RSA-227 - Annual Client Assistance Program (CAP) Report

Oregon (DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON) - H161A150038 - FY2015

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights Oregon formerly OAC
Address610 SW Broadway, Suite 200
Address Line 2
Zip Code97205
Website Address
Toll-free Phone800-452-1695
Toll-free TTY

Operating Agency (if different from Designated Agency)

NameDisability Rights Oregon formerly OAC
Address610 SW Broadway, Suite 200
Address Line 2
Zip Code97205
Website Address
Toll-free Phone800-452-1695
Toll-free TTY

Additional Information

Name of CAP Director/CoordinatorTed Wenk
Person to contact regarding reportJamie Jones
Contact Person Phone503-248-2081

Part I. Non-case Services

A. Information and Referral Services (I&R)

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Information regarding the vocational rehabilitation (VR) program51
2. Information regarding independent living programs0
3. Information regarding American Indian VR Service projects0
4. Information regarding Title I of the ADA1
5. Other information provided18
6. Information regarding CAP5
7. Total I&R services provided (Lines A1 through A6)75

B. Training Activities

1. IRCO Disability Fair (a) topics covered This is an educational event for IRCO staff as part of their on—going professional development and in—service training. For the last two years, IRCO (Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization) has been working on how the organization and staff can best support people with disabilities in IRCO’s programs and services. Recall some of their staff and many client groups are resettled immigrants and refugees from myriad cultures and countries, and the issues of disability and mental health remain stigmatized for many. DRO tabled and gave a general overview of DRO and provided information on all DRO programs. DRO attorney also provided more in—depth training on special education rights. (b) purpose of the training Help IRCO (Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization) as an organization and staff best support people with disabilities in IRCO’s programs and services. (c) description of the attendees IRCO Staff (12 in attendance)

2. National Coalition of State Rehabilitation Councils (a) topics covered WIOA (Work Investment and Opportunity Act) (b) purpose of the training Implications, proposed regulations, and learning about other states projects of the WIAO act. RSA officials presented to the group (c) description of the attendees National Coalition of State Rehabilitation Councils Members (20 attendees)

3. Options for Success 8th Annual Conference (a) topics covered Issues an barriers that people with disabilities face (re)entering the workforce (legal, social, cultural) (b) purpose of the training Help consumers achieve employment, independent living, and community participation. (c) description of the attendees Southern Oregon vocational program providers: OVRS, Oregon Relay, Options for Southern OR, OCB, HASL, Southern Oregon Goodwill Industries, Pathways Enterprises, AllCare Health Plan, Inc. (150 attendees)

4. April 2, 2015, “Disability Rights Oregon: An Introduction to Oregon’s Protection & Advocacy Office.” (a) topics covered addressed the P&A system, introduced and explained DRO’s numerous programs (specifically CAP), and provided relevant information for hospital discharge planners for use in their work. (b) purpose of the training Recipients received continuing education credit for attending the talk (c) description of the attendees Medical Case Managers/Hospital Staff

1. Number of training sessions presented to community groups and public agencies.0
2. Number of individuals who attended these training sessions.0
3. Describe training presented by the staff. Include the following information:
  1. topics covered
  2. purpose of the training
  3. description of the attendees

C. Agency Outreach

Describe the agency's outreach efforts to previously un-served or underserved individuals including minority communities.

CAP Attorneys conducted the following outreach:

— Presented to Confederate Tribes of Grande Ronde in November 2014 regarding CAP to various tribal VR agency director and individuals with disabilities. — Attended a June 2015 quarterly meeting at the Portland Center for Independent Living Resources in Portland. Here she met ILR board, staff, and community members and distributed CAP contact information. — Attends quarterly State Independent Living Council (SILC). — Attends monthly Independent Living Resources Community Advocacy Team working on issues such as bike transit and pedestrian advocates to appeal to the City for accessible right—of—ways to assist community members getting to and from the workplace (construction to IL Center was inaccessible). — Met with Happy Cup Coffee (local coffee company that hires many individuals with disabilities) regarding issues VR clients were having with the state agency in obtaining community based services. — Met with Assistive Technology Trainer and Blind Commission (OCB) Vendor who was identifying a number of issues his clients were having obtaining VR services. — attended PIE (Providing Information and Education) Day, an event for building awareness for state officials regarding CAP and VR services.

D. Information Disseminated To The Public By Your Agency

For each method of dissemination, enter the total number of each method used by your agency during the reporting period to distribute information to the public. For publications/booklets/brochures (item 4), enter the total number of documents produced. Agencies should not include website hits. See instructions for details.

Twitter (3,234 followers), Facebook (7,196 followers), Blog (311 views)

1. Agency Staff Interviewed or Featured on Radio and TV3
2. Articles about CAP Featured in Newspaper/Magazine/Journals23
3. PSAs/Videos Aired about the CAP Agency0
4. Publications/Booklets/Brochures Disseminated by the Agency2351
5. Number of Times CAP Exhibited at Conferences, Community Fairs, etc.0
6. Other (specify below)

E. Information Disseminated About Your Agency By External Media Coverage

Describe the various sources and information disseminated about your agency by an external source.

Disability Rights Oregon was mentioned in 20 external sources during FY2015, listed below. 1. Legal Settlement for People with Intellectual Disabilities Opens Door for Real Jobs (The Lund Report, 09/10/15) 2. Oregon’s sheltered workshops for the disabled to be phased out under terms of settlement (Oregonian, 09/08/15) 3. Settlement Calls For Cuts To Sheltered Workshops (Disability Scoop, 09/09/15) 4. Gov. Kate Brown, Plaintiffs Announce Settlement of Long—Running Disability Rights Lawsuit (Willamette Week, 09/08/15) 5. DOJ Deal Resolves Row Over Ore. Disabled Worker Practices (Law 360, 09/09/15) 6. Oregon settles lawsuit alleging mistreatment of disabled workers (Portland Business Journal, 09/08/15) 7. State Reaches Settlement for Lane V. Brown (Go Local PDX, 09/08/15) 8. Oregon to improve work settings for disabled in lawsuit settlement (The Register—Guard, 09/09/15) 9. Oregon, disabled workers end suit (Statesman Journal, 09/08/15) 10. Oregon Agrees to Improve Work Settings for the Disabled (KDRV, 09/09/15) 11. In US prisons, psychiatric disability is often met by brute force (Truthout, 07/18/15) 12. From the Care Act to the Able Act, a rundown of the 2015 health bills that passed (The Lund Report, 07/15/15 13. Senate bill gives free copy of medical records to those fighting for disability benefits (The Lund Report, 05/22/15) 14. Making the law pay (Willamette Week, 05/20/15) 15. Portland judge sanctions state in lawsuit over job opportunities for severely disabled Oregonians (The Oregonian, 05/11/15 16. Mentally ill prisoners routinely pepper—sprayed and isolated (OPB News, 05/04/15) 17. Inmates in Oregon’s Behavioral Health Unit harm themselves to try to get out of solitary cells, investigation finds (The Oregonian, 05/04/15) 18. Hoyle bill allows for commitments for people at risk of serious harm (The Lund Report, 04/30/15) 19. House passes bill requiring ERs to document forced seclusion of mental patients (The Lund Report, 03/06/15) 20. Ban solitary confinement (KBOO, 02/16/15)

Part II. Individual Case Services

A. Individuals served

An individual is counted only once during a fiscal year. Multiple counts are not permitted for Lines A1-A3.

1. Individuals who are still being served as of October 1 (carryover from prior year)10
2. Additional individuals who were served during the year44
3. Total individuals served (Lines A1+A2)54
4. Individuals (from Line A3) who had multiple case files opened/closed this year (In unusual situations, an individual may have more than one case file opened/closed during a fiscal year. This number is not added to the total in Line A3 above.)2
5. Individual still being served as of September 30 (Carryover to next year. This total may not exceed Line A3.)17

B. Problem areas

Multiple responses permitted.

1. Individual requests information1
2. Communication problems between individual and VR counselor6
3. Conflict about VR services to be provided16
4. Related to VR application/eligibility process7
5. Related to assignment to order of selection priority category0
6. Related to IPE development/implementation
  1. Selection of vendors for provision of VR services
  2. Selection of training, post-secondary education
  3. Selection of employment outcome
  4. Transition services
7. Related to independent living services0
8. Other Rehabilitation Act-related problems1
9. Non-Rehabilitation Act related
  1. TANF
  3. Housing
  4. Other:
10. Related to Title I of the ADA1

C. Intervention Strategies for closed cases

(Choose one primary service the CAP provided for each closed case file. There may be more case files than actual individuals served.)

1. Short Term Technical Assistance6
2. Investigation/Monitoring15
3. Negotiation9
4. Mediation and other methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution3
5. Administrative / Informal Review5
6. Formal appeal / Fair Hearing1
7. Legal remedy / Litigation0
8. Total39

D. Reasons for closing individuals' case files

(Choose one primary reason for closing each case file. There may be more case files than the total number of individuals served.)

1. All issues resolved in individual's favor15
2. Some issues resolved in individual's favor (when there are multiple issues)6
3. CAP determines VR agency position/decision was appropriate for the individual4
4. Individual's case lacks legal merit; (inappropriate for CAP intervention)12
5. Individual chose alternative representation0
6. Individual withdrew complaint1
7. Issue not resolved in clients favor1
8. CAP services not needed due to individual's death, relocation, etc.0
9. Individual not responsive/cooperative with CAP0
10. CAP unable to take case due to lack of resources0
11. Conflict of interest0
12. Other (Please explain below)

E. Results achieved for individuals

(Choose one primary outcome for each closed case file. There may be more case files than the total number of individuals served.)

1. Client VR case closed 2. Lost contact with homeless client 3. Client withdrew from VR services 4. Lost contact with client

1. Controlling law/policy explained to individual19
2. Application for services completed0
3. Eligibility determination expedited2
4. Individual participated in evaluation0
5. IPE developed/implemented/Services Provided7
6. Communication re-established between individual and other party6
7. Individual assigned to new counselor/office0
8. Alternative resources identified for individual0
9. ADA/504/EEO/OCR complaint made1
10. Other (Please explain below)

Part III. Program Data

A. Age

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Up to 180
2. 19 - 242
3. 25 - 407
4. 41 - 6444
5. 65 and over1
6. Total (Sum of Lines A1 through A5. Total must equal Part II, Line A3.)54

B. Gender

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females22
2. Males32
3. Total (Lines B1+B2. Total must equal Part II, Line A3.)54

C. Race/ethnicity of Individuals Served

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race (for individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only)2
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native4
3. Asian0
4. Black or African American7
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White26
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown19

D. Primary disabling condition of individuals served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Acquired Brain Injury2
4. Amputations or Absence of Extremities0
5. Arthritis or Rheumatism0
6. Anxiety Disorder1
7. Autism Spectrum Disorder4
8. Autoimmune or Immune Deficiencies (excluding AIDS/HIV)0
9. Blindness (Both Eyes)4
10. Other Visual Impairments (Not Blind)3
11. Cancer0
12. Cerebral Palsy1
13. Deafness2
14. Hard of Hearing/Hearing Impaired (Not Deaf)1
15. Deaf-Blind0
16. Diabetes0
17. Digestive Disorders0
18. Epilepsy1
19. Heart & Other Circulatory Conditions0
20. Intellectual Disability2
21. Mental Illness17
22. Multiple Sclerosis1
23. Muscular Dystrophy0
24. Muscular/Skeletal Impairment2
25. Neurological Disorders/Impairment4
26. Orthopedic Impairments5
27. Personality Disorders0
28. Respiratory Disorders/Impairment0
29. Skin Conditions0
30. Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)1
31. Speech Impairments0
32. Spina Bifida0
33. Substance Abuse (Alcohol or Drugs)2
34. Other Disability0
35. Total (Sum of Lines D1through D34. Total must equal Part II, Line A3.)54

E. Types of Individual Served

Multiple responses permitted.

1. Applicant of VR16
2. Individual eligible for VR services currently on a wait list0
3. Individual eligible for VR services not currently on a wait list30
4. Applicant or individual eligible for Independent Living0
5. Transition student/High school student0
6. All other applicants or individuals eligible for other programs or projects funded unther Rehabilitation Act8

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Non-Litigation Systemic Activities

DRO CAP attorney identified a long—term systemic issue relating to OVRS’ articulated policy that case closure may proceed following notice of CAP intervention. Such closure is contrary to a plain reading of regulations instructing that VR cases remain open throughout conflict resolution procedures, and would in some instances strip individual clients of standing upon subsequent appeals. The DRO CAP attorney notified OVRS of this erroneous policy, and articulated her concerns at several meetings with OVRS and CAP personnel. Following the DRO CAP attorney’s intervention, OVRS agreed to halt the practice on an informal basis, and has appeared to adhere to this agreement. DRO CAP attorney’s also circulated a memo addressing these concerns to NDRN staff attorneys Amy Scherer and Ron Hager, and engaged in further discussions with Scherer on the matter.

1. Number of non-litigation systemic activities not involving individual representation that resulted in the change of one or more policy or practice of an agency.1
2. Describe the systemic activities conducted by CAP during the fiscal year and its impact on other agency's policies or practices.

B. Litigation

1. Total number of CAP cases requiring litigation involving individual representation resulting in, or with the potential for, systemic change.
a. Number of cases requiring litigation involving individual representation filed during fiscal year.0
b. Number of on-going cases pending at start of fiscal year (carryover from prior fiscal year).0
c. Number of cases resolved through litigation during fiscal year.0
2. Describe the agency's on-going and completed systemic litigation activities involving individual representation.

Part V. Agency Information

A. Designated Agency

1. Agency Type (select only one option) External-Protection and Advocacy agency
2. Name of designate agencyDisability Rights Oregon
3. Is the designated agency contracting CAP services?No
4. If yes, name of contracting agency:N/A

B. Staff Employed

Provide a description of all CAP positions (see instructions)

For professional CAP positions (attorneys and advocates), the total position FTE = .55 (3 full time positions with only a portion of FTE spent in CAP and one half—time position totally devoted to CAP). For clerical, FTE = .04 FTE of 2 full—time positions.

Part VI. Case Examples

Provide some examples of some interesting cases during the past fiscal year.

CASE EXAMPLE 1. OVRS found client ineligible for services due to circumstances surrounding his prior job loss, which involved felony charges. Client, who has cerebral palsy, brought the matter to CAP attention. CAP intervened and informed OVRS that this was not a reason to deny client services under any applicable regulation. OVRS responded that client could reapply for services, which would add an additional waiting period to client’s receipt of services. CAP insisted that OVRS instead re—open the client’s case immediately, and expedite any associated eligibility determination. OVRS senior management agreed to do so, and client was very pleased that his OVRS services were reinstituted within a matter of days.

CASE EXAMPLE 2. Client, who has mental and emotional impairments, called because she did not understand reasons for OVRS delays in providing agreed—upon services. CAP experienced months—long difficulty in accessing client’s OVRS file, necessitating discussion with senior management. When CAP finally reviewed client’s file, CAP found the presented file incomplete and rife with instances of neglect by OVRS counselor personnel. CAP and OVRS senior management personally compared each entry in the hard—copy and electronic—copy files. This review showed that, in addition to repeated inaction by counselor personnel, OVRS had presented a file for review that was incomplete and missing ordinary evidence stored on OVRS’ server. This exchange led to improved protocol and quality control for OVRS presentation of files for CAP review. CAP also requested that client receive a new VRC, as client was intimidated by prior VRC. CAP attended meetings with client and new VRC, and ensured that client was comfortable and that client’s concerns regarding IPE vendor selection were addressed. Client ultimately received agreed—upon counselling and job training services and experienced a positive and beneficial relationship with her new VRC.

CASE EXAAMPLE 3. OVRS denied client’s IPE goal for work as a clinical nutritionist. This job goal required a Master’s in Nutrition Science; OVRS denied plan based upon client’s prior completion of Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Hospitality. Client was deaf and employed as a deli—counter sandwich maker. OVRS reasoned that this work constituted full employment for client, taking into account her interests, education, and abilities. CAP intervened and insisted that such minimum wage work did not constitute full employment as expected for an individual with a Master’s in Hospitality. Upon CAP direction, OVRS obtained marketplace employment data showing that client’s position as sandwich—maker was contrary to OVRS’ position as no reasonable opportunity for advancement to management or transfer to other executive—track hospitality positions existed. Because this data showed that client was under—employed, OVRS agreed to support IPE for work as a clinical nutritionist, and agreed to fund client’s second bachelor’s in this field. This case was especially notable because OVRS agreed to revisit standards for “full employment” of disabled individuals; in this case, CAP successfully argued that employment in a minimum—wage unskilled position did not constitute equivalency to employment normally associated with a graduate degree in the hotel and hospitality field.


Reports are to be submitted to RSA within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report. Please be reminded that you can enter data directly into RSA's website via the internet. Information on transmittal of the form is found on pages 19 and 20 of the reporting instructions.

Name of Designated Agency OfficialRobert C. Joondeph
Title of Designated Agency OfficialExecutive Director
Date Signed12/18/2015