About peeraction

The Peer Action Alliance is a community of peers organized to advocate for equal access and inclusion of individuals with disabilities

Top 10 Problems at the Michigan SILC

1. Members of the Michigan Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC) are not knowledgeable about America’s Independent Living Program as required by law.

The Governor is required to appoint people to the SILC who represent a broad range of disabilities from diverse backgrounds who are knowledgeable about Centers for Independent Living and Independent Living services, a majority of whom cannot be employed by a Center for Independent Living (CIL) or the state.

2. SILC Council Members are not given the information they need to carry out their responsibilities.

Information and training are being withheld from Council Members in order to keep control in the hands of Michigan’s corrupt Centers for Independent Living, which do not meet consumer control requirements.

3. Michigan SILC Council Members and staff have no idea what the purpose of a SILC is.

Save MI CILs - Oversight Now!Blue Water CIL Executive Director and CIL Liaison to the SILC Jim Whalen recently stated, “I can help the council, or find people who can, discover a purpose and start having the behaviors that it takes to make progress toward those purpose—including those that are required to under federal law”.

A SILC that does not know its purpose is clearly unable to carry out its responsibilities.

4. Michigan Centers for Independent Living (CILs) use the SILC as a piggy bank.

CIL representatives do not disclose conflicts of interest or recuse themselves from votes that directly benefit themselves financially.  Continue reading

Comments on the Michigan Common Disability Agenda

The main problem in Michigan’s local disability communities is that our taxpayer-funded Centers for Independent Living have lost all connection to their role as consumer-driven advocacy organizations. One of the most important roles of a Center for Independent Living like Disability Network West Michigan is to bring individuals with disabilities together so that we can engage in collective action.

Save MI CILs - Oversight Now!Our CIL has no opportunities for individuals with disabilities to engage in systems advocacy, which is a legally required activity.

Yet, we’ve been invited here today to give input into a “Common Disability Agenda”. The people I want to have a common agenda with are my peers – other people with disabilities. Centers for Independent Living, Disability Network, and the SILC should not have a common agenda with subminimum wage employers, vocational rehabilitation, and other agencies that exploit people with disabilities. Those agencies and predatory businesses should have ZERO say in the disability community’s advocacy agenda.  Continue reading

Letter to the Inspector General Calling for An Immediate Audit of the Independent Living Administration

The Honorable Daniel R. Levinson
US Department of Health and Human Services
Office of Inspector General
ATTN: OIG HOTLINE OPERATIONS
PO Box 23489
Washington, DC 20026

Dear Inspector General Levinson,

We are writing to request that the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conduct an audit of the Independent Living Program and the legal oversight responsibilities being neglected by the Independent Living Administration (ILA) within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), specifically in regard to contractor and grantee compliance with the laws governing America’s Independent Living Program.

The Independent Living Program is primarily regulated by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (reauthorized in 2013 as part of the Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act – WIOA). Federal law requires the Independent Living Administration to provide oversight of the IL Program by conducting onsite reviews of 15% of America’s 337+ Centers for Independent Living annually.

WIOA created an Independent Living Administration within ACL. Previously, oversight of the IL Program was provided through the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) within the Department of Education. In 2012, the Department of Education Office of the Inspector General issued audit findings (Attachment 1) that concluded RSA was not fulfilling its legal obligations to the public. The OIG made the following findings:

  • “We found that RSA had not provided adequate monitoring and oversight of the CILs. We also found that the Section 704 Annual Performance Reports for Centers for Independent Living Program (704 Reports) were not fully supported by the documentation available at the CILs reviewed and that consumer service and other records did not contain the documentation required by the program regulations.”
  • “As a result of the inadequate monitoring and oversight, partially supported performance reports and inadequately documented files, (the Rehabilitation Services Administration) did not have sufficient, accurate information to provide required oversight of the grant programs at the CILs reviewed… Appropriate oversight is essential to ensuring that the program goals are met.”

The OIG issued a corrective action plan, but it was too late. Because the IL Unit at RSA had refused to fulfill its legal obligations for decades, plans were already underway to remove the IL Unit from RSA’s purview. We – the Independent Living community – believed that the creation of an Independent Living Administration would put an end to this long-standing problem. As of the date of reauthorization, the CILs reviewed are no longer required to be selected randomly, which allows the ILA greater flexibility to review CILs that are clearly demonstrating non-compliance with the law. Unfortunately, we continue to experience the same problems the OIG identified and ordered corrected in 2012. Specifically:

  • Like RSA, the ILA relies on narrow and unsupported interpretations of the Rehabilitation Act in order to avoid its responsibilities. This is causing significant harm to the Independent Living Program nationwide and specifically in Michigan.
  • The IL Unit within the Independent Living Administration is not conducting appropriate oversight of Michigan Centers for Independent Living (CILs) and the Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC), collectively known as Disability Network/Michigan.
  • Michigan’s Centers for Independent Living are not providing the core services required by law and are not meeting long-standing compliance indicators.
  • The ILA has made public statements that indicate they intend to decrease monitoring activities instead of working towards compliance with the law.
  • No formal complaint process for CILs and SILCs exist and IL Specialists within the Independent Living Administration are unreachable for years end; IL Specialist Job Descriptions (Attachment 2) have not been updated in over 12 years despite major revisions to the law governing the Independent Living Program; and IL Specialists are refusing to perform the duties listed in their job descriptions.
  • The ILA is relying on unverified assertions of compliance and is not conducting monitoring activities. ILA does not terminate grants for non-compliance with the Rehabilitation Act, even when non-compliance is demonstrated by the public. ILA staff members openly admit that oversight is only provided in the case of financial misconduct.

Our request to you follows the receipt of an unacceptable response from the Independent Living Administration dated June 1, 2017 (Attachment 3), which failed to address substantial questions raised over the course of years. Despite assurances to the contrary, the ILA does not appear to have conducted any meaningful investigation of the serious allegations raised by consumers or any assessment of its internal practices or procedures; any audits or other meaningful oversight of its grantees with regard to compliance. To the contrary, the ILA seems to be arguing that it is legally and ethically unable to fulfill its responsibilities.

The ILA’s response contains several statements that the ILA knows to be false. Those false statements are outlined in my response (Attachment 4). The ILA’s response makes a broad declaration of compliance of Michigan’s entire IL Program without any review of Michigan’s Statewide Independent Living Council and 14 Centers for Independent Living beyond the 704 Reports. It is obvious that the minimal oversight activity conducted was undertaken with the objective to support a declaration of compliance regardless of the available evidence.

Michigan CILs are now controlled by the state despite federal law requiring that CILs must be designed and operated by local disability communities. The ILA is fully aware that Michigan CILs are submitting falsified data in their 704 Reports with the assistance of the state. In addition to complaints directly from Michigan citizens, all federal evidence collected over the past several decades supports the conclusion that Michigan CILs are falsifying 704 Report data and not providing the core services as required by law:

  • In 2012, the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Education evaluated the Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living and found that improper documentation violated several laws surrounding fiscal misconduct and reporting requirements (Attachment 1).
  • In 2013, the Rehabilitation Services Administration performed an onsite review of Disability Advocates of Kent County (Grand Rapids CIL) and found that: DAKC did not properly maintain Consumer Service Records (CSRs); did not meet consumer control requirements because individuals with disabilities did not constitute more than 50 percent of DAKC’s employees in decision-making positions; had not established three-year program and financial planning objectives; and did not meet all prescribed standards for financial management systems (Attachment 5).
  • In 2014, Disability Network/Wayne County (Detroit CIL) was sued by the EEOC for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to accommodate a deaf employee.

Nevertheless, the ILA relies on a declaration of compliance from the state – the very entity that has illegally taken control of Michigan CILs. At this point, the ILA is participating in a cover-up of fraudulent activities on the part of Michigan CILs in order to excuse themselves from their responsibilities.

I urge you to please investigate these issues. Michiganders with disabilities are suffering without access to functioning Centers for Independent Living, despite having an Independent Living Program that is Congressionally-mandated and fully-funded by taxpayers.

Thank you very much for your time. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide you with any further information. My contact information is included below. More information on the consumer-driven campaign to bring Michigan Centers for Independent Living into compliance with the law is available at www.peeractionalliance.comContinue reading

Muskegon Disability Community Top Advocacy Priorities 2017

  1. Transform Disability Network West Michigan into a fully functioning Center for Independent Living that is community-based, cross-disability, and consumer controlled.

The founders of the Independent Living Movement created fully funded Centers for Independent Living in federal law. Muskegon’s CIL receives approximately one million dollars per year in taxpayer dollars to be comprised of a majority of individuals with significant disabilities; to provide advocacy to individuals experiencing discrimination; and to provide systemic advocacy to proactively address structures that keep Muskegonites with disabilities dependent. We must bring our CIL into compliance with the law in order to successfully organize and take action on any other issue. A fully functioning Center for Independent Living is our greatest potential asset in our work for disability rights.

  1. Eliminate Subminimum wages in Muskegon County.

Subminimum wages are a scheme by which a business or organization is legally allowed to pay workers with significant disabilities less than minimum wage (sometimes pennies per hour) in exchange for labor. That labor is then rebranded as “training” and packaged as a service provided to the individual. The business or organization then bills Medicaid, Rehabilitation Services, or another provider for providing the individual the “experience of work”. These individuals rarely move on to integrated employment and can spend decades in back rooms sorting screws into jars or folding used clothes while CEOs walk away with $500,000 / year salaries. We have experienced first-hand that this practice is alive and well in Muskegon.  We must eliminate this outdated and dehumanizing practice immediately.

Who’s Paying Subminimum Wages in Muskegon: Goodwill Industries of West Michigan.

  1. Housing

We must adopt and enforce universal design standards and require publicly funded housing to meet accessibility standards. There is desperate need for affordable accessible housing. Muskegonites with disabilities are being unjustly forced into group homes, nursing homes, and other institutions that limit freedom simply because they lack housing options.

  1. Eradicate employment discrimination.

A casual glance at the local want ads reveals a culture that is not prepared to integrate people with disabilities into the workforce. How many job ads have you seen for positions that require the applicant to “have the ability to walk, speak, and hear”? Ninety percent of the time, that requirement has nothing to do with the essential duties listed in the job description. Requiring a valid driver’s license for jobs that do not involve driving is one way commonly used to deny access before a job seeker with a significant disability even applies. We need to educate the community on discrimination in the hiring process as well as the workplace.

  1. Reform guardianship laws and ensure that parents with disabilities are not discriminated against.

Currently, many people with significant disabilities in Muskegon are placed under unnecessary full guardianship by the Courts without being fully informed about their rights. They are often surprised to learn that they no longer have the right to vote or marry and that revoking full guardianship can be a long, expensive, and trying endeavor. People with significant disabilities are discriminated against routinely in custody cases and without a functioning Center for Independent Living, they have no one who understands the law to stand with them in a biased system.

  1. Access

A settlement between the US Department of Justice and the City of Muskegon was reached in 2010 and lasts five years. Under the settlement, the City agreed to make its services and programming fully accessible. Unfortunately, Muskegon events, polling places, parks, bus stops, and sidewalks remain out of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This issue must be addressed systemically and with accountability to the local disability community.

  1. Education

We need every member of the Muskegon disability community to be fully aware of our rights under the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We need at least one full time advocate, employed by our local Center for Independent Living, who can provide consumer-driven disability rights advocacy to students and parents navigating the school systems. We want to see students with disabilities empowered to achieve their own goals and for schools to set higher (and equal) expectations for youth with disabilities to be economically independent and self-determined as adults.

  1. Healthcare

Many doctors’ offices and clinical services are not fully accessible. Physicians need to be educated about their obligations for translators or interpreters and examination tables and scales must be useable by chair users. Healthcare professionals must learn from people with disabilities about the issues that determine quality of life and satisfaction rather than assume disability is solely a medical problem.

  1. Transportation

Transportation options for people with disabilities are woefully absent and unavailable in Muskegon County. Bus stops are not fully accessible. Paratransit services are limited to the bare minimum required by law and are not responsive to the needs of the community and to individuals wishing to utilize those services. Transportation Network Companies like Uber and Lyft, which are actively vying for support from the Michigan legislature, are also actively fighting the Americans with Disabilities Act in Court. Accessible taxis are generally unavailable. The right to travel freely through our community is a civil right. We must address this issue systemically and as a community.

2017 Rally for Disability Pride Planned for Saturday June 10 in Downtown Muskegon

On June 10, the disability community, people with disabilities and our allies, will gather at the Olthoff Street Stage in downtown Muskegon to celebrate Disability Pride Day, educate ourselves about the issues of today and demonstrate that our voices are critical to current policy debates.

All are welcome to attend. There will be music, light refreshments, face painting, music, and speeches from local disability rights advocates, our allies, and our elected officials. The program will also feature an “open mic” session do increase dialogue about disability issues in our community.

Olthoff Street Stage is located in Downtown Muskegon, across from the Frauenthal. The event is scheduled from 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. The Rally for Disability Pride is free of charge and open to the public. Attendees are encouraged to RSVP on Facebook.

Blending and Braiding: A Scam to Bypass WIOA Regulations

The State of Michigan is desperate to find a way to continue funding sheltered workshops despite new federal regulations.

In partnership with Michigan’s association of sheltered workshops (MARO), the Michigan Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC) has submitted a detailed – and shocking – proposal to the Governor’s Office (PDF).

The authors of this document provided a chart demonstrating how the State can maintain the illusion of compliance while continuing the pipeline of Michiganders with disabilities to subminimum wage “jobs”. This graphic demonstrates how the state can move individuals with disabilities from agency to agency for 90 days, collecting every fee they can – with no identified outcome other than a closed case and “ongoing supports provided by Medicaid”. Translation: they intend to continue misusing Medicaid dollars to fund sheltered workshops, and to co-mingle those dollars with vocation rehabilitation funds, which expressly cannot be used to fund sheltered workshops.

Image: Six Boxes. Each box has an arrow leading to the next box: - Box 1: Person-Centered Plan indicates an Employment Goal (Medicaid) - Box 2: Refer to VR Services (MRS/BSBP) for an Eligibility Determination (Vocational Rehabilitation fund/VR funds) - Box 3: If Eligible for VR services develop Plan for Employment & Support Services (VR funds) - Box 4: Refer to a community organization (CRO/CIL) for skill development, job placement, etc. (Medicaid or VR funds) - Box 5: Individual obtains employment-Support such as job coaching may be needed [VR (90-days) or Medicaid funds] - Box 6: After 90-days VR may close the case Ongoing supports provided by Medicaid

The Medicaid funds in question are to be used only to provide skill building assistance in the community according to the Michigan Medicaid Provider Manual. WIOA expressly forbids the use of any vocational rehabilitation funds to Ability One Contractors and non-integrated entities.

The proposal outlines how the state can “blend and braid” funding streams so that it can continue to collect federal dollars while engaging in activities that are not allowable with those funds. The money gets passed from one organization to the next, until no one can understand its original intent or requirements.

  • Blending is a strategy to obscure the source of funding that has specific requirements. Money is transferred from the state to private non-profits so that it can no longer be tracked by the public. Blending will provide the cover Michigan Rehabilitation Services needs to mislead federal regulators.

The Code of Federal Regulations states:

“For Federal awards of similar purpose activity or instances of approved blended funding, a non-Federal entity may submit performance plans that incorporate funds from multiple Federal awards and account for their combined use based on performance-oriented metrics, provided that such plans are approved in advance by all involved Federal awarding agencies. In these instances, the non-Federal entity must submit a request for waiver of the requirements based on documentation that describes the method of charging costs, relates the charging of costs to the specific activity that is applicable to all fund sources, and is based on quantifiable measures of the activity in relation to time charged.”

  • Braiding is a strategy in which separate funding streams are brought together to pay for more than one funding stream can support, then pulled back apart to report to funders on how the money was spent. Braiding requires strict financial and programmatic oversight to ensure that state and federal tax dollars are spent only on allowable activities. Braiding requires a grantee to act in good faith – with transparency and honesty. It is not to be used to bypass or obscure federal regulations.

Two years ago, a formal partnership between Michigan’s Centers for Independent Living and sheltered workshops was developed behind closed doors by Sara Grivetti, Todd Culver (MARO), and Suzanne Howell (State of Michigan). These parties are so closely connected to sheltered workshops that they are completely flummoxed by the new WIOA Regulations because they believe – whole-heartedly – in sheltered work and their role supporting it.

The intent of Section 511 of WIOA is to limit the use of subminimum wage employment.

Graphic: Don’t be fooled! Community Rehabilitation Organization Equals Subminimum Wage EmployerInstead of a good faith effort to follow the law, Michigan Rehabilitation Services, Michigan Centers for Independent Living (Disability Network), the Michigan SILC, sheltered workshops, and the Governor’s Office are doing everything they can to maintain the status quo.

Blending and braiding employment and Medicaid funds does nothing to benefit Michiganders with disabilities. The financial beneficiaries of this absurd proposal are sheltered workshops and their partners.

One major question remains unanswered: why have sheltered workshops and their partners been given control over implementing Employment First? It’s a huge conflict of interest. Employment First is not being carried out with the transparency necessary to blend and braid funds legally and zero consumer input is being solicited or considered.

Notes:

  1. Community Rehabilitation Organization (CRO) is a code word for sheltered workshops.
  2. This proposal references “CRO/CILs”. There is no such thing as a CRO/CIL. Centers for Independent Living are not sheltered workshops. CILs and sheltered workshops are radically different organizations. Centers for Independent Living are taxpayer-funded organizations required by law to be led by local disability communities. Real CILs do not support sheltered work or any other forms of disability discrimination or financial exploitation.
  3. Sara Grivetti should disclose conflicts of interest before requesting funds on behalf of the public that benefit her personally and professionally. It is not appropriate for Ms. Grivetti to use her position on the SILC to direct funds to her organization. This has been an ongoing problem for several years.

See also: How Michigan CILs Became Service Providers Chasing Money and Working for Our Oppressors

Independent Living Administration – IL Specialist: Job Description

The following Job Description for IL Specialists at the Independent Living Administration (within the Administration for Community Living) was obtained April 6, 2017 by FOIA Request. Shockingly, the IL Specialist Job Description has not been updated since 2005. Nevertheless, it’s very specific.

Save MI CILs - Oversight Now!Soon, Peer Action Alliance will draft a letter to the Senate HELP Committee asking why federal employees are refusing to fulfill their legal obligations to the public and the responsibilities specifically outlined in this Job Description.

The following responsibilities are not being carried out in the state of Michigan.

The purpose of this position is to represent, promote and give oversight to programmatic interest and requirements of RSA and its constituents in the public and private provider sectors, as well as maintain channels of information and consultation with various consumer advocacy groups.

Identifies areas of policy deficiency or conflict.

Negotiates and elicits from key agency officials workable agreements or acceptable corrective actions where long­ standing weaknesses or unique problems are identified and there are not appropriate guides to follow in assessing and correcting them. Conducts follow-up reviews to determine if improvements (corrective action plans) have been implemented.

Serves on State Teams to conduct on-site monitoring reviews.

Assures that assigned State VR agencies and other grantees operate in conformity and compliance with applicable Federal laws, regulations and polices derived from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended… and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The incumbent must exercise independent judgment, balance competing demands, develop complex options that are often unique, contribute to best practice decisions and provide interpretations of broad agency mission statements containing goals and objectives to elicit precise responses.

The incumbent must, from time to time, secure acceptance of controversial ideas. In the event of non-resolvable controversy or conflict surrounding State Plan issues, the incumbent prepares the compliance conformity citation and independently performs all research that supports and/or defends a position of compliance or non-compliance.

Complex and sensitive issues often arise for which little precedent has been established in the form of written guidelines. In resolving such matters, the incumbent seeks to assure – through negotiation, research, and consultation – that law and regulation is correctly applied.

When guidelines do not exist or are materially deficient, the incumbent is expected to independently research existing guidelines materials and propose responses or more specific standards appropriate to the circumstances.

More text from Kimball Gray’s Job Description is available below. Sighted people can access the full Job Description in inaccessible PDF. We hope this information is useful to others in the IL field who are not able to reach their IL Specialist at the Independent Living Administration.  Continue reading