Evidence submitted should represent both the tenant (as the person served) and the landlord, (should be de-identified) and most important discuss protections against eviction, spell out rental agreement including monthly rent, deposit, all to display the person served as having the same rights (legally enforceable rights) as someone not receiving HCBS services.

Evidence submitted should represent both the tenant (as the person served) and the landlord, (should be de-identified) and most important discuss protections against eviction, spell out rental agreement including monthly rent, deposit, all to display the person served as having the same rights (legally enforceable rights) as someone not receiving HCBS services.

Evidence for this should be two-fold: are there lockable entrance doors, and is there a policy around who has keys, ensuring only appropriate people have them, is there a return policy for keys (if staff stop working at a home, what measures are taken to ensure staff don’t have keys who don’t need them) and is the choice of the person served taken into account in terms of who gets and does not get key access to the home. Pictures of lockable doors are great and need to be supported by strong policy.

Evidence for this question should be a policy that ensures person served or appointed party is allowed entrance at the discretion of the person served.  This can be accomplished a number of ways: providing keys to who the person served deems appropriate (see F1) have a process for buzzing people in (door bell, etc) but the point here is to provide person served autonomy to choose to let people in or not. 

Evidence for this is straightforward.  Persons-served should have full autonomy to lock doors (bedroom and bathroom) in their homes.  If there is a need for this to be restricted in some way it must be documented in the plan of the person-served, thus it has no bearing on how the site is intended to run. Policy should state this specifically. Pictures of bathroom doors are great and need to be supported by strong policy defining privacy.

Evidence for this is straightforward.  Persons-served should have full autonomy to lock doors (bedroom and bathroom) in their homes.  If there is a need for this to be restricted in some way it must be documented in the plan of the person-served, thus it has no bearing on how the site is intended to run. Policy should state this specifically. Pictures of bathroom doors are great and need to be supported by strong policy defining privacy.

Evidence should outline privacy to this nuanced point. Staff should be in some way gaining permission to enter private rooms.  

Bedrooms and bathrooms with locks (passing F3 and F4) would ensure privacy during personal care, however, other rooms can be used specifically for this purpose if need be.  Policies will outline privacy during personal care can be gained, and how.  Any restrictions to privacy should be outlined in a person-centered plan and not affect how the site is intended to operate.    

Evidence for this question should cover all options, as privacy while using the telephone and browsing the internet are different.  Defining privacy is important here and extending that definition to these activities.  Keep in mind any restrictions to this should be outlined in a person-centered plan and not affect how the site is intended to operate.

Evidence for this question can be shown in the demographics of the site (if the site has less than three people in it, it cannot have more larger than double occupancy bedrooms) however policy stating no person served will share a room with more than one person would also suffice.

Evidence for this question is straight forward, elevating the right of a person served to choose his or her roommate.  (Be advised this is different from housemate, which may have their own room.  While collaboration with teams is expected when moving a person served from home to home, it isn’t always possible especially in emergency situations to allow the person served to choose all their housemates.  A person served should always have say over who sleeps in their room however.)

Evidence for this question should be straightforward.  A policy that allows for personalization of person-served living areas/bedroom areas promotes autonomy and personal choice.

Evidence for this question should be straightforward.  A policy that allows for personalization of person-served living areas/bedroom areas promotes autonomy and personal choice.

Evidence for this question can be represented in a number of ways.  Person-served should have the ability to set their own routines in their homes.  If there are restrictions in place they should be expressed in a person-centered plan and not affect how the site is intended to run.  In many cases, it is prudent for a provider to prompt or remind person-served about schedules they’ve agreed to (regularly completing hygiene, eating for health, attending appointments, etc) but executive decision on whether to complete tasks must be left up to the person served.  It should not be the policy of a site to create a schedule for persons served that they cannot exercise their choice to deviate from.

Evidence for this is straight-forward.  Both policies that state persons served have full access to laundry facilities in their home and pictures of the area without restriction will be accepted, but a picture however, cannot always stand alone, especially if the laundry facilities are behind closed doors. 

Evidence for this is straight forward.  Persons-served being encouraged to do their own laundry promotes choice.  Having a policy that does not restrict persons-served from assisting or completing household chores on their own including laundry will be accepted.

Evidence for this is straight forward.  A policy describing that persons-served living in properties have access to all areas of the home would cover this- if there are any areas a person-served must be restricted from (cleaning closets, water heater, etc) it should be documented specifically.  At the very least, no person-served should have to gain access to their own living/common/dining area.

Evidence for this is straight forward.  A policy describing that persons-served living in properties have access to all areas of the home would cover this- if there are any areas a person-served must be restricted from (cleaning closets, water heater, etc) it should be documented specifically.  At the very least, no person-served should have to gain access to their own living/common/dining area.

Evidence for this can be represented in a few ways.  Persons-served should have access to food preparation and storage as they choose.  If there are restrictions to this it should be documented in a person-centered plan and not affect how the site is intended to run. A policy that explains food freedoms would be accepted here- not only giving persons served access to food, but to food storage and preparation areas.

Evidence for this can be represented in a few ways.  Persons-served should have access to food preparation and storage as they choose.  If there are restrictions it should be documented in a person-centered plan and not affect how the site is intended to run. A policy that explains food freedoms would be accepted here- not only giving persons served access to food, but to food storage and preparation areas.

Evidence for this can be represented in a few ways.  Persons-served should have access to food preparation and storage as they choose.  If there are restrictions it should be documented in a person-centered plan and not affect how the site is intended to run. A policy that explains food freedoms would be accepted here- not only giving persons served access to food, but to food storage and preparation areas.

Evidence for this should be straight forward.  Persons-served should have a choice of when and what to eat, even within the realm of dietary restriction (which should be documented in their person-centered plan and not affect how a site is intended to run).  Any restrictive measures put on food storage or preparation areas also would need to be documented and (in the case of multiple persons-served living in a home together) not extend itself to persons-served who do not have the restriction.

Evidence for this is fairly straight forward.  Persons-served should have choice over where and with whom they eat.  In the event a person served must eat with staff for safety reasons, it should be documented in the person-centered plan and not effect how the site is intended to run.