses social services agencies, clients meet with an MPAS attorney to discuss their rights.
B. Litigation/Class Actions
1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts
0
2. Number of individuals named in class actions
0
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-Eight cases, no class actions.
6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.
MPAS reviewed a licensing report prepared by the state licensing and survey agency. The report detailed the failures of a nursing facility’s professional staff to respond appropriately to a medical emergency, which resulted in the death of a resident. While the state’s professional licensing agency should have begun an immediate investigation, they only did so after prompting by MPAS. MPAS obtained records from the facility, which detailed the negligence and provided those, together with a highly detailed complaint, to the state. Ultimately, the state suspended for six months the license of an RN.
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.
Two cases, no class actions.
6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.
A client living in a licensed adult foster care facility contacted MPAS because her civil and statutory rights were being denied. Specifically, she was not allowed to attend church, not allowed to participate in a habilitation program, and was not informed as to how her money was being spent. MPAS intervened and the client is now able to attend both church and the program and understands her financial situation.
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 from employment. 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.
Three cases, no class actions.
6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.
Our client, an RN employed by a hospital, has rheumatoid arthritis. When her condition flares up, she experiences fatigue. The impact of her condition can be lessened if she has predictable shifts and does not have to work the day following a night shift. However, the shift assignment process made that not feasible. She requested an accommodation to the shift assignment process. That request was denied and she contacted MPAS. We were able to successfully negotiate the requested accommodation and she remains employed.
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.
Eleven cases, no class actions.
6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.
In response to a directive from the Social Security Administration, a client who uses a wheelchair went to a doctor-chosen by SSA-for a disability examination. Upon her arrival, she found the office was not accessible. There was no ramp and she would have to get out of the chair and slide to the door and pound on the door for assistance. The physician was unwilling to provide a permanent accommodation. MPAS filed suit. This resulted in a settlement, with the doctor moving his office to an accessible location and the client receiving a settlement..
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.
No cases, no class actions.
6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.
This remains open as a PAIR priority in the event that a student’s case is appropriate for that funding source.
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 priority;
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 from employment. 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.
A. Sources of funds received and expended :
U.S. Department of Education (FY 2011-2012) $9,892(Carryover)
U.S. Department of Education (FY2012-2013) $449,377
MPAS Unrestricted Funds $4,264
Total Available for FY 2013 $463,533
Total expended for FY 2012 $512,119
B. Budget
2013 Actual 2014 Projected
Admin $42,414 $39,185
Services $410,528 $379,815
Other $10,591 $11,000
Total $463,533 $430,000
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 5.7 FTEs of direct advocacy staff during FY 2013. PAIR pays a federally approved indirect cost rate of 10.1%, 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?
Signed By
Title
Signed Date
System Information
The following information is captured by the MIS.
This form has been approved for use by OMB through Jun 30, 2014.
Last updated on
Last updated by
Completed on
Completed by
Approved on
Approved by
Published on
Published by
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list