I M Going to School

Exchange A quarterly newsletter of Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS) SUMMER 2012

Inside This Issue: Voting in a Primary Election NDRN, Others Issue Updated Reports on Restraint and Seclusion in Schools We Can’t Afford to Lose Michigan’s No-Fault Auto Law Ask the Advocate Update on Education Advocacy Public Policy Platform Clarifications Returning Residents to the Community is Nursing Facility’s Obligation MPAS Update on Legal Action Recently Taken What do CAIR Team Members do and how can they be of Assistance? Disability experts Discuss Public Policy Issues with U.S. Legislator Disability Advocates Speak up at Legislative Luncheon MPAS Disability Essay Contest Winners MPAS’ Brian Appointed to Michigan Rehabilitation Council Disability Agency Names new Director of Government and Media Relations From the Executive Director Assistive Technology Information You Can Use “I’m going to School!” Rights Restored to Student with Behavioral Disability

Solomon is 11 years old and in the fourth grade.

“The school administrators said that my child was just being stubborn,” says the mom of a Pontiac school child. “They insisted that he did not have an impairment that was related to his behavioral problem.”

Her son, Solomon, had been receiving speech and language special education services to help him overcome a mouth injury he had suffered as a young child. Since his speech had improved significantly, it was determined that he was no longer eligible for special education services related to speech and language. However, the day after he tested out (passed) the speech and language test, he was expelled from school for behavior issues.

Not knowing where to turn, Solomon’s mom called MPAS. Suspecting that Solomon’s rights had been violated, the MPAS advocate began an investigation. First, she checked the school district’s records to if Solomon had been receiving all of the services he had the right to receive under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA is a federal law giving students with disabilities a legal right to a free, appropriate public education and protections against school discipline. IDEA also requires schools to provide services that address behavior issues of students with disabilities.

“Solomon has had special issues since birth,” says his mom. “He never blinked until he was seven months old and later was diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder. Ever since he was in preschool, it has been written into his individualized education program (IEP) that he should receive social work services, yet he has not.”

Once it was determined that the school district had indeed violated Solomon’s rights, MPAS filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), the state department that oversees Michigan schools.

It didn’t take too long after the MDE began their investigation, that administrators at the school district contacted both the MDE and MPAS and agreed to work out a resolution. That resolution included allowing Solomon to return to school with the proper special education supports and services.

Solomon now has a worker from Oakland Family Services visit him once a week to work with him on anger management techniques and emotional and self esteem issues.

It is a priority of MPAS to ensure that all students with disabilities receive a quality education. That can only be accomplished if students at risk of push out due to a disability-related behavior remain in school.

According to the IDEA, a student is considered to have a disability even if the school has not tested or identified the child as such. If the school knew or should have known of the child's disability, the student may still be protected by special education law.

The law also tries to ensure that a child not be disciplined for conduct related to a disability. Before IDEA, students with disability-related behavior were frequently removed from school without notice or explanation. There are strict procedures that must be followed before a school district now can remove a student with a disability from school.

If, like Solomon, your child is having behavioral problems due to a disability, the school may be required by law to provide certain supports and services.

If you think your child’s behavior is disability related or you have questions about disability law as it pertains to special education services, call MPAS at 800.288.5923. Voting in a Primary Election

Michigan Primary Election – August 7, 2012 Michigan General Election – November 6, 2012 Michigan is holding its next election in August – called a primary election. The purpose of a primary election is to give voters an opportunity to decide which candidates – from within their party – will run for public office in November.

In Michigan, you do not have to be registered with a particular party to vote in a primary election. Michigan holds an open primary, which allows any registered voter to participate. Some states operate closed primaries. This is where registered voters must first declare themselves a member of a party in advance and are only given that party’s ballot.

Voting in a Michigan primary requires that you choose candidates from within only one party. To make it easy, candidates will be grouped by party affiliation on your ballot. You cannot select candidates on the ballot from more than one party; otherwise, your votes will be invalidated and won’t count. The ballot will have another section with nonpartisan candidates. Because these candidates are not affiliated with any party, you can choose whomever you wish.

It is very important that you vote in all primary elections. If your candidates lose in the primary, then they have the lost entirely and will not be placed on the November ballot. Try to prevent this from happening by voting in August – candidates need your support.

NDRN, Others Issue Updated Reports on Restraint and Seclusion in Schools

In a new report released March 6, 2012, the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) called on the U.S. Department of Education to do more to reduce and prevent the use of restraint and seclusion on school children.

“[The U.S. Department of Education] has not provided any meaningful leadership to reduce the use of restraint and seclusion − despite the fact that students are continuing to be confined, tied up, pinned down, battered and nearly killed on a regular basis,” said NDRN Executive Director Curt Decker.

NDRN argues that the U.S. Department of Education is in the unique position to:  issue strong national guidance to state education agencies and local school districts about when the use of restraint and seclusion might violate anti- discrimination and education laws, similar to the guidance that the Office of Civil Rights has already issued on bullying and harassment;  pull together a national summit of researchers, educators, mental health professionals and others to discuss whether restraint and seclusion has any therapeutic value and to develop evidence-based best practices to prevent and reduce the use of restraint and seclusion;  prevent future injuries and deaths by investigating restraint and seclusion and requiring school districts to take appropriate corrective action; and,  define the scope of the problem and how to address it by immediately using data it has collected for the 2009-2010 school year about the use of restraint and seclusion.

“The examples in our report from Connecticut about scream rooms, and Kentucky where a boy was stuffed in a duffel bag, show the need for ED to take positive and strong actions,” continued Decker. “NDRN calls upon ED to take a stand and protect our school children by following the concrete suggestions proposed in this report.”

A copy of the report can be found at www.ndrn.org.

Several other national reports were issued on restraint and seclusion in schools, including reports from TASH, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the Coalition of Parent Advocates and Attorneys, and the American Association of School Administrators. The U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) also released guidelines for school practices. For more information on these reports, please contact the MPAS at 800.288.5923.

We Can’t Afford to Lose Michigan’s No-Fault Auto Law

CUTLINE: Laurie Thomas, Administrator for Barrs Residential Care, with Ann Manning at the Annual Brain Injury Association Conference in 2011.

Ann Manning was 20 years old when a drunk driver instantaneously changed her life. One week before her wedding, she was involved a car accident that paralyzed her from the chest down. That split second altered her future dramatically.

Doctors drilled four places in her head to allow for a halo brace, while 100 pounds of pressure was applied to stabilize her spine in preparation for spinal fusion surgery three days later. As the spine swelling reduced, her function slowly started to return. After three months of rehab, the halo brace was removed and Ann was confident she would be a walking woman. Sadly, that was not the case.

Since the accident, Ann still needs physical therapy, durable medical equipment, home and vehicle modifications, and four hours of daily intermittent attendant care to maintain full-time employment. With exceptional treatment from her physiatrist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, and urologist, Ann walked down, with assistance, the aisle 14 months after her automobile accident. She then returned to school and graduated from Oakland University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Marketing.

"I have a beautiful canal front home where I live with my husband, stepson, service dog and family pet. I lead a wonderful, fulfilling life – despite my injury – in large part due to the benefits of Michigan's No-Fault Auto law," says Ann. Nine years after her injury, she resumed her passion for sports and was even inducted into the Athletes with Disabilities Hall of Fame. Ann Manning currently works as a consultant for the William Ellis Company, a barrier-free home modifications construction company. She has also served in an executive capacity for traumatic brain and spinal cord injury rehabilitation providers over the past 16 years. She is a member of the Coalition to Protect Auto No-Fault (CPAN) and a longtime board member of Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc.

To date, Ann's injuries have reached more than $1 million in costs. In another 25 years, her injuries could easily total $5 million or more!

Fortunately, the treatment of Ann's injuries is covered through Michigan's no-fault insurance system. Because Michigan law requires insured drivers to carry lifetime auto injury benefits, Ann has been able to lead a full, functional and independent life at home and in the community following her accident.

Ann's AAA auto insurance pays for healthcare needs beyond the limits of her health insurance policy, as well as home modifications and attendant care. Without this coverage, Ann – and thousands of accident survivors like her – would not be able to live the active and productive life she is currently enjoying.

ASK THE ADVOCATE

What programs are available for children with disabilities who are at risk of out-of- home placements, and whose parents are struggling to keep their families intact?

Among programs and services offered to families in the community, two programs – the Children’s Waiver Program (CWP) and Children with Serious Emotional Disturbances Waiver (SEDW) help keep at-risk children with developmental or psychiatric disabilities at home with their families or return them to their families from out-of-home placements. Both programs have a limited number of spaces available for the children they can serve.

Children’s Waiver Program

The Children’s Waiver Program allows states to waive parental income and assets, making children with a developmental disability eligible for Medicaid as a family of one. Children who are screened for this program typically have medical needs and/or behavior problems needing additional specialized treatment and services which may not be appropriately met by other community sources.

In fiscal year 2012, federal and state matching funds for CWP will serve 469 children with disabilities. To be eligible for this program, children must meet the following requirements:  Age 18 or under,  Reside with parent(s) or guardian,  Has a developmental disability as defined in the Mental Health Code,  Meets the criteria to be placed in an intermediate care facility and needs active and specialized treatment,  At risk of out-of-home placement.

Services under this program can include:  Community Living Supports (CLS),  Specialized medical equipment and supplies,  Accessibility adaptations to the home,  Home care training for family and non-family members,  Respite services,  Enhanced transportation,  Specialty services, (e.g. art, music, recreational therapy).

For additional information regarding eligibility and CWP services, families should contact their local community mental health (CMH) or visit the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) Web site at www.michigan.gov/mdch.

Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance Waiver

In October 2005, the Children with Serious Emotional Disturbance Waiver (SEDW) became available in a limited number of counties. Children who are enrolled in the SEDW prior to their 18th birthday are eligible for services up to age 20. Local community mental health (CMH) agencies partner with other community providers to provide wraparound services through a Plan of Service (POS) that includes enhanced services and supports for children and their families.

To be eligible for this program, children must meet the following requirements:  At risk of hospitalization in Hawthorne Center, a state psychiatric hospital for children;  Have serious functional limitations that impair their ability to function in the community;  Age 18 or under at the time of SEDW approval;  Eligible for Medicaid as a family of one which waives parental income and assets;  Receives at least one waiver service per month as identified in the wraparound plan.

Some of the services offered in this program include individual and family psychotherapy, crisis intervention services, home-based psychiatric supportive treatment, community living supports, respite care, and community transition services (for children returning home). For more information regarding the SEDW program and the participating CMHs and counties, visit MDCH’s Web site at www.michigan.gov/mdch or contact your local CMH. You can also contact MPAS at 800.288.5923 and speak to an advocate. Update on Education Advocacy Mark, Information & Referral & Education Director

MPAS began surveying parents of children with disabilities in November 2010 through our information and referral service. We asked parents if their children were having problems related to behavior, including problems that could suggest future behavior challenges such as academic struggles, retention, or multiple absences. The survey is not intended to produce scientifically valid data but is designed as an informal measure of the scope of current or possible future behavior issues facing students with disabilities in Michigan.

MPAS callers have completed more than 1,400 surveys since April 2011 and over 330 in the first three months of 2012. Individual survey responses have been used to screen and identify cases for investigation for possible complaints. Through March 2012, MPAS had filed 39 state complaints and obtained favorable findings or agreed-upon resolutions in 19 of them, with several more pending.

More than 120 (36 percent) of the parents responding so far this year reported they had been called to pick their children up from school because of behavior problems. In the last issue of Exchange, MPAS cited these survey results and called into question the statement of the State Special Education Advisory Committee (SEAC) on the problem of de facto suspension. When contacted about the article by SEAC, MPAS agreed to print SEAC’s policy statement in its entirety.

Here is their statement:

“During the 2009-2010 year, an ad-hoc committee of the Michigan Special Education Advisory Committee explored the issue of students with disabilities being asked to go home or be signed out of school in lieu of the child being suspended. The intent of the group was to explore the issue – referred to as de facto suspension – and determine if this practice was such that it represented an unmet need with regard to the education of students with disabilities. The conclusion of that work was that the issue was not an unmet need in the education of students with disabilities, but rather the failure to use other available tools, such as positive behavior supports, to address the issue.

For an issue to be determined an unmet need, one criteria is that the issue is, in fact, statewide in scope, that is, there is evidence that schools are routinely sending students with disabilities home for any number of reasons and are not recording that time away from school as a suspension. The SEAC engaged in considerable discussion on the issue of students with disabilities being asked to go home or ‘be signed out in lieu of suspension and why parents and schools might use this practice – right, wrong or indifferent – instead of suspension. While it appeared that this practice occurs in many places in our state, there is no way to substantiate the practice. Further, we were struck by the dilemma of collecting data on a practice: there is no way for the panel to collect data on the practice nor does the panel want to advocate for its use.

“The SEAC has the responsibility to identify unmet needs that may be occurring throughout the state that are impacting the education of students with disabilities. We believe that this practice is not an unmet need, but rather a failure to understand the implications of the practice with regard to the education of students with disabilities and their due process rights that assure access to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).

“Parents must assert their student’s rights for a free, appropriate public education, asserting this right up the chain of command in their districts and filing complaints with the State, if necessary, in their particular situation. Districts must assure that their personnel are aware of the consequences of this practice and do not inadvertently restrict the rights of a student with a disability to a free, appropriate public education. When a violation of a student’s right to a free, appropriate public education is brought forward to the Michigan Department of Education, it can be investigated and districts can be made ordered to correct the practice.

“These discussions were not without fruit. The SEAC liaison from the Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs and Early Intervention Services participated in our discussions. As a result of these discussions, the liaison shared these concerns with the Department, resulting in changes in questions asked of the districts during focused monitoring audits of suspensions and expulsions.

“This suggests to the SEAC that the Michigan Department of Education has already taken steps to help with this situation no matter the reasons for its happening. The process outlined by the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services indicates that wherever de facto suspensions are discovered, districts will be cited for being in noncompliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education regarding removals of students with disabilities from the school setting.

“While this issue did not rise to the level of an unmet need, the SEAC recommended that all organizational members go back to their organizations and discuss the need to inform members, and the families with whom they may work, of their rights when it comes to suspensions. It is important for parents to know their child’s rights, the chain of command in their district if there are problems, and that they have the right to file a complaint with the State if there is a problem occurring. Without this knowledge, parents and district personnel may not understand the unintended consequences of the practice of sending children home in lieu of suspension. Further, in the absence of complaints with regard to this practice, the district and/or State does not have data on the practice and cannot make changes or offer technical assistance when such issues arise. Public Policy Platform Clarifications In the last issue of Exchange, the MPAS Public Policy Platform for fiscal year 2011-2012 made reference to agency work that requires further clarification. In particular, there was reference to work involving “integration of students into general and special education systems,” implying that MPAS supported continued separation of students in special education programs and systems. MPAS’ legal mandate and priorities, in fact, support inclusion of all students, including students with disabilities, as students in general education settings. MPAS staff and our Board’s Public Policy Committee are working on revisions to the education aspects of the public policy platform and will publish that information in a later edition. We apologize for the confusion. Helping Residents Return to the Community is Nursing Facility’s Obligation

Mark, Legal Director

As readers of Exchange are aware, MPAS is increasingly focused on strategies to eliminate abuse and neglect in nursing facilities. Some of those strategies were discussed in the last issue. Among other things, we described services that are available in the community to support individuals who want to leave a nursing facility.

Now the State of Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) has stepped in to remind nursing facilities of their obligations to assist residents who to return to the community. In a letter dated February 27, 2012, LARA noted that the United States Supreme Court, in the Olmstead v. L.C. decision, upheld the right of individuals to receive services in the most integrated setting. This means simply that all individuals should have the choice of staying in a nursing facility or returning to the community.

Obviously, the nursing facility can either help or hinder that process. LARA – the agency that inspects and monitors nursing facilities – has made it clear that facilities must assist residents who would rather live within the community.

Nursing homes administrators have three specific obligations in this process.

First, they must ask the resident if s/he wishes to discuss the possibility of returning to the community. The resident’s response must be noted in their clinical record.

Second, the facility must make a referral to the appropriate agency that administers the MiChoice program. MiChoice is the program of services and supports for individuals who would otherwise be forced to live in a nursing facility.

Third, the facility must not interfere with the agencies who administer the MiChoice program, usually the local Area Agency on Aging, or with the agencies that assist with transition services, usually the local Center for Independent Living. To the contrary, nursing facilities must cooperate in the process. Residents and their families and friends need to understand that they may be given reasons why a transition back home will not work. They may be told that services are not available or are too costly. Individuals who are told this should understand their right to a Medicaid appeal to challenge the denial of services and supports. It may also be discovered that the nursing facility has simply never contacted the local agencies to begin the process of transition to the community. If that is the case, residents and their families should consider filing a complaint against the nursing facility.

For information on how to file a Medicaid appeal or a complaint, contact MPAS at 800.288.5923. MPAS Update on Legal Action Recently Taken Mark, Legal Director

In the last issue of Exchange, we highlighted some of the recent work of the Legal Team. Three of those cases have now been settled.

The first of these cases was a suit brought against the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) for access to peer review records. MDCH ultimately agreed with our position and stipulated in a court document that MPAS has, under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) statute, access to peer review documents. The settlement of this case was important because agencies in other states have not been as willing to settle and the challenges have been litigated all the way to the Circuit Courts of Appeal. As this is a costly venture for everyone involved, MPAS is appreciative of the willingness of MDCH to resolve this matter amicably.

In another case reported in Exchange, MPAS filed suit on behalf of a woman whose apartment building would not install an accessible pathway to the sidewalk. We also discussed a case where a child care center wanted to impose an additional cost on parents of a three-year-old with cognitive impairments to keep her from wandering away from the center. Both of these cases have been resolved under terms that cannot be disclosed.

Unfortunately, MPAS has had to continue to file lawsuits to enforce our rights of access to records. Three cases were settled. One was against a community mental health service program, one against a sheriff, and one against a nursing home. Two cases against nursing homes are still pending in the courts.

MPAS also takes action to stop the evictions of individuals with mental illness. In one instance, the client had been unrepresented in court and had unknowingly agreed to an eviction. We intervened, had the eviction set aside, and worked out an agreement with the landlord. In the other case, the police had been called to respond to the behavior of a tenant. The police took him to a psychiatric hospital, where he was treated and released. However, the housing commission invoked a provision of the lease that called for eviction if the police are called because of the actions of a tenant. MPAS was able to have that action dismissed and the client continues to live in his apartment. Another case revolved around guardianship. Although guardianships are intended, in theory, to protect the interests of individuals with disabilities, too often, they become vehicles for the denial of rights. Such was the case with a young woman living in a county and an adult foster care home where she did not wish to live. However, because she was under a guardianship, she could not move to where she wanted to live. With great effort, MPAS was able to have her case transferred to another county and, eventually, the guardianship was dismissed.

Finally, MPAS took action by filing an administrative complaint against a child caring institution where psychotropic medications were being used as a form of restraint. The facility was found to be out of compliance with the law and MPAS is monitoring the facility to make certain that this form of abuse does not continue. What do CAIR Team Members do and how can they be of Assistance?

Michelle, Director of Advocacy

Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) is made up of teams specializing in specific types of issues and investigations. One of them is the Community and Institutional Rights Team – also known as the CAIR Team. This team provides advocacy to individuals living in community or institutional settings. CAIR advocates investigate allegations of abuse, neglect, and death throughout the state. They also advocate for individuals who need services to remain in the community and assist those who are moving from a facility and need help with discharge planning.

MPAS has the authority to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect, including cases where someone with a disability has died. In addition to our authority to investigate, we have access to information, people, and records that other agencies may not.

Other groups such as the police, child and adult protective services, the office of Recipient Rights, and licensing – just to name a few – also have the responsibility to investigate and are considered primary investigators or first responders. MPAS is considered a secondary investigator. Among other things, we review investigations conducted by the primary investigators to ensure that they were completed properly.

We gather a wide variety of documents and records in the course of investigations, whereas other groups often look only at the information relevant to the rules and laws that apply to them. For example, in a case where someone has died, MPAS would obtain all relevant records. Some of those documents may include: ambulance transport records, 911 tapes, police records, witness statements, hospital records, autopsy and toxicology records, case notes, court documents, medication logs, photos, video footage, and all reports from primary investigators. MPAS is the only organization that can access all of this information. After a thorough review and analysis of the information, advocates determine if additional complaints should be filed or whether a primary investigator should reopen the investigation.

If we believe that a violation occurred, we may file our own complaints and include evidence to support them. We would also obtain the investigative findings of all of the entities with which we file complaints and appeal their findings if necessary.

We might appeal the findings of an investigation if it was done incorrectly, is incomplete, or doesn’t have an adequate remedy. For instance, there are times when, due to lack of access authority, a primary investigation concludes before all relevant information has been considered.

MPAS may issue a public report or press release about our investigative findings in order to highlight a particular issue or concern. We may also use litigation (although we do not represent individuals in personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits) or try to get legislators involved in order to correct a particular problem on a statewide or federal level.

MPAS is bound by strict confidentiality laws. This means that we can only share information with someone who is our client and, even then, there are exceptions about what information can be shared.

We define client as an individual with a disability for whom we have agreed to provide a service. If you call MPAS to report that someone with a disability has been abused or neglected, there is certain information that we can share with you about our investigation; however, there is also information that we cannot share. Even a legal guardian is blocked from getting certain information about our investigations. If we are investigating a death, we are not permitted to share our information with anyone, regardless of how we learned about the death. If someone calls MPAS on behalf of someone with a disability, generally we are unable to share information about our work unless we have authorization to do so and even then, certain information cannot be shared with you.

If you see that someone with a disability has been abused or neglected and needs urgent care, you should always call law enforcement and other emergency responders first. Afterward, you should call MPAS to notify us of the situation. If we cannot assist you, we’ll refer you to the agency or group who can. It’s always best to call us early so we can quickly begin working on your behalf and gathering all the important information needed to assist you.

For more information about the CAIR Team or MPAS, please call us at 800.288.5923. Disability Experts Discuss Public Policy Issues with U.S. Legislator On a recent trip to Washington DC to attend the Disability Summit, disability advocates Mark Lezotte of Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman; Angela Martin, Developmental Disability Institute at Wayne State University in Detroit; and Elmer L. Cerano, executive director of MPAS met with U.S. Congressman Hanson Clark (D) Detroit, to discuss public policy issues that impact the lives of people with disabilities and their families in Michigan. The topics discussed included, Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security, the Work Incentive and Planning Assistance (WIPA) programs and Michigan's proposal to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for coordinating services and supports for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.

CUTLINE: Mark Lezotte of Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, PLLC; U.S. Congressman Hanson Clark, Detroit; Angela Martin, Developmental Disability Institute at Wayne State University in Detroit; and Elmer L. Cerano, executive director of MPAS. Disability Advocates Speak up at Legislative Luncheon

[PHOTO CUTLINE:] L to R: MPAS Board Member Donna DePalma, Mary Helfmann from Senator Joe Hune’s office, MPAS Advocate Elham, and MPAS Attorney Niclole.

Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS) hosted a luncheon with Michigan senators and representatives at a Legislative Luncheon held at the Capitol in downtown Lansing, February 28, 2012.

Armed with packets of information, MPAS staff and Board members spoke with legislators and their staff from across the state about the agency’s public policy platform, current priorities, and mission.

Some of the topics discussed were:  Tightening background checks of people who work with vulnerable individuals,  Strengthening Michigan’s nursing home licensing system,  Parity for mental health and autism coverage,  Preserving the state law entitling special education supports and services from birth through age 26,  Improving protections for seniors and vulnerable adults,  Preserving auto-no fault insurance law,  Requiring guardians to have financial reporting requirements,  Streamlining Medicare and Medicaid dual eligibility system,  Replacing the internal Recipient Rights system with an independent, statewide rights protection system. PHOTO HEAD: MPAS Gives Essay Award at Capitol L to R: Representative Margaret O’Brien, Essay Contest Winner Scott Spicer, MPAS Executive Director Elmer L. Cerano, and MPAS First Vice President Kate Pew Wolters.

Each year, MPAS sponsors a Disability Advocacy Essay Contest. Writers are asked to compose real, motivating stories about people with disabilities who have successfully advocated for themselves or others and achieved success. Prizes are awarded to first, second and third-place winners.

The MPAS Board of Directors conducted their quarterly meeting in the Speakers Library following the legislative luncheon. Prior to discussing agency business, Scott Spicer read his winning essay that told of how MPAS helped him in his struggle to win a discrimination charge against a former employer. His essay won second place in the contest and netted Scott a $200 award.

First-place essay winner Florida Harris and third-place winner Deanna Fooce were unable to attend the meeting to read their essays; however, they each received awards of $300 and $100 respectively. Read all essays in this issue.

MPAS Disability Essay Contest Florida Harris – First Place Winner The Complexities of a Normal Life

Hello everyone. My name is Florida Harris, and I have a disability of being slow. I am from Pontiac, Michigan, divorced, and have four grown-up children. I also have 11 grandchildren. In addition, I only have a tenth-grade education. I currently live with my daughter and guardian and her family in Detroit, Michigan. A few years ago, I moved to a group home in September 2008, and I did not like how the group home was run.

In this particular group home, one could not use the telephone, could not have visitors or go on outings, and could not clean up. I felt that these rules and regulations were not right because due to me being a recipient, I have recipient rights. So, one day, I finally decided to address my concerns and feelings toward some of these rules and regulations toward staff. However, the things that I spoke up to staff about did not go through and everything regarding the rules and regulations remained the same. I could not believe that anything did not change. What I decided to do in order to be heard was to have every consumer sign their names on a sheet of paper and have them vote on receiving phone calls as well as using the phone, visiting, going on outings, and cleaning up. Even though I had done these couple procedures, nothing still did not take effect right away. So, in around three more weeks, Rochelle B. (staff) and Mr. Ray (staff) had approved everything that I have spoken up about from receiving telephone calls, answering and using the telephone, receiving visitors, going on outings, and doing chores. All of these changes have happened a year later.

At the same time while living at the group home, I was attending a program. There were rules and regulation that were in place at this program that I did not like as well. So, I decided to speak up to staff on what was not taking place for us consumers in 2009 of October. However, everything that I have addressed did not go into effect right away. About one week later, I decided to address my feelings on the same issues again to staff. Within the same week, the staff had approved each change that I addressed such as talking on the telephones, taking us consumers on outings, and having visitors.

These changes had made me feel good about myself and from there I knew that I could make a difference and not because of my disability. I now attend the Club House as of August 24, 2011, and I have addressed about going on outings for us consumers – which was approved right away.

MPAS Disability Essay Contest Scott Spicer – Second Place Winner Employment Discrimination Dispute Resolved

In fall of 2009 I was fired from my job after six weeks of paid leave and being forced to see a psychiatrist due to concerns about my health and behavior. This came about after I witnessed my co-workers making stigmatizing remarks about people with mental illness, not knowing what to do or whether I would lose my job if they found out about me.

In an effort to advocate for myself during the six weeks that I was on paid leave and following my termination, I went to my local Center for Independent Living to talk with a Disability Rights Advocate. I shared my situation with him and was referred to MPAS. With their guidance, I was able to obtain a private attorney who only charged me a small retainer fee, helped me win my unemployment appeal and file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After nearly a year and half, and many exhaustive efforts, I won a settlement from the EEOC Charge of Discrimination.

Since November of 2009, (about two months after I was fired), I have been a member of the Board of Directors at my local Center for Independent Living and working to help others with mental illness as a Peer Support Specialist for over two years now. This was a long, difficult and life changing process as I struggled for months just to keep a job and maintain my finances while fighting my case with the unemployment appeals process, EEOC investigation, preparing a legal complaint and even until the end with obtaining the final settlement. There were so many moments where I wanted to give up not just on this process, but on myself, with very little hope that I could get my life back. Through the support of professionals, co-workers, friends, family, my own determination and strong will, I was able to find victory for myself and feel the personal gain of being able to help others who are going through similar struggles. I have long been privileged enough to have the opportunity to advocate for others and it wasn't until I faced my own personal situation that I realized completely what it takes to fight for your rights. Thankfully, I can say that all the hard work was worth it in the end.

MPAS Disability Essay Contest Deanna Fooce – Third-Place Winner

Bullying

I have had a horrible life. I was abused for many years. I’m still working on getting over that, but that’s not the story I’m going to tell you about. My story is about bullying. I have been bullied many times. Once in the locker room after gym there were two other girls in there with a camera. They took pictures of me with my clothes off. I was humiliated, but what could I say? That night was the first night I cut myself. Another time I was bullied was when a girl slammed my fingers in the door. I will tell you how I survived. Believe me suicide came in mind more than once but what refrained me was that I wasn’t the weak one. I am strong. I asked the bullies what makes me so different? I have arms and legs, ten fingers and toes. So what makes me so bad? I had tears in my eyes. It sunk in, and they bullied me no more.

MPAS Brian Appointed to Michigan Rehabilitation Council

Governor Rick Snyder announced the appointment of MPAS Employment Advocacy Director Brian, to the Michigan Rehabilitation Council.

The Council reviews, analyzes, and advises Michigan Rehabilitation Services, within the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, regarding all rehabilitation programs and policies administered in Michigan under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Brian has more than 20 years of experience working with individuals with cognitive and physical disabilities and a vast knowledge of federal and state laws as they pertain to people with disabilities. He will represent the client assistance program established under section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. “We highly value Brian’s contribution to our agency,” says MPAS Executive Director Elmer L. Cerano. “His knowledge of the unique needs within the disability community combined with his diverse advocacy skills, will be a tremendous asset to the Michigan Rehabilitation Council.”

Brian will serve a three-year term that expires December 31, 2014. His appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the state Senate. Disability Agency Names new Director of Government and Media Relations

Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service (MPAS), the state’s designated protection and advocacy agency for people with disabilities, has hired Christopher as Director of Government and Media Relations, effective June 4, 2012. He succeeds Tom Masseau, who accepted a position as executive director of Disability Rights Wisconsin after nearly 25 years with MPAS.

Rodriguez has experience working in Washington, D.C. with United Cerebral Palsy and the National Association of Councils for Developmental Disabilities. In addition, he served as the Director of Chapter Services for The Arc of Texas for four years and currently sits on the organization’s Board of Directors.

He earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in Public Affairs from the University of Texas, where he concentrated on social and economic policy.

“We are excited to welcome Chris to MPAS,” says Elmer L. Cerano, executive director of MPAS. “We took our time and did a thorough search to find a successor for this crucial position. We are confident that Chris’ passion for justice and knowledge of public policy at the state and federal level will continue to advance the agency’s mission to advocate and protect the legal rights of people with disabilities.”

From the Executive Director Update on Dual Eligibility: Merging Medicare and Medicaid

In the last issue of Exchange I reported on Michigan’s efforts to integrate funding and services for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (Dual Eligibility). Since that writing, the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) made their Plan public in advance of it being submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in Washington, D.C. I am very pleased to report that the drafters of the Plan clearly articulated the values and principles that were recommended by a coalition of disability advocacy groups. The foundation of the Plan is based on self-determination (a combination of skills, knowledge, and beliefs that enable a person to engage in goal-directed, self-regulated, autonomous behavior) and centered around the needs and preferences of the person served.

Although details on implementation remain sketchy, the guiding principles and values upon which the Plan is based, are in lock-step with the advocates’ recommendations.

The sketchy details on implementation, however, could be problematic. After all, the devil is always in the details.

With the continued excellent leadership of Mark Reinstein from the Mental Health Association in Michigan and Dohn Hoyle from The Arc Michigan, the disability advocacy coalition has made further recommendations related to implementation strategies.

1. The Plan, as written, falls short on addressing how any of the deficiencies of the current Community Mental Health (CMH) system will be corrected. a. Do we still need 46 CMH Systems? b. How will the disparity of service design and availability between the different geographic parts of the state be corrected? 2. The Plan does not adequately address rights protection for service recipients.

a. The Plan ignores the recommendation from its work groups that a single, statewide, independent entity is needed to handle all rights, grievances, appeals, and dispute resolution matters.

b. The work group recommended that this single, independent entity have the capacity and authority to address right violations through a series of strategies including informal discussions up to and including litigation. This recommendation was made for two reasons: i The multitude of existing rights mechanisms have created an impossible maze. ii The existing rights programs are not independent and are under the control of the service providers.

3. A glaring omission in the Plan is the lack of independent facilitation to assist eligible individuals navigate the service delivery system.

4. The Plan does not clearly state that the individuals served have a choice in which Integrated Care Organization (ICO) they wish to use.

5. The Plan does not clarify the dual management and fiscal responsibility of the ICO and Pre- paid Inpatient Health Plan (PIHP) related to medication prescriptions.

6. The Plan does not provide for the ongoing involvement by people who depend on the service delivery system (including people with disabilities, their families, and advocates) in the development and review of Request for proposals to implement this program. 7. The Plan does not specify the types of services and supports that will be available to people who are eligible for either Medicaid or Medicare --- but not both.

8. Although a change in the definition of poverty levels will increase the number of Medicaid eligible individuals, Medicaid “spend-down” issues need to be resolved.

9. Finally, the overall evaluation of the Plan’s success must clearly reflect consumer satisfaction.

As written, the Plan begs the question: “How will things change or improve if all of the administrative structures related to maintaining 46 CMH Boards and 18 PIHPs and numerous ineffective internal rights protection systems remain intact?”

It is anticipated that CMS may send the Plan, or portions of the Plan, back to be rewritten because it does not go far enough in restructuring the multiple administrative levels of bureaucracies in delivering integrated services and supports funded by Medicare and Medicaid.

Over the next several months MPAS, with its sister disability advocacy organizations is committed to working with the Michigan Department of Community Health in making Michigan’s Dual Eligibility Plan a national model of self-determination, person-centered planning, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction.

Once again, this discussion is far from over Stay tuned for future updates. Elmer L. Cerano Executive Director The 2011 Annual Report is Available

Now available is the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service Annual Report in several different formats. Review it in pdf format, txt, or Microsoft Word on the MPAS Web site at www.mpas.org. If you would prefer a paper copy, there are some available on a first come, first served basis by calling 800.288.5923 Assistive Technology Information You Can Use

The Michigan Assistive Technology Loan Fund provides low-cost, fixed-rate loans to qualified applicants to finance the purchase of assistive technology devices and services. Up to $30,000 can be borrowed for wheelchairs, scooters, hearing aids, vision aids, vehicle and home modifications, and much more. For information, see www.ucp.michigan.org.

AT Xchange is a Michigan-based Web site where individuals can buy, sell or give away assistive technology items. These items are listed by category. Within the categories, the individual listings will give you the name of the item, pictures, cost (if applicable), and the location of the item. Check out the Web site for information about assistive technology and other available resources at www.copower.org/AT.

Assistive Technology News has launched www.atechnews.com to assist the nation’s 56- million people with disabilities stay abreast of assistive technology products that enhance their independence and improve their quality of life. This Web site includes information, from new product introductions, to advocate profiles, to product evaluation, to interviews with leaders in the public and private sectors working on disability issues, to policies that impact people with disabilities.

Board of Directors Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service

Michelle Huerta, Esq. President Livonia

Kate Pew Wolters First Vice President Grand Rapids

Thomas H. Landry Second Vice President Highland

John P. McCulloch Treasurer Royal Oak

Mark R. Lezotte, Esq. Immediate Past President Detroit

Pamela Bellamy, Ph.D. Secretary Lansing Mark Brewer, Esq. Clinton Township

Ronald D. Bush II, JD West Bloomfield

Donna DePalma, LMSW Pinckney Kathy McGeathy Flint

Ann E. Manning, BS, C.B.I.S. Clarkston

Susan L. Odgers Traverse City

Stoney Polman, LPC St. Johns

Jane Shank Interlochen

Frederick A. Swegles Director Emeritus Port Huron

Frederick F. (Rick) Swegles, Esq. Port Huron

Frank Turnage, MLM MSA Roscommon

For more information, call 800.288.5923 or 517.487.1755

Exchange is an official publication of Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service, Inc. (MPAS).

4095 Legacy Parkway Suite 500 Lansing, Michigan 48911-4263

Telephone 517.487.1755

TOLL FREE: 800.288.5923 Fax: 517.487.0827 http://www.mpas.org

Find us on Facebook

Voice/TTY/Language and accommodations available. Available in alternative formats upon request.

Elmer L. Cerano Executive Director