RSA-509 - Protection & Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) Program Performance Report

Oregon (OREGON ADVOCACY CENTER) - H240A140038 - FY2014

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights Oregon
Address610 SW Broadway, Suite 200
Address Line 2
CityPortland
StateOregon
Zip Code97205
E-mail Addressaforbes@droregon.org
Website Addresshttp://www.droregon.org
Phone503-243-2081
TTY
Toll-free Phone800-452-1694
Toll-free TTY
Fax503-243-1738
Name of P&A Executive DirectorRobert Joondeph
Name of PAIR Director/CoordinatorKathy Wilde
Person to contact regarding reportAlice Forbes
Contact Person phone503-243-2081
Ext.204

Part I. Non-Case Services

A. Individual Information and Referral Services (I&R)

Multiple responses are not permitted.

1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas217
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas524
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)741

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff4
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)80

"Lane v. Kitzhaber: Challenging Segregated Sheltered Workshops" Presentation (at the National Association for Rights Protection And Advocacy conference)

"Challenging Use of Force: US Department of Justice Investigates Law Enforcement in Portland and Seattle" Presentation (at the National Association for Rights Protection And Advocacy conference)

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff5
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles23
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website43,241
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated5
6. Other (specify separately)3

Narrative

Twitter, Facebook, Blog

Publications: Fair Housing Handbook, Special Education Guide, Reasonable Accommodation in Employment, The Family Medical Leave Act, Overpayments for Social Security. All in Spanish and English. All publications available in print and on DRO’s website, along with ASL videos on Employment.

Dissemination: DRO participates in numerous task forces, work groups, and committees that allow dissemination of information and materials to targeted audiences.

Part II. Individuals Served

A. Individuals Served

Count individual once per FY. Multiple counts not permitted for lines A1 through A3.

1. Individuals still served as of October 1 (carryover from prior FY)29
2. Additional individuals served during the year28
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)57
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)2

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 19

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility2
2. Employment2
3. Program access6
4. Housing5
5. Government benefits/services3
6. Transportation0
7. Education27
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting0
10. Health care2
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services0
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse0
16. Neglect1
17. Other9

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor34
2. Other representation found1
3. Individual withdrew complaint0
4. Appeals unsuccessful0
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case0
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources1
8. Individual case lacks legal merit2
9. Other2

Please explain

Investigated relief, determined no strong basis for damages, provided information for self-advocacy Individual did not return calls from DRO

E. Intervention Strategies Used in Serving Individuals

List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.

1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy5
2. Short-term assistance12
3. Investigation/monitoring0
4. Negotiation14
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution4
6. Administrative hearings5
7. Litigation (including class actions)0
8. Systemic/policy activities0

Part III. Statistical Information on Individuals Served

A. Age of Individuals Served as of October 1

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. 0 - 40
2. 5 - 2229
3. 23 - 5922
4. 60 - 642
5. 65 and over4

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females16
2. Males41

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race27
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian0
4. Black or African American0
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White0
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown30

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent21
2. Parental or other family home24
3. Community residential home1
4. Foster care1
5. Nursing home3
6. Public institutional living arrangement1
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center2
9. Homeless0
10. Other living arrangements1
11. Living arrangements not known3

E. Primary Disability of Individuals Served

Identify the individual's primary disability, namely the one directly related to the issues/complaints

1. Blind/visual impairment4
2. Deaf/hard of hearing4
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment14
5. Mental illness13
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability11
9. Neurological impairment2
10. Respiratory impairment2
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment1
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment2
13. Speech impairment2
14. AIDS/HIV0
15. Traumatic brain injury0
16. Other disability2

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities25

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes700,000

Describe your systemic activities. Be sure to include information about the policies that were changed and how these changes benefit individuals with disabilities. Include case examples of how your systemic activities impacted individuals served.

DRO collaborated with other advocacy organizations to provide education and awareness to policy makers. Among a significant number of relevant rules, laws and proposals developed this year were a number related to guardianships and elder abuse prevention.

Using non-federal funds, DRO provided technical assistance to law makers regarding legislative bills for the 2015 session that, if passed, will improve the health, safety and security of individuals with disabilities. Relevant bills include: court fee waivers in oversight of the rights of people subject to guardianship, encouraging greater protection of people with guardians, and expansion of accessibility requirements in older, multi-family buildings.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts3,700
2. Number of individuals named in class actions13

Describe your litigation/class action activities. Explain how individuals with disabilities benefited from your litigation activities. Be sure to include case examples that demonstrate the impact of your litigation.

Lane v. Kitzhaber is DRO’s massive systemic effort to allow individuals who are segregated in “sheltered workshops” the opportunity to be prepared for, find and maintain gainful employment in the community. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of 2,700 individuals with intellectual disabilities who receive services in sheltered workshops who have not been offered a real opportunity to choose integrated, supported employment services in the community. Those individuals are asserting their right under the "integration mandate" of the ADA to choose employment services in the least segregated, appropriate setting. It asks the court to declare that the state is violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by their needless segregation of class members in sheltered workshops and failing to provide them supported employment services for which they are eligible. It also seeks an order requiring the state to provide supported employment services to all qualified class members, consistent with their individual needs.

The trial is now set for December 2015.

Burlingame v. Colvin (Social Security Administration) . Safety Net of Oregon, a local representative payee for approximately 1000 very vulnerable Social Security beneficiaries, was decertified by Social Security as a result of an investigation of potential fraud. However, rather than follow the federal statute and regulations, and automatically assigning a new payee to each of these beneficiaries, Social Security sent out letters telling people that their benefits would be suspended on April lst — “the amount you will receive will be $0.00 on April 1, 2014 and continuing,” and urged them to get in contact with SS to find a new payee. Many of the addresses were bad, and many people were homeless and could not be reached. Attempts at resolving the matter through Congressional representatives failed, and Disability Rights Oregon, along with the Oregon Law Center and the National Senior Citizens Law Center filed an emergency lawsuit on Monday March 24, 2014 on behalf of a class of former Safety Net clients and JOIN, an organization working to end homelessness. Plaintiffs sought an immediate order requiring SSA to transfer all recipients who had Safety Net as a payee to a new payee, so that their benefits could continue. The case was heard before Judge Marco Hernandez in federal district court on Wednesday, March 26, 2014. After hearing argument, he entered a temporary restraining over, enjoining SSA from discontinuing the benefits of any members of the plaintiff class (which was all former clients of Safety Net).

Social Security stepped up to the plate and did a mass rollover of SSI and SSD recipients to Share and Care, an Oregon representative payee and made the necessary arrangements to be sure that Share and Care, as well as other rep payees chosen by former Safety Net clients, had the funds in their account to pay the client and the vendors (including landlords, utilities, child support, medication copays) on April 1st. As a result, word is getting out that client’s funds are available, people are getting their SSI payments on time, and landlords are being paid.

Part V. PAIR'S Priorities and Objectives

A. Priorities and Objectives for the Fiscal Year Covered by this Report

For each of your PAIR program priorities for the fiscal year covered by this report, please:

  1. Identify and describe priority.
  2. Identify the need, issue or barrier addressed by this priority.
  3. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority.
  4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration.
  5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions.
  6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority.

Disability Rights Oregon has integrated goals and priorities that reflect the needs of individuals with disabilities in Oregon and that guide the types of cases accepted by all DRO programs. In providing services, DRO balances the type of advocacy used to best meet the needs of individual clients with the need to create systemic changes for the larger client community. DRO sets targets for the number of individual cases for each priority. DRO program teams determine systemic issues to focus on for each priority and to determine the most effective advocacy method to address each issue. Each year, DRO reviews the progress made on those goals.

Goal 1. Community Participation: PAIR eligible clients have full access to their communities.

Need: There are many barriers for PAIR eligible clients to have full access and participation in their communities. While progress exists, many challenges remain. Clients find themselves limited by inaccessible parks, transportation, court houses, libraries, sidewalks, and more. Securing accessible — and affordable — housing is a challenge many PAIR eligible clients face. Denial of accommodation in housing is a challenge many PAIR eligible clients face.

Indicators: a. Removing significant access barriers in public places with emphasis on barriers in education, transportation and the courts. b. Increasing the supply of accessible housing through policy work. c. Achieving reasonable accommodations for tenants to prevent homelessness and isolation.

Collaborations: Public transit agencies, public and private landlords, the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, State of Oregon and County-specific Aging and Disability Services

Case Examples: 15 cases

Case example 1. Client with severe mobility impairments was notified by the condominium association where she lived that she could no longer park in the space that was most accessible to her unit. Based on DRO’s advice, she sought a handicapped parking space near her condo as a reasonable accommodation. The condominium association took the position that it violated the charter of the condominium and that it was therefore protected by state law in refusing the accommodation. DRO’s legal director researched the issue and presented the law to the attorney for the condominium association, demonstrating that the federal fair housing act required the reasonable accommodation, whether or not it would violate the property rights of the association’s contract or charter. The attorney decided to take the position that it would not take action to prohibit her from using the space client had been using to make the unit accessible. Client was advised that if the condominium association again threatened her access to a handicapped parking space, she should contact DRO again and DRO would step in to protect her fair housing rights. Case example 2. A client who is blind sought help from the Salem Housing Authority to access its housing listings, and was told that it was too much trouble to make the listings available in an accessible format. His ability to use his subsidy depended on his access to listings so he could rent within the prescribed period. DRO contacted the housing authority and obtained a copy of its reasonable accommodation policy, and then requested that client be provided information in an accessible format: either by email or via telephone. The housing authority reluctantly provided the accommodation and extended the deadline to find an apartment. Case example 3. A client with limited mobility was prescribed a Segway as a way to get around independently. The metropolitan transit system forbade him from riding his Segway onto the light rail train, insisting that he walk it instead. That was impossible given the balance issues required to stop and start the device in the time the doors were open. DRO contacted the transit authority’s ADA coordinator and asked for help. Shortly thereafter, the client received a call from the transit agency approving him to ride his Segway on and off the train, and letting him know that the fare inspectors and operators had been advised of this reversal in policy.

Case example 4. Client attended Central Oregon Community College (COCC). Client had a physical disability and could not walk any distance. She had cerebral palsy and learning disabilities also. COCC provided transportation in the beginning of her tenure at school and then changed their policy to not providing transportation at night and on weekends. Client needed transportation to get around. COCC indicated that security had been contracted out to a private company, which is why they were not offering this. School was not possible for client without this transportation issue resolved because she needed to go places in the evening and on weekends. Between client’s father and DRO advocacy, the school agreed to continue providing client with needed transportation.

In addition, DRO helped client get a reasonable accommodation given her learning disability. Basically, client wanted to be able to live in the dorms and to have the services of a LCSW even if she was taking fewer than 12 credit hours. The rule was that she had to carry 12 credit hours or more for these benefits. DRO wrote a written reasonable accommodation request, engaged in the interactive process with the COCC and followed up by telephone as well as by e-mail. COCC agreed to client’s reasonable accommodation request. This was contingent on client receiving a certain level of grades—which she needed to receive regardless. Client as well as her father had tried hard to get this reasonable accommodation in place prior to DRO involvement. But it took DRO’s advocacy to assure that this individual was able to fully participate in her community.

Goal 2. Assisting Individuals with Disabilities in Accessing Adequate Health Care

Need: Adequate healthcare is a nationally recognized need for all citizens. Individuals with disabilities face additional barriers, including access to clinics, qualified interpreters, appropriate and reliable assistive technology and more. Inadequate or non-existent health insurance further exacerbates health care access disparities. In rural areas, these issues can be even more pronounced.

Indicators: a. Removing significant barriers to health care and information needed to make health care decisions. b. Advocating for necessary health care services, including assistive technology. c. Expanding available health care through policy work.

Collaborations: Oregon is transforming its Medicaid funded health care system to integrate physical and mental health services and to fiscally incentivize the achievement of health outcomes rather than units of service. DRO and other advocacy organizations collaborated to monitor the progress of these changes and DRO participated on committees to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are included in the reform. DRO’s Executive Director participated on the Governor’s Dual Eligible Work Group, the Coalition of Oregon Seniors and People with Disabilities, the Oregon Health Services Commission Metrics Committee, the Health Evidence Review Commission, the Health Equity Policy Committee and the Oregon Health Plan Ombudsman Advisory Committee to promote and protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. DRO worked closely with legal aid and generally refers clients to its benefits hotline for healthcare issues.

Case Examples: 3 cases

DRO Attorneys and Intake Specialists educated providers and patients on their rights. DRO Attorneys and Executive Director worked with the Oregon Health Authority, the Department of Human Services, and the Coordinated Care Organizations to maintain and strengthen services for individuals with disabilities as Oregon’s healthcare system was revamped.

A significant number of information and referral inquiries concerned the need for direction about how to request reasonable accommodation from the caller’s health care provider or Medicaid funder in order to avoid being terminated from services.

Goal 3. Getting and maintaining quality community support services for individuals with disabilities.

Need: Difficulty in acquiring and maintaining services that allow individuals with disabilities to remain living in their communities continues to be a frequent complaint. Individuals who are reevaluated to determine their level of need often experience a loss or decrease of services.

Indicators: a. Maximizing access to appropriate self-directed services. b. Protecting the right to challenge denials of eligibility and community services needed to remain safe and independent.

Collaborations: To achieve results, DRO worked with Oregon’s Seniors and People with Disabilities agency and the Long Term Care Ombudsman.

Case Examples: 6 cases 1 class action

DRO collaborated with other advocacy organizations to provide education and awareness to policy makers to propose or enact a number of relevant rules or laws that address issues of community support services for people with disabilities, including greater financial and legal protection of people with guardians, child abuse investigation for students with disabilities, and expansion of accessibility requirements in older, multi-family buildings.

Case example 1. Client was in his 70’s and had County Senior Services as his guardian. Client had been living in an Adult Foster Care Home where he was given little freedom to do anything—e.g., work in the kitchen, go out on a walk, etc. Client spent a good portion of his time visiting with friends and family who came to see him. Client was depressed with the “smallness” of his life. He could look at the water feature in the backyard; deal with the owner’s barky dog; hang out in his fairly small room. Client’s objectives were (1.) to get his guardianship terminated and (2.) to move from the present Adult Foster Care Home. DRO helped the client get set up with a cognitive evaluator (psychiatrist) who performed tests with client over the course of several weeks. Unfortunately, client’s results did show that he did not have capacity. Then DRO worked with the guardian and client’s relative to find new housing. An Adult Foster Care Home was found that was more desirable and much closer to client’s friends and family. DRO attended the meeting before the move with the guardian as well as the friends, family and (of course) the client to set ground rules for the new place. DRO has heard that this was working out much better for client.

Case example 2. Safety Net of Oregon, a local representative payee for approximately 1000 very vulnerable Social Security beneficiaries, was decertified by Social Security as a result of an investigation of potential fraud. However, rather than follow the federal statute and regulations, and automatically assigning a new payee to each of these beneficiaries, Social Security sent out letters telling people that their benefits would be suspended on April lst — “the amount you will receive will be $0.00 on April 1, 2014 and continuing,” and urged them to get in contact with SS to find a new payee. Many of the addresses were bad, and many people were homeless and could not be reached. Attempts at resolving the matter through Congressional representatives failed, and Disability Rights Oregon, along with the Oregon Law Center and the National Senior Citizens Law Center filed an emergency lawsuit on March 24, 2014 on behalf of a class of former Safety Net clients and JOIN, an organization working to end homelessness. Plaintiffs sought an immediate order requiring SSA to transfer all recipients who had Safety Net as a payee to a new payee, so that their benefits could continue. The case was heard before Judge Marco Hernandez in federal district court on Wednesday, March 26, 2014. After hearing argument, he entered a temporary restraining over, enjoining SSA from discontinuing the benefits of any members of the plaintiff class (which was all former clients of Safety Net).

Social Security stepped up to the plate and did a mass rollover of SSI and SSD recipients to Share and Care, an Oregon representative payee and made the necessary arrangements to be sure that Share and Care, as well as other rep payees chosen by former Safety Net clients, had the funds in their account to pay the client and the vendors (including landlords, utilities, child support, medication copays) on April 1st. As a result, word is getting out that client’s funds are available, people are getting their SSI payments on time, and landlords are being paid.

Goal 4. Getting a free and appropriate education for children with disabilities.

Need: Some schools continue to fall short in their responsibilities to children with special needs. Based on their disabilities, children are being suspended from school, subject to inappropriate seclusion and restraint, and provided shortened school days that result in rights violations and educational failure. Schools fail to follow Individualized Education Plans, fail to develop appropriate behavior plans, fail to provide adequate transition services and fail to provide reasonable accommodation.

Indicators: a. Preventing schools from keeping students out of school because of their disabilities. b. Securing appropriate special education services in the most integrated environment for students who experience exceptional barriers or who are at risk of significant isolation or loss of academic progress. c. Securing appropriate transition services.

Collaborations: DRO partnered with Padres in Accion to provide training to the Latino community about the rights of children in Special Education and about the importance of parent advocacy. This year, DRO worked with Youth, Rights and Justice, FACT (Oregon’s Parent Center) and school districts across the state to provide appropriate transition services.

Case Examples: 16 cases

Case example 1. TH was a high school senior who was sexually assaulted by a classmate. As a result, she had difficulty attending school, due to her anxiety and depression. She frequently used language suggesting that she was suicidal. The district considered her a risk and placed her on home tutoring for one hour per day. As a result, her depression deepened and she was at risk of not graduating, despite being a student with a 4.0 GPA prior to the assault. DRO negotiated with the school district and established a setting that was able to provide more supports to the client. The client was able to attend school for full school days, and graduated on time with her class.

Case example 2. IC was a high school student with ADHD. Client was frequently late to class, and at times, due to lack of structure, would miss class altogether. When the high school moved to expel the client, DRO worked with the family and school district to resolve the situation and avoid expulsion. The client moved to an alternative school with more structure and a smaller setting so more adults would be available to assist her in staying on task and make good decisions. At the time of case closing, the client was doing well in that environment.

Goal 5. Promoting self-sufficiency through employment.

Need: The work with PAIR funds under this goal focused on advocating for reasonable accommodations in the workplace, and was accomplished as information and referral and support for self-advocacy. Many employers still do not understand their duty to provide accommodations in the workplace or do not understand the value of including people with disabilities in the workforce.

Indicators: a. Advocating for reasonable accommodations in the workplace and in employment—related licensing, including assistive technology.

Collaborations: In order to promote self-sufficiency through employment for individuals with disabilities, DRO collaborated with organizations and agencies including the U.S. Department of Justice, Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Services, United Cerebral Palsy, nonprofit and for-profit employment providers, the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the Work Incentives Planning Assistance Program (WIPA). Both CAP and WIPA are housed at DRO, creating an economy of scale in outreach and service delivery.

Case Examples: 1 class action

Other funds (including CAP and PABSS) supported DRO’s casework related to employment.

DRO distributed self-advocacy materials and participated in the State Rehabilitation Council and other committees and collaborations to ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to obtain and maintain employment.

Case example: Several DRO attorneys shifted their emphasis from individual case services to the discovery phase of Lane v. Kitzhaber, during which they conducted depositions, attended site visits with expert reviewers, researched, and reviewed records.

Lane v. Kitzhaber is DRO’s massive systemic effort to allow individuals who are segregated in “sheltered workshops” the opportunity to be prepared for, find and maintain gainful employment in the community. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of 2,700 individuals with intellectual disabilities who receive services in sheltered workshops who have not been offered a real opportunity to choose integrated, supported employment services in the community. Those individuals are asserting their right under the "integration mandate" of the ADA to choose employment services in the least segregated, appropriate setting. It asks the court to declare that the state is violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by their needless segregation of class members in sheltered workshops and failing to provide them supported employment services for which they are eligible. It also seeks an order requiring the state to provide supported employment services to all qualified class members, consistent with their individual needs.

The trial is now set for December 2015.

B. Priorities and Objectives for the Current Fiscal Year

Please include a statement of priorities and objectives for the current fiscal year (the fiscal year succeeding that covered by this report), which should contain the following information:

  1. a statement of each prioirty;
  2. the need addressed by each priority; and;
  3. a description of the activities to be carried out under each priority.

Goal 1. Community Participation: PAIR eligible clients have full access to their communities.

Need: There are many barriers for PAIR eligible clients to have full access and participation in their communities. While progress exists, many challenges remain. Clients find themselves limited by inaccessible parks, transportation, court houses, libraries, sidewalks, and more. Securing accessible — and affordable — housing is a challenge many PAIR eligible clients face. Denial of accommodation in housing is a challenge many PAIR eligible clients face.

Activities: • Removing significant access barriers in public places with emphasis on barriers in education, transportation and the courts. • Achieving reasonable accommodations for tenants to prevent homelessness and isolation.

Goal 2. Assisting Individuals with Disabilities in Accessing Adequate Health Care

Need: Adequate healthcare is a nationally recognized need for all citizens. Individuals with disabilities face additional barriers, including access to clinics, qualified interpreters, appropriate and reliable assistive technology and more. Inadequate or non-existent health insurance further exacerbates health care access disparities. In rural areas, these issues can be even more pronounced.

Activities: • Removing significant barriers to health care and information needed to make health care decisions. • Advocating for necessary health care services, including assistive technology. • Expanding available health care through policy work.

Goal 3. Getting and maintaining quality community support services for individuals with disabilities.

Need: Difficulty in acquiring and maintaining services that allow individuals with disabilities to remain living in their communities continues to be a frequent complaint. Individuals who are reevaluated to determine their level of need often experience a loss or decrease of services.

Activities • Maximizing access to appropriate self-directed services. • Protecting the right to challenge denials of eligibility and community services needed to remain safe and independent.

Goal 4. Getting a free and appropriate education for children with disabilities.

Need: Some schools continue to fall short in their responsibilities to children with special needs. Based on their disabilities, children are being suspended from school, subject to inappropriate seclusion and restraint, and provided shortened school days that result in rights violations and educational failure. Schools fail to follow Individualized Education Plans, fail to develop appropriate behavior plans, fail to provide adequate transition services and fail to provide reasonable accommodation.

Activities: • Preventing schools from keeping students out of school because of their disabilities. • Securing appropriate special education services in the most integrated environment for students who experience exceptional barriers or who are at risk of significant isolation or loss of academic progress. • Securing appropriate transition services.

Part VI. Narrative

At a minimum, you must include all of the information requested. You may include any other information, not otherwise collected on this reporting form that would be helpful in describing the extent of PAIR activities during the prior fiscal year. Please limit the narrative portion of this report, including attachments, to 20 pages or less.

The narrative should contain the following information. The instructions for this form outline the information that should be contained in each section.

  1. Sources of funds received and expended
  2. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report
  3. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)
  4. Involvement with advisory boards (if any)
  5. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure
  6. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State long-term care program, if these programs are not part of the P&A agency

A. Sources of funds received and expended (Fiscal Year Actuals)

2014 Grant 181,914 Unspent 2013 Grant 17,053 Total 198,967 Expenses: Salary Expense 94,994 Employee Benefits 7,358 Payroll Taxes 5,411 Supplies 14 Travel Expenses 1,404 Rent Expense 5,015 Telecommunications 206 Staff Development & Training 54 Library Expense 1,493 Dues, Fees, & Insurance 3,928 Reasonable Accommodations 306 Postage & Delivery 658 Printing & Copying - Client Case Expense 38 Subtotal Direct Expenses 120,879 Indirect Cost Allocation 25,747 Total expenses 146,626 Unspent grant funds remaining 52,341

B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report.

2014 Grant Revenue 181,914 Expenses 181,914

C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years)

FTE Person Year TOTAL PROFESSIONAL 1.36 1 TOTAL CLERICAL 0.46 1 TOTAL 1.82 1

D. Involvement in Advisory Boards. DRO does not have a PAIR Advisory Board, however, the DRO Board of Directors represents a broad range of disability communities and engaged citizens, including PAIR-eligible individuals. DRO Board and staff participate in committees and work groups that address issues impacting PAIR clients, including the Oregon Disability Commission, the City of Portland Disability Commission, and the Governor’s Public Guardian Task Force.

E. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure: None in FY14.

F. Coordination with the Client Assistance Program (CAP) and the State Long-Term Care Program. CAP is a part of DRO since 2000.

The Long Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) refers individuals to DRO and we work together for clients, when appropriate, on systemic issues. With the transformation of the Oregon Health Plan (OHP), DRO’s Executive Director has worked with the LTCO and others on how nursing home and long term care fits into the Oregon Health Plan and on issues of Medicaid/Medicare dual eligibility. He also participates on the Oregon Health Plan Ombudsman Advisory Group, the Coalition of Oregon Seniors and People with Disabilities, and several Elder Abuse Prevention subcommittees, including those on Quality of Care and Financial Exploitation.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByRobert Joondeph
TitleAuthorized Certifying Official
Signed Date12/29/2014