[nfbmi-talk] woeful

Thu Jan 30 20:59:07 UTC 2014

Whereas I've documented over and over again that all state of Michigan entities including DHS, VR agencies, Michigan Civil Rights Commission, Courts including MAHS routinely violate the rights of People with Disabilities including those of us who are blind, both in physical access requirements and effective communications; and that those were supposed to have been accomplished no later than January 26, 1992 under Title II of the ADA alone I find this PAIR RSA 509 report woeful.

By the way I attended the ADA conferenced referenced and apparently no one has seen fit to implement it here including MPAS.

And two people at the table namely former ADA coordinator Patrick Cannon and TDN Director and former MCRC Chair Mike Zelley have both in documented fashion violated my rights under the ADA along with countless tens of thousands if not directly through gross and utter malfeasance, and in, again, a most documented fashion over years...Documented by amonst others, yours trully.

Joe Harcz

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

Michigan (MICHIGAN PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES, INC. -- CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM) - H240A110023 - FY2011

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

Table with 2 columns and 18 rows

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.

table end

Part I. Non-Case Services

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

Multiple responses are not permitted.

Table with 2 columns and 3 rows

1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas

1,483

2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas

1,322

3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)

2,805

table end

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff23

2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)555

Block quote start

MPAS Training Activities (these were collaborative training activities, funded with PAIR dollars and other MPAS funding sources):

1) Special Education Rights, Q&A Webinar, 08/17/2011, Webinar -Train attendees on special education

2) Special Education Rights, Q&A Webinar, 09/13/2011, Webinar -Train attendees on special education

3) Special Education Rights Training – F2F, Hillsdale, 01/14/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

4) Special Education Rights Training – F2F, Oakland Co., 11/15/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

5) Special Education Rights Training – F2F, St. Johns, 10/18/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

6) Special Education Rights Training – Redford, 11/20/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

7) Special Education Rights Training – Warren, 11/12/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

8) Special Education Rights Training F2F, Manistee, 04/11/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

9) Special Education Rights Training, ARC Annual Conference, 06/17/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

10) Special Education Rights Training, DHS Education Planners, 08/15/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

11) Special Education Rights Training, Flint, 12/18/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

12) Special Education Rights Training , Grand Rapids, 10/16/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

13) Special Education Rights Training, Lansing, 04/19/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

14) Special Education Rights Training, Madonna University, 06/22/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

15) Special Education Rights Training, MI Assoc. Family Court Administrators, 05/19/2011, Presentation Train attendees on special education

16) Special Education Rights Training , Oakland County, 01/29/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

17) Special Education Rights Training, Petoskey, 10/23/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

18) Special Education Rights Training, Port Huron, 12/04/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

19) Special Education Rights Training, Rights Officers Assoc. of Michigan, St. Ignace, 09/05/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

20) Special Education Rights Training, Sault Ste. Marie, 10/22/2010 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

21) Special Education Rights Training, SEAC, 03/02/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

22) Special Education Rights Training, Unitarian Universalist Church, East Lansing, 01/15/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on special education

23) Elder Law & Disability Rights Training, Legal Conference, 09/21/2011 - Presentation Train attendees on rights of elders

Block quote end

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

Table with 2 columns and 6 rows

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff

2

2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles

15

3. PSAs/videos aired

0

4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website

91,933

5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated

11,933

6. Other (specify separately)

0

table end

Narrative

Block quote start

In addition to the trainings listed above, PAIR funding also supported 5 outreach events to homeless individuals.

MPAS maintains a Facebook page. The number of friends of MPAS has steadily increased since the site was launched and we now have 397 friends/fans. This

has proven to be an effective means of communicating with many individuals.

PAIR funding also supported the activities of the Great Lakes ADA Steering Committee, which hosted a conference on the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The conference was held on the campus of Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. 110 individuals attended the conference.

Block quote end

Part II. Individuals Served

A. Individuals Served

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

Table with 2 columns and 4 rows

1. Individuals still served as of October 1 (carryover from prior FY)

46

2. Additional individuals served during the year

74

3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)

120

4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)

3

table end

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 45

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

Table with 2 columns and 17 rows

1. Architectural accessibility

2

2. Employment

7

3. Program access

3

4. Housing

6

5. Government benefits/services

18

6. Transportation

0

7. Education

25

8. Assistive technology

0

9. Voting

0

10. Health care

2

11. Insurance

0

12. Non-government services

0

13. Privacy rights

3

14. Access to records

0

15. Abuse

9

16. Neglect

45

17. Other

3

table end

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

Table with 2 columns and 9 rows

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor

37

2. Other representation found

1

3. Individual withdrew complaint

7

4. Appeals unsuccessful

4

5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.

0

6. PAIR withdrew from case

2

7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources

0

8. Individual case lacks legal merit

17

9. Other

7

table end

Please explain

Block quote start

Seven service requests were closed and new intakes opened to a different grant after additional information about the client’s eligibility and problem issues

was gathered.

Block quote end

E. Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

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

Table with 2 columns and 8 rows

1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy

4

2. Short-term assistance

17

3. Investigation/monitoring

29

4. Negotiation

6

5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution

4

6. Administrative hearings

1

7. Litigation (including class actions)

14

8. Systemic/policy activities

0

table end

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

Multiple responses not permitted.

Table with 2 columns and 5 rows

1. 0 - 4

0

2. 5 - 22

28

3. 23 - 59

58

4. 60 - 64

5

5. 65 and over

29

table end

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

1. Females

52

2. Males

68

table end

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

Table with 3 columns and 8 rows

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race

3

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

2. American Indian or Alaskan Native

0

3. Asian

1

4. Black or African American

34

5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0

6. White

68

7. Two or more races

0

8. Race/ethnicity unknown

14

table end

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

Table with 2 columns and 11 rows

1. Independent

33

2. Parental or other family home

29

3. Community residential home

5

4. Foster care

0

5. Nursing home

33

6. Public institutional living arrangement

2

7. Private institutional living arrangement

4

8. Jail/prison/detention center

13

9. Homeless

1

10. Other living arrangements

0

11. Living arrangements not known

0

table end

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

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

Table with 2 columns and 16 rows

1. Blind/visual impairment

4

2. Deaf/hard of hearing

6

3. Deaf-blind

1

4. Orthopedic impairment

19

5. Mental illness

29

6. Substance abuse

2

7. Mental retardation

1

8. Learning disability

8

9. Neurological impairment

23

10. Respiratory impairment

3

11. Heart/other circulatory impairment

1

12. Muscular/skeletal impairment

5

13. Speech impairment

2

14. AIDS/HIV

3

15. Traumatic brain injury

4

16. Other disability

9

table end

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

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

6

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes

20,000

table end

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.

Block quote start

MPAS continued its participation in the Department of Natural Resources Accessibility Advisory Council. The work of the council expanded the opportunities

for individuals with disabilities to participate in outdoor recreational activities.

As it has for several years, MPAS continues to work with the Disabilities Workgroup of the State Bar of Michigan. This workgroup addresses issues of accessibility

to the judicial system by clients, lawyers, and judges. The workgroup was successful in convincing the State Bar to conduct a survey to determine the availability

of reasonable accommodations to allow individuals with disabilities full participation in the courts. With the results of that survey in hand, the workgroup

is exploring strategies to improve access to the courts.

The overuse of guardianships is a pervasive problem in Michigan. MPAS therefore welcomed the invitation of a prominent probate court judge to join a workgroup

to explore alternatives to guardianship and the education of the bench and bar on those alternatives. The workgroup will continue into the coming year.

In Fiscal year 2011, the Michigan Department of Community Health announced that it will be developing a plan to integrate services and supports for individuals

who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. While this could be beneficial, there are great risks for vulnerable adults who rely on supports, particularly

those provided by Medicaid. MPAS has expressed its concerns and has begun actively monitoring the development of the integrated service delivery model.

MPAS continued to participate in the Adult Foster Care Advisory Council. This council is an important vehicle for advancing policies and practices that

will improve the lives of individuals with disabilities.

As the disability population ages, many are either turning to or are being forced into nursing homes. In response to this trend, MPAS has increasingly focused

its attention on the conditions of nursing homes. In the last year, MPAS investigated four nursing homes and was able to advocate for improvements in those

homes.

Block quote end

B. Litigation/Class Actions

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts

2

2. Number of individuals named in class actions

0

table end

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.

Block quote start

While the case of MPAS. v. Caruso was primarily funded by PAIMI and PADD, PAIR eligible clients also benefited from the litigation. The lawsuit successfully

brought about significant changes to the practices of the Michigan Department of Corrections that impact prisoners with disabilities. Those changes increased

services for those individuals and improved the conditions for those prisoners. As an example, many prisoners with mobility impairments were at risk of

assault. Many of those prisoners have now been moved to cell blocks that are more appropriate to their condition.

MPAS legal staff authored an amicus brief that has been submitted to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Lewis v. Humboldt. A successful outcome

in that case is critical to ensuring that all individuals living in the Sixth Circuit-including Michigan-have the full opportunity to be protected by the

Americans with Disabilities Act in employment claims.

Block quote end

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:

List of 6 items

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.

list end

Block quote start

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.

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.

55 cases, no class actions.

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

An 84 year old resident of a nursing home was found outside the nursing home, in the snow. She had been there for an undetermined amount of time. The staff

brought her back inside, but did not properly treat her. After MPAS investigated the incident, two complaints were filed with the Bureau of Health Professions

and ended with an RN being reprimanded and an LPN being placed on probation. The four remaining complaints did not end in substantiated allegations, though

the files will remain with the Bureau of Health Professions for five years. The complaint filed with the Bureau of Health Systems was not substantiated.

The director of nursing was "reprimanded" as a result of the complaint. The director of nursing and other staff left employment at the nursing home.

A. Priority: Improve Rights Protections 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.

Four cases, no class actions.

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

A 19 year old young woman who is deaf and has some minor learning challenges had been appointed a guardian, even though she did not need one. Even her school

believed that the guardianship was unnecessary. MPAS challenged the guardianship in probate court. Though not successful in terminating the guardianship,

the terms were still changed to give the client greater freedoms. She is now working in the community, living independently, and attending community college.

A. Priority: Eliminate Employment Barriers and Protect Rights

1. Describe the priority.

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

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

Nationwide, the data indicates that persons with disabilities continue to be underemployed and unemployed compared to persons without an identified disability.

Although legal protections exist to address this issue, individuals with disabilities are most likely to receive assistance and representation from the

private bar when they have been discharged. For these individuals, legal assistance that is most effective focuses on negotiating reasonable accommodations

with an employer prior to discharge. Unfortunately, many individuals with significant disabilities are unable to secure legal representation for any employment

related issue. Finally, many individuals with disabilities are employed in settings that allow for deviated wages based on level of productivity and they

are not compensated as fully as is required by law.

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

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

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

No significant collaboration.

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

Six cases, no class actions.

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

A 31 year old man developed multiple sclerosis. He worked on servicing cars. His employer was clearly aware of his condition and eventually discharged him.

No reasonable accommodations were made available to him. Private attorneys were not willing to represent him, as his income was not high enough to generate

claims for significant damages. MPAS filed a complaint was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a fact finding was held, and

the matter is now in settlement discussions.

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.

Six cases, no class actions.

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

A 38 year old with significant mobility impairments needed to use a wheelchair. However, the apartment complex that he was living in was not accessible.

As he lived in a rural community, there were limited options. Citing the Fair Housing Act, MPAS was able to convince the landlord to install the needed

ramp to make the apartment accessible for our client.

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 that 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.

24 cases, no class actions.

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

A 14 year old with mild impairments had been expelled by her school district. After MPAS filed a complaint, the client was determined to be eligible for

special education. An IEP was convened and the client returned to school.

Block quote end

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:

List of 3 items

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.

list end

Block quote start

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 case and follow-up as needed; and appropriate litigation.

B. Priority: Improve Rights Protections 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 that their rights under state and federal law are protected.

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

Nationwide, the data indicates that persons with disabilities continue to be underemployed and unemployed compared to persons without an identified disability.

Although legal protections exist to address this issue, individuals with disabilities are most likely to receive assistance and representation from the

private bar when they have been discharged. For these individuals, legal assistance that is most effective focuses on negotiating reasonable accommodations

with an employer prior to discharge. 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.

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.

Block quote end

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.

List of 6 items

A. Sources of funds received and expended

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report

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

D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)

E. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure

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

list end

Block quote start

A. Sources of funds received and expended

U.S. Department of Education (FY 2009-2010) (Carryover) $183,870

U.S. Department of Education (FY2010-2011) $485,871

Total Available for FY 2011 $669,651

Total expended for FY 2011 $626,569

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report $643,250

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) Institutional conditions;

(3) Discharge Planning; (4) Rights Protection; and (5) Employment.

2. Person Years

PAIR had 6.5 FTEs of direct advocacy staff during FY 2011. PAIR pays a federally approved indirect cost rate of 10.3%, 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 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.

Block quote end

Certification

Table with 2 columns and 4 rows

Signed?

Yes

Signed By

Elmer L. Cerano

Title

Executive Director

Signed Date

12/12/2011

table end

System Information

The following information is captured by the MIS.

This form has been approved for use by OMB through Jun 30, 2014.

Table with 2 columns and 8 rows

Last updated on

12/12/2011 3:18 PM

Last updated by

kschelle

Completed on

12/12/2011 3:19 PM

Completed by

capmiolsonm

Approved on

02/22/2012 2:43 PM

Approved by

rsajonesd

Published on

07/02/2012 12:25 PM

Published by

kschelle

table end