1

Biennial Report to Congress, the President, 

and the National Council on Disability

Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014

Prepared by

Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Administration on Disabilities

Administration for Community Living

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
2

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION: AIDD and the DD Act ........................................................................................................10

DD ACT: Ensuring Access, Inclusion, Independence, and Productivity.................................. 10

Meeting National Policy Goals................................................................................................. 11

Vision for the Future ................................................................................................................. 11

CHAPTER 1: The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities....................13

State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (Councils)........................................................ 13

Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As)............................................................................... 13

University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and 

Service (UCEDDs).................................................................................................................... 14

Projects of National Significance (PNS)................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER 2: State Councils on Developmental Disabilities Summary of Accomplishments 15

Council FY 2013 and FY 2014 Accomplishments ................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 3: Protection and Advocacy Systems Summary of Accomplishments.......................21

P&A FY 2013 and FY 2014 Accomplishments........................................................................ 21

CHAPTER 4: University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, 

Research and Services Summary of Accomplishments....................................................................28

UCEDD Accomplishments....................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 5: Projects of National Significance Summary of Accomplishments ..........................33

Supporting Families.................................................................................................................. 33

Employment .............................................................................................................................. 36

Diversity Leadership Institute ................................................................................................... 38

National Data Measurement Project: National Core Indicators (NCI) ..................................... 39

Regional Self-Advocacy Projects.............................................................................................. 39

Supported Decision-Making Project......................................................................................... 41

The Inclusive Coordinated Transportation Partnership Project ................................................ 42

CHAPTER 6: Technical Assistance ..................................................................................................................44

Technical Assistance for DD Network Programs..................................................................... 44

Technical Assistance for Projects of National Significance: Partnerships in Employment 

Systems Change (PIE) – Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI)........................................... 45

CHAPTER 7: Interagency Activities................................................................................................................47

Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee .......................................................................... 47

Early Childhood ........................................................................................................................ 47
4

Federal Partners in Transition workgroup................................................................................. 47

Federal Partners workgroup meetings....................................................................................... 48

AIDD/Department of Labor–Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)...................... 48

APPENDIX: The Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) 

Program Activities Report for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014...........................................................49

DATA TABLES: Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 ..............................................................................................77

ACRONYMS.................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Throughout its history, the Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 

(AIDD) has sought to enable individuals with developmental disabilities across the United 

States and its territories to live their best, most fulfilling lives. AIDD oversees four grant 

programs authorized by the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 

2000 (DD Act).1 The purpose of the DD Act is to ensure that individuals with 

developmental disabilities and their families participate in the design of, and have access 

to, needed community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that 

promote self-determination, independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in 

all facets of community life, through culturally competent programs authorized under the 

Act.

The DD Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a biennial 

report on the goals and outcomes of these programs. This report identifies the goals and 

outcomes of AIDD’s programs during fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

AIDD’s four grant programs established by the DD Act are responsible for advancing the 

mandate to provide individuals with developmental disabilities with the information, skills, 

opportunities, and support to make informed choices and decisions about their lives; live in 

homes and communities where they can exercise their full rights and responsibilities as 

citizens; pursue meaningful and productive lives; and contribute to their families, 

communities, states, and the nation.

The four grant programs are as follows:

• State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (Councils) work at the state level to 

advance the interests of individuals with developmental disabilities and promote 

policies and practices that fully meet the needs of all Americans. Councils are 

composed of individuals with developmental disabilities, family members, 

advocates, and state agency representatives, and often focus on empowering 

individuals with developmental disabilities through activities that teach selfadvocacy skills and support self-determination. 

• Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As) work to protect individuals with 

developmental disabilities from abuse and neglect by empowering them and 

advocating on their behalf. P&As are dedicated to the ongoing fight for the personal 

and civil rights of individuals with developmental disabilities. They provide legal 

support and other advocacy services (including mediation, counseling, conflict 

resolution, and litigation) to traditionally unserved or underserved populations to 

help them achieve resolution and foster systems change. 

• University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research 

and Service (UCEDDs) are affiliated with universities and represent an expansive 

national resource for addressing issues, building a professional workforce, finding 

solutions and advancing research related to the needs of individuals with 

 

1 https://www.acl.gov/sites/default/files/about-acl/2016-12/dd_act_2000.pdf
6

developmental disabilities and their families. The UCEDD program is framed by four 

core functions: interdisciplinary pre-service preparation and continuing education 

of students and fellows; research; information dissemination; and community 

services, which include model services, training, technical assistance, and 

demonstrations.

• Projects of National Significance (PNS) are endeavors, often short-term, focusing on 

issues important to the developmental disabilities community and ensuring that 

services meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities. PNS funds have 

supported families, elevated community living options, developed quality assurance 

standards, assisted with family leadership development, and increased 

opportunities for self-advocate involvement in systems change initiatives. PNS funds 

have also supported long-term data collection projects that help policymakers, 

service providers, and individuals with developmental disabilities and their families 

make the most informed policy and individual care decisions.

The first three of these grant programs exist in each state and territory and comprise what 

is referred to as the Developmental Disabilities Network (DD Network) in their respective 

state or territory. The fourth grantee program, Projects of National Significance, focuses on 

nationally recognized and emerging needs. This program supports the development of 

national and state policy that enhances independence, productivity, and inclusion and 

integration into the community for people with developmental disabilities.

Through grant programs, technical assistance, and interagency collaboration, AIDD 

supported work during FY 2013 and FY 2014, as it has in the past, that embody the core 

values of the DD Act—self-determination, independence, productivity, and inclusion and 

integration in all facets of community:

• Self-determination was advanced by successful self-advocacy trainings and 

conferences and the activities of the National Youth Leadership Network to 

encourage individuals with developmental disabilities and their families to advocate 

for equal rights and inclusion. It was advanced by work under the National Gateway 

to Self-Determination – a project of a consortium of UCEDDs, which included a 

website2 that provides self-advocates, professionals, policymakers, and the general 

public access to current best practices in enhancing self-determination for people 

with developmental disabilities. 

• Independence was supported by strides made in the areas of community living and 

housing through victories in the court system and the successful implementation of 

universal design concepts. It is advanced in the area of healthcare as a result of a 

settlement agreement that upholds the Olmstead v. L.C.

3 decision in Georgia hospital 

settings, which allows individuals with developmental disabilities to receive public 

 

2 www.ngsd.org

3Olmstead v. L.C. is a Supreme Court ruling made in 1999 that requires states to eliminate unnecessary 

segregation of individuals with disabilities in the delivery of public services, and to ensure that individuals 

with disabilities receive public services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. 

http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/index.htm
7

healthcare services in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs. The 

P&As work to uphold the community integration mandate in the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) across the country. In addition, independence is represented 

in education by programs that increase opportunities for educational advancement 

in university settings. For example, the Learning Academy at the University of South 

Florida is a two-year, four-semester transitional experience designed to help 

students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) achieve a life of opportunity, 

independence, and success.

• Productivity is exemplified by programs that encourage gainful, meaningful 

employment and development of job skills. In fiscal years 2013 and 2014, Councils 

that focused on employment assisted more than 7,200 Americans with 

developmental disabilities either maintain or obtain jobs of their choice. 

Productivity was also supported through strides made in securing access to 

technology that enables individuals to participate equally in activities. 

• Integration and Inclusion are represented by quality assurance and community 

activities that promote supports and services which make it possible for individuals 

with developmental disabilities to participate in society. These values are also 

represented in the National Residential Information System Project and State of the 

States in Developmental Disabilities, two projects that analyze current conditions 

for Americans living with developmental disabilities. In addition, Family Support 

360 projects provide opportunities to create one-stop centers to assist unserved 

and underserved families of individuals with developmental disabilities, improve 

community capacity to support these families, and encourage systemic change. In FY

2013 and FY2014, Family Support 360 projects served 1,773 families.

4

AIDD is also involved in technical assistance that supports the mission and mandate of the 

DD Act. These technical assistance activities help grantees tackle a problem that crosses 

state lines or respond to the needs of clients, and make efficient use of funding. Technical 

assistance activities include trainings, information dissemination, website maintenance, 

and other support. In FY 2013 and FY 2014, AIDD provided training and technical 

assistance to its grantee programs through grants and contracts with a number of 

organizations:

• The Information and Technical Assistance Center for Councils on Developmental 

Disabilities (iTACC), operated under a grant to the National Association of Councils 

on Developmental Disabilities (NACDD), provides technical assistance to Councils. 

Through iTACC, NACDD quickly assisted Council members, staff, and executive 

directors with access to information, technical assistance, and training resources. In 

FY 2013, 189 requests were received and completed by iTACC staff, and in FY 2014, 

266 requests were received and completed.

• The Training and Advocacy Support Center (TASC), operated under contract by the 

National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), provides technical assistance to P&As. 

 

4 Compiled from year-end reports from all FS360 grantees.
8

For example, TASC staff members provide consultation via email and phone on 

disabilities law, organizational management, and board management. Additionally, 

staff responded to more than 1,500 programmatic issues per year, especially with 

regard to abuse, neglect, seclusion, restraint, community integration, and ADA 

compliance. Staff also responded to nearly 400 P&A management-related issues per 

year.

• The UCEDD Resource Center, operated under contract by the Association of 

University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), provides technical assistance to UCEDDs. 

Through this project, AUCD provided a number of national training events on topics 

such as youth transition, post-secondary education opportunities for individuals 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities, community integration, alternate 

assessments, and AIDD reporting requirements. AUCD also continued to offer the 

Leadership Institute to better support the development of leaders for the UCEDD 

network. In partnership with the National Leadership Consortium on 

Developmental Disabilities at the University of Delaware, AUCD offered a week-long 

intensive executive development program to new UCEDD directors, Assistant 

Directors, Program Directors, and other UCEDD personnel who, in the opinion of the 

UCEDD’s leadership, demonstrate both potential and willingness to assume senior 

leadership roles in the UCEDD network.

• The Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) provides technical assistance to eight 

Partnerships in Employment Systems Change projects (PIE) focused on assisting 

states with systems change efforts and identifying, developing, and promoting 

policies and practices to improve transition, post-secondary and competitive, 

integrated employment outcomes for individuals with developmental disabilities.

Technical assistance activities included site visits to assist states with incorporating 

elements of the high performing states framework into their systems change efforts 

as well as to ensure project activities focused on systems change efforts. Additional 

technical assistance efforts included monthly coaching calls with PIE project 

managers, facilitation or peer-to-peer information exchange, bi-monthly E-news 

distributed to grantees and stakeholders, assistance with legislation and regulations 

on employment, transition and post-secondary options. ICI also facilitated webbased network meetings on topics that included: Leadership in Transition and 

Employment; Employment First; Systems Change and Sustainability; and Medicaid 

Funding for Employment Services.

This report also includes information from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) on the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental 

Illness (PAIMI) grant program. Section 114(a)(1) of the Protection and Advocacy for 

Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 requires that the AIDD Report include a 

statement describing the activities, accomplishments, and expenditures of State Protection 

and Advocacy Systems that serve individuals with mental illness. This statement is 

prepared by SAMHSA and has been forwarded for inclusion in this Report as an Appendix.
9

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
10

INTRODUCTION: AIDD AND THE DD ACT

The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) is dedicated to 

ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families are able to fully 

participate in and contribute to all aspects of community life in the United States and its 

territories. 

AIDD’s work supports approaches that shape attitudes, raise expectations, change outdated 

or broken systems, and empower individuals with developmental disabilities to pursue the 

lives they imagine for themselves. To that end, AIDD provides financial and leadership 

support to organizations in every state and territory in the United States. These entities 

assist individuals with developmental disabilities of all ages and their families to obtain the 

support they need to achieve all aspects of a life envisioned and defined by the 

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. 

DD ACT: ENSURING ACCESS, INCLUSION, INDEPENDENCE, AND PRODUCTIVITY

The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act) ensures 

that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families have access to 

community-based services and supports that promote opportunities for independence, 

productivity, and inclusion through culturally competent programs established and 

authorized by the law. 

The DD Act establishes four grant programs that are overseen by AIDD: State Councils on 

Developmental Disabilities (Councils); State Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As); 

University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and 

Service (UCEDDs); and Projects of National Significance (PNS). The first three form what is 

called the DD Network. 

These grantees ensure that individuals with developmental disabilities have access to 

opportunities and the necessary supports to be included in community life, have 

interdependent relationships, live in homes and neighborhoods of their choosing, and 

make contributions to their families, communities, states, and the nation. Individuals with 

developmental disabilities and their family members influence the grantees and their 

actions in a variety of ways, including through participation in public forums; membership 

on boards, committees, and Councils; and partnership on projects. This engagement with 

individuals with developmental disabilities and family members helps grantees determine 

what areas to invest in and how to use the funding provided by AIDD. Each grantee has its 

own process for choosing these areas. Some grantees use public forums to assess the needs 

of individuals with developmental disabilities, many of which are conducted as a 

collaborative effort across the DD network. 

Through research, education, advocacy, and the implementation of diverse projects, AIDD 

and its grantees help individuals with developmental disabilities receive quality care and 

education, protect their health, excel in careers of their choice, travel freely, live 

independently, participate in activities that they find fulfilling, and make informed choices 

about the kinds of services and supports they receive. 
11

MEETING NATIONAL POLICY GOALS

AIDD’s work significantly relates to the current policy efforts in place to enhance the lives 

of the estimated five million Americans with developmental disabilities.

5 AIDD has been 

working on strengthening healthcare and supports, increasing employment opportunities, 

expanding educational opportunities, protecting civil rights, promoting access to 

community living, and supporting the development and use of accessible technologies. 

VISION FOR THE FUTURE

All Americans, including persons with developmental disabilities, should be able to live at 

home with the supports they need. To help support this vision and meet these needs, in 

2012 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) brought together the 

Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), the HHS Office on 

Disability, and the Administration on Aging, to create the Administration for Community 

Living (ACL). The ACL’s purpose is to serve as the federal agency responsible for increasing 

access to community supports, while focusing attention and resources on the unique needs 

of people with disabilities and older Americans. 

ACL is charged with working with states, tribes, community providers, universities, 

nonprofit organizations, businesses, and families to fulfill its mission of maximizing the 

independence, well-being, and health of older adults, people with disabilities, and their 

families and caregivers. ACL’s vision is that all people, regardless of age and disability, live 

with dignity, make their own choices, and participate fully in society. 

AIDD’s priorities within ACL’s strategic framework include: 

• Ensuring the continued protection of the rights of individuals with developmental 

disabilities and preventing their abuse, neglect, and exploitation;

• Empowering individuals with developmental disabilities and their families to access 

home- and community-based services and supports that ensure opportunity for full 

and meaningful community participation;

• Promoting “employment first” as a key strategy for individuals with developmental 

disabilities to be contributing and productive members of society, participating in 

the competitive, integrated workforce;

• Supporting the advocacy efforts of individuals with developmental disabilities in 

order to ensure participation in system and service delivery design; and 

• Maintaining effective and responsive management of the DD Act Programs. 

More information about ACL’s strategic plan for 2013–2018 and AIDD’s strategic 

framework for 2012–2017 can be found at the following website: 

https://www.acl.gov/about-acl

 

5 National Aggregated Data from 2011 Council State Plans.
12

Biennial Report (FY 2013 and FY 2014)

The Biennial Report to Congress, the President, and the National Council on Disability is a 

requirement of the DD Act. This report presents an overview of achievements by AIDD’s 

grantees during FY 2013 and FY 2014 as reported by the grantees in their annual reports 

to AIDD. These achievements were reached using funding from AIDD, state and local 

communities, and other sources, and reflect the core values of the DD Act: selfdetermination, independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in all facets of 

community. 

This report offers examples of successful implementation of each of the core values as they 

have been achieved by AIDD grantees, as well as through training and technical assistance 

programs and interagency collaboration. 
13

CHAPTER 1: THE ADMINISTRATION ON INTELLECTUAL AND 

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) is dedicated to 

ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families are able to fully 

participate in and contribute to all aspects of community life in the United States and its 

territories.

AIDD funds the following programs in each state and territory authorized under the 

Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act):

• State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (Councils)

• Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As)

• University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs)

These grantees form a Developmental Disabilities Network, or DD Network, that is 

uniquely positioned to meet the diverse needs of individuals with developmental 

disabilities in their state.

While each entity within the network serves specific purposes, they operate under a 

framework of goals in the DD Act that are achieved both in the individual contributions of 

each program and through the collaboration among the different units. Because of its 

structure, each entity within a state’s DD Network is able to work cross-functionally to 

fulfill the mandates of the DD Act and its core values: self-determination, independence, 

productivity, and integration and inclusion in all facets of the community.

STATE COUNCILS ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (COUNCILS)

The 56 State Councils on Developmental Disabilities across the United States and its 

territories work to address identified needs by conducting advocacy, systems change, and 

capacity building efforts that promote self-determination, integration, and inclusion. Key 

activities include conducting outreach, providing training and technical assistance, 

removing barriers, developing coalitions, encouraging citizen participation, and keeping 

policymakers informed about disability issues.

PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEMS (P&AS)

The 57 Protection and Advocacy Systems across the United States and its territories are 

dedicated to the ongoing fight for the personal and civil rights of individuals with 

developmental disabilities P&As are independent of service-providing agencies within 

their states and work at the state level to protect individuals with developmental 

disabilities by empowering them and advocating on their behalf. P&As provide legal 

support to traditionally unserved or underserved populations to help them achieve 

resolution and encourage systems change.
14

UNIVERSITY CENTERS FOR EXCELLENCE IN DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES EDUCATION,

RESEARCH AND SERVICE (UCEDDS)

The 68 University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities across the United 

States and its territories are unique among AIDD program grantees in that they are 

affiliated with universities, allowing them to serve as liaisons between academia and the 

community. UCEDDs are a nationwide network of independent but interlinked centers, 

representing an expansive national resource for addressing issues, finding solutions, and 

advancing research related to the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and 

their families.

PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (PNS)

Projects of National Significance efforts focus on the most pressing issues affecting people 

with developmental disabilities and their families, creating and enhancing opportunities 

for these individuals to contribute to and participate in all facets of community life. 

Through PNS, AIDD supports the development of national and state policy and awards 

grants and contracts that enhance the independence, productivity, inclusion, and 

integration of people with developmental disabilities.
15

CHAPTER 2: STATE COUNCILS ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

This chapter of the 2013–2014 Report to Congress, the President, and the National Council 

on Disability provides a summary of the outcomes and successes of the State Councils on 

Developmental Disabilities.

State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (Councils) work at the state level to 

advance the interests of individuals with developmental disabilities and promote policies 

and practices that fully meet the needs of all Americans. Councils are composed of 

individuals with developmental disabilities, family members, advocates, and state agency 

representatives, and often focus on empowering individuals with developmental 

disabilities through activities that teach self-advocacy skills and support selfdetermination.

COUNCIL FY 2013 AND FY 2014 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

A key activity of the Councils is leadership development of self-advocates and family 

members. Using a variety of strategies, Councils are able to build the capacity of individuals 

with developmental disabilities and family members to be more active participants in 

making decisions that affect their lives. The table below provides information about 

Council activities in this and other areas.

Councils FY 2013 and FY 2014 Accomplishments

FY 2013 FY 2014

People trained 148,028 186,755

People trained in leadership, self-advocacy, and self-determination 49,666 60,806

People trained in system advocacy 39,260 42,694

People active in system advocacy 60,690 69,267

People attained membership on public/private bodies and leadership 

coalitions 3,597 9,660

Program/policies created or improved 2,018 2,540

Number of organizations involved in coalitions/networks/partnerships 9,420 11,406

Number of public policymakers educated 30,376 24,642

Increase the percentage of individuals with developmental disabilities

reached by the Councils who are independent, self-sufficient, and 

integrated into the community.

14.42% 14.58%

Increase the number of individuals with developmental disabilities reached 

by the Councils who are independent, self-sufficient and integrated into the 

community per $1,000 of federal funding to the Councils. 

9.62% 9.73%
16

The sections that follow provide examples of Council activities in different areas.

Employment

Illinois – The Illinois Council on Developmental Disabilities worked for a number of years 

on Employment First systems change efforts. Such efforts gained traction when the Council 

educated the state legislated Employment and Economic Opportunity Taskforce on the 

issue of Employment First. In its spring 2011 report to the legislature, the Task Force 

included a recommendation to move Illinois to Employment First. Through the Taskforce, 

the Council brought stakeholders and leaders to an Employment First Summit in January 

2012. The recommendations that were developed during the 2012 summit led to the 

introduction of the Illinois’ Employment First Act6, which was signed in July 2013. Through 

the efforts of the Employment and Economic Opportunity Taskforce, the Employment First 

Executive Order was signed in June 2014. The Council played the lead role in drafting the 

Order and educating the Governor’s staff. The Executive Order specifies what state agencies 

do under the Employment First Act in order to realize the Act’s goals of supporting persons 

with developmental disabilities obtain employment, and prioritizing competitive and 

integrated employment as the first option when serving persons with disabilities of 

working age. 

New York – The New York State Developmental Disabilities Council has continued to work 

on increasing employment for people with developmental disabilities. In 2014, the New 

York DDC funded two Project SEARCH grants that provided on-the-job training and skill 

building for students with developmental disabilities, including career exploration and 

hands-on training. This work was completed, and also supplemented, through the 

development of a project with the New York Employment Services System (NYESS), which

produced a customized web-based platform, called Disability Benefits 101, as an accessible 

tool for assisting people with disabilities to navigate the benefits system in New York. 

Education

Texas – The Texas Council on Developmental Disabilities has supported projects that 

develop and demonstrate models through which students with developmental disabilities

receive supports to participate in inclusive higher education programs that lead to 

employment. The Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services’ (DARS) highereducation Project HIRE (Helping Individuals Reach Employment) supports individuals with 

developmental disabilities to complete post-secondary education at South Texas College

(STC), with the state’s Vocational Rehabilitation providing supplemental wrap-around 

services. Students major in STC certificate programs such as mechanics, business, office 

management, legal office specialist, computer maintenance, construction supervision, web 

design, culinary arts, and child care. Most students take two to three classes and have an 

educational coach or an intern from University of Texas Pan American in almost every 

class. A total of 21 participants finished the fall 2013 semester and began the spring 2014 

semester at STC with support from coaches. Participants passed all classes from the fall 

2013 semester. Out of 34 applications received for the third cohort, 20 were chosen for 

 

6 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3499&ChapterID=5
17

interviews and 16 selected. Two students started working in their field of training. The 

success of the DARS Project HIRE has been widely recognized. 

Missouri – The Missouri State Council on Developmental Disabilities awarded a contract to 

the University of Missouri–St. Louis and the Recreation Council of Greater St. Louis to 

implement a Peer Mentoring Project. The project, which involved implementation of new 

curriculum and adaptations to current curriculum, began in three public school districts—

St. Charles West High School, Kirksville High School, and Carthage High School—and 

provided general education to youth with developmental disabilities. The project was 

initially intended to develop new courses at each school that incorporated the project 

curriculum. When meeting with school teams, however, it was determined that the most 

efficient route would be to adapt, alter, and supplement existing course curriculum and 

actively ensure that the class was available to students of all abilities. Each school built 

upon existing strengths, promoted teacher involvement, and supported maintenance over 

time. The teams developed at each school site varied depending on resources, 

administrative support, existing programs, and school philosophies. A method of obtaining 

feedback from teachers/teams was developed so that changes could be made regarding any 

concerns for future implementation.

Transportation

Alaska – In FY 2013, the Alaska Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education 

was actively engaged with a substantial rewrite of the Anchorage Municipal Code around 

taxicab and limousine services in the area. Council staff and some Council members, 

especially self-advocates, were involved in every facet of the process. The Council focused 

its work on the number of accessible cabs on the street, reports of discrimination against 

people with disabilities, and disability awareness training of cab drivers. The Council led

the formation of a coalition of advocacy groups around these issues, which included the 

Alaska Mobility Coalition, the Disability Law Center, Access Alaska, and the Statewide 

Independent Living Council. Council staff and the Council Chair were instrumental in 

providing both written and oral testimony at both Assembly work sessions and public 

hearings. As a result, a new ordinance passed the Anchorage Assembly in January 2014. In 

May 2014, the Council continued its efforts in assisting other Alaska communities with 

changing their taxicab laws and regulations to allow for more accessible transportation for 

Alaskans with developmental disabilities.

New Jersey – The New Jersey Developmental Disabilities Council recognized the 

importance of the state’s transportation network in supporting individuals with 

developmental disabilities to optimally engage in community life. Over the years, New 

Jersey’s transportation network has suffered from insufficient maintenance and inadequate 

investment. The New Jersey Council helped launch a People First advocacy movement, and 

several members expressed interest in increasing transportation options for people with 

disabilities. In FY 2013, the Council hired a new Partner in Policymaking Program 

Coordinator who worked with the state’s transportation agency, NJ Transit, and other 

private companies to educate and make them aware of service and accessibility issues for 

people with disabilities, coordinated the information coming into the Council through 

People First advocates and others, as well as the information gleaned from a transportation 

study.
18

Health

Florida – Easing Your Stress7 is a popular and valuable resource developed by the Florida 

State Council on Developmental Disabilities during FY 2013–14, and is intended to provide

families and caregivers with relevant information and techniques they can use to ease their 

personal stress, contributing to their overall health and to the health of their family. 

Recipients of the guide indicated that the resource put into writing what they were feeling 

and led to further dialogue with family members. The “Easing Your Stress” guide reached 

11,302 members of the general public and was disseminated by 21 statewide and local 

organizations and agencies. The Council distributed 5,890 copies of the publication and an 

additional 5,391 copies of the publication (3,493 in English and 1,448 in Spanish) were 

ordered from the Council’s website. 

West Virginia – The West Virginia Council on Developmental Disabilities provided a grant 

to West Virginians for Affordable Health Care (WVAHC) - is a citizen-funded, public-interest 

organization working to develop a healthcare system that will provide quality, affordable 

healthcare to all West Virginians. In September 2013, WVAHC published and printed 1,000 

copies of the informational guide “The Affordable Care Act and People with Developmental 

Disabilities”8. In addition to the printed guide, the WVAHC developed a DVD and discussion 

guide which specifically addressed issues of interest and concern to West Virginians with 

developmental disabilities and their families in regard to the ACA. The WVAHC provided

direct training to people with developmental disabilities and their families at statewide 

conferences and smaller settings. As West Virginia established a health exchange under the 

ACA, the WVAHC promoted the inclusion of issues and concerns of people with 

developmental disabilities and their families, including the development or inclusion of 

medical homes as a health benefit.

Child Care

Louisiana – The Louisiana State Council on Developmental Disabilities funded an Inclusive 

Child Care Training project. The project provided technical assistance (TA) opportunities to 

trainers and TA providers. Seventy-two participants received the training, including Child 

Care Resource and Referral Trainers/TA Providers, Child and Family Network Referral 

Teams, Child Care Development Specialists, Department of Children and Family Services 

staff in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Thibodaux, Alexandria, Shreveport, Monroe, and 

Covington. Trainings addressed challenging behaviors, dispelling myths about including 

children with developmental disabilities, and collaboration between child care programs 

when children with developmental disabilities transition from one center to another. 

Participants provided positive feedback on the TA strategies provided to appropriately 

accommodate children with developmental disabilities and assisting in transition between 

programs. The project, through the Inclusion Workgroup, continues to provide feedback to 

reform the method of distribution of Child Care Assistance Program funds to include an 

increased rate for centers serving children with disabilities. The project’s participation on 

 

7 http://www.fddc.org/sites/default/files/Easing%20Your%20Stress%20English%206-3-2013%20web.pdf

8 http://ddc.wv.gov/news/Pages/Affordable-Care-Act-and-People-with-Developmental-Disabilities.aspx
19

the Pilot Advisory Workgroup and the Inclusion Workgroup was deemed the best strategy 

for incorporating measures of quality into the new Early Childhood Outcomes-Based Rating 

System.

Oregon – The Council’s Inclusive Child Care Program (ICCP) facilitated the provision of

financial supports to 127 child care settings. The financial assistance supported the cost of 

accommodations and higher levels of care and supervision for individual children. 

Seventeen programs received consultation. Training was delivered to 224 programs 

focused on the inclusion of children and youth with developmental disabilities in typical 

settings, partnering with families, and working with disability systems. ICCP built 

awareness of child care needs for children with developmental disabilities through 

outreach efforts throughout Oregon, and through participation on a variety of planning and 

advisory groups. Statewide groups included the State Interagency Coordinating Council, 

Child Care and Education Coordinating Council, Inclusive Child Care Committee, Oregon 

after School for Kids Steering Committee, and Oregon Inclusion Collaborative.

Community Living

Washington – Council staff continued to participate on Washington State’s Developmental 

Disabilities Administration’s Roads to Community Living Assistive Technology committee. 

The committee’s purpose was to provide feedback around the effectiveness of assistive 

technology in helping individuals leaving state Residential Habilitation Centers to adapt to 

community placement. This small study measured the success of assistive technology in six 

individuals. A larger aim of this effort is to use what is learned for other individuals in the 

community with a goal of better targeting assistive technology to individuals regardless of 

their setting. The Council has worked to move forward a policy that would allow assistive 

technology to follow students as they move from one school and/or school district to

another to create the ability for schools to share assistive technology.

Recreation

South Carolina – With the heightened awareness of concussions and possible long-term 

health issues, the South Carolina Development Disabilities Council implemented the “Heads 

Up! SC!” grant with the Brain Injury Association of South Carolina. The goal was to reduce 

the incidence of sports-related brain injury among youth by providing training and tools to 

school nurses, recreation program staff, parents, and athletes on concussion identification 

and management. Heads Up! SC! resulted in 2,267 professionals, nurses, athletic directors, 

parents, and students receiving information relating to brain injuries. The Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided information and concussion kits to the 

initiative. A total of 497 school nurses completed the survey. Using the results, a training 

curriculum was developed and approved. Training was held in May 2013 with 88 school 

nurses in attendance. In an effort to reach community recreation program professionals, 

training was provided to members of the South Carolina Recreation Program Association at 

the annual conference and facilitated by a local football coach who is a leading advocate for 

concussion prevention and who worked diligently on the CDC’s “Return to Play”
20

guidelines.

9 Concussion awareness materials were provided to parents of athletes when 

registering for recreation department athletic programs. 

 

9 https://www.cdc.gov/headsup/providers/return_to_activities.html
21

CHAPTER 3: PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEMS SUMMARY OF 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

This chapter of the 2013–2014 Report to Congress, the President, and the National Council 

on Disability provides a summary of the outcomes and successes of the Protection and 

Advocacy Systems (P&As). 

Protection and Advocacy Systems (P&As) work to protect individuals with developmental 

disabilities from abuse and neglect by empowering them and advocating on their behalf. 

P&As are dedicated to the ongoing fight for the personal and civil rights of individuals with 

developmental disabilities. They provide legal support and other advocacy services 

(including mediation, counseling, conflict resolution, and litigation) to traditionally 

unserved or underserved populations to help them achieve resolution and foster systems 

change.

P&A FY 2013 AND FY 2014 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

P&As carry out a variety of activities to protect the rights of individuals with 

developmental disabilities, including information and referral, short term assistance, selfadvocacy assistance, negotiation and monitoring and investigations. The P&A activities 

address complaints of abuse, neglect, discrimination, or other human or civil rights 

violations. The tables below provide information on the P&A accomplishments.

Outputs for P&A Individual Case Advocacy

P&A Client’s Age

0-2 years 3-4 years 5-22 years 23-59 years

60 years 

and older Total

Total, FY 2013 164 557 11,927 5,817 663 19,128

Percent, FY 2013 1% 3% 62% 30% 3% 100%

Total, FY 2014 112 693 10,569 5,371 520 17,327

Percent, FY 2014 1% 4% 61% 31% 3% 100%

Living Arrangements of P&A Individual Clients
22

IndependentParental or family homeCommunity residential homesFoster careNursing homePublic

—stateoperated

Private institutesLegal detention, jail or prisonHomelessFederal facilityOther

Total, 

FY 2013

1,772 12,605 2,008 195 414 985 544 198 70 8 180

Percent, 

FY 2013

9% 66% 11% 1% 2% 5% 3% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Total, 

FY 2014

1,510 11,741 1,941 163 464 1,012 446 181 63 8 0

Percent, 

FY 2014

9% 66% 11% 1% 3% 3% 6% 3% 1% 0% 0%

P&A Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

P&A Intervention Strategy

Technical 

Assistance 

in Selfadvocacy

Shortterm 

Assistance

Investigation 

/ Monitoring Negotiation

Medita

tion / 

Altern

ate 

Disput

e 

Resolu

tion

Administ

rative 

Hearing Litigation Total FY 2013

Total 

FY 

2013 3,260 5,545 2,525 2,059 367 578 432 14,766

Percent, 

FY 

2013 22% 38% 17% 14% 2% 4% 3% 100%

Total 

FY 

2014 4,018 4,219 1,599 1,976 262 513 336 12,923

Percent, 

FY 

2014 31% 33% 12% 15% 2% 4% 3% 100%
23

Reasons for Closing Individuals’ Case Files

Reason for Closing File

Issues resolved in individual’s favorP&A withdrew because individual would not cooperateAppeals were unsuccessfulP&A services not needed because of individual death or relocationP

&A unable to take case 

because of lack of resourcesIndividual withdrew complaintsIndividual’s case lacks meritOther representation foundOtherTotal

Total,

FY 2013 11,971 427 189 118 210 934 627 360 536 15,372

Percent,

FY 2013 78% 3% 1% 1% 1% 6% 4% 2% 3% 100%

Areas Addressed 

Areas Addressed

Neglect and Abuse Complaints RemediedChild CareEducationEmploymentHealthHousingQuality AssuranceRecreationTransportationTotal

Total,

FY 2013 9,734 158 6,602 313 1,973 437 6,071 67 109 25,464

Total,

FY 2014 7,368 64 6347 336 1,960 407 3,678 52 107 20,458
24

P&A FY 2013 and FY 2014 Accomplishments 

P&A FY 2013 and FY 2014 Outcome Data

FY 2013 FY 2014

Increase the percentage of individuals who have their complaint of abuse, neglect, 

discrimination, or other human or civil rights corrected compared to the total 

assisted. 

87.10% 86.24%

Below are examples of P&A activities and outcomes as a result of their legal advocacy 

efforts:

Employment

Oregon – Disability Rights Oregon’s (DRO’s) led a national precedent-setting systemic 

effort to affirm that the integration mandate of Title II of the ADA and the subsequent 

Olmstead decision applied to day and employment services as well. As such, the Lane v. 

Brown (formerly Lane v. Kitzhaber) case, which argued that individuals who are segregated 

in “sheltered workshops” should have the opportunity to be prepared for, find, and 

maintain gainful employment in the community, continued to be a major project for the 

Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities (PADD) program in FY 2013 and 

2014. The lawsuit was originally brought forth in 2012 on behalf of 2,700 individuals with 

developmental disabilities who had been receiving services in sheltered workshops but 

had not been offered a real opportunity to choose prevocational or supported employment 

services in integrated, typical community settings. Under the case, DRO asked the court to 

declare that the state was violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by the needless 

segregation of class members in sheltered workshops and failing to provide them 

supported employment services for which they were eligible. It also sought an order 

requiring the state to provide supported employment services to all qualified class 

members, consistent with their individual needs. 

Ohio – Disability Rights Ohio (DRO), the Ohio P&A, assisted a high school student with a 

developmental disability to receive the necessary services to transition from school to 

work. The student and her family were strongly interested in competitive integrated 

employment, but had found little benefit from the standard group-based vocational 

programs offered through her school and the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) agency. Staff 

from the DRO convened a meeting of the student, her parents, a representative from the 

Developmental Disabilities Board, and a VR counselor to form a plan for the student to 

pursue customized employment during her final year of school. The following fall, with the 

support of VR, the student engaged in the discovery process to identify her unique 

vocational strengths and interests, and she was able to tailor her studies during her final 

year of high school to prepare for competitive, integrated employment based on her 

interests and strengths.
25

Education

New York – Disability Rights New York (DRNY) manages the New York Special Education 

Task Force, which provides free quality training to individuals with disabilities, their 

parents, school personnel, advocates, service coordinators, and attorneys. The Task Force 

collaborated with community advocates, state agency personnel, and school districts to 

identify training needs, systemic concerns in special education, and areas for coalition 

building. Given the number of requests for representation in special education matters, 

DRNY established the statewide Special Education Task Force and developed regional 

affiliate Task Forces around the state. The purpose of both the State and Regional Task 

Forces is to improve educational access and outcomes for students with disabilities 

through collaboration among all stakeholders, including parents, advocates, attorneys, 

school personnel, service providers, educators, government representatives, and 

individuals with disabilities. The Task Force system increases special education knowledge 

and promotes effective communication strategies, thereby reducing the occurrence of 

special education conflicts requiring legal representation.

Michigan – The Michigan P&A System (MPAS) continued its multi-year collaboration with 

the Michigan Alliance for Families, Michigan’s federally funded parent training and 

information center, in providing education rights training to families of children with 

developmental or intellectual disabilities. An evaluation and follow-up survey of outcomes 

from trainings conducted by the Michigan Alliance for Families and MPAS found that the 

majority of parents (97.8%) strongly agreed that the information from the training was 

useful. Parent self-assessment of knowledge before and after training showed a statistically 

significant increase. Of those who responded to a follow-up survey, 73% received the 

information they expected and 74% were satisfied with the services received. Most agreed 

that the information helped them work with the school to address critical needs (67%), 

make better decisions (71%), and become more involved in their child’s education (57%).

Transportation

Virgin Islands – The Disability Rights Center of the Virgin Islands effectively uses visual 

media as a tool for systemic advocacy, promoting greater disability awareness in the 

Islands’ rural community where there is a large population of individuals who do not have 

the ability to independently transport themselves around the Islands. The Virgin Islands 

P&A released its documentary, “Better to be Human,” about the lack of accessible 

transportation, to a wide variety of audiences that included public school students, family 

members, government workers, transportation workers, private business owners, and 

policy makers. As a result of this documentary, a pilot transportation program called 

Mutual Aid and Self-Help (MASH) was started. Through this pilot, the MASH program 

provided transportation services once a week free of charge to the clients of the St. Croix 

Independent Living Center.
26

Nevada – The Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center (NDALC) undertook two efforts 

regarding discrimination and improved disability access related to air travel. NDALC staff 

provided training at a conference sponsored by the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) Office for Civil Rights regarding communication, disability etiquette, and access.

NDALC also met with staff from the Federal Aviation Administration Office for Civil Rights 

during a site review of the McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas. NDALC 

coordinated comments from other disability rights advocates and organizations regarding 

concerns about airport access in general and McCarran Airport in particular.

Health

Indiana – Indiana Protection Advocacy Services (IPAS) conducted ongoing monitoring 

activities involving regular visitation to the state’s three largest Intermediate Care Facilities 

for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IDs) and the one developmental 

disabilities dual diagnosis unit positioned within a state-operated psychiatric facility. 

Observation leaned toward the visual inspection of and reassured protection of individuals’ 

health, safety, and welfare so as to prevent and/or alleviate abuse and neglect and to 

preserve the patients’ and residents’ treatment rights. This same type of monitoring was 

conducted at an ICF/ID facility after it was decertified and was to close within a 30-day 

time frame, and also at the facility that emerged after the decertification. It was this facility 

that absorbed almost all the clients from the decertified facility. IPAS’ monitoring efforts 

also consisted of reviewing the death report of any individual who died while receiving inpatient care in Indiana’s state-operated facilities, assessment of special education services,

and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

District of Columbia – In July 2014, University Legal Services (ULS) investigated Children’s 

National Medical Center’s unwritten “Room Time” disciplinary policy. Under the Room 

Time policy, hospital staff disciplined children and youth by confining patients to their 

rooms for eight-hour blocks. ULS staff proposed a new policy that would ensure that 

hospital staff would not place children and youth in seclusion as a form of discipline. By 

and large, the hospital adopted ULS’ proposal, and hospital staff no longer implement the 

Room Time policy. ULS also worked with the Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW) to 

ensure District children and youth in psychiatric hospitals are afforded their right to 

exercise during their hospitalization. PIW did not provide children and youth with 

meaningful or regularly scheduled opportunities to exercise. ULS worked with hospital 

management to provide children and youth with daily opportunities to exercise. As a result 

of this collaboration, PIW children and youth now exercise every day with a full-time 

exercise instructor.

Housing

Texas – Disability Rights Texas helped to ensure that people with developmental 

disabilities have access and opportunities to rent or own homes and apartments in their 

communities. This work included ensuring that landlords and property owners did not 

discriminate against persons with disabilities in renting or selling property, making sure 

that housing was accessible to people with disabilities to the extent required by law, and 

advocating for an increase in the amount of accessible, affordable, and integrated housing 

for individuals with physical and mental disabilities.
27

Colorado – The Legal Center (TLC) advocated and participated in helping a 23-year old 

woman with developmental disabilities transition from a nursing home where she had 

been living for nearly 18 months. During the process, TLC’s advocate saw the opportunity 

to also advocate for increasing the availability of accessible and affordable housing for 

people with developmental disabilities. As a result of working on the case with staff from 

the local public housing authority (PHA), the PHA requested TLC write a letter for the PHA, 

which helped secure approval by the PHA’s board for up to 10 vouchers per year 

specifically for people with disabilities living in institutions/nursing facilities who want to 

move out into the community. Each of these vouchers will include preferential points, 

assuring that the voucher-holders will go to the top of the list so that as soon as housing 

becomes available, they will be able to move from the institution/facility.

Child Care

Maryland – Maryland Disability Law Center (MDLC) worked very closely with the State 

Developmental Disabilities Council (Council) to improve access to child care, camp, and 

after-school care for children and youth with developmental disabilities. MDLC and the 

Council participated on a work group to ensure the representation of the perspectives of 

families and individuals with developmental disabilities. They also met with the state on 

other early childhood issues, working as a team to advance systemic change for access to 

inclusive child and youth care and high-quality inclusive early childhood education 

services. Currently, 18 Out-of-School-Time (OST) programs have been recruited and have 

signed onto the MLDC OST/Inclusion project. These programs range from national afterschool organizations (such as Building Educated Leaders for Life, Elev8, and Higher 

Achievement) to local neighborhood organizations (such as 901 Arts and Sarah’s Hope of 

St. Vincent de Paul Baltimore, a local shelter that offers enrichment programs to the 

children after school). This diverse range of OST programs touches an estimated 2,000 

children in Baltimore City. 
28

CHAPTER 4: UNIVERSITY CENTERS FOR EXCELLENCE IN 

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND 

SERVICES SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

This chapter of the 2013-2014 Report to Congress, the President, and the National Council on 

Disability provides a summary of the outcomes and successes of the University Centers for 

Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Services (UCEDDs).

University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, Education, Research 

and Services (UCEDDs) are affiliated with universities and represent an expansive national 

resource for addressing issues, building a professional workforce, finding solutions, and 

advancing research related to the needs of individuals with developmental disabilities and 

their families. The UCEDD program is framed by four core functions: Interdisciplinary preservice preparation and continuing education; research; information dissemination; and 

community services, which include model services, training, technical assistance, and 

demonstrations.

UCEDD ACCOMPLISHMENTS

UCEDDs use a variety of activities to ensure that people with developmental disabilities

lead independent, productive lives, fully included and integrated into their communities.

UCEDD activities enhance resources and services, strengthen networking of public and 

private entities across communities, increase awareness of evidence-based practices, and 

identify policy changes. UCEDDs leverage a variety of sources of funding to carry out their 

core function activities. 

UCEDD Accomplishments FY 2013 FY 2014

Participants in Interdisciplinary Pre-Services Trainings Program 53,164 61,436

Participants in Technical Assistance Programs 442,745 494,902

Demonstration Services provided 9,184 11,703

Specialized Direct Services Offered 90,021 121,354

Participants in Continuing Education Programs 158,736 196,497

Participants in Community Education Programs 179,562 166,885

Number of Research and Evaluation Activities 396,449 359,449

Information Dissemination Products Created 10,309 6,861

Number of Trainees 3,573 3,789

Total Amounts Leveraged $559,638,847 $440,050,348

The section that follows provides examples of UCEDD accomplishments:
29

Employment

Tennessee – Next Steps at Vanderbilt10 was launched in December 2010, supported by the 

Vanderbilt Kennedy Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (VKC UCEDD). The 

program grew out of several years of planning by a group that originally included the VKC 

UCEDD, the Tennessee Council on Developmental Disabilities (Council), the Down 

Syndrome Association of Middle Tennessee, and The Arc of Williamson County. With a gift 

from Linda Brooks and family and their LDB Foundation and a grant from the Council, 

Tennessee’s first post-secondary program was launched. Thirty-three students earned a 

two-year certificate from Next Steps at Vanderbilt, and 87% have had employment at 

graduation. Next Steps at Vanderbilt is a two-year inclusive higher education program, but 

is in the process of expanding to a four-year certification program. Next Steps at Vanderbilt 

is committed to providing students with intellectual disabilities inclusive, transformational 

post-secondary education in academics, social and career development, and independent 

living, while honoring equality, compassion, and excellence in all endeavors.

Nevada – The Nevada Center for Excellence in Disabilities has a resource center that is a 

collaboration of programs, agencies, businesses, and people that are interested in making 

Nevada’s workforce more integrated for Nevadans with developmental disabilities. It 

includes: Activities to make Nevada an Employment First state; efforts to reform current 

state policy and legislation to assure that competitive, integrated employment is an 

outcome supported for persons with developmental disabilities; and expanded training for 

community rehabilitation providers, parents, businesses, and persons with developmental 

disabilities. The resource center also generated external funding to carry out these 

aforementioned activities. The need is critical with only five to eight percent of Nevadans 

with developmental disabilities working in the community for competitive wages. One of 

the goals of this effort is for Nevada to become an Employment First state.

Transportation

Connecticut – The A.J. Pappanikou Center conducted Mind the GAP,

11 which was a study to 

identify the barriers that people with physical disabilities experienced when riding trains 

and to use that information to develop a fact sheet for potential train riders in an effort to 

increase ridership and community access. The project emphasized three primary areas of 

concern: (1) The gap between the transit train and platform and how the gap affects both 

boarding and de-boarding; (2) the accessibility issues both on the train and in the 

immediate pedestrian environment of the train station; and (3) how customer-to-customer 

assistance occurs and its importance in the boarding and de-boarding process.

Missouri – In support of the New Freedom Initiative, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, has set as one of its strategic goals the 

implementation of recruitment strategies to encourage more people with disabilities into 

the transportation field. The University of Missouri-Kansas City Institute for Human 

 

10 https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/departments/nextsteps/ 

11 http://www.aucd.org/docs/trainees/bradshaw_final_mindthegap.pdf
30

Development created the Greater Kansas City Summer Transportation Institute12 as a 

national model for the inclusion of high school students with disabilities within the 

National Summer Transportation Institute system. Students with disabilities participate in 

a four-week institute that expose them to college living and career opportunities in 

transportation. Students with disabilities and their families are provided information on 

educational services to support them in achieving their career goals, and students are

assisted in the development of a career plan. The Institute has increased the number of 

people with disabilities in the transportation field and expanded the range of career 

opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Health

California – The University of Southern California UCEDD at the Children’s Hospital is part 

of the Autism Treatment Network (ATN), the nation’s first network of hospitals and 

physicians dedicated to developing a model of comprehensive medical care for children 

and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The ATN is dedicated to 

developing better ways to identify, manage, and treat the physical health conditions of 

children with autism. ATN sites are committed to developing standards and guidelines for 

evaluating and treating physical conditions associated with autism, and to sharing these 

standards with a wide variety of other clinical programs. The ATN is committed to 

developing standard treatment protocols for physical health conditions based on proven 

clinical experience and evidence from the registry and related clinical research projects.

New York – The Westchester Institute for Human Development is addressing the 

tremendous need for individuals with cognitive disabilities to be informed consumers of 

health care and to learn what is needed to be advocates of healthy lifestyles. My Health, My 

Choice, My Responsibility13 is a curriculum-based program that trains individuals with 

cognitive disabilities to make healthy choices in daily life and to speak up for good health. 

The program is comprised of eight sessions. A unique aspect of the program is that it is run 

by two trainers: An agency staff person and a self-advocate with a cognitive disability. The 

participants are individuals with cognitive disabilities who would like to gain knowledge 

on various health topics in order to make informed choices. Three replicable health tools 

are included in the program: My Health Plan, My Medical Appointment, and a Health 

Information Form. WIHD staff trained 11 agencies, comprised of staff representatives and 

self-advocates, across New York State to run the program at their sites. The curriculum and 

a trainer's manual are available in hard copy and web-based format. WIHD continues to 

provide technical assistance for their use. The curriculum was developed into an 

Application available for use on the iPad. Trainings are given using selected portions of My 

Health, My Choice, My Responsibility that can include: Developing a health plan, selfadvocating at the doctor's office, physical activity, nutrition, safety and cleanliness in the 

home, hygiene, and emotional health.

 

12 https://info.umkc.edu/news/tag/kansas-city-summer-transportation-institute/

13 http://www.ngsd.org/news/my-health-my-choice-my-responsibility
31

Recreation

Delaware – The Center for Disabilities Studies (CDS) at the University of Delaware 

supports Inclusion Training for Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), Volunteer 

Coaches. Community sports and recreation provide many benefits to children with 

developmental disabilities. Playing sports not only promotes physical activity; it also helps 

children learn important life skills, how to make choices, take turns, and be part of a team. 

For some children with disabilities, however, that first team sport experience can be filled 

with obstacles. Inclusion in community sports programs requires an accessible facility, a 

welcoming inclusive culture, and staff with the skill to accommodate youth with 

disabilities. The CDS implemented a web-based training to promote inclusion, provide an 

overview of common types of disabilities, and provide strategies for assessing inclusion 

feasibility and approaches to creating effective accommodations. Additionally, CDS 

provided a technical assistance plan and a resource guide/toolkit for support and guidance 

to ensure that exercise staff has access to support while implementing volunteer coaches 

training components into their facilities and activities. 

California – The Tarjan Center at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) carries 

out the Gaming Technology for Individuals with Cerebral Palsy project. The broad vision of 

this project is to enable persons with motor disability due to cerebral palsy to participate 

fully in the recreational, social, and therapeutic benefits of virtual reality software 

products. Accomplishing this vision requires the collaboration of individuals with motor 

disability, software programmers, computer science engineers, and movement specialists. 

This is a collaborative project between of the UCLA Orthopedic Hospital Center for Cerebral 

Palsy and the Game-Based Rehabilitation Lab at the University of Southern California 

Institute for Creative Technologies USC.

Early Intervention

South Carolina – The South Carolina UCEDD provided essential support for the IDEA Part 

C program in South Carolina, BabyNet. BabyNet14 dramatically altered the method by 

which federally required information was provided by early intervention providers. States 

often rely on their UCEDDs for a comprehensive system of personnel development, 

professional development/training, and technical assistance for early intervention 

providers; measuring of IDEA Part C child outcomes, family outcomes, and family 

satisfaction; and data management for the early intervention system. Thus, the engagement 

of the South Carolina UCEDD was essential to the state’s revision of the IDEA Part C efforts. 

UCEDD staff adapted their efforts to focus on the planning, design, development, and 

implementation of the new BabyNet data system. After the development, UCEDD staff 

provided training to over 2,000 users of the BabyNet early intervention data and reporting 

system.

North Carolina – As part of the North Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, the 

North Carolina Act Early state team identifies young children at risk for developmental 

delay/Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) from minority or underserved populations. In 

 

14 http://www.ddsn.sc.gov/consumers/early-intervention/Pages/BabyNet.aspx
32

collaboration with faith and community-based organizations in Cumberland County, NC 

(and adjoining counties in the second year), educational and screening opportunities were 

offered to increase awareness of typical developmental milestones and to improve early 

identification of children with ASD or other developmental disabilities. In addition, local 

leaders were identified and trained to continue these educational efforts in future years as 

part of community activities (e.g., mega-churches, health fairs, cultural events). CDC’s Learn 

the Signs Act Early15 materials and messages were used, and the program strengthened

connections to existing local and state resources.

 

15 www.cdc.gov/ActEarly
33

CHAPTER 5: PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY OF 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD) funds Projects of 

National Significance (PNS), which provide AIDD with the opportunity to work on targeted 

issues important to the developmental disabilities community. 

These projects focus on the most pressing issues affecting people with developmental 

disabilities and their families. Project issues transcend the borders of states and territories, 

yet are designed to support local implementation of practical solutions. Over the years, PNS 

funds have supported families and caregivers, increased community living options, 

promoted inclusive education, developed quality assurance standards, explored avenues to 

promote self-determination, assisted with family leadership development, and increased 

opportunities for self-advocates to be involved in systems-change initiatives.

SUPPORTING FAMILIES

Families continue to play an important role in the lives of individuals with developmental 

disabilities to live and fully participate in their communities. With various complexities, 

strengths and unique abilities, supporting families is critical to ensuring they are able to 

best support, nurture, love and facilitate opportunities for the achievement of selfdetermination, interdependence, productivity, integration, and inclusion in all facets of 

community life for their family members with developmental disabilities. Through 

initiatives supporting families, AIDD promotes collaborative efforts and community-based 

solutions to reach unserved and underserved families, and to encourage systemic change 

and improved community capacity to support families of individuals with developmental 

disabilities.

The Community of Practice (CoP) for Supporting Families of Individuals with 

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 

In FY 2013 and FY 2014, AIDD continued funding to the National Association of State 

Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services (NASDDDS) for a Community of Practice 

(CoP) focused on expanding the knowledge base around how to best support families with 

members with developmental disabilities.

The CoP for Supporting Families of Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities is building capacity across and within states to create policies, practices, and 

systems to better assist and support families that include a member with developmental

disabilities across the lifespan. Supporting an individual with developmental disabilities at 

home affects the entire household by creating various challenges. Yet the vast majority of 

families choose to support their family member at home, and many acknowledge that the 

rewards of facilitating a self-determined life for their family member outweigh the 

difficulties. The struggles for each family are individualized and specific, and should be 

respected as such. Factors that affect the experience for each family include cultural 

expectations, the severity of disability, the presence of challenging behavior, family 
34

characteristics, financial resources, and the availability of both informal and formal 

community supports and services. The Supporting Families LifeCourse Framework16 is the 

theoretical model that the CoP uses to guide the work to improve supports to families with 

members who have developmental disabilities.

During FY 2013 and FY 2014 the CoP consisted of six states (Connecticut, District of 

Columbia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington). The CoP activities include

convening monthly calls with all the participating states, providing technical assistance, 

hosting additional webinar training opportunities to enhance learning across the states 

related to a particular topic, and convening an annual meeting. In addition to these 

regularly scheduled activities, members of the national project team engaged in a number

of information dissemination and networking activities. Below are examples of activities 

from the six CoP Supporting Families states.

• Connecticut – The Connecticut team focused on exploring issues around access to 

services and experiences at the “front door” and those who are not eligible for 

services. Strategies include implementing intake procedures related to the 

additional areas in which people can access supports (not only paid supports). 

There has also been a focus on building alliances and collaborations beyond the 

developmental disabilities (DD) service system. As a way of implementing the 

LifeCourse concepts related to helping individuals and families create a vision for 

the future, the CoP team has been working to connect with existing training and 

technical assistance efforts around person-centered thinking for individuals,

families and service agencies. The team also explored options around technology as 

a form of support, as well as building a web-based tool to connect individuals with 

disabilities with needed supports.

• District of Columbia – The team in the District of Columbia (DC) focused on 

leveraging opportunities to improve supports to families presented by the major 

systems reform efforts underway in this jurisdiction. For example, a renewed effort 

around the Developmental Disabilities Reform Act and the development of an 

Individual and Family Supports Waiver will greatly impact the future service system 

in DC, and CoP team members have contributed critical input regarding the need for 

coordinated lifespan supports for all people with developmental disabilities. The 

CoP team is also working on expanding the DC system to serve not only adults with 

intellectual disabilities but persons with developmental disabilities across the 

lifespan. In addition, the DC team is launching a Parent-to-Parent Chapter to 

enhance peer support opportunities. The team has also focused on building on 

existing person-centered thinking and levels of change strategies that have been 

implemented in DC over the past few years throughout not only the DD agency but 

the entire DD support and service delivery system. Activities include using personcentered thinking tools and skills with the state team to help families envision 

success, identifying changes that are needed at all levels, and creating a shared 

responsibility for making change. DC is also integrating personal care team (PCT)

 

16 http://supportstofamilies.org/what-is-the-lifecourse-framework/
35

tools and skills into the UCEDD parent training on end of life planning to help 

families understand that future planning begins with documenting and 

communicating about their child as a person, and not as a person with a disability.

• Oklahoma – The Oklahoma team is focused on building on the opportunities to 

improve supports system-wide in its second year through the Governor’s Blue 

Ribbon Panel. Preliminary recommendations generated by the Blue Ribbon Panel 

align with two of the strategies to support families identified in the LifeCourse 

Framework: (1) Strengthen information access and provide resource navigation;

and (2) improve inter-agency service coordination. A primary focus of the Blue 

Ribbon Panel has been on developing strategies to reduce the number of people 

waiting for services in Oklahoma. Members of the national project team were able to 

provide assistance with restructuring the way the Blue Ribbon Panel was organizing 

the wait-list based on the data they were collecting on those individuals.

Additionally, the Oklahoma team was expanded to include representatives from 

Children with Special Health Care Needs and the Family-to-Family organization. The 

team focused on creating a knowledge base among stakeholders regarding the 

LifeCourse Framework. For example, the LifeCourse principles were incorporated 

into the “On the Road” conferences in order to expand the message to rural areas in 

Oklahoma. Through the work of the CoP team, LifeCourse planning concepts and 

tools have been utilized with the Partners in Policymaking and Youth Leadership 

Forum.

• Tennessee – The Tennessee team worked to establish connections with existing 

initiatives that complement efforts to support families, particularly around 

addressing the wait-list for services, employment for people with developmental 

disabilities, and provider qualifications. The team has made connections with other 

entities to focus on integrating services across the lifespan, including the Governor’s 

Children’s Cabinet and the Tennessee Parent-to-Parent program. The team also 

worked with the Tennessee State Department on Intellectual and Developmental 

Disabilities to train staff and revise procedures to ensure that the first point of 

contact between the state DD agency with individuals and families is a meaningful 

encounter, even if the individuals are not eligible for (or able to access) waiver 

services at the time. This resulted in streamlining the intake process to allow intake 

staff to spend more time with families and individuals. In addition, the team has

worked to provide meaningful information and support to those on Tennesee’s 

lengthy wait-list for services.

• Washington – The Washington team focused on connecting with system-wide 

redesign efforts, including the development of an Individual and Family Services 

Waiver Program and the implementation of the Community First Choice Option. 

These efforts were already underway in Washington as a way to improve the system 

of care for individuals with developmental disabilities and to reduce the wait-list. 

They worked to reframe state services by taking the opportunity to evaluate the 

services provided by the state and whether they benefit or hinder families and 

individuals in the community. To gather input from individuals and families, they 
36

spent time planning for and conducting a number of “Listening Tours” across the 

state. To communicate with individuals, families, and the broader community, the 

Washington team used opportunities to share information about the LifeCourse 

Framework and CoP activities through the “Informing Families, Building Trust” 

website17 and listserv.

Supporting Individuals and Families Information Systems Project (FISP)

The Supporting Individuals and Families Information Systems Project (FISP) established a 

comprehensive program of annual data collection from states on family support. Guided by 

a family expert panel, the Research and Training Center on Residential Services and 

Community Living, Institute on Community Integration - the UCEDD at the University of 

Minnesota - conducts data analysis, policy studies, and dissemination activities to better 

understand and promote effective supports for families and individuals with intellectual 

and/or developmental disabilities who direct their own support. Other partners in the 

project include the National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities 

Services (NASDDDS) and the Human Services Research Institute (HSRI). 

Federal and state agencies utilized the data to increase the understanding of the current 

status of and emerging trends in supporting families and individuals with developmental 

disabilities living in homes of their own or with family members (including consumer 

direction). The project also compared the services and expenditures targeting the person 

with developmental disabilities versus those targeting the family members with whom 

they reside, and compared services for children versus services for adults with 

developmental disabilities.

The project found that there were an estimated 4.7 million people with developmental 

disabilities in the United States in 2014. Of those, 1.14 million were receiving services 

under the auspices or on the caseloads of state DD agencies. Of the people known to state 

DD agencies, 56% lived in the home of a family member, 11% lived in homes they owned or 

leased, five percent lived in a host home or with a foster family, six percent lived in a group 

setting of three or fewer people, and the remaining 21% lived in a group setting of four or 

more people. 

EMPLOYMENT

Employment is a critical part of community inclusion for people with developmental 

disabilities. For youth, a smooth transition from education to employment is equally 

essential. Securing and maintaining employment helps many people to achieve 

independence in their communities, but there are often barriers to accessing meaningful 

and integrated employment. During FY 2013 and FY 2014, AIDD invested in a number of

projects to support employment first and competitive integrated employment 

opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities.

 

17 http://informingfamilies.org/
37

Partnerships in Employment (PIE) Systems Change Projects

Partnerships in Employment (PIE) System Change is a five-year initiative to increase 

employment and post-secondary outcomes for youth and young adults with developmental 

disabilities. Each project is led by a consortium, including youth and young adults with 

developmental disabilities, family members, state agency leaders, university centers, 

advocates, teachers, service providers, and employers. Projects have defined an operating 

plan for improving employment and education through new or revised policy development. 

Below are documented outcomes from the eight funded projects:

• Alaska – Unanimous passage of Employment First Legislation (cross-disability) for 

the State of Alaska and over one million dollars a year of state investment for five 

years in bettering employment outcomes for people with disabilities

• California – Passage of Employment First Legislation and elimination of 

subminimum wage by California Department of Education’s Workability Program 

for Transition Age Youth

• Iowa – Rate restructuring that aligns with competitive, integrated employment 

services and a state data dashboard related to employment

• Mississippi – Mississippi’s Governor Executive Order 1335 based on the philosophy 

of Employment First and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 

Mississippi Department of Employment Security and Department of Rehabilitation 

Services

• Missouri – Increase in business partnerships and number of businesses providing 

employment opportunities for youth and young adults with developmental 

disabilities and the development of a set of cross-systems guiding principles with 

related system and community evaluation components

• New York – Earlier engagement with Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) in schools;

expansion of Project SEARCH from four programs to 14; and establishment of the 

Governor’s Employment First Commission tasked with developing a report with 

recommendations for an Employment First strategy for New York State

• Tennessee –Passage of the STEP Up Legislation in 2013 to allow access to financial 

assistance through lottery scholarship funds for youth with disabilities to postsecondary education programs and providing transitional financial assistance to

students eligible for VR and participating in Postsecondary Alliance programs in 

Tennessee

• Wisconsin – During the Governor’s Year of the Better Bottom Line initiative, 

inclusion of grants to businesses to encourage them to hire and train workers with 

disabilities and expansion of Project Search to 20 new sites.

Community of Practice (CoP) for Supporting Competitive, Integrated 

Employment
38

AIDD continued funding to the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) at the University of 

Massachusetts Boston to support a CoP composed of between five and 10 states to build 

capacity, reform delivery systems, and improve strategies to support families that include a 

member with developmental disabilities across and within states. ICI is responsible for 

managing the activities of the CoP and provides training and technical assistance through 

teleconferences, web portals, and peer-to-peer training. The CoP states focus on developing 

and defining the scope of the issue; gathering information, including the identification of 

emerging and promising practices across states; establishing and maintaining mechanisms 

to share and disseminate data, information, and promising practices; and developing ideas 

to address challenges and opportunities to improve culturally competent strategies, 

policies, practices, and systems supporting competitive, integrated employment systems 

for people with developmental disabilities. The current CoP states are the District of 

Columbia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and North Dakota.

Below are examples of activities from the CoP states from FY 13 and FY 14.

• District of Columbia – Established an active and engaged Employment Leadership 

Team comprised of a wide range of stakeholders that developed the following 

priorities: Building provider capacity; integrating a new waiver service called 

“integrated day service” that supports employment; increasing coordination of DD 

and VR services; and adopting a Mayoral order for Employment First and a

corresponding executive order. 

• Idaho – Developed a strategic plan that focuses on the following key issues: New 

waiver development that includes career exploration and discovery; outcome data 

collection; capacity building for the provider community; and collaboration with VR.

• Kentucky – Developed a strategic plan that focuses on the following key areas: Asset 

management, rate structures and performance-based funding; training for state DD 

agency personnel, including case managers; provider capacity building; and use of 

data to support decision making.

• Maryland – Developed a strategic plan with a major focus on employer engagement 

and the role of state systems. 

• Minnesota – Developed a strategic plan that focuses on addressing outstanding 

issues related to the state’s Olmstead Plan; braiding and blending resources;

individualizing employment opportunities for youth while in school; designing 

alternatives beyond center-based services for individuals who don’t have full-time 

employment and supports needed to stay at home during the day; and addressing 

benefits concerns.

DIVERSITY LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE
39

The Diversity Leadership Institute initiative is a five-year project awarded to the 

Georgetown University’s National Center for Cultural Competence in 2014, with the overall 

goal of increasing diversity among current leaders and individuals interested in being 

leaders within the DD Network or other programs concerned with developmental 

disabilities. The primary goal of the Diversity Leadership Institute is to develop and/or 

enhance the cultural and linguistic competence and leadership skills of these leaders to be 

able to better serve a growing culturally diverse population of individuals with 

developmental disabilities reflective of various racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, 

disabilities, and socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged 

circumstances. The Diversity Leadership Institute will promote the training and 

development of selected candidates who are currently in leadership positions or who 

demonstrate specific interest in leadership roles/positions within the DD Network or 

programs concerned with individuals with developmental disabilities. 

This Leadership Institute will conduct a Leadership Academy each year over the course of 

five years with at least 30 participants per cohort. The participants of the Leadership 

Academy will be engaged in an intensive course of study composed of two and one half 

months of preparatory activities and a three and one half day learning experience. 

Participants will be guided through an array of learning opportunities using multiple 

learning styles that include but are not limited to peer group discussions and structured 

forums, lectures, writing assignments, coaching, experiential exercises, and leadership 

assessment/inventory. Following the Leadership Academy, participants will also engage in 

continuous learning in their home environment supplemented by coaching and will receive 

mentoring for up to one year by the Leadership Institute staff.

NATIONAL DATA MEASUREMENT PROJECT:NATIONAL CORE INDICATORS (NCI)

AIDD provided funding to 17 states to join the National Core Indicators Project (NCI). The 

five-year contract began in 2011. The National Association of State Directors of 

Developmental Disabilities Services (NASDDDS), working with the Human Services 

Research Institute and the University of Minnesota, gathered data on service outcomes in 

the management, operation, and funding of state DD service systems.

In enhancing this uniform dataset, AIDD’s goal was two-fold: 1) o strengthen the ability of 

states to administer key long-term support programs for people with developmental 

disabilities, and 2) to facilitate collaboration between state DD agencies and the AIDDfunded DD Network on the identification of service delivery trends, policy planning, and 

development of mutual strategies to improve the well-being of those receiving services 

across the country. The NCI framework comprises more than 100 key outcome indicators 

that are designed to gather valid and reliable data across five broad domains: individual 

outcomes; family outcomes; health, welfare, and rights; staff stability; and system 

performance.

REGIONAL SELF-ADVOCACY PROJECTS

AIDD is committed to ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities participate 

in the design of and have access to needed community services, individualized supports, 
40

and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, productivity, 

and integration and inclusion in all facets of community life. AIDD strengthened its 

commitment to self-advocacy throughout the nation by funding six Regional Self-Advocacy 

Technical Assistance project to self-advocacy organizations. Each project is composed of at 

least four states and provides technical assistance to 41 state and local self-advocacy 

organizations. 

Each project has an advisory committee of which at least 75% of the members are 

individuals with developmental disabilities. These advisory committees collaborate with 

the grantee to identify the project’s priorities. The projects use technology to exchange 

information with the states in their projects relating to state accomplishments, challenges,

and best practices enabling other states to have access to lessons learned. 

Highlights are described below:

• Our Communities Standing Strong – Each state in the Our Communities Standing 

Strong18 project created vlogs (video weblogs) posted on the SABE YouTube 

channel. The topics of these vlogs include institutions, fair wages, and employment. 

By the end of 2014, the project had produced 24 vlogs.

• Southwest Alliance for Technical Assistance Center – The Southwest Alliance for 

Technical Assistance Center19 is collaboration between Self-Advocates Becoming 

Empowered (SABE) and self-advocates in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas

that aims to strengthen the capacity of participating states to increase and support 

self-advocacy at the community level.

• Pacific Alliance on Disability Self- Advocacy – In August of 2014, the Pacific 

Alliance on Disability Self-Advocacy20 (PADSA) sponsored the first annual

leadership academy covering topics such as leadership skills, organizing, and 

fundraising. The goal of the leadership academy is to train a cohort of 10–15 

individuals every year to create a pool of alumni who can provide technical 

assistance when a state has a particular need.

• Heartland Self-Advocacy Resource Network – The Institute for Human 

Development at the University of Missouri–Kansas City collaborated with four 

states—Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska—to create the Heartland SelfAdvocacy Resource Network21. The project created a hub for self-advocacy groups 

from each state to share knowledge and best practices. In addition, by developing an 

interactive web-based community, the state self-advocacy groups will be able to 

have virtual meetings and exchange ideas, without traveling long distances.

 

18 http://www.sabeusa.org/projects/our-community-standing-strong/

19 http://swifamilies.org/gallery-2/southwest-alliance-technical-assistance-center/

20 https://pacific-alliance.org/

21 http://heartlandselfadvocacy.org/
41

• North East Advocates Together – North East Advocates Together22 (NEAT) – The 

NEAT staff, the majority of whom have disabilities, organized online lunches, called 

Power Lunches, where self-advocates and their allies join to discuss a variety of 

issues. The lunches are facilitated by a volunteer from one of the states. The topics 

include state conferences, technology, youth engagement, growing membership, 

public speaking, and working with local TV stations. 

• Equal Partners Interstate Congress – The Washington State Developmental 

Disabilities Council formed the Equal Partners Interstate Congress23 (EPIC). 

Disability civil rights organizations in Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, Nevada, and 

Washington State established a regional system for technical assistance, 

communication, and information sharing. Using technology, EPIC addressed the 

individual challenges in grassroots advocacy experienced by each state while 

creating a strong unified regional voice. EPIC will also hold regional conferences to 

address issues important to the network and to plan for the sustainability of the 

project.

SUPPORTED DECISION-MAKING PROJECT

The Supported Decision-Making (SDM) Project24 is a partnership between the Quality Trust 

for Individuals with Disabilities and their partners, the Burton Blatt Institute of Syracuse 

University, the Kansas University Life Span Institute, the American Bar Association 

Commission on Law and Aging, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, Family Voices, and 

Parent to Parent USA. The goal of the project is to gather, create, and examine tools that 

utilize SDM as an alternative to guardianship for people with disabilities and older adults. 

Specific activities include documenting and disseminating successful supported decisionmaking practices; conducting research to fill data and information gaps; developing 

training materials and providing technical assistance to ACL networks on SDM issues, 

including youth transition; and developing a strategy that measures and demonstrates the 

impact of SDM on the lives of people with developmental disabilities and older Americans. 

The SDM Project is also designing and implementing a small grants demonstration program 

that awards funding to four to seven community organizations. Finally, the SDM Project is 

developing a clearinghouse of existing materials and resources, academic work and 

practices, success stories, and newly developed research and training materials available to 

the general public.

 

22 http://www.neat-peers.org/

23 http://ddc.wa.gov/about-us/council-projects/

24 http://www.supporteddecisionmaking.org/
42

THE INCLUSIVE COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT

The Inclusive Coordinated Transportation Partnership25 project is in collaboration with the 

Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration, demonstrating the value

inclusive processes can bring to coordinated transportation efforts. Partners include Easter 

Seals and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

The project develops tests and demonstrates ways to empower people with disabilities and 

older adults to be actively involved in designing and implementing coordinated 

transportation systems. The project’s goal is to support communities nationwide in 

adopting proven, sustainable, scalable, and replicable models that include participation of 

people with disabilities and older adults in the design and implementation of coordinated 

transportation systems that are responsive to their needs.

The project awarded mini-grants to community organizations that focus on a variety of 

populations. These organizations include:

• Alaska Mobility Coalition, Fairbanks, AK 

• Arc of Connecticut, Hartford, CT 

• Area Agency on Aging 1-B, Southfield, MI 

• Jewish Council for the Aging, Montgomery County, MD 

• Lewis and Clarke County, Helena, MT 

• Ride Connection, Portland, OR 

• Knoxville–Knox County Community Action Committee, Knoxville, TN 

Highlights include increased satisfaction with rides to dialysis and formulation of an 

advisory council of riders who use dialysis (Ride Connection in Portland, OR); the 

development of a transportation communications application (Knoxville, TN, and 

University of Tennessee); and increased, sustained participation by people with disabilities 

and older adults demonstrated by all projects.

• Iowa – The Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Authority carried out a study to 

inventory resources, identify opportunities for agency and resource coordination, 

analyze existing barriers, and outline recommendations for the coordination of 

transportation services. The study proposed steps for improving access to 

transportation for populations that included individuals with disabilities, seniors, 

low-income and homeless, refugees, youth in transition, and non-English speaking 

individuals.

• Michigan – The Area Agency on Aging 1-B, Southfield, MI, partnered with the 

Regional Elder Mobility Alliance (REMA) to launch an education, awareness, and 

engagement campaign to garner support for legislation to fund a coordinated 

regional transportation system. The project collaborated with the Harriet Tubman 

 

25 http://web1.ctaa.org/webmodules/webarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=3265
43

Center to support the participation of low-income individuals in transportation 

planning. The work culminated in the highly visible “Build Transit, Build Business”

Summit at Ford Field (the home of the Detroit Lions) at which 300 people attended.

• Oregon – Ride Connection of Portland, Oregon, conducted a project to improve 

access to life-saving dialysis services. The overall goal of the Ride Connection project 

was to study the issues involved with transportation for dialysis treatment and to 

deploy inclusive transportation strategies in improving these life-sustaining trips. 

As the number of people in the Portland area requiring dialysis has increased, 

providing timely and effective transportation has become a larger issue. Through 

the use of an inclusionary planning process, the Ride Connection team was able to 

implement a pilot program that has demonstrated positive results. The patients 

involved in the project are much more satisfied with their transportation since the 

inception of the pilot.

• Tennessee – The Knoxville–Knox County Community Action Committee project

developed a smartphone application to overcome communication barriers 

experienced by people with disabilities while they use public transportation. The 

project included the partnership of diverse state organizations, including the 

Governors Committee on People with Disabilities and the UCEDD at Vanderbilt 

University. The project also used an innovative method, called Meeting in a Box, to 

garner the support and trust of diverse state organizations that represent people 

with disabilities and older adults. 
44

CHAPTER 6: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

AIDD awards a number of training and technical assistance projects to help meet and 

advance AIDD’s mission as mandated by the DD Act. Training and technical assistance is 

used for multiple purposes:

• Building capacity using a variety of strategies, such as training, for greater 

productivity and service;

• Assisting in tackling problems that crosses state lines; 

• Supporting individual grantees in accomplishing project goals in a manner that is 

both responsive to the needs of its clients and efficient in its use of taxpayer dollars; 

• Facilitating cross-grantee collaboration to enhance DD Network efforts; and

• Assisting with streamlining administrative processes, collecting information, 

implementing technology advances and providing expert advice in a wide range of 

areas.

Technical assistance provides AIDD and its grantees a greater ability to meet ongoing 

needs and sustain progress toward more successful, fulfilling lives for individuals with 

developmental disabilities.

In the fiscal years 13 and 14, AIDD provided training and technical assistance to each of its 

grantee programs through awards to a number of organizations:

• UCEDD Resource Center, implemented under contract by the Association of 

University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), which provides technical assistance to 

UCEDDs;

• Training and Advocacy Support Center (TASC), implemented under contract by the 

National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), which provides technical assistance to 

state P&As;

• Information and Technical Assistance Center for Councils (iTACC) awarded to the 

National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities (NACDD), which 

provides technical assistance to Councils; and

• Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI), which is under contract to provide technical 

assistance for the Project of National Significance Partnerships in Employment 

Systems Change (PIE) grantees.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR DD NETWORK PROGRAMS

The UCEDD Resource Center, operated under contract by the Association of University 

Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), provides technical assistance to UCEDDs. Through this 

project, AUCD provided a number of national training events on topics such as youth 

transition, post-secondary education opportunities for individuals with developmental 

disabilities, community integration, alternate assessments, and AIDD reporting 

requirements. AUCD continued to offer the Leadership Institute to better support the 
45

development of leaders for the UCEDD network. In partnership with the National 

Leadership Consortium on Developmental Disabilities at the University of Delaware, AUCD 

offered a weeklong intensive executive development program to new UCEDD directors, 

Assistant Directors, Program Directors, and other UCEDD personnel who, in the opinion of 

the UCEDD’s leadership, demonstrate both potential and willingness to assume senior 

leadership roles in the UCEDD network.

The Training and Advocacy Support Center (TASC), operated under contract by the 

National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), provides technical assistance to P&As. For 

example, TASC staff members provide consultation via email and phone on disabilities law, 

organizational management, and board management. Additionally, staff responded to more 

than 1,500 programmatic issues per year, especially with regard to abuse, neglect, 

seclusion, restraint, community integration, and ADA compliance. Staff also responded to 

nearly 400 P&A management-related issues per year.

The Information and Technical Assistance Center for Councils on Developmental 

Disabilities (iTACC), operated under a grant to the National Association of Councils on 

Developmental Disabilities (NACDD), provides technical assistance to Councils. Through 

iTACC, NACDD quickly assisted Council members, staff, and executive directors with access 

to information, technical assistance, and training resources. In FY 2013, 189 requests were 

received and completed by iTACC staff and in FY 2014, 266 requests were received and

completed.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE: PARTNERSHIPS IN 

EMPLOYMENT SYSTEMS CHANGE (PIE) – INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY INCLUSION (ICI)

AIDD funds a cooperative agreement to ICI to provide technical assistance to AIDD’s PIE 

grants. This grant promotes knowledge sharing and resources for systems change by 

facilitating the discussion of ideas to address employment challenges, promoting

collaboration and understanding, and building skills. This project also provides assistance 

in developing performance benchmarking for the PIE grantees.

In FY 2013 and FY 2014, ICI held annual technical assistance meetings for the PIE projects 

and addressed the following topics: 

• Collaborating for a Seamless Transition 

• Systems Level Collaboration: All that it takes...

• A School-to-Work Partnership that Works

• Issues and Solutions Promoting Increased Employment/Career Development for 

Youth and Young Adults Transitioning to Adult Work Life

• Making Transition Work for Students and Their Families 
46

Overall, these meetings received positive ratings from the attendees. Network meeting

topics included the following: Employment First around the country, capacity-building 

initiatives through PIE, community conversations, business engagement, post-secondary 

education as a path to employment, and seamless systems change for transition.

Other Technical Assistance provided by the ICI project team during FY 2013 and 2014

included:

• Meeting with lead staff of each project site to provide technical assistance and 

review emerging issues and work plan priorities (these activities occurred on a 4- to 

6-week cycle);

• Completing site visits and site visit reports for PIE states; 

• Preparing MOU template for Tennessee, which will be used by the project and the 

P&A agency in drafting a new MOU to facilitate transition and employment;

• Preparing a document on definitions for pre-vocational, community-based nonwork and competitive, integrated employment for the Wisconsin project, which will 

be used to encourage a common definition across programs and systems; 

• Completing Performance Benchmarking toolkit; 

• Preparing document for the New York project on Employment First policies across 

the country; 

• Distributing Employment Trends of Young Adults with Cognitive Disabilities: 2004–

2011; and 

• Distributing report on Community of Practice on Evaluation.
47

CHAPTER 7: INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES

Interagency collaboration is an essential part of the work conducted to ensure the 

successful implementation of the DD Act and positive, productive futures for individuals 

with developmental disabilities across the United States. 

Given the complexity of federal, state and local programs and services that touch the lives 

of individuals with all types of disabilities, cross-agency dialogue is essential to address the 

challenges and issues facing this group. 

AIDD has undertaken many partnerships and collaborative efforts over the past two fiscal 

years, as described below.

INTERAGENCY AUTISM COORDINATING COMMITTEE

The AIDD Commissioner is a federal member of the Interagency Autism Coordinating 

Committee26 (IACC). The IACC is a federal advisory committee that coordinates Federal 

efforts and provides advice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on issues related 

to autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

EARLY CHILDHOOD

AIDD staff collaborated with other federal agencies, such as the Administration for Children 

and Families, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and 

Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

and the US Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs on a variety of 

early childhood initiatives, providing expertise and recommendations regarding infants 

and young children with disabilities when needed. For example, staff participated in Birth 

to Five: Watch Me Thrive, which is a cross-agency workgroup led by ACF to raise awareness 

about developmental milestones and the importance of early screening. 

FEDERAL PARTNERS IN TRANSITION WORKGROUP

The workgroup allows federal agency staff to discuss and share information about what 

their respective agencies are currently doing or planning to do in the area of transition. In 

collaboration with representatives from the National Council on Disability, the 

Departments of Education, Justice, Labor and Transportation, the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Social Security Administration, AIDD and other 

offices within HHS compiled a Transition Resource Directory that provides descriptions of 

federally-supported projects and centers that focus on youth transitions.

 

26https://iacc.hhs.gov/about-iacc
48

FEDERAL PARTNERS WORKGROUP MEETINGS

Staff participated in monthly conference calls of various federal agencies in HHS concerned 

with early childhood issues. In addition, AIDD led a monthly meetings of an inter-agency 

workgroup that provides funding to the P&As, which includes the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Social Security Administration, the 

Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration. During these calls, the federal partners discuss new and ongoing 

issues with the P&As, federal monitoring processes, and evaluation and accountability 

efforts.

AIDD/DEPARTMENT OF LABOR–OFFICE OF DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY (ODEP)

AIDD has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to work collaboratively with ODEP to 

expand and promote competitive, integrated employment as the preferred employment 

outcome for individuals with developmental disabilities and other significant disabilities, 

including intellectual disabilities, via both AIDD’s and ODEP’s employment systems change

initiatives. These initiatives are complementary efforts that reflect the mutual commitment 

of ODEP and AIDD to the concept of Employment First for all individuals with disabilities. 

AIDD and ODEP’s collaborative efforts include the use of ODEP’s e-Policy platform as a 

web-based forum to share the latest on employment policies, challenges, and best 

practices. AIDD and ODEP also continue to share information and updates on their 

employment initiatives as well as on the use of each agency’s CoP as a strategy to 

encourage peer-to-peer learning and information sharing.
49

APPENDIX: THE PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY FOR INDIVIDUALS 

WITH MENTAL ILLNESS (PAIMI) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES REPORT 

FOR FISCAL YEARS 2013 AND 2014
50

Introduction 

This report summarizes the annual activities for Fiscal Years (FY) 2013 and 2014 of the 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) grantees funded and 

administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS). Each PAIMI grantee is required to 

transmit an annual report to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), that describes its program activities, accomplishments, and expenditures 

during the most recently completed FY.27 SAMHSA summarizes the grantee activity 

information and prepares a report, which includes aggregate data for the Secretary.

28 

Historical Overview

The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975, commonly known 

as the DD Act, established systems in each state, the District of Columbia, and five 

territories to protect the legal and human rights of individuals with developmental 

disabilities.29 These entities, the State Protection & Advocacy systems, were governordesignated and approved by the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD), 

within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The DD Act authorized formula 

grants to each eligible state P&A system to support activities on behalf of individuals with 

developmental disabilities through the Protection and Advocacy for Developmental 

Disabilities (PADD) Program administered by ADD/ACF. ADD/ACF, the first P&A program, 

is the lead federal agency on matters pertaining to designation or re-designation of a P&A 

system. In April 2012, ADD was reorganized and is now known as the Administration on 

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AIDD), within the Administration for 

Community Living, HHS. 

The PAIMI Act of 198630 extended the DD Act protections to individuals with significant

(serious) mental illness (adults) and significant (severe) emotional impairments 

(children/youth) at risk for, or in danger of abuse, neglect, and rights violations, while 

residing in public or private residential treatment facilities. The same ADD-approved, 

governor-designated state P&A systems that received PADD Program funding were 

authorized to administer the PAIMI Program. 

The PAIMI Act31 mandated state P&A systems to: 

• Protect and advocate for the rights of residents with significant (serious) mental

illness (adults) and significant (severe) emotional impairments (children and 

 

27 42 U.S.C. 10805(a)(7)

28 PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10824

29 42 U.S.C. 6041

30 42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq.

31 42 U.S.C. 10801(b)
51

youth),32 residing in public and private care and treatment facilities who are at risk 

for, or in danger of abuse, neglect, and rights violations by using administrative, 

legal, systemic or other appropriate remedies on their behalf;

• Investigate reports of abuse, particularly incidents involving serious injuries and 

deaths related to the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint; and 

• Ensure enforcement of the United States Constitution, federal laws and regulations, 

and state statutes.

In 1986, there were 56 P&A systems located in each state, the District of Columbia, and five 

territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). At that time, 45 P&A 

systems operated as private, non-profit organizations (as designated by the respective 

state governors). The remaining 11 P&A systems were state- or territory-operated 

(Alabama, American Samoa, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, North Carolina, 

North Dakota, Ohio, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico, and Virginia) and independent of 

any state agency that provided treatment or services, other than advocacy services, to 

individuals with mental illness.

33

In 2000, the PAIMI Act was amended by the Children’s Health Act (CHA) of 2000.

34 The 

CHA established a 57th P&A system for Native Americans, the American Indian Consortium 

(AIC). The AIC is composed of the Navajo Nation and Hopi tribal councils in the Four 

Corners region of the Southwest (Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico).

The CHA35 requires “public or private general hospital, nursing facility, intermediate care 

facility, or other health care facility that receives support in any form from any program 

supported in whole or in part with funds appropriated to any federal department or agency 

shall protect and promote the rights of each resident of the facility. This includes the right 

to be free from physical or mental abuse, corporal punishment, and any restraints or 

involuntary seclusions imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience.”36 Each facility 

covered under the PAIMI Act shall notify the appropriate agency, as determined by the 

Secretary, of each death that occurs at each such facility, while a patient is restrained or in 

seclusion, of each death occurring within 24-hours after the patient has been removed from 

restraints and seclusion, or where it is reasonable to assume that a patient’s death is a 

result of such seclusion or restraint. A notification under this section shall include the name 

of the resident and shall be provided no later than seven days after the date of the death of 

 

32 Adults with significant mental illness denotes adults with serious mental illness. Children 

with significant emotional impairments denotes children with severe emotional impairments.

33 42 U.S.C. 10801(b)

34 P.L. 106-310.

35 42 U.S.C. 290ii

36 42 U.S.C. 290ii (a)
52

the individual involved.

37 This Act clarified that the state P&A systems had the authority to 

investigate incidents of restraint and seclusion in these types of facilities.

CHA also allowed state P&A systems to serve PAIMI-eligible individuals who lived in the 

community, including their own homes; however, individuals residing in care and 

treatment facilities must have priority for program services. In 2005, ADD approved a 

request from the Governor of North Carolina to re-designate the state-operated P&A 

system to a private, non-profit entity. In FY 2012, the Governor of Ohio re-designated the 

state-operated P&A system to a private, non-profit entity effective October 1, 2013 (FY 

2013). In FY 2013, the Governor of New York re-designated its state-operated P&A system 

to a private, non-profit entity effective May 1, 2013. In FY 2014, the Governor for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia re-designated its state-operated P&A system to a private, nonprofit entity effective October 1, 2013 (FY 2014). On September 30, 2014, there remained 

seven state-operated P&A systems in Alabama, American Samoa, Connecticut, Indiana, 

Kentucky, North Dakota, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Funding

Each P&A system must submit an annual application or update its annual program 

priorities, proposed budget/expenditures, the PAIMI Program assurances, and any other 

information requested by SAMHSA.38 The annual PAIMI Program awards, subject to 

availability of appropriations, are based on a formula prescribed by the statute.

39 The 

PAIMI formula is based equally on the population of each state in which there is an eligible 

system and on the population of each state weighted by its relative per capita income.

40

Relative per capita income is the quotient of the per capita income of the United States and 

the per capita income of the state. Relative per capita income is not used for American 

Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Their quotient shall be considered as one.

41 The Secretary shall use no more than 

two percent of the amount appropriated, commonly known as the set-aside under the 

PAIMI Act, to provide technical assistance to eligible systems.42

The following table reflects the total annual PAIMI Program grant appropriations, the 

technical assistance (TA) set-aside, and the minimum and maximum grant allotments 

awarded to the states and territories in FY 2013 and 2014. In FY 2013, the PAIMI Program 

grant was reduced by 5.648 percent, a $2,009,616 reduction in the total awards to the state 

P&A systems and a $41,013 decrease in TA from FY 2012. These decreases in FY 2013 were 

due to sequestration. In FY 2013, California, the largest state P&A system, received 

 

37 op. cit. at 42 U.S.C. 290ii - 1

38 42 U.S.C. 10821

39 42 U.S.C. 10822

40 42 U.S.C. 10822 (a) (1) (A) (i) and (ii)

41 42 U.S.C. 10822 (a) (1) (B)

42 42 U.S.C. 10825
53

$2,986,452, which was a reduction of $148,119 from its FY 2012 PAIMI grant ($3,134,571).

The minimum state allotment P&A system grants were reduced by $22,400 ($406,700 from 

$429,100 in FY 2012). Each of the five territories, American Indian Consortium, American 

Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, each received $217,900, which was a $12,000 reduction from FY 2012 $229,900.

FY 2013 FY 2014

To State P&A Systems $33,571,479 $35,325,287

Technical Assistance Set-Aside $685,132 $720,924

Total Annual PAIMI 

Appropriation $34,256,611 $36,146,000

FY 2013 FY 2014

Minimum State Award $406,700 $428,000

Maximum State Award $2,986,452 $3,169,574

Minimum Territory Award $217,900 $229,300

[See, Appendix - Table 1]

PAIMI Program Activities

A. Demographic Information

1. Age and Gender

The following tables summarize the number of PAIMI-eligible individuals or clients served in 

each fiscal year (FY) by age and gender. 

Age (in years) FY 2013 FY 2014

0-4 24 17

5-12 1,017 980

13-18 2,150 1,892

19-25 1,165 1,071

26-64 9,498 9,213

65+ 838 763

Total Served 14,692 13,936

Gender FY 2013 FY 2014

Male 8,481 7,849

Female 6,211 6,087

Total Served 14,692 13,936

[See, Appendix - Table 2] 
54

2. Ethnicity and Race

PAIMI clients served by the P&A systems self-identified their ethnicity and race. The following 

tables provide the ethnicity and racial identities reported by individuals served by the P&A 

systems. The information was self-reported and the individuals/clients served were permitted to 

select one or more races. Totals may exceed the number of PAIMI-eligible individuals served.

Ethnicity FY 2013 FY 2014

Hispanic/Latino 1,276 1,144

Race FY 2013 FY 2014

Native American/Alaskan Native 374 368

Asian 201 204

Black/African American 3,167 2,793

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 201 212

White/Caucasian 9,477 8,527

Multiple Race 544 521

Non-Hispanic/Latino 11,823 11,623

[See, Appendix - Table 3]

3. Living Arrangements

P&A systems served individuals who resided in various settings. Examples of these living 

arrangements included:

Living Arrangement Type FY 2013 FY 2014

Independently in the community 4,274 4,255

Adult Community residential home 558 476

Psychiatric wards 1,395 1,349

Public and private institutional living 2,396 2,250

Legal Detention/Jail 776 802

Homeless/shelter 342 281 

[See, Appendix - Table 4]

B. Services for Individuals

Under the PAIMI Act, state P&A systems are mandated to protect and advocate for the 

rights of individuals with mental illness and authorized to investigate complaints of abuse, 

neglect, and rights violations.

43 The following table shows the total number of individual 

PAIMI abuse, neglect, and rights violation cases opened, investigated, and closed.

 

43 42 U.S.C. 10805(a)(1)
55

1. Abuse

Number and types of closed individual abuse complaints include:

Abuse Complaints, Investigated and Closed 

by Complaint Type FY 2013 FY 2014

Inappropriate/excessive use of restraints 346 316

Inappropriate/excessive medication 163 187

Involuntary electroconvulsive therapy 3 11

Failure to provide mental health treatment 689 573

Physical assaults resulting in serious injuries 117 88

Sexual assaults 173 196

Staff threats/retaliation/assaults 182 214

Total 2,625 2,450

[See, Appendix - Tables 5] 

Case Examples from Fiscal Year (FY) 2013

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

The P&A learned a 59-year-old woman diagnosed with bipolar disorder, was involuntarily 

detained and restrained in handcuffs for more than a day and a half at the Rota Health 

Center. Due to P&A investigation and involvement, a settlement was reached in which the 

government agreed to provide training to employees and agents of the Rota Health Center 

and Rota Department of Public Safety regarding Commonwealth law and the Patient’s 

Rights Act. The training included conflict management, proper and safe use of seclusion 

and non-violent restraint, alternative methods for handling behavior, symptoms, and 

emergencies. It was further agreed that the Rota Health Center shall not use handcuffs as a 

means of restraining individuals with mental illness.

OKLAHOMA

The P&A investigated an incident in which a PAIMI-eligible client was handcuffed for 13-

hours and held in the county jail. The client was denied access to medication prescribed by 

a psychiatrist and denied appropriate medical care for physical injuries sustained prior to 

her detention. P&A intervention resulted in the client’s receipt of her psychiatric 

medication and medical treatment for her physical injuries. 

TEXAS

A state hospital forensic unit resident contacted the P&A for assistance with a financial 

exploitation issue. The client alleged the facility paid him in tokens (Incentive Program 

Coupons) rather than cash for work he performed. The P&A investigated, substantiated the 

allegations, and requested hospital leadership independently investigate the allegation. The 

hospital’s internal investigation also substantiated the allegation. As a result of P&A 

intervention, the client was able to negotiate for full payment for his past work.
56

Case Examples from FY 2014

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The P&A investigated the restraint and injury of a 15-year-old youth with mood disorder.

The youth alleged that Psychiatric Institute of Washington (PIW) staff fractured his arm 

while attempting to restrain him in an area of the facility not monitored by video. The P&A 

requested a meeting with PIW to discuss this complaint and at least three other incidents 

in which youth were seriously injured. As a result of the P&A’s involvement, PIW expanded 

its camera network, received internal approval to release relevant policies and procedures, 

coordinated with the P&A to provide Trauma-Informed training, and agreed to review its 

responses to certain investigations for completeness and report to the P&A. 

IDAHO

A 48-year-old client with bipolar disorder, at a state psychiatric facility in rural Idaho, 

contacted the P&A to report that she was put in seclusion for long periods of time without 

oversight. After a thorough investigation, the P&A determined the amount of time the client 

spent in an observation safety room was extensive. Additionally, when the client attempted 

to leave this area, she was restrained. In addition, the P&A identified that the client was 

chemically restrained but the facility did not record it as such, in violation of its own policy.

Due to P&A intervention, systemic remedies are being pursued, including collaborating to 

seek policy and licensing change for the facility.

KENTUCKY

The P&A was notified that a person with severe mental illness, residing in a personal care 

home in western Kentucky, was assaulted by staff that held him down and struck his face 

causing injury to his eye, cheek, and lip. The P&A reported the incident to Adult Protective 

Services and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) who licenses Long Term Care facilities.

The incident was reported to law enforcement by OIG. As a result of the P&A investigation 

and subsequent report, the state guardianship moved all of its wards from the facility, and 

both employees involved in the incident were charged with assault. 

2. Neglect

Number and types of individual neglect complaints closed per FY included:

Neglect FY 2013 FY 2014

Complaints Investigated & Closed 2,521 2,202

Discharge planning 1,065 973

Personal care 291 245

Mental health diagnoses 185 201

Medical diagnoses 174 221

Environmental safety 130 113

Personal safety 169 127
57

No written treatment plans 107 89

[See, Appendix - Tables 6a & 6b]

Case Examples from FY 2013

AMERICAN INDIAN CONSORTIUM

The P&A provided extensive assistance to a 13-year-old with severe emotional disturbance.

The child was in the custody of the New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department 

(CYFD) due to severe abuse by his mother. Over the past five years, the client was placed in 

over 10 settings, including several residential treatment settings and treatment foster 

homes. The P&A successfully questioned the CYFD presumptions and practices, advocated 

for more effective treatment options, and provided general oversight of a system that was 

not providing individualized treatment of children with mental health needs. Because of 

the P&A’s advocacy and constructive use of the Court oversight process, the child received 

a new, specialized, and individualized form of trauma-informed therapy that will help him 

with his trauma.

INDIANA

A client contacted the P&A alleging that another resident of Larue D. Carter Hospital (LCH) 

struck her causing a bruise to her shoulder. The staff of LCH indicated an investigation was 

not necessary since the client was discharged. This decision was not consistent with LCH 

policy. The P&A notified LCH of this non-compliance. The resulting investigation by LCH 

concluded the client was responsible for her injuries by not taking actions to protect 

herself. The P&A contacted the Department of Mental Health and Addictions (DMHA) for 

clarification regarding a state-operated facility’s responsibility in protecting the residents 

from one another. DMHA’s attorney responded by stating no patient should be blamed for 

unprovoked assaults inflicted by a peer. Due to the P&A’s involvement, DMHA 

acknowledged it is the state-operated facility’s responsibility to protect the residents.

SOUTH CAROLINA

A patient at a state psychiatric hospital asked for assistance from the P&A during a routine 

visit to the acute care hospital. The client uses a wheelchair and needs assistance with 

dressing and other activities of daily living. While at the acute care hospital, the client was 

cold as she was not wearing socks and was wearing a thin shirt. She informed the P&A that 

she had received inadequate help in dressing from the staff at the psychiatric hospital. The 

P&A directed the client to staff who assisted her with getting socks and a sweater to keep 

her warm. In addition, the client’s temperature was taken to ensure there were no 

underlying medical conditions.

Case Examples from FY 2014

ALABAMA

The P&A received a report of a suicide attempt by a 17-year-old male diagnosed with 

bipolar, oppositional defiant disorder, and attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder who 

resided in a psychiatric residential treatment facility. The client attempted suicide. The 
58

P&A conducted an investigation and issued a report to the facility in which it identified a 

number of environmental and policy deficiencies. In response to the P&A’s report, the 

facility revised its suicide prevention policy, installed a new window and replaced broken 

and missing tiles in the seclusion room, and installed breakaway fixtures in the resident 

bathrooms.

CALIFORNIA

The P&A investigated an attempted suicide of a resident of a skilled nursing facility

previously cited by the Department of Licensing (DOL) for failure to monitor patients atrisk of suicide. The client was found in the hallway with multiple lacerations to his forearm, 

with a razor blade he found on the floor of the common shower room. The P&A’s 

investigation found that despite a physician’s order for enhanced monitoring, the facility 

failed to provide any additional monitoring or identify preventive measures to keep the 

client from accessing sharp objects. The P&A also examined DOL’s oversight of the facility.

As a result of the P&A’s investigation, the P&A now meets quarterly with DOL to discuss 

prevention and intervention strategies regarding suicides and concrete outcomes to ensure 

patient safety. Since the P&A’s intervention, no attempted suicides have been reported.

IOWA

A 55-year-old PAIMI-eligible woman, living in a nursing facility, called the P&A stating she 

was not receiving adequate mental health treatment and wanted to move to a more 

community integrated setting closer to home. The P&A visited the client at the facility, 

reviewed records, and spoke with staff about addressing errors in the client’s mental health 

history report and getting psychiatric treatment. The P&A also addressed restrictions on 

the client’s right to go outside and make her own decisions. The P&A assisted the client in 

obtaining services through a Home and Community Based Services waiver, and found 

community-integrated housing in her home town of Iowa City. Due to P&A intervention, the 

client successfully relocated and reported significant improvements on her quality of life 

after leaving the nursing facility.

NEVADA

An 18-year-old African American woman with mental illness was admitted to a private 

psychiatric hospital for treatment. The woman’s guardian was concerned that the client 

was going to be discharged without a discharge plan in place, as the client’s treatment team 

informed her she would be discharged that day, whether the mother picked her up or not.

As a result of the P&A’s advocacy, a discharge planning meeting with the client’s mental 

health treatment team was scheduled the following morning and the client was 

appropriately discharged into a group home.

WYOMING

The P&A investigated on behalf of a Wyoming State Hospital (WSH) a patient with 

psychotic and disruptive behavior disorder that was found in urine-soaked clothing and 

bedding. The investigation established that, although the patient’s plan of care required 

appropriate hygiene, the patient’s adult diapers were not changed for several hours. Due to 

P&A intervention, the following recommendations were made:
59

• WSH employees providing direct care for geriatric patients should receive proper 

training and close supervision; 

• Patients whose plan of care require hygiene assistance, should be checked by WSH 

oncoming staff at every shift change to ensure patients receive appropriate care; 

• WSH should have a physician personally examine each patient who is not provided 

timely or appropriate hygiene care to ensure medical harm has not occurred or that 

any harm is addressed immediately; and

• WSH should coordinate with the Aging Division to develop appropriate and 

specialized care of geriatric patients.

3. Rights Violations

Number and types of individual rights complaints closed per FY included:

Rights Violations FY 2013 FY 2014

Cases Investigated and Closed 7,065 6,802

Guardianship/conservator problems 374 433

Problem with advanced directives 97 72

Failure to provide confidentiality 50 80

[See, Appendix - Tables 7a and 7b]

Case Examples from FY 2013

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The client received a prescription for steroid medication to treat a lung condition; however, 

the group home and her community support team refused to assist her with taking the 

steroid and suggested she enter a nursing facility. As a result, the client’s access to the 

needed medicine was delayed, placing her health at-risk. In response to a grievance filed by 

the P&A arguing that she had a right to medical care in the least restrictive environment 

possible, the group home created a plan to provide her medication. As a result of P&A 

intervention, the Department of Mental Health issued a directive to group homes and 

community mental health providers, clarifying they are obligated to support consumers’ 

medical needs and must monitor and document medication administration for psychiatric 

and somatic concerns.

HAWAII

The P&A represented a 17-year-old female with multiple mental illness diagnoses that 

made it difficult for her to attend school. The client’s parents complained that Waipahu 

High School did not acknowledge their daughter’s mental illness as a disability and refused 

to provide her with a tutor. The P&A represented the client during an Individualized 

Education Program meeting and was able to secure the necessary support and services.

Due to the P&A’s assistance, the client graduated and is living successfully in the 

community.
60

NEW MEXICO

The P&A assisted a 23-year-old male with mental illness who was a patient at the 

University of New Mexico Psychiatric Center (UNMPC). The individual requested to review 

his psychiatric records and was advised that he could do so upon his discharge. Despite 

that indication, the psychiatric hospital staff never provided the P&A’s client with a 

brochure that explained a patient’s right to access his/her personal information. The P&A 

contacted the hospital and obtained the facility’s policy on patient rights to information.

P&A staff informed the hospital administrators that it must ensure their staff follows 

UNMPC policies and procedures.

NORTH DAKOTA

The P&A assisted a 27-year-old man with mental illness with concerns about his Supported 

Living Arrangement. The client’s mother and legal guardian reported her son’s location was 

changed frequently, he was provided with soiled mattresses, and was placed with a 

roommate who experienced frequent violent episodes. Staff at the housing provider took 

the client’s personal items during a move and did not return them. The P&A went to the 

group home and contacted the provider’s Director. As a result of the P&A’s advocacy, the 

client was able to work with another case manager to find a more suitable living 

arrangement and help recover his belongings.

Case Example from FY 2014

KANSAS

The P&A assisted an individual with bipolar disorder who was informed by the state that 

he was no longer eligible to participate in the Working Opportunities Reward Kansas 

(WORK) program and Working Healthy. WORK gave the client transportation services to 

his job and Working Healthy provided health insurance. A P&A attorney represented the 

client in an administrative appeal, challenging this decision and presented medical 

evidence establishing he met both program’s eligibility criteria. As a result of P&A 

intervention, his services were fully restored.

4. Death Investigations

The PAIMI Act authorized state P&A systems to investigate incidents of abuse, neglect, and 

deaths that occur in public and private care and treatment facilities on behalf of eligible 

individuals.

44 Most states had no mandatory reporting statutes, central registries or other 

statewide systems to capture incidents of restraint, seclusion, serious injuries, or fatalities.

Despite state, data collection limitations, the state P&A systems monitored and investigated 

the use of restraint and seclusion in residential care and treatment facilities, especially 

incidents involving serious injury or death. States with mandatory reporting requirements 

and central registries often send all state death reports to the P&A system, whose staff 

 

44 at 42 U.S.C. 10802 (1), (3), (4), and (5)
61

must then review the information to determine those incidents that require an 

investigation. Deaths reported by states and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

(CMS) and investigated by state P&A systems and other sources as follows:

Deaths Reported FY 2013 FY 2014

States 997 900

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 3 0

Other 93 93

Deaths Reported Total 1,093 993

Deaths Investigated, by incident type FY 2013 FY 2014

Seclusion (S) 3 5

Restraints (R) 16 14

Non S or R related 549 328

Deaths Investigated Total 568 347

[See, Appendix - Table 7d]

Case Examples from FY 2013

ALABAMA

The P&A conducted a secondary investigation into the homicide of a 27-year-old man 

diagnosed with mental illness who lived in a group home. Another resident stabbed the 

deceased with a knife that the aggressor had brought into the home. The P&A conducted a 

secondary review of the investigative findings to determine any unsafe conditions or 

practices and what, if any, remedial measures were implemented to prevent future 

incidents. After the P&A’s investigation, the group home instituted new rules, installed a 

security gate, hired additional behavioral staff, established new admission requirements, 

including assessment of homicide risk, and purchased a wand-type body scanner and used 

it to check residents for contraband. 

MARYLAND

The P&A investigated the suicide of a 13-year-old male, placed in a state’s psychiatric 

residential treatment center (RTC). The teen was prescribed Prozac and Seroquel, both of 

which have black box warnings indicating increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior 

in youth. On the day he died by suicide, the teen had repeatedly stated his intention to 

harm himself. No special precautions were taken and a few hours later, the teen died by 

suicide. The P&A pursued a tort claim with the state on behalf of his adoptive mother, 

alleging negligence.

NORTH DAKOTA

The P&A investigated the suicide of a 25-year-old Native American woman diagnosed with 

psychotic disorder, paranoid type schizophrenia, and amphetamine dependence. The 

deceased resided in an intensive care unit (ICU) of the North Dakota State Hospital (NDSH).

NDSH staff monitored ICU residents by direct visual and camera observation. The 

observation order in effect for the patient did not include direction to accompany her to the 
62

bathroom, which did not comply with NDSH policy. The investigation also identified that 

the staff’s first check of the bathroom did not include a full visual check of the shower stalls.

When the bathroom was checked the second time, the client was found to have died by 

suicide. As a result of the P&A’s investigation, the death was attributed to neglect and 

recommendations were made for the hospital to explore the availability and possible use of 

break-away vents, review the NDSH policy on observation for possible update/revision and 

ensure staff are trained on the policy, and develop a clear protocol for the search of 

patients under constant observation order.

Case Examples from FY 2014

COLORADO

The P&A investigated two deaths by suicide in Colorado’s Youthful Offender System 

administered by the Department of Corrections (DOC). The P&A requested the records for 

the two deceased individuals and a copy of the Colorado Inspector General’s investigation 

reports. Due to the method utilized for completing suicide, the P&A contacted the DOC, and 

accompanied the physical plant engineer on the inspection to ensure remedial measures 

were taken. P&A intervention resulted in DOC making appropriate changes to the facility. 

IDAHO

The P&A was informed of the death of a 70-year-old woman diagnosed with mental illness 

and diabetes, in a nursing facility. The P&A conducted a preliminary investigation, 

reviewed past and current surveys of the facility, and the client’s medical records, and 

found the facility failed to provide appropriate care and treatment resulting in the client’s 

death. The P&A filed a complaint with the Bureau of Facility Standards, which 

substantiated two of the four allegations. As a result of the P&A investigation, the facility 

was placed on probationary status and prohibited from any new admissions until the 

deficiencies were corrected according to the Plan of Correction. 

MINNESOTA

The P&A investigated a death at the Minnesota Security Hospital (MSH), the state forensic 

facility for individuals with mental illness adjudicated as dangerous. A Crisis and 

Admissions Unit (CAU) resident entered the room of another patient who physically 

assaulted him (repeatedly kicking, and punching him in the head). Several hours later, MSH 

staff found the severely injured patient had died from his injuries. The assailant’s 

psychiatric history of violence with a recent escalation in behavior was available to MSH 

staff that are to follow patient supervision and room check procedures. The P&A also 

monitored MSH’s implementation of state licensing conditions (e.g., staff be present on unit 

floors instead of being in a locked staff room, and rooms are to be checked every 15 

minutes, rather than hourly).

5. Complaints Favorably Resolved for Clients

The case examples in Section 2, 3, and 4 provide information on the types of favorable 

outcomes achieved on behalf of individual P&A system clients. The following table shows 

the total number of individual PAIMI complaints investigated, closed, and resolved.
63

Type of Complaint Investigated FY 2013 FY 2014

Abuse 2,699 2,509

Neglect 2,565 2,198

Rights violations 7,007 6,887

Total 12,271 11,594

[See, Appendix - Table 8a, 8b, 8c]

6. Intervention Strategies

The P&A systems are authorized by the PAIMI Act45 to pursue administrative, legal, and 

other remedies to ensure protection for individuals with mental illness. An individual’s 

initial complaint may involve multiple issues and P&A systems often use several strategies 

to resolve them. The total strategies used often exceeded the number of complaints 

investigated and closed in a FY, as clients’ initial complaints frequently include multiple 

issues and various strategies are used to resolve them.

Intervention Strategy FY 2013 FY 2014

Short-term assistance 6,089 6,338

Abuse & neglect investigations 1,556 1,508

Technical assistance 2,892 1,368

Administrative remedies 412 373

Mediation 1,484 1,205

Legal remedies 246 413

Total Interventions 12,679 11,205

[See, Appendix - Table 9] 

Case Examples from FY 2013

ARIZONA

The P&A assisted a client with mental illness and hearing impairment whose group home 

did not provide an accessible fire alarm, doorbell, or video telephone system. The resident 

did not receive timely counseling as per her individual service plan. The P&A assisted the 

client in filing a grievance and represented her at two informal, pre-administrative hearing 

conferences. The P&A’s intervention resulted in the installation of deaf-accessible fire 

alarm and doorbell, provision of internet access, and the expedited arrangement of 

counseling services. 

FLORIDA

 

45 at 42 U.S.C. 10805 (a) (1) (C)
64

The P&A assisted the adoptive parents of an adolescent diagnosed with bipolar disorder, 

post-traumatic stress disorder, and reactive attachment disorder. The parents needed a 

residential placement capable of treating early childhood trauma attributed to abuse and 

neglect by biological parents. P&A staff worked with the adolescent’s parents (e.g., 

identified mental treatment providers, and located an out-of-state residential treatment 

center). As a result of P&A intervention, the client improved and was discharged to a 

community-based program.

Case Examples from FY 2014

SOUTH CAROLINA

The P&A assisted a young adult with severe depression following her mother’s death. The 

individual’s father subsequently assumed legal guardianship. The client was stable and 

happy in the new environment; however, she violated the terms of her father’s 

guardianship, her outpatient treatment plan, and court orders (structured environment).

After two unsuccessful placements, arranged by the Department of Mental Health, the 

client moved in with a family friend. The P&A represented the client at her probate hearing 

and was successful in having guardianship removed. The client was to live with her friend 

until her application for services from the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and 

Special Needs, was approved. The client has an apartment and lives independently.

C. Class Action Litigation

To ensure compliance with federal or state laws and regulations and when immediate 

action is needed to protect a group of individuals, state P&A systems may use class 

litigation.

46 This type of litigation is the strategy of last resort. This complex strategy often

takes years to resolve the presenting problem, and requires special staff expertise, 

resources, and time. These types of cases generally involve a range of issues that affect the 

lives of individuals or groups of individuals with mental illness and other disabilities and 

their families. Class action activities reported by the P&A systems on behalf of PAIMIeligible individuals included:

Class Actions FY 2013 FY 2014

Number filed 45 50

Individuals Impacted 3,485,656 2,150,132

[See, Appendix, Table 10]

 

46 42 U.S.C. 10805 (a)(1)(B)
65

Case Examples from FY 2013 

ILLINOIS

The P&A advocated for Illinoisans with mental illness to be fully integrated into the 

community. The P&A filed a federal lawsuit, entitled Williams v. Blagojevich, against Illinois 

state officials on behalf of two institutions for mental disease (IMD) residents, for failure of 

the state to develop a comprehensive plan setting forth how Illinois will serve more people 

with mental illness in the community, including those residing in IMDs. Although a consent 

decree was reached in 2010, the state did not implement it until 2013, when it moved 640+ 

IMDresidents into permanent supportive housing units in the community.

Case Examples from FY 2014

CONNECTICUT

As a result of a lawsuit brought by the P&A on behalf of residents with mental illness 

housed at two nursing homes, the U.S. District Court approved a settlement agreement that 

allowed approximately 130 people to move into community residences and receive 

appropriate support services. In addition, the settlement provided that individuals 

admitted to nursing homes during the four-year term of the agreement be evaluated for 

transition to community-based housing within one year of admission. The state is also 

providing supportive services, including case management and mobile crisis services, to 

former nursing home residents.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

The P&A reached a settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit Lynne E. v. Lynch for 

expanded community mental health services. Under the approved agreement, New 

Hampshire expanded its supported housing to include a minimum of 450 supported 

housing units, add Assertive Community Treatment to serve 1,500 people, and significantly 

expand supported employment programs, creating opportunities for individuals to join the 

workforce, engage in productive activities, and improve the quality of their lives. The 

agreement also introduced mobile crisis services as part of an effort to better serve people 

with mental illness and divert individuals from hospitals and institutions by building 

capacity through community-based alternatives proven effective at reducing the need for 

emergency room and in-patient beds.

NEW YORK

The P&A and its co-counsel negotiated a landmark settlement on behalf of a class of 

approximately 4,000 adult home residents in New York City. The case, O’Toole v. Cuomo, 

was brought on behalf of residents of 23 large adult homes, which are board and care 

homes primarily serving people with mental illness. Under the settlement agreement, 

approved by the court in March 2014, the State of New York now offers supported housing 

to people with mental illness residing in adult homes. The supported housing includes 

apartments scattered throughout the community, and the state will provides rental 
66

assistance and other support services, as necessary, such as care coordination, psychiatric 

rehabilitation, employment services, assertive community treatment, and home health 

care. As a result of the P&A’s intervention, thousands of people with mental illness are

leading more integrated lives in the community, including living in their own homes and 

using services available to all people living in those communities.

D. Interventions on Behalf of Groups of PAIMI-eligible Individuals

The majority of P&A systems advocated on behalf of groups of PAIMI-eligible individuals.

These types of activities were not directed toward individuals, but for the resolution of a 

range of systemic issues affecting specific groups or larger populations throughout a state.

Some systemic advocacy activities included legal actions to protect the rights, health and 

safety of vulnerable facility residents (See, C. Class Action). Sometimes individual 

complaints resulted in group advocacy. Generally, P&A non-case-directed advocacy 

activities focused on implementing changes in administrative policy, procedures, or 

practices in state agencies, residential treatment facilities, and other service providers.

Activities reported under the Legislative and Regulatory Advocacy section are limited to 

providing technical assistance, education, and awareness about current statutes and 

regulations regarding the rights and protection of individuals with SMI or SED and do not 

include, strictly prohibited activities such as the inappropriate use of federal dollars to 

influence legislation or any actions by federal or state governments described in Section 

503 of Title V, in Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and specific 

prohibitions against lobbying in the PAIMI regulations.

47

Non-Litigation Advocacy FY 2013 FY 2014

Number of events 568 450

Total number of individuals impacted 16,659,893 14,930,424

Legislative & Regulatory Advocacy FY 2013 FY 2014

Number of events 518 291

Total Number of Individuals Impacted 14,987,319 10,349,454

[See, Appendix Table 10]

Case Example from FY 2013

WASHINGTON

The P&A monitored and advocated for prisoners with mental illness whom had been 

placed in segregated units for prolonged periods of time. In collaboration with the 

Department of Corrections (DOC), the P&A identified and developed plans for inmates with 

disabilities. P&A intervention resulted in the provision of mental health screening for 

 

47 42 CFR Part 51. Subpart A
67

inmates, changes by DOC that limited the use of restraints and segregation on inmates, 

increased involvement of clinicians when restraints and segregation were used, provided 

inmates with additional opportunities to interact with others in otherwise segregated units 

via group therapy sessions, and ended the DOC’s practice of punishing inmates for selfharm behavior.

Case Example from FY 2014

IOWA

The P&A investigated the restraint and Taser use on an inmate with mental illness, while 

jail staff was trying to change the inmate’s clothing. The P&A’s ultimate goal was to have a 

systemic policy change on use of electronic control devices (ECD). As a result of P&A 

intervention, the jail agreed to a prohibition of ECD use on individuals with any known or 

apparent mental or physical disability, absent any threats to safety or attempts to flee or 

escape. Jail authorities agreed to have mental health consults prior to any use of ECD on a 

person with mental illness. Staff training includes scenario-based exercises on when to use 

ECD versus training on firing the weapon itself. The jail also agreed and created a new use 

of force report for any ECD deployment that outlines what alternate forms of force were 

considered first and preliminary steps taken prior to discharging the ECD.

E. Public Education, Training, and Awareness Activities

Each state P&A system received requests for information and referral services from its 

constituents via telephone, e-mail, letter, face-to-face, and walk-in visits. The systems also 

provided information by conducting public education, training, and activities. Many state 

PAIMI Programs met with and provided civil rights informational training to consumers, 

stakeholders, and advocacy groups. Other P&A systems conducted mental health law 

classes for attorneys, graduate students, current and former recipients of mental health 

services, and mental health service professionals. The P&A system provided information to 

the public by various means including the media, newspapers, radio/television public 

service announcements, agency newsletters, websites, publications, investigative reports, 

and list serves. Some P&A systems within sparsely populated states or with large rural 

populations used technology to provide information through webcams, videoconferences, 

teleconferences, webinars, Facebook, and Skype. PAIMI Program public education, training, 

and awareness activities included:

Educational or Training Activities FY 2013 FY 2014

Information and Referral Requests 32,376 32,798

Public Awareness Events 1,975 2,300

Number of individuals receiving public 

awareness information 2,744,200 1,786,806
68

Number of education/training activities 

undertaken 1,741 1,903

Total number of individuals trained 80,383 82,246

[See, Appendix, Table 11]

Case Examples from FY 2013

ARIZONA

The P&A conducted nine trainings and 16 presentations for a total of 25 events focused on 

increasing self-advocacy among PAIMI-eligible individuals and their family members.

Training was conducted during the Hopi Nation Special Needs Conference held on the 

Indian reservation in Keams Canyon, in Eastern Arizona. The P&A also sponsored an 

informational booth during the conference, attended by 65 individuals and family 

members. The majority of attendees were from the Hopi Tribe, an underserved community 

in Eastern Arizona. 

MINNESOTA

The P&A provided 36 presentations on mental health issues to 1,600 participants. The P&A 

also delivered 10 presentations for parents of PAIMI-eligible special education students.

Three presentations provided information on issues facing clients with diminished 

capacity. PAIMI staff also participated in 13 outreach events, attended by 3,890 individuals 

who received information on the rights of individuals with mental illness and P&A’s 

services. An estimated 12,000 radio listeners also received PAIMI information through the 

P&A’s participation in three radio broadcasts. 

VIRGINIA

The P&A collaborated with representatives from the University of Virginia Institute of Law, 

Psychiatry, and Public Policy, Virginia Organization of Consumers Asserting Leadership 

(VOCAL), Mental Health America of Virginia, and Department of Behavioral Health and 

Developmental Services to complete a statewide training curriculum drafted in FY 2012 for 

Advanced Directive Peer Facilitators. The training is entitled “How to Decide Who Decides 

When I Can’t Decide”. This curriculum incorporates basic advance directive training and a 

comprehensive facilitator training, which includes video vignettes, a final exam, and an 

observation protocol.

Case Examples from FY 2014 

NORTH CAROLINA

The P&A used social media to inform people with mental illness about their rights and P&A 

services. The P&A operates a Facebook page with 2,376 likes, posting seven to 10 status 

updates weekly. The P&A Executive Director and the P&A, also have twitter accounts.
69

Additionally, regular email alerts are sent to a list of 3,025 people and the P&A publishes a 

quarterly newsletter including an annual report to approximately 5,000 addresses. 

TENNESSEE

The P&A conducted 27 outreaches directly to members of ethnic minorities, including 

refugee populations. The specific focus of these outreaches was increasing visibility in the 

upper East region of Tennessee. These activities were complemented by ongoing 

collaborations with partner organizations and included radio interviews and systemic 

advocacy to address specific language barriers. As a result, service providers that work 

with immigrant and refugee communities have a better understanding of P&A services 

including resources available to persons with disabilities. These relationships also help the 

Tennessee P&A to connect immigrant/refugee clients to community services and supports 

when they fall outside the agency’s areas of work.

F. Accomplishments, Impediments, and Unmet Advocacy Needs

1. Accomplishments

P&A system intervention improved the quality of life for individuals with mental illness 

and resulted in systemic changes. Examples of these accomplishments included:

Case Examples from FY 2013

KENTUCKY

The P&A signed an interim settlement agreement with the Cabinet for Health and Family 

Services to provide community supports and services for eligible individuals with serious 

mental illness who have been residing in a personal care home or at risk of residing in a 

personal care home. The agreement came after five-years of work and the release of the 

2012 report entitled “Home or Institution: Personal Care Homes in Kentucky.” The report 

concluded the state was violating civil rights under Olmstead and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act by placing their wards in these facilities, financially supplementing these 

facilities, and not creating community supports to serve individuals with severe mental 

illness.

GUAM

The P&A focused on systemic change in how services were provided to minors diagnosed 

with significant emotional impairments. The P&A along with the Guam Superior Court and 

legislature, ensured that “I Famagu’on-ta”, the island’s system of care provider, develop and 

provide services for minors, especially those placed in residential treatment facilities. P&A 

efforts resulted in the availability of more island residential mental health treatment 

services and the subsequent return home of minors previously treated off island.

MICHIGAN

The P&A reached a settlement in the case of Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services v. 

Caruso regarding the treatment of inmates with mental illness. This case increased state 

identification of inmates with serious mental illness from eight to approximately 20 
70

percent, provided training to more than 9,000 correctional facility staff regarding how to 

identify mental illness, and increased annual funding for mental health services. P&A 

intervention facilitated the processing of inmates’ request for, and access to, mental health 

services.

Case Examples from FY 2014

MASSACHUSETTS

The P&A conducted an investigation into the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion in 

public schools. During this fiscal year, after meeting with many parent groups, the P&A was 

able to identify serious misuses and gaps in the existing regulations that allowed for abuse 

and neglect in the form of restraint and seclusion. The P&A met with staff of the governor’s 

office and the secretary of education’s office to discuss changes needed to the current 

restraint and seclusion regulations. The P&A also initiated an investigation of the 

Springfield Public Schools practice of segregating children with behavioral issues and 

serious mental illness into separate school buildings that promoted inappropriate use of 

restraint and seclusion.

MICHIGAN

The P&A investigated and filed subsequent complaints against health care professionals 

working in nursing homes with residents suffering from mental illness.

Suspensions/probations, sanctions, fines, and mandated education are noteworthy 

accomplishments within the nursing homes. With extensive limitations on existing 

background check requirements, the P&A believes these investigative results are crucial to 

reducing the amount of abuse and neglect occurring in nursing care facilities throughout 

Michigan.

2. Impediments & Unmet Needs

Case Examples from FY 2013 

ILLINOIS

PAIMI mandates P&A’s investigate deaths of people with mental illness as a result of 

restraint and seclusion; however, those efforts were impeded because there was no 

centralized system for reporting restraint and seclusion deaths occurring in all settings. 

WYOMING

Wyoming encompasses 97,914 square miles. The population of Wyoming causes it to be 

classified as a minimum allotment state. The reduced income resulting from this 

classification affects the number of staff and other resources available to provide advocacy 

and other assistance across the state.

Case Examples from FY 2014

LOUISIANA

The needs of people with mental illness in Louisiana continued to increase, as the state 

further restricted access to services and treatment, especially for people with the most 
71

significant mental illnesses. These needs were diverse, from problems in special education, 

to the lack of home and community-based services, to the increasing numbers of people 

with mental illness in jails and prisons. While these needs have increased, the P&A’s 

resources had not, which meant the management team and staff were regularly forced to 

make difficult decisions about our priorities. 

RHODE ISLAND

The P&A continued to advocate for the Director of the State Department of Behavioral 

Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals to sign a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) regarding its access authority. While the P&A has been able to access 

records, the lack of an MOU impedes its ability to access staff.

COLORADO

Some of the investigations conducted by the P&A require expert opinions on issues such as 

abuse, neglect, causation, medical and psychiatric diagnoses, and whether or not a 

placement for an institutionalized client in a least restrictive setting. The lack of PAIMI 

resources made it impossible to secure an expert’s opinion all the time.

Governance

1. The Governing Authority

The DD Act of 1975,

48 which created the state P&A systems, and the PAIMI Act,49 mandated 

that private, non-profit entities have a multimember governing authority (the Board) to 

oversee the system.

50 Each Board is responsible for the planning, designing, implementing, 

and functioning of its system.

51 The Board must work jointly with its PAIMI Advisory 

Council (PAC)52 and establish policies and procedures for the selection of its members.

53

The DD Act included provisions for the Board terms of appointment, size, and composition. 

The DD Act required that:

• Board members be selected according to policies and procedures of the system; 

• The Board include individuals who broadly represent or are knowledgeable of the 

needs of individuals served by the system; 

 

48 42 U.S.C. 15043 (a), amended in 2000

49 42 U.S.C. 10805(c)

50 42 U.S.C. 15044

51 42 U.S.C. 10805(c) (2) (A)

52 42 U.S.C. 10805(c) (2) (B)

53 42 U.S.C. 10805(c) (1) (B)
72

• The Board must make continuing efforts to ensure that its members represent racial 

and ethnic minorities.

54

• The majority of Board members include individuals with disabilities who are 

current or former recipients of disability services, their family members, guardians, 

authorized representatives and advocates; 

• The system set term limits to ensure rotating membership on the board; and 

• Board vacancies be filled within 60 days.

55

As of September 30, 2014, there were 50 private, non-profit P&A systems. Unlike private, 

non-profit P&A systems, state-operated P&A systems may have a governing authority, but 

are not required to do so.

The PAIMI Act and regulation also require the Advisory Council Chair, who must be a 

current or former recipient of mental health services or a family member, sit on the 

governing Board of private, non-profit P&A systems.

2. The PAIMI Advisory Council

Each state P&A system is mandated to establish a PAIMI Advisory Council (PAC)56 to advise 

the system on policies and priorities to be carried out in protecting and advocating for the 

rights of individuals with mental illness.

57 The composition of the PAC is also mandated.58

The Advisory Council chair must be a current or former mental health recipient or a family 

member.

59

Each PAC is required to provide independent advice and recommendations to its state P&A 

system, to work jointly with the governing authority in the development of policies and 

priorities, and to submit a section of the system’s annual report.

60 Council terms of 

appointment must be staggered and of reasonable duration. The size of the PAC varies by 

state, but at least 60 percent of Council members must be current or former recipients of 

mental health services or their family members. The Council must meet at least three times 

each calendar year, include ethnic and racial minorities, and receive information related to 

its corresponding P&A system’s budget, staff, current program policies, priorities and 

performance outcomes.

61

 

54 respectively at, 42 U.S.C. 10805(a) (6) (C) and 42 CFR 51.22(b) and (c)

55 respectively, at 42 U.S.C. 15044 (a) (1) (A), (B) (i), (ii) and (C) (3) and (4)

56 PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10805(a) (6) (C)

57 at 42 U.S.C. 10805 (a) (6) (A)

58 PAIMI Act at 42 U.S.C. 10805(a) (6) (B)

59 42 U.S.C. 10805(a) (6) (C) and the PAIMI Rules at 42 CFR at 51.23(b) (2)

60 PAIMI Rules at 42 CFR 51.23 (a) (1) - (3)

61 PAIMI Rules at 42 CFR 51.23(b) (2), (3) and (c)
73

The PAC is mandated to provide the governing board with advice and recommendations on 

the annual PAIMI programmatic activities and priorities to be funded in a FY. The PAIMI 

Act requires that the PAC Chair sit on the governing board of private, non-profit state P&A 

systems;62 however, any advisory council member may serve on the governing board.

63

By January 1 of each year, each P&A system is required to submit an annual PPR to the HHS 

Secretary.

64 The Advisory Council is also required to submit a section of that annual PPR as 

mandated by the PAIMI Act65 and the PAIMI regulation.

66

The Council’s report must:

• Describe its membership and its PAIMI program activities;

• Explain its relationship to the P&A governing board of the previous calendar 

year;

• Independently assess the P&A system’s PAIMI Program; and

• Include whether the program accomplished its priorities, goals, and objectives 

for the previous FY. 

In addition to attending meetings, PAC members participated in numerous activities 

sponsored or endorsed by the PAIMI Program (e.g., attending in- and out-of-state trainings, 

serving on P&A governing board committees, engaging in systemic advocacy; and 

participating in special projects).

Training and Technical Assistance

SAMHSA provided training and technical assistance (T/TA) to the state P&A systems 

through an interagency agreement (IAA) administered by the AIDD. SAMHSA supports the 

IAA with funds specifically set-aside for T/TA and limited to a maximum of two percent of 

the annual PAIMI Program appropriation. The Rehabilitation Services Administration 

(RSA), within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department 

of Education, administers the Protection and Advocacy for Individual Rights Program, the 

Client Assistance Program, and the Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology 

Program. RSA has a separate IAA with AIDD. This consolidation of federal P&A program 

set-aside funds maximizes each agency’s limited resource and contributes to a federal 

partnership among the three agencies that fosters cooperation, information sharing, 

strategic planning, coordination, and integration of P&A system activities.

The Training Advocacy and Support Center (TASC) of the National Disability Rights 

Network was the contractor selected by the AIDD to serve the P&A systems. Under the 

 

62 42 U.S.C. 10805 (a) (6) (A), 42 CFR at 51.22 (b) (3)

63 42 CFR at 51.22(d)

64 42 U.S.C. 10805 (a) (7)

65 42 U.S.C. 10824

66 42 CFR 51.8
74

contract, TASC is responsible for T/TA various tasks, including both general and agency 

specific tasks (e.g., the annual PAIMI Advisory Council training). TASC activities under FYs 

2013 and 2014 contract included the following topics:

• Investigation protocols for incidents of abuse and neglect cases involving deaths; 

• Seclusion and restraint; 

• Community integration (Olmstead); 

• Medicaid funding; 

• Consumer self-advocacy; 

• Role of PACs; 

• Access to jails, prisons, and juvenile detention facilities; 

• Housing; and 

• Outreach strategies for unserved and underserved populations including 

members of ethnic and racial minorities, and individuals in urban or rural 

settings, prisons, jails, or detention centers.

TASC also assisted P&A systems prepare legal briefs when their PAIMI Act investigative 

and access authority were challenged.

Under the contract, TASC prepared three publications: the TASC Update (monthly), 

LegalEase (monthly), and the P&A News (quarterly). Each publication was reviewed and 

edited by the federal P&A TA partners (SAMHSA, AIDD, and RSA) before AIDD approved 

their distribution to the state P&A systems.

Under the contract, TASC staff:

• Maintained a website accessible to the public and a webpage accessible only to 

the federal partners and the state P&A systems; 

• Developed model guidelines, training manuals, and legal advocacy materials, 

including LegalEase (monthly) and Case Dockets;

• Analyzed public policy;

• Established relationships with state P&A system staff;

• Served as liaison to the state P&A system staff;

• Facilitated information exchanges and requests for assistance from the P&A 

system staff; 

• Subcontracted with national legal organizations, including the Bazelon Center 

for Mental Health Law, the Center for Public Representation, and other legal 

experts for P&A system consultation services; 

• Promoted the use of the Protection and Advocacy Standards, which were 

developed in 2009;
75

• Identified and disseminated samples of model P&A system policies and 

procedures;

• Developed P&A system self-assessment procedures; and 

• Planned and conducted training on current disability, legal, and advocacy issues 

including the Annual Conference, the P&A executive director, and fiscal 

management training. 

Through the contract, SAMHSA assists P&A’s to improve performance (e.g., legal advocacy 

services to include individual and systems advocacy), operations, and outcomes; 

maintaining statutory compliance, support P&A’s as leaders and catalysts of systems 

change, capacity building and advocacy at the national, state/territory, and local levels.

Conclusion

This report offers examples of successful implementation of statutorily mandated activities 

related to the PAIMI program. PAIMI grantees worked tirelessly to protect and advocate for 

the rights of individuals with significant (serious) mental illness (adults) and significant 

(severe) emotional impairments (children and youth), residing in public and private care 

and treatment facilities who are at risk for, or in danger of abuse, neglect, and rights 

violations by using administrative, legal, systemic or other appropriate remedies on their 

behalf. PAIMI grantees successfully investigated reports of abuse, particularly incidents 

involving serious injuries and deaths related to the inappropriate use of seclusion and 

restraint; and ensure enforcement of the United States Constitution, federal laws and 

regulations, and state statutes.

Through the PAIMI program, systemic changes were implemented in a variety of settings, 

which ultimately improved treatment, support and services for those with SMI and SED.

The PAIMI grantees assisted states/territories in making systemic changes, change or 

improve practices, and help implement best practices. Through these and other efforts, 

PAIMI program assisted individuals and families with better treatment, decrease in abuse 

or neglect, protected rights of individuals, expanded employment and educational 

opportunities, and promote access to community living. 
76

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
77

DATA TABLES: FISCAL YEARS 2013 AND 2014

Table 1a – State PAIMI Appropriations FY 2013

Table 1b – State PAIMI Appropriations FY 2014

Table 2a – Age and Gender FY 2013

Table 2b – Age and Gender FY 2014

Table 3a – Ethnicity and Race FY 2013

Table 3b – Ethnicity and Race FY 2014

Table 4a – Living Arrangements FY 2013

Table 4b – Living Arrangements FY 2014

Table 5a – Complaints Involving Abuse FY 2013

Table 5b – Complaints Involving Abuse FY 2014

Table 6a – Complaints Involving Neglect FY 2013

Table 6b – Complaints Involving Neglect FY 2014

Table 7a – Complaints Involving Rights Violations FY 2013

Table 7b – Complaints Involving Rights Violations FY 2014

Table 8a – Death Investigations FY 2013

Table 8b – Death Investigations FY 2014

Table 9a – Analysis of Alleged Abuse FY 2013

Table 9b – Analysis of Alleged Abuse FY 2014

Table 10a – Analysis of Alleged Neglect FY 2013

Table 10b – Analysis of Alleged Neglect FY 2014

Table 11a – Analysis of Alleged Rights Violations FY 2013

Table 11b – Analysis of Alleged Rights Violations FY 2014

Table 12a – Intervention Strategies FY 2013

Table 12b – Intervention Strategies FY 2014

Table 13a – Non-Case Directed Services FY 2013

Table 13b – Non-Case Directed Services FY 2014

Table 14a – Information Referral/Public Education/Awareness & Training Activities

FY 2013

Table 14b – Information Referral/Public Education/Awareness & Training Activities 

FY 2014
78

Table 1a – State PAIMI Appropriations FY 2013

State

FY 2013

Final

Alabama $431,790

Alaska $406,700

Arizona $569,438

Arkansas $406,700

California $2,986,452

Colorado $406,700

Connecticut $406,700

Delaware $406,700

District of Columbia $406,700

Florida $1,588,303

Georgia $859,095

Hawaii $406,700

Idaho $406,700

Illinois $1,032,984

Indiana $580,825

Iowa $406,700

Kansas $406,700

Kentucky $406,700

Louisiana $406,700

Maine $406,700

Maryland $433,563

Massachusetts $481,952

Michigan $875,131

Minnesota $423,367

Mississippi $406,700

Missouri $514,052

Montana $406,700

Nebraska $406,700

Nevada $406,700

New Hampshire $406,700

New Jersey $647,643

New Mexico $406,700

New York $1,461,310

North Carolina $843,487

North Dakota $406,700

Ohio $999,941

Oklahoma $406,700

Oregon $406,700

Pennsylvania $1,039,800
79

State

FY 2013

Final

Rhode Island $406,700

South Carolina $425,627

South Dakota $406,700

Tennessee $560,968

Texas $2,143,549

Utah $406,700

Vermont $406,700

Virginia $630,154

Washington $539,338

West Virginia $406,700

Wisconsin $479,982

Wyoming $406,700

Puerto Rico $545,628

American Samoa $217,900

Guam $217,900

American Indian $217,900

Northern Marianas $217,900

Virgin Islands $217,900

To State P&A Systems $33,571,479

Technical Assistance Set- $685,132

Total Annual PAIMI $34,342,895
80

Table 1b – State PAIMI Appropriations FY 2014

State FY 2014

Final

Alabama $452,480

Alaska $428,000

Arizona $609,040

Arkansas $428,000

California $3,169,574

Colorado $428,381

Connecticut $428,000

Delaware $428,000

District of Columbia $428,000

Florida $1,680,238

Georgia $909,612

Hawaii $428,000

Idaho $428,000

Illinois $1,081,319

Indiana $606,534

Iowa $428,000

Kansas $428,000

Kentucky $428,000

Louisiana $428,000

Maine $428,000

Maryland $457,637

Massachusetts $505,220

Michigan $911,471

Minnesota $445,048

Mississippi $428,000

Missouri $541,644

Montana $428,000

Nebraska $428,000

Nevada $428,000

New Hampshire $428,000

New Jersey $682,281

New Mexico $428,000

New York $1,522,198

North Carolina $894,253

North Dakota $428,000

Ohio $1,042,233

Oklahoma $428,000

Oregon $428,000

Pennsylvania $1,088,023
81

State FY 2014

Final

Rhode Island $428,000

South Carolina $451,380

South Dakota $428,000

Tennessee $588,392

Texas $2,249,157

Utah $428,000

Vermont $428,000

Virginia $663,461

Washington $572,901

West Virginia $428,000

Wisconsin $503,977

Wyoming $428,000

Puerto Rico $566,333

American Samoa $229,300

Guam $229,300

American Indian $229,300

Northern Marianas $229,300

Virgin Islands $229,300

To State P&A Systems $35,325,287

Technical Assistance Set- $720,924

Total Annual PAIMI $36,146,000
82

Table 2a – Age and Gender

FY 2013

State Client Served

Age

Total Served

Gender

0-4 5-12 13-18 19-25 26-64 65+ Male Female

AK 116 0 2 10 8 90 6 116 56 60

AL 452 0 16 130 31 259 16 452 288 164

AR 100 0 7 13 8 66 6 100 58 42

AS 38 0 0 2 3 33 0 38 35 3

AZ 280 0 8 23 14 227 8 280 145 135

CA 1,210 0 6 41 73 967 123 1,210 633 577

CO 129 0 5 9 25 85 5 129 87 42

CT 140 0 6 9 17 101 7 140 93 47

DC 109 0 0 8 12 80 9 109 56 53

DE 164 0 10 14 5 130 5 164 85 79

FL 245 0 9 45 20 147 24 245 148 97

GA 178 0 1 15 12 141 9 178 102 76

GU 24 0 1 5 3 15 0 24 12 12

HI 238 1 28 44 10 147 8 238 155 83

IA 84 0 6 18 10 46 4 84 42 42

ID 152 3 4 16 12 110 7 149 73 76

IL 731 0 77 193 47 385 29 734 442 292

IN 134 0 4 6 9 108 7 134 42 92

KS 558 1 26 41 37 423 30 558 305 253

KY 161 1 26 44 14 69 7 161 102 59

LA 104 0 8 22 6 65 3 104 65 39

MA 152 1 15 22 12 95 7 152 83 69

MD 159 0 3 28 19 102 7 159 80 79

ME 247 0 34 37 13 155 8 247 136 111

MI 107 0 5 8 7 63 24 107 66 41

MN 234 0 21 27 20 162 4 234 128 106
83

Table 2a – Age and Gender

FY 2013 cont’d.

State Client Served

Age

Total Served

Gender

0-4 5-12 13-18 19-25 26-64 65+ Male Female

MO 273 0 4 13 29 217 10 273 175 98

MP 23 0 2 1 5 13 2 23 11 12

MS 103 0 12 57 7 25 2 103 65 38

MT 187 0 11 73 16 85 2 187 123 64

NA 53 3 16 9 5 20 0 53 35 18

NC 312 0 26 112 27 137 10 313 218 95

ND 173 1 42 46 9 67 8 172 71 101

NE 80 0 0 1 5 64 10 80 34 46

NH 198 0 17 22 14 132 13 198 93 105

NJ 338 0 20 40 23 221 34 338 209 129

NM 125 0 2 9 11 93 10 125 82 43

NV 80 0 3 3 12 61 1 80 41 39

NY 181 0 10 15 14 134 8 181 104 77

OH 822 1 40 66 69 596 50 822 455 367

OK 989 2 93 106 56 706 26 989 507 482

OR 73 0 1 2 7 59 4 73 47 26

PA 858 6 120 98 86 499 49 858 521 337

PR 137 0 11 27 12 86 1 137 74 63

RI 317 0 14 34 30 200 39 317 175 142

SC 149 1 14 71 11 49 3 149 109 40

SD 151 0 23 24 15 80 9 151 85 66

TN 78 0 9 26 6 35 2 78 55 23

TX 1,269 2 163 353 125 587 39 1,269 836 433

UT 435 1 9 24 43 338 20 435 206 229

VA 134 0 2 20 10 94 8 134 76 58

VI 38 0 2 6 8 20 2 38 20 18

VT 134 0 0 8 9 111 6 134 79 55

WA 453 0 5 21 25 306 96 453 290 163

WI 164 0 12 23 22 103 4 164 100 64

WV 90 0 6 8 4 67 5 90 53 37

WY 29 0 0 2 3 22 2 29 15 14

Total 14,692 24 1,017 2,150 1,165 9,498 838 14,692 8,481 6,211

Percentages 100% 0.16% 6.92% 14.63% 7.93% 64.65% 5.70% 100% 57.73% 42.27%
84

Table 2b – Age and Gender

FY 2014

State Client Served

Age

Total Served

Gender

0-4 5-12 13-18 19-25 26-64 65+ Male Female

AK 109 0 2 8 10 83 6 109 58 51

AL 265 0 16 79 20 136 14 265 177 88

AR 75 0 8 23 6 36 2 75 22 53

AS 25 0 0 3 1 21 0 25 20 5

AZ 267 0 4 9 21 227 6 267 115 152

CA 1,061 1 21 50 84 799 106 1,061 549 512

CO 64 0 1 2 4 54 3 64 51 13

CT 142 0 11 19 15 90 7 142 89 53

DC 118 0 0 10 9 81 18 118 61 57

DE 145 0 6 12 13 111 3 145 77 68

FL 374 0 7 37 28 278 24 374 242 132

GA 148 0 2 9 14 112 11 148 96 52

GU 30 0 0 8 4 18 0 30 17 13

HI 272 0 46 75 12 129 10 272 182 90

IA 62 0 7 14 7 31 3 62 28 34

ID 110 0 4 6 8 83 9 110 52 58

IL 380 1 57 59 29 213 21 380 216 164

IN 155 0 10 15 7 115 8 155 103 52

KS 559 1 49 39 27 416 27 559 271 288

KY 204 0 18 59 21 97 9 204 143 61

LA 87 0 6 28 4 45 4 87 54 33

MA 216 0 8 28 17 150 13 216 127 89

MD 161 0 2 17 12 120 10 161 92 69

ME 231 0 29 40 11 138 13 231 117 114

MI 105 0 1 11 5 64 24 105 58 47

MN 181 0 23 20 12 122 4 181 98 83

MO 206 0 2 7 16 174 7 206 125 81

MP 21 0 1 4 3 12 1 21 9 12

MS 123 0 19 76 6 22 0 123 83 40
85

MT 225 0 13 42 24 143 3 225 161 64

NA 62 0 14 16 5 27 0 62 46 16

State Client Served

Age

Total Served

Gender

0-4 5-12 13-18 19-25 26-64 65+ Male Female

NC 280 0 15 49 34 167 15 280 184 96

ND 170 0 32 40 16 71 11 170 103 67

NE 74 0 0 1 7 60 6 74 31 43

NH 426 0 9 29 35 333 20 426 192 234

NJ 321 0 18 41 23 213 26 321 184 137

NM 117 0 6 28 5 74 4 117 73 44

NV 41 0 3 4 4 30 0 41 22 19

NY 411 1 23 44 30 298 15 411 222 189

OH 890 6 28 39 51 719 47 890 446 444

OK 907 2 92 93 53 644 23 907 436 471

OR 47 0 1 2 6 35 3 47 31 16

PA 863 1 96 105 60 562 39 863 526 337

PR 168 0 13 17 19 113 6 168 79 89

RI 203 0 14 14 32 120 23 203 97 106

SC 123 0 10 51 15 44 3 123 81 42

SD 180 0 21 31 14 104 10 180 103 77

TN 106 0 16 30 7 51 2 106 56 50

TX 1,251 4 164 361 103 588 31 1,251 807 444

UT 257 0 6 11 18 210 12 257 121 136

VA 138 0 2 16 17 92 11 138 72 66

VI 25 0 2 2 1 20 0 25 9 16

VT 109 0 0 11 8 76 14 109 66 43

WA 404 0 1 18 36 286 63 404 240 164

WI 134 0 13 21 13 84 3 134 85 49

WV 66 0 6 7 6 42 5 66 28 38

WY 42 0 2 2 3 30 5 42 16 26

Total 13,936 17 980 1,892 1,071 9,213 763 13,936 7,849 6,087

Percentages 100% 0.12% 7.03% 13.58% 7.69% 66.11% 5.48% 100.00% 56.32% 43.68%
86
87

Table 3a – Ethnicity and Race

FY 2013

State Clients Served Asian

Black/

African 

American

White/

Caucasian Multiple Races

Native 

American/

Alaska Native

Native Hawaiian

or Pacific 

Islander

Ethnicity 

Total

Hispanic/

Latino

Non-Hispanic/

Latino

AK 113 1 11 78 1 22 0 116 2 114

AL 452 3 216 230 0 2 1 452 5 447

AR 95 0 25 69 0 1 0 98 0 98

AS 38 0 0 0 2 0 36 0 0 0

AZ 246 0 31 210 0 4 1 280 34 246

CA 1,210 47 208 858 76 12 9 1,180 172 1,008

CO 82 2 7 69 2 1 1 129 25 104

CT 117 1 29 86 0 1 0 23 23 0

DC 109 3 82 10 12 2 0 109 6 103

DE 155 1 45 108 0 1 0 164 9 155

FL 245 3 50 178 13 1 0 245 20 225

GA 178 4 100 70 2 2 0 178 3 175

GU 24 3 2 0 0 0 19 24 0 24

HI 238 38 9 89 0 1 101 238 15 223

IA 84 0 4 74 6 0 0 84 3 81

ID 149 1 2 139 2 4 1 149 8 141

IL 712 17 243 398 38 16 0 734 81 653

IN 133 0 31 101 0 1 0 133 1 132

KS 558 1 60 455 28 13 1 558 22 536

KY 161 0 40 120 1 0 0 161 2 159

LA 104 1 56 46 0 1 0 104 3 101

MA 135 2 25 106 0 1 1 154 20 134

MD 159 2 86 59 12 0 0 159 6 153

ME 237 1 4 225 2 5 0 247 1 246

MI 102 1 29 70 1 1 0 107 1 106

MN 229 7 49 153 2 18 0 234 5 229

MO 271 0 78 189 0 4 0 273 2 271
88

Table 3a – Ethnicity and Race

FY 2013 cont’d.

State Clients Served Asian

Black/

African 

American

White/

Caucasian Multiple Races

Native 

American/

Alaska Native

Native 

Hawaiian

or Pacific 

Islander

Ethnicity 

Total

Hispanic/

Latino

Non-Hispanic/

Latino

MP 24 3 0 4 0 0 17 23 0 23

MS 102 0 55 46 0 1 0 1 1 0

MT 184 0 0 164 0 20 0 3 3 0

NA 53 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0

NC 313 0 134 163 13 3 0 213 4 209

ND 180 2 9 133 4 32 0 172 6 166

NE 76 1 1 70 3 1 0 80 3 77

NH 194 6 5 182 0 1 0 198 4 194

NJ 338 3 82 243 9 1 0 338 35 303

NM 64 0 4 54 4 2 0 125 61 64

NV 71 1 6 62 0 2 0 80 9 71

NY 172 1 40 127 3 1 0 181 7 174

OH 805 12 230 555 6 2 0 8 8 0

OK 968 4 185 637 57 84 1 989 21 968

OR 53 0 8 40 1 4 0 5 5 0

PA 829 5 259 560 4 1 0 858 36 822

PR 137 0 0 0 137 0 0 137 136 1

RI 317 3 19 275 17 3 0 317 28 289

SC 145 2 63 75 5 0 0 149 2 147

SD 151 0 5 119 6 20 1 151 6 145

TN 78 0 19 57 2 0 0 78 4 74

TX 913 3 313 580 14 3 0 1,269 347 922

UT 434 3 8 413 5 4 1 435 36 399

VA 134 3 44 83 3 1 0 59 4 55

VI 38 0 32 3 2 1 0 38 11 27

VT 134 0 10 119 3 1 1 134 2 132

WA 442 9 53 318 40 13 9 442 21 421

WV 90 0 10 75 2 3 0 90 2 88
89

WY 29 1 0 26 0 2 0 29 1 28

Total 13,964 201 3,167 9,477 544 374 201 13,099 1,276 11,823

Percentages 100% 1% 23% 68% 4% 3% 1% 100% 10% 90%

State Clients Served Asian

Black/

African 

American

White/

Caucasian Multiple Races

Native 

American/

Alaska Native

Native 

Hawaiian

or Pacific 

Islander

Ethnicity 

Total

Hispanic/

Latino

Non-Hispanic/

Latino

AK 109 5 10 67 4 23 0 109 1 108

AL 265 1 122 141 1 0 0 265 1 264

AR 73 0 20 51 2 0 0 74 1 73

AS 25 0 0 0 2 0 23 0 0 0

AZ 223 1 24 183 8 7 0 267 44 223

CA 1,061 30 187 719 97 19 9 1,061 202 859

CO 64 3 28 31 0 1 1 64 9 55

CT 119 0 22 97 0 0 0 142 23 119

DC 118 1 96 16 5 0 0 118 5 113

DE 138 2 43 92 1 0 0 145 7 138

FL 351 4 90 250 7 0 0 374 23 351

GA 148 1 67 77 3 0 0 148 1 147

GU 30 8 0 1 0 0 21 30 0 30

HI 272 43 12 82 0 0 135 272 10 262

IA 57 1 2 48 4 2 0 62 3 59

ID 110 0 1 107 0 2 0 110 8 102

IL 362 8 135 205 11 3 0 380 40 340

IN 152 0 25 123 2 2 0 155 2 153

KS 530 3 48 433 31 15 0 559 29 530

KY 204 0 41 160 2 0 1 204 5 199

LA 87 0 47 39 1 0 0 87 1 86

MA 190 5 35 149 0 1 0 216 26 190

MD 161 4 95 56 5 1 0 161 11 150

ME 218 1 2 202 6 7 0 231 2 229

MI 103 0 34 67 0 2 0 105 2 103

MN 178 5 38 121 7 7 0 181 3 178
90

MO 206 0 49 155 0 2 0 206 1 205

MP 21 3 0 2 2 0 14 21 0 21

MS 123 1 75 47 0 0 0 123 0 123

MT 216 0 1 189 0 26 0 225 9 216

NA 62 0 0 0 0 62 0 62 0 62

Table 3b – Ethnicity and Race

FY 2014 cont’d.

State Clients Served Asian

Black/

African 

American

White/

Caucasian Multiple Races

Native 

American/

Alaska Native

Native 

Hawaiian

or Pacific 

Islander

Ethnicity 

Total

Hispanic/

Latino

Non-Hispanic/

Latino

NC 280 1 110 159 7 3 0 280 7 273

ND 174 0 9 124 2 38 1 171 6 165

NE 72 0 5 66 1 0 0 74 1 73

NH 417 8 7 391 7 4 0 426 9 417

NJ 321 4 81 235 0 1 0 321 40 281

NM 64 1 5 56 0 2 0 117 53 64

NV 35 0 6 28 0 0 1 41 6 35

NY 362 5 73 274 7 3 0 411 28 383

OH 880 5 228 560 85 2 0 11 11 0

OK 883 5 167 570 63 77 1 907 24 883

OR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 4 16

PA 631 2 211 416 2 0 0 863 31 832

PR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 0 168

RI 186 2 11 159 11 3 0 13 13 0

SC 121 0 59 58 3 1 0 123 2 121

SD 180 0 9 144 6 20 1 180 11 169

TN 106 0 28 74 4 0 0 106 2 104

TX 878 0 306 554 14 4 0 1,205 372 833

UT 237 1 5 224 1 4 2 257 14 243

VA 131 1 45 80 5 0 0 138 5 133

VI 22 0 18 2 1 1 0 25 3 22

VT 109 0 2 104 0 3 0 109 3 106
91

WA 329 10 47 238 18 15 1 402 19 383

WI 126 26 5 9 82 3 1 134 8 126

WV 63 1 6 56 0 0 0 66 3 63

WY 42 2 1 36 1 2 0 42 0 42

Total 12,625 204 2,793 8,527 521 368 212 12,767 1,144 11,623

Percentages 100% 2% 22% 68% 4% 3% 2% 100% 9% 91%
92

Table 4a– Living Arrangements

FY 2013

State

Clients ServedIndependently living in the community Parental or Family HomeCommunity Residential Home for Children/Youth 0-18 yearsAdult Community Residential HomeNon-medical Community-based for Children 0-18 yearsFoster CareNursing FacilitiesIntermediate CarePublic and Private General HospitalOther Health FacilityPsychiatric WardsPublic Institutional LivingPrivate Institutional LivingLegal/Jail DetentionState PrisonHomeless/ShelterFederal FacilityUnknown Other 

AK 116 51 151 1600000061440 1710

AL 452 27 687 95045 49000 86 79 300110

AR 100 22 162 241120101 17321700

AS 380 2600000000000 120000

AZ 280 170 39 1420110106 1022 22 1000

CA 1,210 608 172 10 3811 252 130 18 1936 39 21 6120

CO 1299 156 1500 13052 265 105 11160

CT 140 25 231 100073 320010 380000

DC 109 229000240007 31 2440510

DE 164 59 281 11023000 430814400

FL 245 78 3442138 11004 46 18 290700

GA 178 22 133 230070300 930 111200

GU 249 120000000003000000

HI 238 62 96 120020000 560010810

IA 84 19 18030032010 12 1952000

ID 149 66 35151021012 14420 1401

IL 734 184 2985 1800 75183 23 93384812

IN 134 10 10181010022 489 10 32000

KS 558 302 860 1501 59101 31 41512 1300

KY 1617 54 152534010 12 19 3350100

LA 1049 282601 112101 36060010

MA 152 24 38010030000 71902400

MD 159 21 13380010003 82 2120500

ME 247 90 733 2501600054 1430 2300

MI 107 13 150 1402 240216 21142200

MN 234 68 556 290 120 1090 13 17166200

MO 273 50 271 2310 383117 792 11 19 1000

MP 23 10 120000000010000000

MS 1038 59350000000 23320000

MT 187 18 14500100010 33 75 24 15001

NA 53 12 16720 11000002010200

NC 313 27 50210400001 71 1106 41000

ND 172 40 81051250003 17652500
93

Table 4a – Living Arrangements

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Clients ServedIndependently living in the community Parental or Family HomeCommunity Residential Home for Children/Youth 0-18 yearsAdult Community Residential HomeNon-medical Community-based for Children 0-18 yearsFoster CareNursing FacilitiesIntermediate CarePublic and Private General HospitalOther Health FacilityPsychiatric WardsPublic Institutional LivingPrivate Institutional LivingLegal/Jail DetentionState PrisonHomeless/ShelterFederal FacilityUnknown Other 

NE 80 12 1 13 2 0 0 5 0 0 20 1 18 8 0 0 0 0 0

NH 198 77 45 0 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 46 0 0 7 7 6 0 0

NJ 338 28 69 2 6 0 1 5 0 0 0 3 213 2 8 0 1 0 0

NM 125 9 6 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 85 0 9 12 0 0 0 0

NV 80 40 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 4 0 2 3 0 0

NY 181 103 30 1 20 0 0 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 8 5 2 0 0

OH 822 236 102 14 28 9 2 52 0 18 0 27 3 17 4 14 0 0

OK 989 532 289 13 2 0 13 18 0 16 0 6 20 3 35 20 22 0 0

OR 73 13 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 30 1 15 1 2 0 1 4

PA 858 231 164 1 14 62 6 37 1 6 9 142 5 0 19 150 10 1 0

PR 137 62 50 3 4 0 1 3 0 0 2 4 0 3 2 0 3 0 0

RI 317 74 86 2 22 0 0 68 0 7 2 22 12 7 4 2 8 1 0

SC 149 9 31 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 26 12 10 51 7 0 0 0

SD 151 26 42 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 67 3 1 4 2 0 0

TN 78 7 31 1 6 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 13 3 5 6 1 0 0

TX 1,269 149 395 15 11 18 46 16 0 9 12 386 29 6 154 5 18 0 0

UT 435 232 62 2 3 0 0 11 1 2 0 13 48 6 39 6 9 1 0

VA 134 15 14 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 84 12 1 0 1 0 0

VI 38 8 16 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 3 0 0

VT 134 31 2 1 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 24 4 15 0 37 6 3 0

WA 453 166 27 4 0 0 0 2 0 10 89 5 9 0 125 0 14 2 0

WI 164 51 35 2 7 0 1 3 1 1 1 16 6 1 2 33 4 0 0

WV 90 11 15 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 36 10 1 6 1 0 0

WY 29 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 2 0 0

Total 14,692 4,274 3,072 198 558 105 125 550 88 149 150 1,395 1,806 590 776 483 342 23 8

Percentages 100% 29% 21% 1% 4% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 1% 9% 12% 4% 5% 3% 2% 0% 0%
94

Table 4b – Living Arrangements

FY 2014

State

Clients ServedIndependently living in the community Parental or Family HomeCommunity Residential Home for Children/Youth 0-18 yearsAdult Community Residential HomeNon-medical Community-based for Children 0-18 yearsFoster CareNursing FacilitiesIntermediate CarePublic and Private General HospitalOther Health FacilityPsychiatric WardsPublic Institutional LivingPrivate Institutional LivingLegal/Jail DetentionState PrisonHomeless/ShelterFederal FacilityUnknown Other 

AL 265 24 60 3 39 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 48 30 52 0 0 1 0

AK 109 49 8 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 2 0 7 16 1 0

AS 25 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 14 0 0 0

AZ 267 175 28 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 15 2 5 13 12 0 0

AR 75 9 20 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 12 12 14 2 0 0 0

CA 1,061 552 159 7 41 10 15 48 5 0 0 36 21 19 41 51 32 24 0

CO 64 6 7 0 3 0 0 8 0 6 1 1 0 0 20 5 1 6 0

CT 142 30 33 1 13 0 1 8 0 29 0 0 5 0 20 0 2 0 0

DE 145 52 30 0 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 37 0 6 0 1 2 0 0

DC 118 32 9 0 1 1 1 6 0 0 0 9 28 17 4 0 9 1 0

FL 374 81 25 3 0 0 3 7 15 0 1 1 81 71 80 0 5 1 0

GA 148 19 28 3 15 0 0 7 0 1 8 0 56 0 5 1 5 0 0

GU 30 7 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0

HI 272 74 130 10 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 8 0 0

ID 110 54 13 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 20 6 2 0 6 0 0

IL 380 81 139 1 10 0 0 60 2 4 2 7 67 2 1 0 4 0 0

IN 155 17 24 2 7 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 55 13 6 24 2 0 0

IA 62 13 15 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 3 15 9 0 0 0 0

KS 559 311 104 1 9 0 0 48 3 0 4 37 21 3 2 2 14 0 0

KY 204 19 41 21 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 11 24 76 4 2 0 0 0

LA 87 11 31 3 3 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 20 1 3 0 0 0 0

ME 231 72 57 7 32 0 0 3 0 9 0 10 7 22 3 1 8 0 0

MD 161 24 5 2 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 93 14 4 0 5 0 0

MA 216 55 48 0 5 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 84 14 0 2 3 0 0

MI 105 13 12 3 19 0 2 20 0 2 0 5 16 3 9 1 0 0 0

MN 181 47 48 7 21 0 5 0 2 0 0 10 23 9 5 2 2 0 0

MS 123 3 55 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 52 4 4 0 0 0 0

MO 206 42 12 1 20 3 0 34 0 0 0 8 60 1 6 12 7 0 0

MT 225 15 15 1 7 0 3 1 0 0 4 1 31 44 45 58 0 0 0

NA 62 11 38 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
95

Table 4b – Living Arrangements

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Clients ServedIndependently living in the community Parental or Family HomeCommunity Residential Home for Children/Youth 0-18 yearsAdult Community Residential HomeNon-medical Community-based for Children 0-18 yearsFoster CareNursing FacilitiesIntermediate CarePublic and Private General HospitalOther Health FacilityPsychiatric WardsPublic Institutional LivingPrivate Institutional LivingLegal/Jail DetentionState PrisonHomeless/ShelterFederal FacilityUnknown Other 

NE 74 12 2 5 1 0 0 4 0 0 30 0 19 1 0 0 0 0 0

NV 41 17 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 6 0 2 2 0 0

NH 426 180 100 1 11 1 0 4 0 6 0 76 1 3 10 16 16 1 0

NJ 321 21 64 3 0 0 1 6 1 1 0 9 206 5 3 0 1 0 0

NM 117 18 10 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 76 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

NY 411 220 76 2 35 1 0 6 0 3 1 12 3 4 33 5 10 0 0

NC 280 23 38 3 2 33 1 2 0 0 0 4 61 35 6 71 0 1 0

ND 170 37 75 0 4 1 1 4 0 1 0 1 25 5 10 6 0 0 0

MP 21 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0

OH 890 324 85 9 41 3 0 57 0 7 3 23 72 2 25 8 15 1 0

OK 907 486 269 14 3 0 13 13 0 14 0 9 14 2 38 8 23 1 0

OR 47 11 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 22 0 0 1 0 1 0

PA 863 237 113 0 12 73 3 15 1 19 9 19 0 0 24 13 15 6 0

PR 168 85 49 3 7 0 2 0 0 0 2 7 2 1 1 1 4 4 0

RI 203 54 64 3 10 0 0 17 0 5 0 28 7 6 3 0 6 0 0

SC 123 9 20 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 22 17 42 9 0 0 0

SD 180 32 49 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 85 3 1 1 1 0 0

TN 106 21 40 4 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 13 1 10 3 2 0 0

TX 1,251 160 400 14 10 14 78 23 1 7 0 37 24 7 115 14 7 0 0

UT 2 138 27 1 2 0 0 9 0 1 0 17 32 5 24 0 1 0 0

VT 1 27 2 2 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 5 17 5 19 2 0 0

VI 25 12 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0

VA 1 12 6 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 94 12 3 0 2 0 0

WA 4 168 24 9 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 95 8 70 0 18 1 0

WV 66 10 13 0 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 23 4 2 4 0 1 0

WI 13 31 30 3 6 1 0 3 0 0 1 9 9 0 19 17 5 0 0

WY 42 4 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 29 0 0 0 2 0 0

Total 13,9 4,255 2,79 164 476 151 152 461 33 120 75 1,349 1,720 530 802 281 51 0

Percentages 100 31% 20% 1% 3% 1% 1% 3% 0% 1% 1% 10% 12% 4% 6% 4% 2% 0% 0%
96

Table 5a – Complaints Involving Abuse

FY 2013

State

Number of AbuseComplaints Closed

Inappropriate/Excessive Involuntary

Failure to provide appropriatemental health treatment

Complaints Concerning:

MedicationPhysicalRestraintChemical

Restraint

Mechanical RestraintSeclusionMedicationElectrical Convulsive TherapyAversive BehavioralTherapySterilizationFailure to provide

m ental

health treatmentPhysical Assault –SeriousinjuriesrelatedPhysical Assault –Non - Serious injuriesSexual assaultStaff Threats ofretaliation/assaultsCoercionFinancial ExploitationSuspicious deathOther

AK 7 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0

AL 87 4 14 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 24 6 15 7 4 4 1 4 0 0

AR 15 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 4 0 2 0 0

AS 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

AZ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

CA 148 22 8 2 1 0 7 0 0 0 32 6 2 21 8 6 9 18 6 0

CO 36 3 4 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 16 2 0 4 1 1 1 0 0 0

CT 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 2 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 0

DC 26 2 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 6 0 1 0 1 3 0

DE 39 1 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 5 3 0 0 0 0 13 0 0

FL 73 0 6 3 6 5 6 1 0 0 14 18 2 6 1 2 0 3 0 0

GA 42 6 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 5 3 6 2 0 0 0 9 0

GU 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0

HI 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 6 2 1 0 0 0 0

IA 23 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 2

ID 15 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 1

IL 133 17 14 9 3 4 8 1 0 0 24 9 1 10 9 11 1 11 1 0

IN 41 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 1 5 1 4 0 0 1 0

KS 43 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 8 2 1 15 1 2 1 5 1 0

KY 9 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

LA 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

MA 32 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 5 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0

MD 63 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 3 4 2 38 3 1 0 4 0

ME 48 1 4 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 29 3 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0

MI 17 1 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0

MN 29 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

MO 56 8 10 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 16 6 3 0 4 4 0 0 1 0

MP 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

MS 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0

MT 36 0 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 12 0 1 2 7 2 2 0 1 0

NA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

NC 70 0 6 1 0 2 8 0 0 0 32 1 0 2 0 14 1 3 0 0

ND 26 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 1 3 5 1 0
97

Table 5a – Complaints Involving Abuse

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Number of AbuseComplaints-Closed

Inappropriate/Excessive Involuntary

Failure to provide appropriate

mental health treatment

Complaints Concerning:

MedicationPhysicalRestraintChemical RestraintMechanical RestraintSeclusionMedicationElectrical Convulsive

Therapy

AversiveBehavioral

Therapy

SterilizationFailure to providemental health treatmentPhysical Assault -

SeriousinjuriesRelated

Physical Assault –Non - Serious InjuriesSexual AssaultStaff Threats of

retaliation/assaults

CoercionFinancial ExploitationSuspicious DeathOther

NE 25 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 5 9 0 0 1 0 0

NH 34 16 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0

NJ 116 12 4 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 17 14 2 24 2 6 0 0 0

NM 66 6 2 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 23 4 0 1 14 3 1 0 0

NV 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OH 175 16 14 0 5 5 4 0 0 0 48 6 7 9 27 16 5 7 6 0

OK 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 11 0 3 6 1 2 8 0 0

OR 20 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

PA 199 4 40 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 11 2 30 46 8 35 4 12 0 0

PR 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 0

RI 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SC 64 3 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 42 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0

SD 16 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0

TN 26 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 2 2 3 0 2 0 0

TX 130 6 16 1 2 2 0 0 0 25 4 17 6 4 6 0 11 0 0

UT 84 6 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 29 17 0 1 8 2 0 15 1 0

VA 23 1 7 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

VI 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VT 89 1 23 7 4 0 0 0 13 4 3 4 2 4 0 0 1 0

WA 161 10 17 1 0 1 0 2 0 53 21 3 14 3 4 2 6 2 0

WI 45 1 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 17 0 1 2 6 0 0 0 0

WV 20 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 5 0 3 1 1

WY 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Total 2,625 235 58 3 5 0 689 221 117 226 1 18 44 1 4

Percentages 100% 6.21% 8.95% 2.21 2.02 3.09 5.45 0.11 0.19 0.00% 26.25% 8.42% 4.46% 8.61% 6.59 6.93% 1.68 5.64 3.0 0.1
98

Table 5b – Complaints Involving Abuse

FY 2014

State

Number of AbuseComplaints Closed

Inappropriate/Excessive Involuntary

Failure to provide appropriatemental health treatment

Complaints Concerning:

MedicationPhysical RestraintChemicalRestraintMechanicalRestraintSeclusionMedicationElectrical

ConvulsiveTherapy

Aversive

BehavioralTherapy

SterilizationFailure to providemental health t reatmentPhysical Assault –SeriousinjuriesrelatedPhysical Assault –Non - SeriousinjuriesSexual AssaultStaff Threats ofretaliation/assaultsCoercionFinancial ExploitationSuspicious DeathOther

AK 18 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 2 0

AL 50 3 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 11 2 2 3 2 3 0 1 3 0

AR 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

AS 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

AZ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CA 92 13 13 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 3 7 11 8 2 7 7 0

CO 13 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0

CT 56 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 25 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

DC 23 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 2 1 0 3 3 0

DE 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

FL 144 13 13 6 2 6 5 2 0 0 15 32 2 20 6 4 7 0 0

GA 41 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 5 1 1 0 1 21 0

GU 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

HI 26 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 11 2 4 0 0 0 0

IA 18 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 1

ID 24 4 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 3 2 1 0 1 1 0

IL 55 6 4 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 8 14 0 2 0 7 0 8 0 0

IN 48 1 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 2 3 2 4 0 0 3 0

KS 25 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 3 3 2 1 4 1 0

KY 20 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 0

LA 11 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0

MA 44 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 21 4 0 3 0 6 0 4 0 0

MD 105 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 5 2 2 1 0 7 0

ME 33 0 6 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

MI 9 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0

MN 35 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 18 10 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

MO 41 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 18 8 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

MP 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

MS 18 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 11 0 0 0 0

MT 62 1 6 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 33 4 1 3 3 3 2 0 0 0

NA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

NC 75 0 5 1 1 0 4 1 0 0 48 3 1 2 1 2 2 4 0 0
99

Table 5b – Complaints Involving Abuse

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Number of AbuseComplaints Closed

Inappropriate/Excessive Involuntary

Failure to provide appropriatemental health treatment

Complaints Concerning:

MedicationPhysical RestraintChemicalrestraintMechanicalrestraintSeclusionMedicationElectrical

Convulsive

therapyAversive behavioraltherapySterilizationFailure to provide

mental

health t reatmentPhysical Assault –SeriousinjuriesrelatedPhysical Assault –Non - SeriousinjuriesSexual assaultStaff Threats of retaliationCoercionFinancial ExploitationSuspicious deathOther

ND 42 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 3 4 3 2 13 0 0

NE 21 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 3 3 0 0 1 4 0

NH 47 11 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 17 6 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0

NJ 102 26 2 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 4 9 3 21 0 0 0 16 0

NM 28 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 3 4 2 5 0 0 2 0

NV 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY 65 0 2 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 34 3 1 5 0 1 2 12 0 0

OH 210 31 22 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 50 25 4 18 2 7 4 1

OK 47 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0

OR 10 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1

PA 228 1 56 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 27 38 7 5 0 0

PR 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

RI 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SC 62 3 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 38 2 0 6 4 1 1 0 0 2

SD 15 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

TN 32 5 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 7 5 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 0

TX 143 15 21 0 1 3 0 0 0 18 7 2 22 6 8 0 8 0 1

UT 31 5 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 12 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 0

VA 30 4 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 2 5 1 2 0 1 0 1 0

VI 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VT 58 5 0 9 2 3 4 0 0 0 17 5 1 2 0 7 2 0 0 1

WA 83 10 4 0 2 6 9 0 0 0 22 6 0 3 5 0 3 2 0

WI 20 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0

WV 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 2 2 0 0 2 0 0

WY 21 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0

Total 2,450 1 46 1 11 4 0 57 222 88 224 1 2 92 7

Percentages 100% 7.63 9.39 1.88 1.63% 2.00% 4.57 0.45% 0.16 0.00% 23.39% 9.06% 3.59% 9.14% 8.00 8.73% 1.80% 4.53 3.76 0.29%
100

Table 6a – Complaints Involving Neglect

FY 2013

State

Number of NeglectComplaints Closed

Failure to Provide for Appropriate:

Admission toresidential care ortreatment facilityTransportation to/fromtreatment facility

Discharge planningMental healthdiagnosisMedical diagnosisPersonal careEnvironmental SafetyPersonal safetyNo written treatmentplan

Rehabilitation/vocationalp rogramming

Other

AK 9 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

AL 2 15 0 39 6 10 3 1 25 1 2

AR 12 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0

AS 19 0 0 2 1 5 5 3 1 2 0 0

AZ 21 1 1 3 8 0 6 0 1 1 0 0

CA 60 1 1 17 5 18 7 4 4 2 1 0

CO 48 0 0 30 11 4 0 0 3 0 0 0

CT 26 7 0 13 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 0

DC 33 0 1 18 2 2 6 0 1 2 1 0

DE 19 2 0 12 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0

FL 42 3 2 22 0 0 11 2 2 0 0 0

GA 85 0 0 61 3 4 4 0 1 0 12 0

GU 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

HI 17 0 0 6 1 1 2 1 6 0 0 0

IA 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

ID 9 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

IL 152 12 3 68 7 6 27 11 8 2 8 0

IN 14 0 0 6 0 0 2 1 4 1 0 0

KS 57 2 3 17 4 5 9 2 0 2 0

KY 11 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0

LA 23 1 0 13 1 2 4 0 0 1 1 0

MA 55 4 0 45 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0

MD 20 2 0 14 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0

ME 26 7 0 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

MI 16 0 0 4 0 3 6 1 0 0 2 0

MN 41 1 2 6 0 0 20 0 6 5 1 0

MO 35 2 0 3 1 3 12 1 4 9 0 0

MP 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MS 22 2 0 4 3 1 7 1 2 0 0 2

MT 95 0 0 3 4 5 1 63 14 0 0 5

NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NC 104 8 0 71 6 3 4 1 5 2 4 0

ND 21 0 0 12 0 0 4 0 2 3 0 0

NE 12 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
101

Table 6a – Complaints Involving Neglect

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Number of Neglect

Complaints -Closed

Failure to Provide for Appropriate:

Admission to residentialcare or treatment facilityTransportation to/fromtreatment facility

Discharge planningMental health diagnosisMedical diagnosisPersonal careEnvironmental SafetyPersonal safetyNo written treatmentplan

Rehabilitation/vocational programming

Other

NH 27 5 0 13 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0

NJ 32 2 0 22 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0

NM 40 3 0 16 1 0 4 2 8 0 6 0

NV 9 0 0 6 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

NY 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OH 205 39 3 80 14 25 25 1 4 1 0

OK 8 0 0 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

OR 13 0 0 7 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 1

PA 53 4 0 11 1 5 6 20 4 1 1 0

PR 9 3 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0

RI 73 1 0 17 1 0 51 1 1 1 0 0

SC 16 3 0 5 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0

SD 72 1 1 66 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0

TN 19 1 0 1 0 7 2 2 6 0 0 0

TX 323 6 1 1 91 32 11 0 26 1 2 0

UT 30 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0

VA 57 0 0 44 3 3 0 1 0 4 2 0

VI 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

VT 29 1 0 16 1 3 3 1 2 0 1 1

WA 61 9 0 24 4 7 4 2 7 1 3 0

WI 28 2 1 15 1 5 0 0 0 1 3 0

WV 37 0 1 18 0 4 6 0 1 3 0 4

WY 7 0 0 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0

Total 2,521 29 21 1,0 1 174 29 13 16 10 56

Percentages 100% 12% 1% 42 7% 7% 12% 5% 7% 4% 2%
102

Table 6b – Complaints Involving Neglect

FY 2014

State

Number of NeglectComplaints Closed

Failure to Provide for Appropriate

Admission to residentialcare or treatment facilityTransportation to/fromtreatment facilityDischarge planningMental health diagnosisMedical diagnosisPersonal careEnvironmental SafetyPersonal safetyNo written treatmentplanRehabilitation/vocational programmingOther

AK 6 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

AL 67 4 0 31 7 5 3 1 15 0 0 1

AR 6 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0

AS 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0

AZ 24 2 0 2 9 1 6 0 0 4 0 0

CA 34 0 0 8 8 6 7 1 2 1 1 0

CO 7 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1

CT 18 1 0 9 1 0 3 2 0 2 0 0

DC 35 1 0 12 0 1 14 0 1 3 3 0

DE 5 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

FL 78 11 0 34 2 2 20 6 3 0 0 0

GA 64 0 0 41 5 3 3 1 1 0 10 0

GU 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

HI 17 1 0 4 1 1 0 3 6 0 0 1

IA 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

ID 16 4 0 8 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0

IL 79 10 3 40 2 3 8 2 1 4 6 0

IN 17 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 7 2 0 0

KS 52 7 1 23 3 9 6 0 1 0 2 0

KY 10 1 0 3 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0

LA 17 1 0 12 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0

MA 49 6 1 38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MD 16 1 0 11 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

ME 24 3 2 16 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0

MI 14 0 0 5 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0
103

Table 6b – Complaints Involving Neglect

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Number of NeglectComplaints Closed

Failure to Provide for Appropriate

Admission toresidential care ortreatment facilityTransportation to/fromtreatment facilityDischarge planningMental health diagnosisMedical diagnosisPersonal careEnvironmental SafetyPersonal SafetyNo Written TreatmentPlanRehabilitation/VocationalProgrammingOther

MN 31 3 2 12 0 0 13 0 0 1 0 0

MO 59 1 0 10 0 12 21 2 2 8 3 0

MP 5 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

MS 30 2 0 9 0 0 10 0 8 1 0 0

MT 49 0 0 3 6 5 0 27 8 0 0 0

NA 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

NC 87 4 3 56 2 5 5 3 5 1 3 0

ND 40 1 0 15 3 2 12 3 2 2 0 0

NE 24 1 0 20 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

NH 94 34 1 27 2 1 7 1 0 14 7 0

NJ 48 0 0 35 0 6 5 1 1 0 0 0

NM 7 0 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

NV 8 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

NY 13 1 0 3 5 2 1 0 1 0 0 0

OH 191 17 1 97 11 27 18 3 7 6 4 0

OK 10 2 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

OR 9 0 0 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

PA 78 0 0 11 2 10 13 32 2 7 1 0

PR 20 11 0 1 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0

RI 29 0 0 16 0 3 0 0 6 0 2 2

SC 10 0 0 4 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0

SD 80 2 1 70 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0

TN 12 0 0 4 0 3 3 1 1 0 0 0

TX 366 8 0 119 107 76 23 2 29 1 1 0

UT 29 0 1 7 0 0 1 1 1 17 0 1

VA 63 1 0 51 0 5 2 0 1 3 0 0

VI 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VT 17 3 0 7 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 0

WA 56 2 0 24 6 4 7 4 5 1 2 1

WI 27 1 0 15 4 3 1 0 1 1 1 0

WV 24 0 0 17 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 1

WY 10 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0

Total 6a &6b 2,202 154 16 973 201 221 245 113 127 89 51 12
104

Table 7a – Complaints Involving Rights Violations

FY 2013

State

Discrimination in: Denial of: Failure to Provide:

Problem with AdvanceDirectivesDenial of Parental/FamilyNumberRightsOther

of Rights

Complaints ClosedHousingEmploymentReimbursement andEntitlementGuardianship/ConservatorproblemsRights Protect LegalAssistancePrivacyRecreational OpportunitiesVisitorsAccess to RecordsConfidentialityInformed ConsentEducation

AK 45 3 32 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 6

AL 78 3 2 6 4 1 1 0 0 32 0 0

AR 59 1 1 6 7 2 3 2 0 0 12 0 0

AS 17 0 1 1 0 2 4 5 0 2 0 2 0

AZ 45 11 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0

CA 1,096 17 5 379 39 35 12 2 0 1 2 34 2 19 0

CO 32 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CT 14 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 4

DC 17 0 3 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 0

DE 65 1 1 22 4 9 0 0 0 0 13 4 0 0

FL 77 5 11 4 28 1 2 0 1 13 0 3 0

GA 26 1 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

GU 17 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0

HI 138 1 0 22 1 0 0 6 0 0 61 2 0 8

IA 53 7 6 7 6 2 4 0 0 18 0 0 2

ID 80 0 63 4 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

IL 555 1 6 19 34 1 14 12 2 0 316 4 1

IN 11 0 3 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0

KS 461 8 4 121 34 7 24 7 0 19 4 58 3 10 0

KY 28 0 1 6 4 4 5 5 0 1 0 0 0

LA 26 0 2 4 2 1 3 0 0 12 0 0 0

MA 69 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 30 0 0 6

MD 23 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 8

ME 112 3 2 12 0 2 3 0 0 37 0 0 6

MI 30 1 2 5 8 1 0 0 2 3 1 1 1

MN 110 1 1 21 10 5 1 4 1 0 32 1 4

MO 74 0 28 16 1 8 3 3 0 7 0 0 0

MP 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

MS 70 2 4 3 0 2 2 0 0 52 1 2 0

MT 34 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 8 0 1
105

Table 7a – Complaints Involving Rights Violations

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Discrimination in: Denial of: Failure to Provide:

Problem with AdvanceDirectivesDenial of Parental/FamilyNumberRightsOther

of Rights

Complaints ClosedHousingEmploymentReimbursement andEntitlementGuardianship/ConservatorproblemsRights Protect LegalAssistancePrivacyRecreational OpportunitiesVisitorsAccess to RecordsConfidentialityInformed ConsentEducation

NA 22 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

NC 147 6 14 2 0 6 0 0 72 1 5 0

ND 87 5 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 0

NE 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NH 1 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0

NJ 8 8 9 1 1 3 7 0 2 1 3 1 0 8

NM 3 0 2 2 8 5 5 1 0 2 3 0 2 0

NV 4 0 2 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9

NY 2 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 2 1

OH 45 4 56 8 2 2 4 9 5 4 3 1 0

OK 47 10 10 10 2 1 2 3 1 12 0 1 2

OR 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5

PA 77 6 15 26 5 17 2 1 2 9 8 2 0

PR 5 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0

RI 9 3 1 13 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 1 0

SC 3 1 2 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

SD 5 0 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4

TN 3 1 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0

TX 57 2 2 18 4 2 2 4 1 1 29 1 1 6

UT 12 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0

VA 4 1 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 3 9 1 0 0

VI 7 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

VT 3 3 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 9 0 3

WA 24 2 3 15 3 2 5 1 4 3 1 2 1 1

WI 5 8 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 6 2 1 1 0

WV 4 1 2 1 3 4 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 5

WY 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Total 7,06 71 45 1,17 374 1,22 18 33 5 18 1,683 9 15 29

Percentages 100% 10% 6 17% 5% 17% 3% 5% 0 1 1% 3% 24% 1% 2% 4%
106

Table 7b – Complaints Involving Rights Violations

FY 2014

State

Discrimination in: Denial of: Failure to Provide:

Problem

with

Advance

Directives

Denial of Parental/Family

Number

RightsOther

of Rights

Complaints Closed

HousingEmploymentReimbursementand Entitlement

Guardianship/Conservator problems

Rights Protect LegalAssistancePrivacyRecreationalOpportunitiesVisitorsAccessto RecordsConfidentialityInformed ConsentEducation

AK 38 4 1 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

AL 67 2 2 2 5 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 23 0 1 26

AR 31 1 2 1 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 10

AS 13 0 1 1 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 0

AZ 29 3 6 1 0 7 2 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 2 0

CA 941 167 63 259 42 320 13 2 0 15 5 9 32 1 13 0

CO 9 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

CT 33 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 15 0 0 7

DC 21 1 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 1 0 0

DE 44 4 5 18 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 10 2 1 2

FL 129 17 5 9 5 65 1 4 2 3 1 4 11 0 2 0

GA 16 3 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0

GU 16 0 1 3 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 0

HI 183 6 0 38 10 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 63 25 0 36

IA 29 1 3 3 6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0

ID 63 1 0 45 5 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3

IL 256 7 32 6 35 1 7 6 0 4 2 0 129 0 1 26

IN 44 2 1 6 0 2 1 10 0 1 0 3 18 0 0 0

KS 417 45 20 75 35 10 8 37 1 1 7 9 45 0 12 112

KY 17 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

LA 32 4 0 3 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 18 0 0 0

MA 106 34 17 1 5 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 28 0 1 6

MD 11 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3

ME 102 28 4 3 7 0 5 4 0 3 2 0 43 0 1 2

MI 31 3 0 0 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 6 5 0 1 7

MN 75 4 3 10 14 5 0 4 0 1 2 0 25 1 1 5

MO 59 5 1 9 14 5 9 3 3 2 0 1 7 0 0 0

MP 7 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

MS 72 1 0 6 2 2 6 3 1 0 1 0 48 2 0 0

MT 28 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 15

NA 28 0 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0

NC 101 1 9 9 28 35 1 1 0 2 0 0 11 0 4 0

ND 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0
107

Table 7b – Complaints Involving Rights Violations

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Discrimination in: Denial of: Failure to Provide:

Problem

with

Advance

directivesissuesDenial of parental/family rightsNumberOther

of Rights

ComplaintsClosedHousingEmploymentReimbursement andEntitlementGuardianship/Conservator problemsRights Protect Legal Assist.PrivacyRecreational OpportunitiesVisitorsAccessto RecordsConfidentialityInformed ConsentEducation

NE 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

NH 285 51 29 71 22 66 2 8 0 2 2 1 26 0 5 0

NJ 92 1 9 2 1 1 7 6 1 0 1 1 45 1 0 16

NM 44 0 0 2 7 15 1 5 0 0 1 7 1 2 3 0

NV 20 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11

NY 250 46 12 74 5 24 4 3 0 5 4 6 48 1 6 12

OH 476 93 43 43 68 37 30 20 1 14 21 62 32 5 7 0

OK 542 43 26 147 11 121 0 0 0 2 5 2 160 1 23 1

OR 26 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 16

PA 654 70 21 214 1 251 6 0 1 4 1 1 67 3 14 0

PR 63 2 18 2 0 22 0 0 0 6 2 0 11 0 0 0

RI 38 16 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 0 3

SC 26 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 14

SD 68 0 0 17 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 41 0 0 5

TN 39 1 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 26 0 2 0

TX 615 16 16 21 39 32 27 27 3 10 8 20 348 0 5 43

UT 98 0 0 27 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5

VA 30 0 4 3 2 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 1 11 0 0

VI 12 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0

VT 25 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4

WA 226 52 21 31 17 23 12 7 3 8 5 1 5 1 15 25

WI 40 11 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 21 0 0 1

WV 31 4 0 2 0 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 11 0 0 5

WY 9 3 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 6,802 765 397 1,235 433 1,151 167 181 22 104 80 153 1,485 72 132 425

Percentages 100% 11% 6% 18% 6% 17% 2% 3% 0% 2% 1% 2% 22% 1% 2% 6%

•

•

•
108

Table 8a – Death Investigations

FY 2013

State

Deaths Reported Death Investigations Conducted

Total Number of Deaths

Reported State

Number of Deaths

Medicaid

Number of Deaths

Other

Total Number of

Death Investigations

Number of Deaths

Seclusion

Number of Deaths

Restraint

Number of Deaths

Non-Seclusion/

Restraint

AK 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 7

AL 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AZ 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 1

CA 7 6 0 1 7 0 0 7

CO 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4

CT 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

DC 7 5 0 2 1 0 1 0

DE 17 17 0 0 17 0 0 17

FL 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 2

GA 9 9 0 0 9 0 0 9

GU 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2

HI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IA 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

ID 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

IL 13 13 0 0 14 0 1 13

IN 9 0 0 9 4 0 0 4

KS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

KY 8 4 0 4 8 0 2 6

LA 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

MA 250 250 0 0 129 0 0 129

MD 8 8 0 0 3 0 0 3

ME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MI 6 4 0 2 6 0 0 6

MN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MO 336 336 0 0 23 1 2 20

MP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109

Table 8a – Death Investigations

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Total Number of Deaths

Reported State

Number of Deaths

Medicaid

Number of Deaths

Other

Total Number of

Death Investigations

Number of Deaths

Seclusion

Number of Deaths

Restraint

Number of Deaths

Non-Seclusion/

Restraint

MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MT 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NC 30 30 0 0 4 0 0 4

ND 4 2 0 2 4 0 0 4

NE 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4

NH 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

NJ 39 38 0 1 39 0 0 39

NM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

OH 164 163 1 0 164 1 2 161

OK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OR 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

PA 49 49 0 0 49 0 0 49

PR 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

RI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SC 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TX 33 0 1 32 33 0 4 29

UT 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

VA 46 46 0 0 0 0 0 0

VI 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2

VT 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3

WA 7 0 1 6 7 1 1 5

WI 10 7 0 3 10 0 2 8

WV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1,093 997 3 93 568 3 16 549

Percentages 100% 91.22% 0.27% 8.51% 100.00% 0.53% 2.82% 96.65%
110

Table 8b – Death Investigations

FY 2014

State

Deaths Reported Death Investigations Conducted

Total Number of

Deaths Reported State

Number of Deaths

Medicaid

Number of Deaths

Other

Total Number of Death

Investigations

Number of Deaths

Seclusion

Number of Deaths

Restraint

Number of Deaths

Non-Seclusion/

Restraint

AK 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6

AL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AZ 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

CA 11 10 0 1 6 0 1 5

CO 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4

CT 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

DC 9 8 0 1 9 0 0 9

DE 14 14 0 0 14 0 0 14

FL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GA 21 19 0 2 2 0 0 2

GU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HI 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 3

IA 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

ID 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

IL 29 27 0 2 16 0 0 16

IN 7 0 0 7 2 0 0 2

KS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

KY 11 8 0 3 11 2 1 8

LA 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

MA 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

MD 57 57 0 0 7 0 0 7

ME 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

MI 13 6 0 7 13 0 1 12

MN 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

MO 513 513 0 0 15 0 0 15

MP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111

Table 8b – Death Investigations

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Total Number of

Deaths Reported State

Number of Deaths

Medicaid

Number of Deaths

Other

Total Number of Death

Investigations

Number of Deaths

Seclusion

Number of Deaths

Restraint

Number of Deaths

Non-Seclusion/

Restraint

MS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MT 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NC 26 26 0 0 4 1 3 0

ND 3 1 0 2 3 0 1 2

NE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

NH 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

NJ 25 24 0 1 25 0 0 25

NM 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2

NV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1

OH 120 120 0 0 120 0 1 119

OK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OR 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1

PA 26 26 0 0 26 0 0 26

PR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SC 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

SD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TX 28 1 0 27 28 0 3 25

UT 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0

VA 30 30 0 0 3 0 0 3

VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VT 3 1 0 2 3 0 0 3

WA 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4

WI 6 3 0 3 7 1 1 5

WV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

WY 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 3

Total 993 900 0 93 347 5 14 328

Percentages 100% 91% 0% 9% 100% 1% 4% 95%
112

Table 9a – Analysis of Alleged Abuse

FY 2013

State

Total Complaints

Closed Total Abuse Complaints

Abuse complaints withdrawn,

no merit, etc. Favorably Resolved

Not Resolved 

Favorably

Percentage

Favorably Resolved

AK 61 7 4 2 1 67%

AL 422 87 22 63 2 97%

AR 86 15 7 8 0 100%

AS 38 2 0 2 0 100%

AZ 68 2 0 1 1 50%

CA 1,304 148 17 130 1 99%

CO 116 36 20 13 3 81%

CT 113 73 5 67 1 99%

DC 76 26 15 8 3 73%

DE 123 39 3 36 0 100%

FL 192 73 24 49 0 100%

GA 153 42 5 37 0 100%

GU 24 4 0 4 0 100%

HI 175 20 9 11 0 100%

IA 79 23 4 19 0 100%

ID 104 15 6 9 0 100%

IL 788 132 25 54 53 50%

IN 66 41 26 8 7 53%

KA 562 43 19 19 5 79%

KY 48 9 5 3 1 75%

LA 60 11 6 4 1 80%

MA 156 32 7 24 1 96%

MD 106 63 7 56 0 100%

ME 180 48 12 35 1 97%

MI 63 17 1 15 1 94%

MN 180 29 6 21 2 91%

MO 318 125 13 108 4 96%

MP 12 6 1 5 0 100%
113

Table 9a – Analysis of Alleged Abuse

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Total Complaints

Closed Total Abuse Complaints

Abuse complaints withdrawn,

no merit, etc. Favorably Resolved

Not Resolved 

Favorably

Percentage

Favorably Resolved

MS 100 8 1 2 5 29%

MT 165 36 7 22 7 76%

NA 14 1 0 1 0 100%

NC 321 70 17 51 2 96%

ND 108 32 1 31 0 100%

NE 40 25 15 8 2 80%

NH 80 34 21 6 7 46%

NJ 230 116 25 81 10 89%

NM 136 66 6 50 10 83%

NV 71 18 1 16 1 94%

NY 32 0 0 0 0 0%

OH 835 175 53 121 1 99%

OK 528 48 0 48 0 100%

OR 47 20 3 5 12 29%

PA 1,029 199 38 143 18 89%

PR 72 8 2 3 3 50%

RI 173 10 2 7 1 88%

SC 119 64 7 52 5 91%

SD 144 16 9 7 0 100%

TN 83 26 9 17 0 100%

TX 1,031 130 76 46 8 85%

UT 235 84 23 61 0 100%

VA 128 23 7 16 0 100%

VI 12 4 0 4 0 100%

VT 152 89 50 31 8 79%

WA 464 161 2 159 0 100%

WI 130 45 10 29 6 83%

WV 98 20 2 14 4 78%

WY 21 3 0 3 0 100%

Total 12,271 2,699 656 1,845 198 90%
114

Table 9b – Analysis of Alleged Abuse

FY 2014

State

Total Complaints

Closed

Total Abuse

Complaints

Abuse complaints

withdrawn, no merit, etc.

Favorably

Resolved

Not Resolved

Favorably

Percentage Favorably

Resolved

AK 62 18 15 3 0 100%

AL 184 50 17 32 1 97%

AR 41 4 3 1 0 100%

AS 21 2 0 2 0 100%

AZ 56 3 1 2 0 100%

CA 1,067 92 17 73 2 97%

CO 29 13 4 7 2 78%

CT 107 56 2 53 1 98%

DC 80 23 14 7 2 78%

DE 59 10 2 8 0 100%

FL 350 143 94 49 0 100%

GA 123 43 0 42 1 98%

GU 30 7 5 2 0 100%

HI 226 26 20 6 0 100%

IA 51 18 11 7 0 100%

ID 103 24 13 11 0 100%

IL 356 55 11 24 20 55%

IN 109 48 28 14 6 70%

KA 492 25 8 16 1 94%

KY 50 20 10 8 2 80%

LA 60 11 3 7 1 88%

MA 200 45 10 35 0 100%

MD 132 105 6 98 1 99%

ME 159 33 13 17 3 85%

MI 56 11 1 10 0 100%

MN 141 35 7 25 3 89%

MO 259 98 20 76 2 97%

MP 16 4 1 3 0 100%

MS 120 18 5 11 2 85%

MT 139 62 18 22 22 50%
115

Table 9b – Analysis of Alleged Abuse

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Total Complaints

Closed

Total Abuse

Complaints

Abuse complaints

withdrawn, no merit, etc.

Favorably

Resolved

Not Resolved

Favorably

Percentage Favorably

Resolved

NA 32 1 0 1 0 100%

NC 263 75 2 65 8 89%

ND 93 37 2 35 0 100%

NE 50 21 10 7 4 64%

NH 426 47 8 35 4 90%

NJ 243 102 21 75 6 93%

NM 82 29 5 21 3 88%

NV 35 7 2 2 3 40%

NY 328 65 19 21 25 46%

OH 992 210 40 164 6 96%

OK 599 47 0 47 0 100%

OR 45 10 4 6 0 100%

PA 969 238 72 122 44 73%

PR 90 7 2 5 0 100%

RI 45 2 1 1 0 100%

SC 98 62 14 43 5 90%

SD 163 15 3 11 1 92%

TN 83 32 15 17 0 100%

TX 1,124 143 52 81 10 89%

UT 158 31 4 24 3 89%

VA 123 30 10 20 0 100%

VI 18 3 2 1 0 100%

VT 100 58 28 27 3 90%

WA 360 79 0 79 0 100%

WI 87 20 1 19 0 100%

WV 70 15 2 12 1 92%

WY 40 21 0 20 1 95%

Total 11,594 2,509 678 1,632 199 89%
116

Table 10a – Analysis of Alleged Neglect

FY 2013

State Total Complaints Closed Total Neglect Complaints

Neglect complaints withdrawn,

no merit, etc. Favorably Resolved

Not Resolved 

Favorably

Percentage 

Favorably Resolved

AK 61 9 3 6 0 100%

AL 422 257 33 217 7 97%

AR 86 12 5 7 0 100%

AS 38 19 0 19 0 100%

AZ 68 21 0 21 0 100%

CA 1,304 60 11 48 1 98%

CO 116 48 22 23 3 88%

CT 113 26 3 20 3 87%

DC 76 33 5 26 2 93%

DE 123 19 0 19 0 100%

FL 192 42 7 35 0 100%

GA 153 85 4 79 2 98%

GU 24 3 0 3 0 100%

HI 175 17 11 6 0 100%

IA 79 3 0 3 0 100%

ID 104 9 6 2 1 67%

IL 788 146 17 75 54 58%

IN 66 14 3 10 1 91%

KA 562 57 26 27 4 87%

KY 48 11 6 4 1 80%

LA 60 23 7 11 5 69%

MA 156 55 11 42 2 95%

MD 106 20 5 14 1 93%

ME 180 26 3 21 2 91%

MI 63 16 3 7 6 54%

MN 180 41 4 32 5 86%

MO 318 91 15 74 2 97%

MP 12 1 0 1 0 100%

MS 100 22 1 20 1 95%
117

Table 10a – Analysis of Alleged Neglect

FY 2013 cont’d.

State Total Complaints Closed Total Neglect Complaints

Neglect complaints withdrawn,

no merit, etc. Favorably Resolved Not Resolved Favorably

Percentage

Favorably Resolved

MT 165 95 31 61 3 95%

NA 14 0 0 0 0 0%

NC 321 104 11 93 0 100%

ND 108 16 0 16 0 100%

NE 40 12 4 6 2 75%

NH 80 27 12 10 5 67%

NJ 230 32 3 26 3 90%

NM 136 39 2 31 6 84%

NV 71 9 3 6 0 100%

NY 32 4 2 2 0 100%

OH 835 205 39 165 1 99%

OK 528 8 0 8 0 100%

OR 47 13 3 6 4 60%

PA 1,029 53 7 44 2 96%

PR 72 9 3 5 1 83%

RI 173 73 60 11 2 85%

SC 119 16 9 7 0 100%

SD 144 72 4 68 0 100%

TN 83 19 9 10 0 100%

TX 1,031 323 79 224 20 92%

UT 235 30 10 17 3 85%

VA 128 57 11 44 2 96%

VI 12 1 0 1 0 100%

VT 152 29 3 23 3 88%

WA 464 61 0 61 0 100%

WI 130 28 2 24 2 92%

WV 98 37 5 25 7 78%

WY 21 7 0 7 0 100%

Total 12,271 2,565 523 1,873 169 92%
118

Table 10b – Analysis of Alleged Neglect

FY 2014

State

Total Complaints

Closed

Total Neglect

Complaints

Neglect complaints

withdrawn, no merit, etc.

Favorably

Resolved

Not Resolved

Favorably

Percentage Favorably

Resolved

AK 62 6 3 3 0 100%

AL 184 67 28 32 7 82%

AR 41 6 3 3 0 100%

AS 21 5 0 5 0 100%

AZ 56 24 7 16 1 94%

CA 1,067 34 6 27 1 96%

CO 29 7 2 5 0 100%

CT 107 18 0 17 1 94%

DC 80 35 6 29 0 100%

DE 59 5 0 5 0 100%

FL 350 78 34 40 4 91%

GA 123 64 4 60 0 100%

GU 30 7 2 5 0 100%

HI 226 17 9 8 0 100%

IA 51 4 1 3 0 100%

ID 103 16 8 8 0 100%

IL 356 77 8 39 30 57%

IN 109 17 7 6 4 60%

KA 492 52 15 33 4 89%

KY 50 11 1 10 0 100%

LA 60 17 2 14 1 93%

MA 200 49 8 39 2 95%

MD 132 16 2 14 0 100%

ME 159 24 6 17 1 94%

MI 56 14 3 8 3 73%

MN 141 31 4 24 3 89%

MO 259 84 15 69 0 100%

MP 16 5 1 4 0 100%
119

Table 10b – Analysis of Alleged Neglect

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Total Complaints

Closed

Total Neglect

Complaints

Neglect complaints

withdrawn, no merit, etc.

Favorably

Resolved

Not Resolved

Favorably

Percentage Favorably

Resolved

MS 120 30 4 24 2 92%

MT 139 49 14 29 6 83%

NA 32 3 0 3 0 100%

NC 263 87 7 80 0 100%

ND 93 30 1 28 1 97%

NE 50 24 8 15 1 94%

NH 426 94 4 82 8 91%

NJ 243 49 9 40 0 100%

NM 82 7 2 5 0 100%

NV 35 8 0 8 0 100%

NY 328 13 3 7 3 70%

OH 992 191 20 169 2 99%

OK 599 10 0 10 0 100%

OR 45 9 2 7 0 100%

PA 969 78 6 66 6 92%

PR 90 20 2 14 4 78%

RI 45 10 4 6 0 100%

SC 98 10 4 6 0 100%

SD 163 80 1 79 0 100%

TN 83 12 3 9 0 100%

TX 1,124 366 105 23 238 9%

UT 158 29 1 26 2 93%

VA 123 63 10 53 0 100%

VI 18 2 1 1 0 100%

VT 100 17 5 10 2 83%

WA 360 56 1 55 0 100%

WI 87 27 1 26 0 100%

WV 70 24 4 15 5 75%

WY 40 10 0 10 0 100%

Total 11,594 2,198 407 1,449 342 81%
120

Table 11a – Analysis of Alleged Rights Violations

FY 2013

State Total Complaints Closed Total Rights Complaints

Rights complaints withdrawn,

no merit, etc. Favorably Resolved

Not Resolved

Favorably

Percentage Favorably

Resolved

AK 61 45 23 14 8 64%

AL 422 78 22 52 4 93%

AR 86 59 24 32 3 91%

AS 38 17 0 17 0 100%

AZ 68 45 2 41 2 95%

CA 1,304 1,096 114 959 23 98%

CO 116 32 11 16 5 76%

CT 113 14 3 11 0 100%

DC 76 17 3 13 1 93%

DE 123 65 1 64 0 100%

FL 192 77 19 58 0 100%

GA 153 26 4 21 1 95%

GU 24 17 2 14 1 93%

HI 175 138 32 103 3 97%

IA 79 53 13 40 0 100%

ID 104 80 11 65 4 94%

IL 788 510 49 267 194 58%

IN 66 11 4 6 1 86%

KA 562 462 142 294 26 92%

KY 48 28 2 11 15 42%

LA 60 26 7 18 1 95%

MA 156 69 15 54 0 100%

MD 106 23 3 19 1 95%

ME 180 106 31 69 6 92%

MI 63 30 11 19 0 100%

MN 180 110 3 99 8 93%

MO 318 102 14 82 6 93%

MP 12 5 1 4 0 100%

MS 100 70 17 44 9 83%

MT 165 34 10 17 7 71%
121

Table 11a – Analysis of Alleged Rights Violations

FY 2013 cont’d.

State Total Complaints Closed Total Rights Complaints

Rights complaints withdrawn,

no merit, etc. Favorably Resolved

Not Resolved

Favorably

Percentage Favorably

Resolved

NA 14 13 5 7 1 88%

NC 321 147 29 118 0 100%

ND 108 60 0 58 2 97%

NE 40 3 2 1 0 100%

NH 80 19 8 10 1 91%

NJ 230 82 27 53 2 96%

NM 136 31 2 26 3 90%

NV 71 44 12 31 1 97%

NY 32 28 7 21 0 100%

OH 835 455 108 340 7 98%

OK 528 472 1 471 0 100%

OR 47 14 3 9 2 82%

PA 1,029 777 52 718 7 99%

PR 72 55 14 36 5 88%

RI 173 90 44 45 1 98%

SC 119 39 7 32 0 100%

SD 144 56 14 40 2 95%

TN 83 38 12 26 0 100%

TX 1,031 578 117 414 47 90%

UT 235 121 4 115 2 98%

VA 128 48 6 41 1 98%

VI 12 7 5 1 1 50%

VT 152 34 8 23 3 88%

WA 464 242 0 242 0 100%

WI 130 57 7 46 4 92%

WV 98 41 6 32 3 91%

WY 21 11 0 11 0 100%

Total 12,271 7,007 1,093 5,490 424 93%
122

Table 11b – Analysis of Alleged Rights Violations

FY 2014

State

Total Complaints

Closed

Total Rights Complaints

Closed

Rights complaints withdrawn,

no merit, etc. Favorably Resolved

Not Resolved

Favorably

Percentage Favorably

Resolved

AK 62 38 20 15 3 83%

AL 184 67 16 43 8 84%

AR 41 31 12 15 4 79%

AS 21 14 0 14 0 100%

AZ 56 29 1 23 5 82%

CA 1,067 941 77 852 12 99%

CO 29 9 0 9 0 100%

CT 107 33 8 25 0 100%

DC 80 22 15 4 3 57%

DE 59 44 0 43 1 98%

FL 350 129 35 82 12 87%

GA 123 16 5 11 0 100%

GU 30 16 3 13 0 100%

HI 226 183 52 117 14 89%

IA 51 29 8 21 0 100%

ID 103 63 3 55 5 92%

IL 356 224 28 118 78 60%

IN 109 44 18 24 2 92%

KA 492 415 129 247 39 86%

KY 50 19 5 11 3 79%

LA 60 32 7 23 2 92%

MA 200 106 19 86 1 99%

MD 132 11 3 8 0 100%

ME 159 102 31 68 3 96%

MI 56 31 12 18 1 95%

MN 141 75 4 57 14 80%

MO 259 77 13 60 4 94%

MP 16 7 3 4 0 100%
123

Table 11b – Analysis of Alleged Rights Violations

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Total Complaints

Closed

Total Rights Complaints

Closed

Rights complaints withdrawn,

no merit, etc. Favorably Resolved

Not Resolved

Favorably

Percentage Favorably

Resolved

MS 120 72 16 54 2 96%

MT 139 28 8 14 6 70%

NA 32 28 11 17 0 100%

NC 263 101 9 92 0 100%

ND 93 26 2 23 1 96%

NE 50 5 0 5 0 100%

NH 426 285 13 2 270 1%

NJ 243 92 23 66 3 96%

NM 82 46 4 36 6 86%

NV 35 20 6 11 3 79%

NY 328 250 74 161 15 91%

OH 992 591 67 512 12 98%

OK 599 542 0 542 0 100%

OR 45 26 5 12 9 57%

PA 969 653 46 603 4 99%

PR 90 63 6 41 16 72%

RI 45 33 16 16 1 94%

SC 98 26 6 19 1 95%

SD 163 68 20 46 2 96%

TN 83 39 16 23 0 100%

TX 1,124 615 131 431 53 89%

UT 158 98 2 94 2 98%

VA 123 30 7 23 0 100%

VI 18 13 8 5 0 100%

VT 100 25 7 15 3 83%

WA 360 225 0 224 1 100%

WI 87 40 3 36 1 97%

WV 70 31 2 26 3 90%

WY 40 9 1 8 0 100%

Total 11,594 6,887 1,036 5,223 628 89%
124

Table 12a – Intervention Strategies

FY 2013

State

Total Intervention

Strategies

Short-Term

Assistance

Abuse/Neglect

Investigation Technical Assistance Administrative Remedies Mediation Legal Remedies

AK 62 31 17 0 12 1 1

AL 422 251 125 10 7 16 13

AR 86 63 5 15 1 0 2

AS 38 20 4 4 0 10 0

AZ 68 3 0 61 2 2 0

CA 1,304 1218 21 10 34 16 5

CO 125 11 87 12 0 9 6

CT 121 75 8 10 7 21 0

DC 76 49 14 3 8 2 0

DE 123 44 18 23 14 17 7

FL 174 51 15 49 16 41 2

GA 153 25 34 8 2 81 3

GU 24 9 2 1 0 6 6

HI 175 68 37 17 11 38 4

IA 79 41 22 2 1 10 3

ID 143 50 16 67 3 5 2

IL 899 223 25 481 23 136 11

IN 72 23 26 5 8 2 8

KS 566 122 8 417 7 1 11

KY 116 43 27 13 0 18 15

LA 60 34 5 1 3 13 4

MA 156 114 3 5 2 31 1

MD 106 14 76 5 2 8 1

ME 177 66 0 9 10 85 7

MI 63 8 24 11 5 7 8

MN 180 70 3 61 15 28 3

MO 165 6 21 44 13 77 4

MP 12 1 7 0 1 1 2

MS 101 32 23 5 1 30 10

MT 165 52 97 3 6 3 4

NA 28 0 1 6 17 4 0

NC 318 305 0 0 0 13 0
125

Table 12a – Intervention Strategies

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Total Intervention

Strategies

Short-Term

Assistance

Abuse/Neglect

Investigation Technical Assistance Administrative Remedies Mediation Legal Remedies

ND 135 79 24 0 5 26 1

NE 41 0 39 0 2 0 0

NH 48 39 1 5 0 3 0

NJ 230 55 105 30 4 30 6

NM 149 123 15 1 2 6 2

NV 71 40 1 10 15 2 3

NY 32 20 1 1 4 5 1

OH 838 611 138 38 6 38 7

OK 528 433 13 26 7 48 1

OR 37 21 2 1 1 12 0

PA 1,029 297 72 654 1 2 3

PR 80 4 19 0 12 42 3

RI 173 91 3 51 4 18 6

SC 119 27 53 10 4 25 0

SD 144 19 4 5 6 109 1

TN 83 18 40 20 0 5 0

TX 1,031 488 105 53 54 268 63

UT 422 355 39 3 25 0 0

VA 128 42 20 24 21 19 2

VI 29 20 0 1 3 4 1

VT 152 80 58 5 5 3 1

WA 584 4 2 576 0 2 0

WI 120 19 28 9 0 62 2

WV 98 64 1 11 0 22 0

WY 21 18 2 0 0 1 0

Total 12,679 6,089 1,556 2,892 412 1,484 246

Percentage 100% 48% 12% 23% 3% 12% 2%
126

Table 12b – Intervention Strategies

FY 2014

State

Total Intervention

Strategies

Short Term

Assistance

Abuse Neglect

Investigation Technical Assistance Administrative Remedies Mediation Legal Remedies

AK 62 36 19 1 3 1 2

AL 184 86 45 11 8 16 18

AR 57 39 2 11 1 2 2

AS 14 1 3 0 0 10 0

AZ 56 5 15 35 0 1 0

CA 1,092 1041 17 4 12 14 4

CO 27 4 12 7 0 2 2

CT 107 62 12 15 3 12 3

DC 81 57 17 5 2 0 0

DE 59 25 4 12 8 10 0

FL 421 253 72 38 7 50 1

GA 123 9 49 4 3 57 1

GU 30 10 7 1 0 5 7

HI 234 84 43 25 35 45 2

IA 52 16 21 1 1 10 3

ID 113 25 16 66 0 5 1

IL 486 127 28 214 17 81 19

IN 110 59 38 8 0 3 2

KS 441 34 0 392 2 1 12

KY 94 29 31 17 2 5 10

LA 60 33 5 2 4 12 4

MA 216 157 7 1 3 44 4

MD 132 9 89 13 14 4 3

ME 283 56 1 9 67 24 126

MI 60 10 32 1 6 5 6

MN 141 56 8 44 11 22 0

MO 178 29 10 39 16 82 2

MP 14 3 10 0 1 0 0

•
127

Table 12b – Intervention Strategies

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Total Intervention

Strategies

Short Term

Assistance

Abuse Neglect

Investigation Technical Assistance Administrative Remedies Mediation Legal Remedies

MS 124 37 48 7 0 22 10

MT 140 70 63 2 4 0 1

NA 36 0 5 6 18 1 6

NC 239 217 7 5 1 7 2

ND 122 41 59 4 0 18 0

NE 54 0 46 0 1 3 4

NH 426 379 0 32 0 5 10

NJ 243 57 103 44 3 30 6

NM 109 78 20 3 2 6 0

NV 34 18 1 13 1 1 0

NY 322 183 16 35 40 38 10

OH 992 814 100 51 8 17 2

OK 599 496 20 1 5 75 2

OR 45 19 7 2 0 15 2

PA 10 8 1 0 0 1 0

PR 98 1 19 1 27 43 7

RI 125 45 16 44 0 6 14

SC 98 18 55 7 1 16 1

SD 163 111 2 9 8 30 3

TN 83 29 34 5 0 15 0

TX 1,124 525 176 71 15 247 90

UT 156 128 23 2 0 3 0

VA 123 47 19 13 8 34 2

VI 33 15 2 8 0 7 1

VT 100 74 21 1 1 0 3

WA 483 470 2 11 0 0 0

WI 87 34 8 8 4 31 2

WV 70 53 2 7 0 8 0

WY 40 16 20 0 0 3 1

Total 11,205 6,338 1,508 1,368 373 1,205 413

Percentages 100% 57% 13% 12% 3% 11% 4%
128

Table 13a – Non-Case Directed Services

FY 2013

State

Non-Litigation Advocacy Class Action Litigation *Legislative & Regulatory Advocacy

Number of Events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted Number of events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted Number of events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted

AK 13 104,325 1 80 41 1,153,249

AL 1 1,000 1 68 0 0

AR 3 10 0 0 0 4

AS 1 64,026 1 20,257 1 200,000

AZ 0 0 0 0 0 0

CA 15 994,761 6 21,300 10 869,757

CO 1 1,800 0 0 1 200

CT 4 3,887 1 3,000 7 371,000

DC 24 3,130 0 0 6 1,340

DE 5 3,020 2 4,300 5 10,000

FL 39 5,235,366 3 300 46 2,866,917

GA 2 1,456,812 1 1,456,812 1 1,456,812

GU 3 40 0 0 0 0

HI 1 1,000 1 200 2 1,000

IA 1 42,000 0 0 7 72,000

ID 2 1,320,000 3 58,500 5 666,000

IL 5 880 1 5,900 1 14,000

IN 31 689,595 0 0 2 57

KS 1 464,842 0 0 2 744,000

KY 6 874,000 0 0 6 874,000

LA 16 55,158 2 799 8 188,691

MA 28 135,000 1 15,000 35 117,000

MD 1 2,000 1 1,000 6 150,000

ME 5 100,000 0 0 0 0

MI 4 52,203 0 0 1 200,000

MN 3 3,480 0 0 0 0

MO 7 26,075 1 15,000 0 0

MP 35 367 1 3,000 0 0

MS 6 53,000 0 0 4 53,000

MT 3 7,500 0 0 0 0

*Activities reported under the Legislative and Regulatory Advocacy section are limited to providing technical assistance, education, and awareness about current statutes and regulations regarding the rights and 

protection of individuals with SMI or SED and do not include strictly prohibited activities such as the inappropriate use of federal dollars to influence legislation or any actions by federal or state governments 

described in Section 503 of Title V, in Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act and specific prohibitions against lobbying in the PAIMI regulations (42 CFR Part 51. Subpart A). See pages 73-76.
129

Table 13a – Non-Case Directed Services

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Non-Litigation Advocacy Class Action Litigation *Legislative & Regulatory Advocacy

Number of Events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted Number of events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted Number of events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted

NA 5 270 0 0 3 32,000

NC 20 100 1 5,000 4 10,000

ND 3 5,000 1 40,000 2 40,000

NE 2 100,000 2 10,200 2 0

NH 4 109,000 0 0 2 15,000

NJ 2 700 3 5,000 0 0

NM 2 600 0 0 5 600

NV 0 0 0 0 9 37,780

NY 1 4 0 0 0 0

OH 27 77,577 3 1,700,200 46 56,411

OK 8 16,391 0 0 2 5,000

OR 123 4,800 0 0 156 5,125

PA 2 19,338 1 900 4 64,419

PR 3 108 0 0 0 0

RI 10 60,000 0 0 2 0

SC 2 168,913 1 2,400 1 23,000

SD 0 0 0 0 1 100

TN 33 3,047,085 0 0 26 3,695,200

TX 3 275,000 1 4,000 7 250,000

UT 9 580,141 0 0 9 166,374

VA 7 1,500 0 0 5 4,200

VI 0 0 0 0 2 28,000

VT 1 200,408 0 0 1 601

WA 15 35,581 4 1,115 14 37,720

WI 3 111,325 1 111,325 1 0

WV 7 150,000 0 0 10 500,000

WY 10 775 0 0 7 6,762

Total 568 16,659,893 45 3,485,656 518 14,987,319
130

Table 13b – Non-Case Directed Services

FY 2014

State

Non-Litigation Advocacy Class Action Litigation *Legislative & Regulatory Advocacy

Number of Events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted Number of events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted Number of events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted

AK 1 1,000 1 68 2 141,661

AL 10 241,433 1 10,000 10 227,830

AR 0 0 1 5,000 5 794,000

AS 3 1,000 0 0 0 0

AZ 1 40,381 1 19,272 2 759,851

CA 16 124,823 6 21,306 4 58,274

CO 1 1,800 1 100 1 3,000

CT 5 65,641 1 4,390 2 371,000

DC 14 10,000 1 200 5 10,000

DE 18 615 0 0 6 1,660

FL 15 6,829,427 3 300 31 485,893

GA 5 1,456,812 3 1,456,812 4 1,456,812

GU 0 0 0 0 0 0

HI 1 1,000 1 200 1 500

IA 31 900,603 0 0 2 100

ID 2 3,100 0 0 3 75,000

IL 1 701,000 3 52,026 6 526,000

IN 9 1,786 1 5,900 1 14,000

KS 2 819,000 0 0 0 0

KY 6 874,000 0 0 6 874,000

LA 13 53,072 3 202,926 12 891,700

MA 5 500,000 0 0 0 0

MD 1 100,000 1 1,000 3 250,000

ME 14 25,000 1 17,000 15 160,000

MI 56 46,708 0 0 2 204,701

MN 3 7,824 0 0 2 600

MO 9 1,209 1 3,000 0 0

MP 1 25 0 0 0 0

•
131

Table 13b – Non-Case Directed Services

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Non-Litigation Advocacy Class Action Litigation *Legislative & Regulatory Advocacy

Number of Events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted Number of events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted Number of events

Total Number of

Individuals Impacted

MS 3 25,800 2 15,000 0 0

MT 5 52,000 0 0 4 52,000

NA 3 7,500 0 0 1 12,500

NC 2 1,500 0 0 1 1,200

ND 0 0 0 0 3 37,780

NE 5 81 0 0 1 3,700

NH 0 0 1 25,000 2 20,000

NJ 2 100,000 2 10,000 0 0

NM 6 95,000 0 0 7 89,000

NV 2 1,000 0 0 4 10,000

NY 11 23,140 4 4,560 0 0

OH 39 50,594 1 10,000 56 276,612

OK 9 17,000 0 0 2 5,000

OR 4 6,800 1 1,000 6 138,000

PA 2 19,328 0 0 1 38,818

PR 0 133 0 0 0 0

RI 2 29,420 0 0 2 2,120

SC 3 169,923 1 2,400 1 23,000

SD 2 1,848 0 0 1 100

TN 38 597,050 0 0 29 1,365,720

TX 6 535,200 1 4,000 6 191,000

UT 4 42,000 0 0 7 75,000

VA 26 1,216 0 0 1 157,153

VI 0 0 0 0 1 28,000

VT 4 2,700 0 0 5 3,100

WA 12 14,782 6 4,821 9 12,830

WI 4 250 0 0 15 500,000

WV 5 328,698 1 273,851 0 0

WY 8 202 0 0 1 239

Total 450 14,930,424 50 2,150,132 291 10,349,454
132

Table 14a – Information Referral/Public Education/Awareness & Training Activities

FY 2013

State

Number of

Information Referral

Number of

Public Awareness Events

Number of

Trainings

Number of

People Trained

Number of

People Receiving Information

AK 527 3 8 101 107

AL 681 6 38 1,544 94,007

AR 252 3 8 102 215

AS 112 9 5 300 4,500

AZ 350 23 25 922 5,078

CA 121 354 175 4,661 26,138

CO 186 9 12 1,040 97,600

CT 491 21 14 270 2,500

DC 343 40 35 882 1,041

DE 345 7 27 559 1,532

FL 2,556 57 13 555 13,179

GA 575 9 63 3,000 3,765

GU 48 45 21 1,501 2,138

HI 626 202 47 574 2,428

IA 5 17 11 4,695 3,605

ID 416 12 4 262 337

IL 544 44 129 3,922 11,324

IN 734 30 50 452 36,540

KS 34 59 66 4,010 4,968

KY 657 46 33 560 1,479

LA 475 52 12 215 2,017

MA 60 4 8 896 8

MD 511 14 115 3,000 1,500

ME 672 5 102 2,076 250

MI 2,599 5 52 1,828 588

MN 127 14 36 1,600 4,090

MO 785 25 12 512 5,991

MP 900 75 22 804 9,286

MS 200 16 92 1,919 4,032

MT 296 4 7 200 450
133

Table 14a – Information Referral/Public Education/Awareness & Training Activities

FY 2013 cont’d.

State

Number of

Information Referral

Number of

Public Awareness Events

Number of

Trainings

Number of

People Trained

Number of

People Receiving Information

NA 5 4 6 760 50

NC 237 45 5 282 4,091

ND 329 17 12 197 689

NE 222 19 13 5 1,097

NH 252 17 9 5,000 340

NJ 763 41 18 1,790 8,851

NM 443 4 18 487 120

NV 799 6 5 49 1,100

NY 313 - 4 300 -

OH 125 7 12 524 931

OK 475 7 26 2,008 1,700

OR 1,119 12 7 150 390

PA 237 7 29 1,520 575

PR 1,048 45 45 7 1,037,039

RI 314 2 3 276 300

SC 521 23 27 295 4,894

SD 308 83 8 147 11,073

TN 732 272 28 2,081 1,319,190

TX 2,204 28 101 13,360 1,378

UT 800 28 33 4,386 4,327

VA 1,908 4 5 820 115

VI 7 20 5 93 1,745

VT 947 5 25 352 500

WA 1,104 2 22 1,867 58

WI 540 6 4 210 197

WV 256 25 15 196 2,190

WY 140 36 14 259 567

Total 32,376 1,975 1,741 80,383 2,744,200
134

Table 14b – Information Referral/Public Education/Awareness & Training Activities

FY 2014

State

Number o f

Information Referral

Number of

Public Awareness Events

Number o f

Trainings

Number of

People Trained

Number of

People Receiving Information

AK 529 4 6 43 184

AL 588 8 50 1,976 970

AR 275 20 15 586 1,492

AS 54 4 2 2,400 2,400

AZ 85 2 17 409 230

CA 94 329 123 4,588 31,062

CO 653 0 12 591 0

CT 421 21 9 177 6,000

DC 9 22 112 1,253 1,552

DE 172 8 31 1,100 1,514

FL 2,255 73 18 1,119 12,035

GA 742 3 58 1,705 2,915

GU 34 16 23 815 1,425

HI 664 148 55 806 3,214

IA 10 9 17 716 332

ID 102 12 6 315 630

IL 237 68 145 4,970 7,833

IN 771 34 47 407 22,336

KS 14 79 27 362 1,318

KY 820 10 38 1,072 1,015

LA 479 25 10 160 2,450

MA 72 14 14 769 10,784

MD 354 10 93 2,135 3,000

ME 510 5 97 2,779 285

MI 2,401 15 39 1,115 693

MN 149 8 38 1,650 1,700

MO 734 17 11 518 6,395

MP 250 40 2 41 2,680
135

Table 14b – Information Referral/Public Education/Awareness & Training Activities

FY 2014 cont’d.

State

Number o f

Information Referral

Number of

Public Awareness Events

Number o f

Trainings

Number of

People Trained

Number of

People Receiving Information

MS 144 13 66 1,177 4,701

MT 232 2 13 1,500 750

NA 2 1 3 83 150

NC 262 0 3 59 0

ND 329 23 39 374 2,359

NE 224 105 2 2 85,625

NH 379 19 7 150 639

NJ 709 44 24 889 11,540

NM 489 53 53 670 670

NV 735 83 19 275 1,909

NY 935 17 18 1,131 829

OH 435 37 30 1,117 13,428

OK 525 10 18 1,539 1,570

OR 672 22 5 145 978

PA 131 2 40 40 244

PR 1,021 82 70 1,400 18,676

RI 226 4 6 146 370

SC 564 37 14 485 7,840

SD 396 86 15 444 932

TN 731 523 32 1,506 1,492,855

TX 1,503 24 123 7,810 1,480

UT 500 17 18 19,263 453

VA 945 7 23 1,995 5,249

VI 8 4 7 141 621

VT 780 16 27 462 2,010

WA 5,540 11 57 4,088 1,937

WI 534 5 3 155 175

WV 219 16 16 262 2,045

WY 150 33 37 361 327

Total 32,798 2,300 1,903 82,246 1,786,806
136

ACRONYMS

Acronyms

ACA Affordable Care Act

ACF Administration for Children and Families

ACL Administration for Community Living

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADD Administration on Developmental Disabilities

AIDD Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

AoD Administration on Disabilities

ASD autism spectrum disorders

ATN Autism Treatment Network

AUCD Association of University Centers on Disabilities

CAU Crisis and Admissions Unit

CDC Centers for Disease Control

CDS Center for Disabilities Studies

CHA Children’s Health Act 

CMHS Center for Mental Health Services

CoP Community of Practice

CYFD Children, Youth & Families Department

DD developmental disabilities

DD Act Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act 

DARS Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services

DDC Council

DMHA Department of Mental Health and Addictions

DOC Department of Corrections

DOL Department of Licensing

DRNY Disability Rights New York

DRO Disability Rights Oregon

EIBI early intensive behavioral intervention

EPIC Equal Partners Interstate Congress

FISP Families Information Systems Project

FY fiscal year

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HIRE Helping Individuals Reach Employment
137

Acronyms

HSRI Human Services Research Institute

IAA interagency agreement

ICCP Inclusive Child Care Program

ICF/ID Intermediate Care Facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities

ICI Institute for Community Inclusion

ICU intensive care unit

ID intellectual disability

I/DD individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP individualized education program

IL independent living

ILA Independent Living Administration 

IMD institution for mental disease

IPAS Indiana Protection Advocacy Services

iTACC Information and Technical Assistance Center for Councils on Developmental 

Disabilities

LCH Larue D. Carter Hospital

LTSAE Learn the Signs Act Early

MDLC Maryland Disability Law Center

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSH Minnesota Security Hospital

NACDD National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities

NASDDDS National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services

NCI National Core Indicators

NDALC Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center

NDRN National Disability Rights Network

NDSH North Dakota State Hospital

NEAT North East Advocates Together

NYESS New York Employment Services System

ODEP Office of Disability Employment Policy

OIG Office of Inspector General

OST Out-of-School-Time

P&As Protection and Advocacy Systems

PAC PAIMI Advisory Council

PADD Protection and Advocacy for Developmental Disabilities
138

Acronyms

PAIMI Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness

PADSA Pacific Alliance on Disability Self-Advocacy

PCT personal care team

PHA public housing authority

PIW Psychiatric Institute of Washington

PPR Program Performance Report

REMA Regional Elder Mobility Alliance

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration

RTC residential treatment center

SABE Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

SDM supported decision-making

STC South Texas College

TLC The Legal Center

TASC Training and Advocacy Support Center

TSA Transportation Security Administration

T/TA training and technical assistance

UCEDD University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities

ULS University Legal Services

UNMPC University of New Mexico Psychiatric Center

VOCAL Virginia Organization of Consumers Asserting Leadership

VR Vocational Rehabilitation

WVAHC West Virginians for Affordable Health Care

WORK Working Opportunities Reward Kansas

WSH Wyoming State Hospital