Protection and Advocacy seeks continued funding; pilot shows assistive-technology savings for high-need clients

Veronica Ziets, executive director of the North Dakota Protection and Advocacy Project (P&A), briefed the House Appropriations Human Resources Division on the agency’s caseload trends, federal grant structure and optional budget requests. The agency also presented results from an assistive-technology pilot during the hearing.

P&A’s role and caseload trends Ziets told the committee P&A is the federally authorized protection-and-advocacy system established under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and that state law further defines the agency’s duties (North Dakota Century Code chapter 25 and North Dakota Administrative Code Title 65 were cited). She summarized core program lines: information and referrals (INRs), training and education, investigations of abuse/neglect/exploitation, representative-payee reviews and advocacy/legal representation.

She reported rising demand in information-and-referral work and training; P&A logged 6,126 information-and-referrals in the most recent two federal fiscal years (a roughly 9% increase over the prior biennium) and said training reached more than 17,000 individuals across programs in the last two federal fiscal years. On direct case services, P&A reported 2,390 cases worked and 1,771 distinct clients served across fiscal years 2023–24; the agency said 99% of resolved cases were at least partially or fully favorable to the client and 94% of surveyed clients found the work beneficial.

Operational constraints: grants, staffing and turnover Ziets explained the agency’s funding mix—federal grant awards (minimum allotments for North Dakota) plus state general funds—and said grant formulas limit revenue growth for small states. P&A’s core federal awards were itemized (for example, DD grant ~$415k/year; mental-health grant ~$474k/year; other targeted grants for assistive technology, brain injury, voting access, Social Security beneficiaries and representative-payee reviews). Many grant lines have shown modest growth over time or none at all.

Staffing is a central concern: the agency is funded for 28.5 FTEs, reported 11 vacancies at the time of testimony, and noted turnover of 32% for July 2023–June 2024 (11% thereafter through the most recent period). Ziets said time-to-fill for legal positions can run up to 10 months and that P&A’s small size makes large retirement payouts disruptive; the agency asked the committee to consider a $19,288 one-time request to fund retirement payouts for a future departing employee.

Assistive-technology pilot and cost findings Jordan Wetzel, project coordinator for P&A’s workforce-and-technology pilot, described four participants who received assistive-technology packages intended to support community living and reduce staff hours and institutional costs. Wetzel presented per-client examples that P&A used to estimate savings: one participant reportedly moved from Life Skills Transition Center care (quoted daily cost at $1,536/day in the testimony) to a community apartment with assistive technology, yielding a claimed annual reduction that P&A estimated in the testimony. Wetzel urged the committee to support continuing the pilot by funding a permanent position to carry the work forward.

Budget requests and committee follow-up P&A asked to continue the pilot coordinator as a permanent FTE (the position was initially funded with one-time COVID/ARPA funds), and also requested a communications specialist FTE to raise public awareness of P&A services. Ziets provided a base 2025–27 budget figure and explained that federal carryover and continuing-resolution timing create uncertainty in drawdowns. She warned that fully spending current carryover would leave no buffer for the next biennium.

What the committee asked for Members requested detail and follow-up items including: the agency’s county-level caseload distribution, a breakdown of vacancy and turnover drivers, and further documentation on pilot participant savings and whether Medicaid or waiver billing could cover assistive-technology items. Ziets and Wetzel said they are working with HHS on billing codes and waiver alignment and that P&A had begun conversations with other states and HHS to expand reimbursement options.

Ending: The committee acknowledged P&A’s statutory role and the program’s potential to reduce state costs when assistive technology enables community placement. Lawmakers said they will weigh the agency’s optional FTE requests and follow up on the documentation that P&A promised to provide.