|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||224|
|2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas||758|
|3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)||982|
|1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff||1|
|2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)||10|
Title: Guardianship Presentation to Community Access Services 2016 Number of individuals who attended training (approximate): 10 Topics covered: Guardianship laws in Oregon The training methods used: Classroom instruction and PowerPoint Purpose for the training: To provide education about DRO and Oregon law pertaining to guardianship, and in particular respondent/ protected person rights, to members (owners adult care foster homes; workers in 24/7 settings; etc.) and to allow them to get their two continuing education units.
|1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff||8|
|2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles||19|
|3. PSAs/videos aired||0|
|4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website||23,138|
|5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated||4,326|
|6. Other (specify separately)||0|
• Twitter - 3,774 followers • Facebook page - 7,553 likes • Executive Director’s Blog - 293 views • Publications/Booklets/Brochures disseminated - 4,326 Recent media stories about DRO’s work FY16 (19 total) Radio/TV (8) 1. Oregon voter registration deadline 3 weeks away; State offering alternative ways to cast your ballot (KOIN, 09/27/16) 2. All single-user restrooms in Portland city facilities now gender-neutral (KATU, 09/23/16) 3. Groups help Oregonians with disabilities to vote (KTVZ, 07/13/16) 4. DOJ Agreement with the State of Oregon Mental Health System (KBOO, 02/11/16) 5. Improving Care for Mentally Ill Prisoners (KBOO, 02/03/16): Audio Player 6. Oregon Department of Corrections will improve care for mentally ill (KGW, 01/13/16) 7. Oregon Dept. of Corrections to improve care for mentally ill (KTVZ, 01/13/16) 8. Bringing Sheltered Workers Into the Light (Jefferson Public Radio, 01/27/16) News Reports (10) 9. Child will stay small forever (Portland Tribune, 08/04/16) 10. Oregonians with disabilities can soon save money (Bend Bulletin, 08/04/16) 11. New Report Shines Light on Mistreatment of Deaf Prisoners in Oregon (Willamette Week, 06/23/16) 12. Is Biketown bike share for all? Or only the able-bodied? (Bike Portland, 06/02/16) 13. Oregon prisons need mental-health improvements (Statesman Journal, 01/22/16) 14. Editorial: An Important Change for Prisoners (Bend Bulletin, 01/17/16) 15. State agrees with advocacy group to reduce isolation, improve care of Oregon inmates with severe mental illnesses (Oregonian, 01/13/16) 16. Judge Approves Shift Away From Sheltered Workshops (Disability Scoop, 01/06/16) 17. Judge Weighs Disabled Workers Deal (The Register-Guard, 12/08/15) 18. The minimum wage fight you don’t know needs to be fought (Street Roots, 12/07/15) Editorials (1) 19. My View: Disabilities don’t negate human rights (Portland Tribune, 02/04/16): Opinion by Bob Joondeph. Handbooks, Guides, and Brochures (count = 26; disseminated = 4,326) 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. General Brochure 21. TBI Brochure 22. AT Brochure 23. CAP Brochure 24. PABSS Brochure 25. Get Help Understanding How Work Affects SSI and SSDI 26. 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)||30|
|2. Additional individuals served during the year||39|
|3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)||69|
|4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)||2|
Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 40
|1. Architectural accessibility||11|
|3. Program access||2|
|5. Government benefits/services||9|
|8. Assistive technology||0|
|10. Health care||2|
|12. Non-government services||3|
|13. Privacy rights||0|
|14. Access to records||0|
|1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor||20|
|2. Other representation found||1|
|3. Individual withdrew complaint||2|
|4. Appeals unsuccessful||1|
|5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.||1|
|6. PAIR withdrew from case||2|
|7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources||0|
|8. Individual case lacks legal merit||4|
List the highest level of intervention used by PAIR prior to closing each case file.
|1. Technical assistance in self-advocacy||4|
|2. Short-term assistance||10|
|5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution||0|
|6. Administrative hearings||3|
|7. Litigation (including class actions)||0|
|8. Systemic/policy activities||0|
|1. 0 - 4||0|
|2. 5 - 22||25|
|3. 23 - 59||30|
|4. 60 - 64||4|
|5. 65 and over||10|
Multiple responses not permitted.
|1. Hispanic/Latino of any race||10|
|2. American Indian or Alaskan Native||0|
|4. Black or African American||2|
|5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander||0|
|7. Two or more races||0|
|8. Race/ethnicity unknown||40|
Multiple responses not permitted.
|2. Parental or other family home||20|
|3. Community residential home||6|
|4. Foster care||1|
|5. Nursing home||3|
|6. Public institutional living arrangement||0|
|7. Private institutional living arrangement||0|
|8. Jail/prison/detention center||1|
|10. Other living arrangements||0|
|11. Living arrangements not known||0|
Identify the individual's primary disability, namely the one directly related to the issues/complaints
|1. Blind/visual impairment||6|
|2. Deaf/hard of hearing||1|
|4. Orthopedic impairment||27|
|5. Mental illness||21|
|6. Substance abuse||0|
|7. Mental retardation||0|
|8. Learning disability||0|
|9. Neurological impairment||2|
|10. Respiratory impairment||0|
|11. Heart/other circulatory impairment||0|
|12. Muscular/skeletal impairment||0|
|13. Speech impairment||2|
|15. Traumatic brain injury||0|
|16. Other disability||9|
|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 has been representing a blind job seeker for the past three years. He is a computer technical support person, and has also worked in customer service positions. He came to DRO after being denied many jobs because the jobs required an applicant to complete a computerized test as part of the application. Virtually all of the employment agencies and employers used tests that were inaccessible to a person using JAWS, the computer software for people with visual impairments. DRO and co-counsel researched the scope of the problem, and found that two companies offered testing services worldwide, with thousands of on-line applications and tests, none of which were accessible to the visually impaired. DRO, working with attorneys for the National Federation of the Blind, helped the job seeker file a charge with the EEOC, which ultimately became a Commissioner’s charge against one of the largest companies marketing the inaccessible tests. After years of negotiation, an accessible test was developed and now is widely available in the employment testing marketplace. As a result, thousands of blind and visually impaired job seekers across the country — and throughout the world — will have access to jobs that were currently unavailable to them. This result is huge, as the employment statistics for people with visual impairments is less than 10%.
|1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts||4,028,977|
|2. Number of individuals named in class actions||8|
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, in conjunction with Legal Aid and private counsel, brought a systemic challenge to the policies and practices of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). ODOT had, since 1993, systemically failed to create or upgrade curb ramps and pedestrian signals when it paved, resurfaced, or otherwise altered a stretch of the state highway system. The result of its inactions is that over 15,000 intersections in the State of Oregon have curb ramps that are either non-compliant with applicable ADA Design Standards or missing completely. DRO brought the suit on behalf of the Association of Oregon Councils for Independent Living (AOCIL), representing seven independent living centers geographically dispersed throughout Oregon. DRO also represented eight individuals who lived in areas around the state where the absence of compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals denied them the opportunity to participate in community life, and often forced them to choose between risking their safety or their lives, and leaving their homes. One plaintiff lives in a small town (Clatskanie) where the state highway is the only road through town. When it was resurfaced, no curb ramps were installed, so she is unable to cross the highway from her home to reach the post office and grocery store without someone taking her across the road. The individual plaintiffs, particularly in the Portland metro area (where there is no clear landing), cannot access many of the pedestrian signals, buttons are too high, or the reach is obstructed. As a result, crossing the street becomes a matter of waiting until someone else pushes the walk button. A visually impaired plaintiff is unable to hear when it is safe to cross TV Highway, a major thoroughfare near housing for people who have quadriplegia. This case was settled, and has now become a class action case for settlement purposes. The class consists of all people with physical disabilities, including mobility and visual impairments, who have been adversely affected by ODOT’s policies. Under the agreement, ODOT will inspect every stretch of highway, and create an inventory of the locations where curb ramps are missing or non-compliant, or traffic signals are not accessible. These locations will be brought into compliance over a 15-year period: 30% by the end of 2022; 75% by the end of 2027; and 100% by the end of 2032. An Accessibility Consultant will be hired to advise ODOT on curb ramp design issues, design exceptions, work zone accessibility plans, as well as to assess ODOT’s compliance with the Agreement. A dispute resolution process is included, along with a Special Master who will resolve disputes. Finally, members of the class and general public can report an inaccessible curb ramp or signal through a complaint process prominently displayed on ODOT’s website and receive a response within 10 days. There is also a process by which to request an audible signal. DRO will monitor ODOT’s compliance with the agreement for the length of the settlement, and can raise design, work zone, and performance issues to the Special Master and then the federal court.
For each of your PAIR program priorities for the fiscal year covered by this report, please:
A. 1. Providing full access to community participation to individuals with disabilities. A.2. Need: There are many barriers for PAIR eligible clients to have full access and participation in their communities. While there is progress, many challenges remain. Clients find themselves limited by inaccessible parks, transportation, courthouses, libraries, sidewalks, businesses, workplaces, and more. Securing accessible and affordable housing and denial of accommodations in housing are two significant challenges many PAIR eligible clients face. A.3. PAIR indicators: 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 d. Advocating for reasonable accommodations in employment-related licensing and the workplace A.4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. DRO’s efforts were made in collaboration with the following entities: public transit agencies (TRIMET), public and private landlords, the Fair Housing Council of Oregon, the 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. A.5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority: 31 (7 class actions) A.6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Case Summary 1) Our client was an athletic and socially successful 15-year old who was permanently paralyzed in a car accident near his home in rural Eastern Oregon. After being life-flighted to Portland where his life was saved, he was moved to a rehab hospital. During the next 4 months, our client received no educational services, was isolated in a population of much older patients, and bed ridden because he had not been provided with a puffer-controlled wheelchair. As a quadriplegic who would have a permanent need for vent and trach services, he would not be able to return home until his home was extensively remodeled for accessibility and a medically supervised team could be assembled to support family provision of vent and trach care. In addition, he needed sophisticated assistive technology that would allow him to operate a wheel chair and access the world outside of his family home. When DRO became involved in May of 2014, various agencies had been unable to sort out their responsibilities to an extent that there had been no progress toward meeting any of these needs or returning our client to his community. Eventually, 2 DRO attorneys worked on unsnarling the bureaucratic impasses at play. During the next 4 months, we secured special education services. We also pressured the State to identify a home care medical team and complete the work needed to make his home accessible. Our client returned to his now accessible home in September with a full support team, and good assistive technology that allows him to access a computer, phones, and other devices with a mouth stick. A third DRO attorney worked to successfully eliminate a huge medical bill that was a consequence of the long period of time in which our client was stuck in rehab after no longer needing hospitalization. Case Summary 2) DRO was contacted by the client regarding problems she was having in obtaining reasonable accommodations in a nursing program in a local community college. She had a learning disability and PTSD and was struggling to meet deadlines and take exams. She was denied meaningful accommodations by her professor. Her professor also told her that she might not be smart enough to pass the class and harassed her with conflicting instructions regarding her midterm exam, to the point that she was unable to meaningfully take the exam. She received a poor grade on her midterm as a result of harassment and denial of accommodations and was concerned about further problems with her upcoming final exam. A DRO attorney counselled the client about the ways to use the student disabilities services office. She was unable to get her grade altered after discussions with the local student services officeor to get adequate assurance of future accommodations. The DRO attorney working with the client drafted a letter to the president of the university relating the client’s issues and asking the university to allow the client to retake her midterm and to obtain adequate accommodations for future exams, as well as urged the college to take steps to retrain the professor on the ADA and student accommodation process. DRO received a response from a vice president of the community college, stating that she had received the letter and would take appropriate steps to follow through. A few days later, we confirmed with the client that the accommodations and the re-testing would be permitted. A few months later, we checked in with the client; she was excited to tell us that she was on track to graduate on schedule and become a nurse. B.1. Getting and maintaining quality community support services. B.2. Need: Difficulty in acquiring and maintaining services such as health care that allow individuals with disabilities to remain living in their communities continues to be a frequent issue among Oregonians experience disability. Individuals who are reevaluated to determine their level of need often experience a loss or decrease of services. Individuals with disabilities face additional barriers to health care, including access to clinics, qualified interpreters, appropriate and reliable assistive technology and more. B.3. PAIR indicators. a. Securing entitled services and supports needed for safety and independence b. Expanding available health care through policy 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 B.4. Collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. DRO continues to work with Oregon’s Adults and People with Disabilities agency and the Long Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO), as well as Coalition of Oregon Seniors and People with Disabilities, the Governor’s Public Guardianship Task Force, the Community Mental Health Implementation Group, and the Board and Care Home Regulation Workgroup to achieve community support services. The state of Oregon has transformed its Medicaid-funded health care system to offer health care for mental, physical, and dental care under one umbrella through Coordinate Care Organizations (CCOs). DRO and other advocacy organizations collaborated to monitor the progress of these changes. Additionally, DRO works closely with Legal Aid and generally refers clients to its benefits hotline for healthcare issues. B.5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority: 18 B.5. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Case Summary 1) Client contacted DRO when his Aging and People with Disabilities (APD) in-home attendant care service hours were reduced from 400 hours per month to 186. Client has been using ADP services for 10 years. Client’s former case manager of 8 years would fight for him, but she was recently replaced by a new, less experienced case manager. For the past 8 years, Client consistently had about 400 hours per month of in-home care. Client requested Medicaid fair hearing to appeal the reeducation, and requested a postponement before ultimately contacting DRO. The DRO attorney communicated with client, client’s father, the case manager’s supervisor, and the Department of Human Services (DHS) hearing representative. The DRO attorney reviewed current assessments, past annual assessments, and support plans. He found that the majority of hours in past years had actually been granted as an exception to the assessed number of hours. The new case manager had not even considered exceptional hours before issuing a notice to drastically reduce client’s service hours. The DRO attorney coordinated with the case management supervisor to arrange a reassessment and consideration of client’s exceptional needs. The case manager and his supervisor were able to offer client exceptional service hours which would bring his total in-home services up to 295 hours per month. Client decided to accept this partial restoration of his service hours. These hours are enough to allow client to live safely in his own home. C.1 Getting a free & appropriate education for children with disabilities C.2. 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 (IEPs), fail to develop appropriate behavior plans, fail to provide adequate transition services and fail to provide reasonable accommodation. C.3. PAIR indicators. a. Preventing schools from keeping students out of school because of their disabilities. b. Securing appropriate transition services. c. Securing appropriate SPED services in the most integrated environment for students experiencing exceptional barriers or at risk of significant isolation or loss of academic progress, including assistive technology. 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. C.4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe DRO partners with Parents in Action (Padres in Accion) to provide training to the Latino community about the rights of children in special education and on the importance parental advocacy. This collaboration has created a cadre of community leaders. These grassroots leaders who are not 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. C.5. Provide the number of cases handled under the priority: 20 C.6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Case Summary 1) Client was an eighth grade student at the time of representation. He has a long history of behavioral incidents at school due to misinterpreting peer interactions. He had an issue with a peer at school which resulted in an incident of aggression. Staff had not appropriately supervised the interaction, nor had they intervened in accordance with the steps laid out in his behavior intervention plan. As a result, student was being considered for expulsion and had been referred to the juvenile department for possible criminal charges. The DRO attorney represented client through the manifestation determination process by which the manifestation determination team found that the behavior was a manifestation of his disability. The DRO attorney also supported the family in obtaining higher level of mental health supports through the wrap around process. Client is in a new educational placement and doing very well there. Case Summary 2) The client’s mother called DRO. She was concerned that her son was going to be exited from special education due to lack of eligibility even though the client’s parents saw that the student was years behind in academics, especially in the area of mathematics. The parents attended an IEP team meeting they felt was rushed and at which they were not provided an interpreter (the family’s primary language is Spanish).The parents felt that their concerns were not heard. The issues the client’s mother reported to the DRO Advocate included lack of interpreters during special education meetings, evaluations, English Language-Learning services, and parental participation. After a technical assistance meeting, the DRO Advocate sent the client’s mother a list of requests the parent could make during an upcoming IEP team meeting. After a follow up IEP meeting, the client’s mother reported to the DRO Advocate the meeting went well and that there was a new IEP developed which included one-on-one support for the client in the area of mathematics and individualized help from the SPED teacher to build socialization and reading comprehension skills. The client’s mother also told the DRO Advocate that she felt more prepared to prevent issues like this in the future. D.1. Stopping abuse & neglect of individuals with disabilities D.2. Identify the need, issue, or barrier addressed by this priority. Oregonians experiencing disability are too often subjected to abuse and/or neglect. This can occur in facilities or in communities. Guardianship is a tremendous intrusion on a person’s civil liberties because it allows another person to make important decisions for the protected person. A guardian should not be appointed unless there is adequate evidentiary support to show one is needed. For a person to continue having a guardian there should be clear support that the protected person meets the stringent definition of incapacity as defined by Oregon law. There are certain actions and decisions that require a guardian to provide prior notice to a court or to obtain court approval. In cases where a guardian seeks approval to spend a Protected Person’s money or to move the person’s residence, for example, DRO wants to ensure that the person has knowledge of the action, choice, and Due Process protections. DRO always advocates for the Respondent or the Protected. DRO works to ensure that the legal rights of a Respondent/Protected person are upheld in matters of guardianship. D.3. PAIR indicator. a. Protecting individuals against guardianships that result in abuse or neglect D.4. Explain whether pursuing this priority involved collaborative efforts by other entities. If so, describe this collaboration. DRO continues to work with the Oregon Statewide Public Guardian, the State Long Term Care Ombudsman office, a work group of stakeholders called “Wings”, the Oregon Adult and People with Disabilities office and the Oregon State Bar Elder Law Section. D.6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Case Summary 1) Client was residing in a rehabilitation facility and believed they were the victim of abuse and neglect while there. Client had bed sores 5 different times and had been in the ICU. Client nearly died and felt their rights were violated. DRO communicated with client to determine that client wanted this reported as abuse and neglect. With client's consent, the DRO attorney working with the client contacted the Oregon Long Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO). The LTCO planned to send out a Medicaid Case Worker to meet with client; DRO advised client of this. LTCO agreed to report the client's problem to the county's Adult Protective Services (APS). Client agreed to give APS a few weeks. Additionally, DRO provided the referral number for Oregon State Bar Lawyer Referral Service in case client wanted to retain a private attorney to pursue a legal claim regarding negligent medical care. DRO did not hear back from client about this despite welcoming back client if there were any concerns.
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:
PAIR Priority 1: Providing full access to community participation to individuals with disabilities 2. The need addressed by each priority: 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, courthouses, libraries, sidewalks, businesses, workplaces and more. Securing accessible — and affordable — housing is also challenge many PAIR eligible clients face, in addition to the denial of accommodation in housing. 3. A description of the activities to be carried out under each priority: a. Remove significant access barriers in public places with emphasis on barriers in education, transportation, and the courts b. Promote an increase in the supply of accessible housing through policy work c. Provide information about reasonable accommodations for tenants to prevent homelessness and isolation d. Advocate for reasonable accommodations in employment-related licensing and the workplace PAIR Priority 2: Getting and maintaining quality community support services 2. The need addressed by each priority: Difficulty in acquiring and maintaining services that allow individuals with disabilities to remain living in their communities continues to be a frequent issue among Oregonians experience disability, especially accessing health care. Individuals who are reevaluated to determine their level of need often experience a loss or decrease of services. Individuals with disabilities face additional barriers to health care, including access to clinics, qualified interpreters, appropriate and reliable assistive technology and more. 3. A description of the activities to be carried out under each priority: a. Secure entitled services and supports needed for safety and independence, b. Expand available health care through policy c. Provide advocacy and education to people with questions about vocational rehabilitation services d. Monitor and enforce implementation of initiatives to achieve full community integration of employment, residential, and day services PAIR Priority 3: Getting a free and appropriate education for children with disabilities 2. The need addressed by each priority: In 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. 3. A description of the activities to be carried out under each priority: a. Prevent schools from keeping students out of school because of their disabilities, b. Secure appropriate transition services c. Secure appropriate SPED services in the most integrated environment for students experiencing exceptional barriers or at risk of significant isolation or loss of academic progress, including assistive technology d. Stop schools from using inappropriate restraints, seclusion, aversion techniques, and police to deal with difficult behavioral issues in educational settings e. Increase the ability of parents, who experience exceptional barriers due to factors such as language culture & disability, to secure special education services for their children PAIR Priority 4: Stopping abuse & neglect of individuals with disabilities 2. The need addressed by each priority: Oregonians experiencing disability are too often subjected to abuse and/or neglect. This can occur in facilities or in communities. Guardianship is a tremendous intrusion on a person’s civil liberties because it allows another person to make important decisions for the protected person. A guardian should never be appointed unless there is adequate evidentiary support to show it is needed. For a person to continue having a guardian there should be clear support that the protected person meets the stringent definition of incapacitated as defined by Oregon law. There are certain actions and decisions that require a guardian to provide prior notice to a court or to obtain court approval. In cases where a guardian seeks approval to spend a Protected Person’s money or to move the person’s residence, for example, DRO wants to ensure that the person has knowledge of the action, choice, and Due Process protections. DRO always advocates for the Respondent or the Protected. DRO works to ensure that the legal rights of a Respondent/Protected person are upheld in matters of guardianship. 3. A description of the activities to be carried out under each priority: a. Protect individuals against guardianship that result in abuse or neglect
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 Federal grant 2016 PAIR - $182,260.00, Spent: $83,698.00 Federal grant 2015 carryover - $90,319.00, Spent $90,319.00 PAIR related PI earned during FY2016 - $17,000.00, Spent $17,000.00 Total resources for FY2016 - $289,579.00, Total Spent $191,017.00 B. Budget FY 2016 (ACTUAL) FY 2017 Wages/Salaries 119,427. 151,448. Fringe Benefits 29,696. 35,619. Material/supplies 91. 200. Postage 418. 450. Telephone 0 0 Rent 6,329. 8,150. Travel 866. 1,200. Copying 0 0 Bonding/insurance 3,445. 4,000. Equipment 0 0 Legal services 0 0 Indirect Costs 28,172. 35,390. Misc. 2,573. 3,500. Total Budget 191,017. 239,957. C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years) Type of Position FTE % of year filled Person-years Professional Full-time 1.86 100 1.86 Part-time 0 Vacant 0 Type of Position FTE % of year filled Person-years Clerical Full-time .19 100 .19 Part-time .14 .17 .02 Vacant 0 D. Involvement with advisory boards (if any) 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 members participate in committees and work groups that address issues affecting 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 Eight grievances from PAIR-eligible clients were filed in FY2016. 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 The Client Assistance Program is a program of Disability Rights Oregon (DRO). DRO currently has a contract with the Long Term Care Ombudsmen (LTCO) for monitoring guardianship pleadings that we receive, until 2018. To ensure DRO compliance with the contract, we submit monthly reports. DRO captures three substantive areas for the report, which are: 1) The number of people DRO contacted after receiving notice pursuant to statute; 2) The number of people to whom DRO provided services after receiving notice; 3) The number of petitions, motions, and other court filings reviewed for people after receiving notice. Additionally, a DRO attorney sits on the LTCO’s Residential Facilities Advisory Committee Member. At those monthly meetings, we receive updates and give input as to all of the LTCO programs, including discussions regarding people with disabilities under the new Oregon Public Guardian, served by the new Residential Facilities Ombudsmen (people in mental health and DD residences) and served by the traditional LTCO (residents in Nursing Facilities). DRO’s involvement in this advisory committee is to advocate for the greatest opportunity, access, and choice for these residents. In particular, discussions have centered on the traditional LTCO ensuring that residents understand their Due Process rights when they are respondents in guardianship proceedings. The DRO attorney serving on the advisory committee has reviewed possible legislation that would allow the Ombudspersons to engage with the residents in this manner and pass along information to the Court, as well as other potential legislation allowing respondents in guardianships to have Court Appointed Counsel, etc. DRO’s goal in serving on the committee is to ensure that the civil and human rights of the residents in whatever facility are upheld to the highest level. The DRO attorney is also sits on a sub-committee that is focused on legislation.
|Signed By||Robert C. Joondeph|