42 C.F.R. § 51.24

Program priorities

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Program priorities and policies shall be established annually by the governing authority, jointly with the advisory council. Priorities shall specify short-term program goals and objectives, with measurable outcomes, to implement the established priorities. In developing priorities, consideration shall be given to, at a minimum, case selection criteria, the availability of staff and monetary resources, and special problems and cultural barriers faced by individuals with mental illness who are multiply handicapped or who are members of racial or ethnic minorities in obtaining protection of their rights. Systemic and legislative activities shall also be addressed in the development and implementation of program priorities.

(b) Members of the public shall be given an opportunity, on an annual basis, to comment on the priorities established by, and the activities of, the P&A system. Procedures for public comment must provide for notice in a format accessible to individuals with mental illness, including such individuals who are in residential facilities, to family members and representatives of such individuals and to other individuals with disabilities. Procedures for public comment must provide for receipt of comments in writing or in person.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1999–2010 · leading case: Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Additionally, PAMII provides that a protection and advocacy organization must afford the public with an opportunity to comment on the priorities and activities of the protection and advocacy system and must establish a grievance procedure for clients and prospective clients "to…”

Connecticut Off. of Prot. & Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. Connecticut, 706 F. Supp. 2d 266 (D. Conn. 2010). “” § 10805(a)(8), (9); 42 C.F.R. §§ 51.24 , 51.25. Id. (citation omitted).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.