|Name||Disability Rights Oregon|
|Address||610 SW Broadway, Suite 200|
|Address Line 2|
|Name of P&A Executive Director||Robert Joondeph|
|Name of PAIR Director/Coordinator||Kathy Wilde|
|Person to contact regarding report||Jamie Jones|
|Contact Person phone||503-243-2081|
Multiple responses are not permitted.
|1. Individuals receiving I&R within PAIR priority areas||499|
|2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas||192|
|3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)||691|
|1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff||5|
|2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)||108|
Title: Getting Ready for the Big Day 1) the topics and issues covered by the trainings; a. What to expect in kindergarten. 2) the training methods used (i.e., lecture, hands-on learning, etc.); a. Classroom instruction 3) the purpose of the training. Please use additional sheets as necessary to provide this information. a. help parents prepare their children for kindergarten. Focus on families and individuals with developmental disabilities 1) the topics and issues covered by the trainings; a. 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. Destigmatizing disability. 2) the training methods used (i.e., lecture, hands-on learning, etc.); a. Classroom instruction 3) the purpose of the training. Please use additional sheets as necessary to provide this information. a. Educational event for IRCO staff as part of their on-going professional development and in-service training. Title: Portland Police BHU Training and Outreach 1) the topics and issues covered by the trainings; a. Participants were able to learn more about Police Bureau efforts to address situations involving individuals experiencing a mental health crisis in a more compassionate and effective manner. Present (Police Bureau) was able to hear from constituents. 2) the training methods used (i.e., lecture, hands-on learning, etc.); a. Event was held at Transition Projects adjacent to a warming shelter in the central city and on transit in order to allow individuals most likely to interact with the BHU to attend without access barriers. Hot coffee and snacks were provided. 3) the purpose of the training. Please use additional sheets as necessary to provide this information. a. To get to know how the Portland Police Bureau serves people who have disabilities. 1) the topics and issues covered by the trainings; a. Presentation for students with dyslexia and parents of children with dyslexia regarding their legal rights regarding education 2) the training methods used (i.e., lecture, hands-on learning, etc.); a. Classroom instruction 3) the purpose of the training. Please use additional sheets as necessary to provide this information. a. Help students with dyslexia and parents of children with dyslexia to understand their legal rights regarding education. Title: St. John's Business Community ADA Presentation 1) the topics and issues covered by the trainings; a. ADA Title II presentation 2) the training methods used (i.e., lecture, hands-on learning, etc.); a. Classroom instruction 3) the purpose of the training. Please use additional sheets as necessary to provide this information. a. Public education
|1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff||3|
|2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles||23|
|3. PSAs/videos aired||0|
|4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website||26,371|
|5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated||2,351|
|6. Other (specify separately)||3|
6. Other (specify separately) Twitter (3,234 followers) Facebook (7,196 followers) Blog (311 views) 1. Radio/TV coverage The DRO Executive Director was interviewed three times for the local public broadcasting radio station and once for the local TV news, for a total of three radio/TV interviews. 2. Newspapers/Magazines/Journals DRO was mentioned 23 times over FY2015 in the following articles: 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, 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. Solitary confinement of Oregon inmates with most severe mental illnesses must stop, advocacy group says (The Oregonian, 04/07/15) 20. House passes bill requiring ERs to document forced seclusion of mental patients (The Lund Report, 03/06/15) 21. Ban solitary confinement (KBOO, 02/16/15) 22. State records show problems with payee services, oversight (Street Roots, 12/30/14) 23. The past and future of the ADA on its 25th anniversary (Oregon State Bar Newsletter, 11/01/14) 4. Publications/Booklets/Brochures DRO produces 25 publications/booklets/brochures (listed below). All products are in Spanish and English, and available in both print and on DRO’s website (which was visited 2,156 in FY2015). DRO also produced ASL videos on Employment, which is also available on the DRO website. 1. Assistive Device Lemon Laws — First Edition 2. Employment Handbook — 3rd Edition 3. FAQ-Family & Medical Leave 4. Guardianship Handbook — Third Edition 5. Fair Housing Handbook — First Edition 6. Involuntary Medication Hearing Handbook — First Edition 7. Mental Health Law in Oregon — Fourth Edition 8. Can I Plan Now For The Mental Health Treatment I Would Want In A Crisis 9. A Roadmap to Support Services — Third Edition 10. The Developmental Disability Eligibility Appeal Process 11. Get Help Understanding How Work Affects SSI and SSDI 12. DRO-Service Animals 13. FAQ-Rep Payees 14. Social Security Overpayments 15. Voting Handbook 16. Assisting Voters with Disabilities — a Guide for Family, Friends and Providers 17. Special Education A Guide for Parents & Advocates — Sixth Edition 18. Sterilization of Individuals 19. General Brochure 20. TBI Brochure 21. AT Brochure 22. CAP Brochure 23. PABSS Brochure 24. Get Help Understanding How Work Affects SSI and SSDI 25. PAVA brochure
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)||17|
|2. Additional individuals served during the year||30|
|3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)||47|
|4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)||4|
Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 30
|1. Architectural accessibility||1|
|3. Program access||3|
|5. Government benefits/services||3|
|8. Assistive technology||0|
|10. Health care||2|
|12. Non-government services||1|
|13. Privacy rights||0|
|14. Access to records||0|
|1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor||13|
|2. Other representation found||0|
|3. Individual withdrew complaint||1|
|4. Appeals unsuccessful||1|
|5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.||0|
|6. PAIR withdrew from case||0|
|7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources||1|
|8. Individual case lacks legal merit||2|
List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.
|1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy||3|
|2. Short-term assistance||6|
|5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution||0|
|6. Administrative hearings||1|
|7. Litigation (including class actions)||0|
|8. Systemic/policy activities||1|
|1. 0 - 4||0|
|2. 5 - 22||16|
|3. 23 - 59||21|
|4. 60 - 64||1|
|5. 65 and over||9|
Multiple responses not permitted.
|1. Hispanic/Latino of any race||6|
|2. American Indian or Alaskan Native||0|
|4. Black or African American||0|
|5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander||0|
|7. Two or more races||0|
|8. Race/ethnicity unknown||32|
Multiple responses not permitted.
|2. Parental or other family home||13|
|3. Community residential home||2|
|4. Foster care||0|
|5. Nursing home||2|
|6. Public institutional living arrangement||0|
|7. Private institutional living arrangement||1|
|8. Jail/prison/detention center||1|
|10. Other living arrangements||2|
|11. Living arrangements not known||3|
Identify the individual's primary disability, namely the one directly related to the issues/complaints
|1. Blind/visual impairment||2|
|2. Deaf/hard of hearing||2|
|4. Orthopedic impairment||16|
|5. Mental illness||11|
|6. Substance abuse||0|
|7. Mental retardation||0|
|8. Learning disability||5|
|9. Neurological impairment||3|
|10. Respiratory impairment||0|
|11. Heart/other circulatory impairment||1|
|12. Muscular/skeletal impairment||2|
|13. Speech impairment||3|
|15. Traumatic brain injury||0|
|16. Other disability||2|
|1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities||1|
|2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes||1,446,000|
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, with the help of Daniel Goldstein (who routinely represents National Federation for the Blind), made a video recording of blind client attempting to take an on-line employment test using JAWS (software for visually impaired and blind users that “reads” the text to the user) and found the test inaccessible. He filed a systemic Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge against Kenexa, a company that makes literally thousands of tests for job seekers. After three years of discussions with the EEOC, compliant alternative software was developed and will be used by IBM, which owns Kenexa, for its employment tests. This represents a huge nationwide victory for job applicants who are blind or visually impaired.
|1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts||3,970,239|
|2. Number of individuals named in class actions||0|
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.
DRO is in the middle of negotiations with the Oregon Department of Transportation, on the subject of improving crosswalk accessibility. The aim of the negotiations is to compel the state to install, upgrade, and repair curb ramps, so that pedestrians who use wheelchairs and walkers or who have other mobility challenges and are visually impaired can safely cross streets and use the sidewalks. The negotiations (or, if negotiations fail, litigation) will likely result in tens of thousands of curb ramps being installed or improved, on state highways and roads all over the state of Oregon. Currently, people with mobility challenges and visual impairments are often forced into the road to reach their destinations or forced to run the risk of being struck by traffic because of badly constructed or designed curb ramps and crosswalks. A systemic settlement to improve sidewalk and crosswalk accessibility would help people with mobility challenges and visual impairments live more independent lives, as well as protecting their safety in crosswalks. Negotiations will likely resolve over the next three months (March 2016), after which time Disability Rights Oregon will monitor the enforcement of the agreement for more than ten years to ensure that appropriate curb ramps are installed in both the number and quality that the law requires.
For each of your PAIR program priorities for the fiscal year covered by this report, please:
Goal 1. Community Participation: PAIR eligible clients have full access to their communities. 1. 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. 2. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. a. Removing significant access barriers in public places with emphasis on barriers in education, transportation and the courts. b. Achieving reasonable accommodations for tenants to prevent homelessness and isolation. 3. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. a. DRO’s efforts were made in collaboration with the following entities: public transit agencies, public and private landlords, the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, State of Oregon, and County-specific Aging and Disability Services, Oregon Housing Policy Workgroup, Portland Commission on Disabilities, Oregon’s Disability Commission, and Connecting Communities Coalition. 4. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. a. 24 cases 5. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. a. CASE EXAMPLE 1. Client contacted DRO because DHS had refused to consider her application to become a foster parent or adoptive parent for her niece. The DHS caseworker and her supervisor were relying on a diagnosis of depression and PTSD that had been given to her when she was a teenager in foster care. However, the client had not received treatment for any mental illness at that time, nor had she had any problems with her mental health in later life or during the course of her marriage. Nonetheless, DHS was refusing to consider her, despite the fact that she was the biological mother. DRO provided releases to DHS to discuss the case, and contacted the National Center for Parents with Disabilities and Their Family, which wrote a strong letter explaining why the bases for rejection violated the ADA and urging reconsideration. Client was encouraged by DHS’ response and agreement to reconsider, and asked us to close the case. USDOJ and USHHS have recently written a strong letter in support of the rights of parents with disabilities to be given an opportunity to parent their children, and to be provided necessary support to enable them to do so. b. CASE EXAMPLE 2. Client is blind and uses JAWS to work as a technical support person for retail and software companies needing customer support. While he had worked for 8 years as a technical support person, when that company closed, he discovered that many, if not most, of the positions for which he was qualified required him to first complete an on-line test before he was considered for the job. These tests were inaccessible to someone who used JAWS, as they had unexplained boxes and keys needed to complete the test. See Part IV. A. Systemic Activities for details. Client is awaiting a monetary settlement and attorney’s fees. Goal 2. Assisting Individuals with Disabilities in Accessing Adequate Health Care 1. 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. 2. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. 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. 3. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. a. For the last few years, the state of Oregon has been transforming its Medicaid-funded health care system to offer health care for mental, physical, and dental care under one umbrella through Coordinate Care Organizations (CCOs). During this transformation, DRO and other advocacy organizations collaborated to monitor the progress of these changes. DRO participated on committees to ensure that the needs of people with disabilities are included in the reform. To promote and protect the rights of individuals with disabilities, the DRO Executive Director participates in the following committees and work groups: Addictions and Mental Health Division Systems Change Initiative Design Advisory Group Behavioral Health Coalition, Oregon Health Plan Ombudsman Advisory Committee, Oregon Health Evidence Review Commission-Evidence-Based Guidelines Subcommittee, Oregon Health Plan Metrics and Scoring Committee, and Health Equity Policy Committee. Additionally, DRO works closely with Legal Aid and generally refers clients to its benefits hotline for healthcare issues. 4. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. a. 5 cases 5. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. a. DRO received a call from a case manager at a vent care facility in Vancouver, Washington to report that Oregon APD was about to transfer client to a care facility in Vancouver, WA without her consent. The Client SA lived in Springfield, OR and her husband had problems paying for gas money to visit her even in Portland. The discharge plans to move her to Vancouver (and get her enrolled in Medicaid in WA) were signed by an RN as client was deemed unable to communicate and had no guardian. DRO immediately contacted supervisors at Oregon DD and APD to determine who was responsible for client’s care. Christina Jaramillo at DHS-APD responded immediately, preventing client’s transfer to WA and then located ventilator homes closer to where husband lived in Oregon. Goal 3. Getting and maintaining quality community support services for individuals with disabilities. 1. 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. 2. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. 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. 3. Collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. a. DRO continues to work with Oregon’s Seniors and People with Disabilities agency and the Long Term Care Ombudsman, as well as Coalition of Oregon Seniors and People with Disabilities, Governor’s Public Guardianship Task Force, Community Mental Health Implementation Group, Board and Care Home Regulation Workgroup to achieve community support services. 4. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. a. 7 cases 5. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. a. Client several orthopedic conditions and uses an electric wheelchair to move around, including inside the client’s apartment. She has difficulty completing some basic self-care tasks without assistance, such as showering or using the toilet. Oregon Department of Health Services, through its office of Aging and People with Disabilities, reduced the client’s hours of in-home and community based assistance by personal care workers from more than 100 hours a month, to 20 hours a month, then finally to 0 hours a month. DRO helped the client file an appeal of the decision and request a new evaluation. After the client’s new evaluation was done, the hours of attendant services went back up to 59 hours a month, which will significantly improve the client’s life and help the client remain in their apartment and avoid moving to a nursing home or other institutional facility. Goal 4. Getting a free and appropriate education for children with disabilities. 1. 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. 2. Identify and describe indicators PAIR used to determine successful outcome of activities pursued under this priority. 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. 3. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe a. 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 collaboration has created a cadre of community leaders. These grassroots leaders, none native English speakers, and many still monolingual in their first language, are empowering and supporting other parents, creating a community of advocates, and have brought disparate parties to the table. 4. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. a. 16 cases 5. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. a. CASE EXAMPLE: In May of 2014, DRO was contacted about a high school student who had been isolated in a Portland area rehab hospital for five months without education or contact with anyone of his own following a car accident that left him ventilator-dependent and quadriplegic. Although the client was by then medically stable enough to return to his home in Eastern Oregon, he was stuck in the Portland rehab because of bureaucratic obstacles involving the need to make his home wheelchair accessible and locate a team of local medical providers and caretakers who could oversee his care once there. Because the situation involved a wide range of issues and finger-pointing agencies, two DRO attorneys handled the case jointly. Over the course of the next four months, DRO attorneys participated in an average of two meetings a month to untangle the overlapping but unmet responsibilities of two hospitals, the state, and two school districts. Gradually and with the help of an interpreter to assist the client’s Spanish-speaking parents, DRO was able to move the many players to adopt and implement a plan that finally returned the client to his newly accessible home in September. In addition, and while the client was still in the hospital, DRO focused on securing tutorial services that allowed the client to stay on track toward a high school diploma and obtaining assistive technology that allowed him to access a phone and/or the internet so that he could communicate with the outside world. DRO attorney was also able to establish the client’s eligibility for special education. This resulted in an IEP that required his local school district to provide and support additional assistive technology that would allow him to successfully continue tutorial education or return to his local high school. At the time of case closure, the client and his parents were not ready for his physical return to high school because of fears about what might happen during a medical crisis, but he was on track to graduate with his class. Based on his new reality, he now hopes to become an attorney.
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:
PRIORITY 1: PROVIDING FULL ACCESS TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 1. NEED: While progress is slowly being made for PAIR-eligible clients, many challenges and barriers still exist for clients to have full access and participation in their communities. Clients find themselves limited by inaccessible parks, transportation, court houses, libraries, sidewalks, and more. Securing accessible — and affordable — housing is also challenge many PAIR eligible clients face, in addition to the denial of accommodation in housing. 2. A description of the activities a. Removing significant access barriers in public places with emphasis on barriers in education, transportation and the courts b. Promoting an increase in the supply of accessible housing through policy work c. Providing information about reasonable accommodations for tenants to prevent homelessness and isolation PRIORITY 2: GETTING AND MAINTAINING QUALITY COMMUNITY SUPPORT SERVICES 1. 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. 2. Description of activities a. Securing entitled services and supports needed for safety and independence b. Expanding available health care through policy work c. Providing advocacy and education to people with questions about vocational rehabilitation services d. Monitoring and enforcing implementation of initiatives to achieve full community integration of employment, residential and day services PRIIORITY 3: GETTING A FREE & APPROPRIATE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN 3. NEED: In the state of Oregon, 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. 4. Description of activities a. Preventing schools from keeping students out of school because of their disabilities b. Securing appropriate transition services c. 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 d. Stopping schools from using inappropriate restraints, seclusion, aversion techniques and police to deal with difficult behavioral issues in educational settings e. Increasing the ability of parents, who experience exceptional barriers due to factors such as language culture & disability, to secure special education services for their children
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.
A. Sources of funds received and expended 2015 Grant 182,040.00 Unspent 2014 Grant 52,341.00 PAIR PI 250.00 Total Revenue: 234,631.00 EXPENSES Salary Expense 87,136.00 Employee Benefits 13,969.00 Payroll Taxes 8,563.00 Supplies 120.00 Travel Expenses 1,003.00 Rent Expense 4,493.00 Telecommunications 214.00 Staff Development & Training 92.00 Library Expense 3,877.00 Dues, Fees, & Insurance 2,270.00 Reasonable Accommodations 36.00 Postage & Delivery 480.00 Printing & Copying - 103.00 Client Case Expense 63.00 Contract and Professional Services 124.00 Subtotal Direct Expenses 122,543.00 Indirect Cost Allocation 21,768.00 Total expenses $144,311.00 Unspent grant funds remaining $ 90,319.00 B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report Grant 182,040 Expenses 182,040 C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years) TOTAL PROFESSIONAL: 1.35 (FTE), 1.35 (Person Year) TOTAL CLERICAL: .25 (FTE), .25 (Person Year) TOTAL: 1.60 (FTE), 1.60 (Person Year) D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any) 1. 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. The Board of Directors and DRO 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 1. 2 grievances from PAIR-eligible clients were filed in FY2015. F. 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 1. 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.
|Signed By||Robert C. Joondeph|