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

Oregon (DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON) - H240A170038 - FY2017

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights Oregon
Address610 SW Broadway, Suite 200
Address Line 2
CityPortland
StateOregon
Zip Code97205
E-mail Addressjjones@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/CoordinatorTed Wenk
Person to contact regarding reportJamie Jones
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 areas1,248
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas412
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)1,660

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff8
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)180

FY17 Training Titles: 1. Friends of the Children Advanced Training 2. Friends of the Children Introductory Training 3. Empowering Clients and Guardianship Law Training 4. Guardianship Training at Annual ODDS Service Coordinators and Personal Agents Conference 5. Training on Guardianship Concerns to OAAPI 6. WINGS Guardianship Improvement 7. Courthouse Accessibility Panel

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff15
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles7
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website27,711
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated32,408
6. Other (specify separately)5

Narrative

Executive Director's Blog Views: 376 Community Presentations — Multimedia: 1 Facebook Likes: 8,320 FY16 Media stories mentioning Disability Rights Oregon's work: 7 Twitter Followers: 3,823 Created a newsroom on our website. Listed main organizational subject-matter experts with their bios and photos to make it easier for reporters, press contact information and organized media coverage by issue: 1 --- Newspapers/Digital Outlets (35) The Oregonian, State's biggest youth prison gets $52 million upgrade, including new 'cottages', September 22, 2017 Vox, My wife chose to end her life after battling cancer. Now I fight for others to have that choice., September 21, 2017 The Oregonian, When the neediest students get the fewest school hours, September 17, 2017 Street Roots, CAGED: Inmates raise red flags about Oregon’s solitary confinement, August 25, 2017 The Oregonian, Community members blast Mayor’s idea for new community police engagement commission (August 4, 2017) Portland Business Journal, Mental breakdown: Battle rages on over Wilsonville psychiatric hospital (July 20, 2017) Portland Mercury, Oregon’s mental hospital is being flooded with criminal defendants (July 19, 2017) The Oregonian, IQ costs Oregon parents their kids, but is it fair? (July 19, 2017) The Lund Report, Multnomah County Homeless Count Reveals Nearly 3 in 4 Unhoused Report Disabilities (June 21, 2017) The Oregonian, Portland teen with autism will make trip to United Nations after all (June 18, 2017) The Lund Report, Oregon disability groups warn senators ACA repeal bill will harm Oregonians with disabilities (June 14, 2017) The Oregonian, Advocates urge county to take jail inmates in crisis to new psychiatric ER (June 6, 2017) The Lund report, Republican senator wants more veteran psychiatric facilities, but health leaders balk (June 2, 2017) Portland Tribune, Oregon Pay Equity Act becomes law (June 1, 2017) Portland Mercury, Advocates to Sheriff: Keep your guns out of the Unity Center, May 26, 2017 AP, Lawmakers aim to shoot down pay discrimination (May 17, 2017), picked up by East Oregonian, U.S. News & World Report The Oregonian, Oregon took months to fix lead problems at juvenile prisons (May 15, 2017) Winston-Salem Journal, Winston-Salem-based Odd Fellows faces criticism after rejecting teen with autism (May 2, 2017) McClatchy, He won an essay contest and a trip. But then he was disqualified — for being autistic, his family says (04/30/2017) The Oregonian, Tom Hallman: A Portland boy who won a prestigious trip told he can't go (04/28/2017), picked up by Bend Bulletin The Oregonian, Workers in Oregon prison unit say critical report is inaccurate, April 27, 2017 The Skanner and the Lund Report published our press release, April 26, 2017 The Oregonian, Severely mentally ill inmates spend too much time in their cells, says new report , April 26, 2017 Willamette Week, Report finds abuse of mentally ill prisoners, April 26, 2017 The Oregonian, Judge orders DHS to restore in-home care for disabled Oregonians, April 19, 2017 AP, Judge halts DHS cuts to in-home care for disabled Oregonians, April 19, 2017, picked up by U.S. News & World Report, Register-Guard, KTVZ-News East Oregonian, Under court order, DHS will restore in-home care services, April 19 2017, picked up by Blue Mountain Eagle Portland Business Journal, State freezes cuts for disabled services to allow for long-term plan, April 19, 2017 The Oregonian, People with disabilities sue DHS for cutting in-home care (April 11, 2017) Bend Bulletin, Lawsuit: Oregon home care cuts violate disabilities act (April 11, 2017) Associated Press, Portland group files disability suit over home care cuts (April 11,2017), picked up by Register-Guard Portland Business Journal, People with disabilities sue DHS over cuts to in-home care (April 11, 2017) Willamette Week, New lawsuit says state improperly cut in-home services to disabled Oregonians (April 11, 2017) The Source, Landmark Disability Rights Settlement, March 29, 2017 AP story, picked up by Register-Guard, Statesman Journal, U.S. News & World Report, Roseburg News-Review, March 28, 2017 The Oregonian, ODOT settlement that replaces thousands of curb ramps wins court approval, March 28, 2017 Bend Bulletin, ODOT must fix thousands of curb ramps around state, March 27, 2017, picked up by MyCentralOregon.com East Oregonian, ODOT must make all curbs and existing ramps wheelchair-accessible, March 27, 2017 The Skanner, Report finds harrowing conditions for mentally ill in Multnomah County jail, March 23, 2017 Wallowa County Chieftain, Local mental health services would decline if ACA repealed, March 22, 2017 Portland Business Journal, A hidden Oregon casualty of Republican health plan: The disabled, March 16, 2017 The Oregonian, Judge approves final settlement against Providence Health for denying autism coverage, March 15, 2017 The Oregonian, Jails not equipped to handle the mentally ill, March 1, 2017 Editorials (3) Statesman Journal, editorial, Change at Oregon State Penitentiary behavioral unit long overdue , April 28, 2017 Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, editorial, Lawsuit that forced fixing of faulty curb ramps welcome, March 31, 2017 Oregonian editorial, Time to focus on mentally ill at Multnomah County Detention Center: editorial, March 5, 2017 Opinion (7) The Washington Post, op-ed, My son has autism. Discrimination almost cost him his life., Sunshine Bodey, August 31, 2017 The Oregonian, Letter to Editor, Don’t tear families apart, Bob Joondeph, July 23, 2017 The Oregonian, op-ed, The many parallels in our struggle for civil rights, Matthew Denney, June 18, 2017 The Oregonian, Letter to Editor, Keeping those with mental illness out of jail, Sarah Radcliffe, June 15, 2017 Eugene Register-Guard, op-ed, New pay equity law a big boost for people with disabilities, Bob Joondeph, June 3, 2017 Bend Bulletin, op-ed, A victory for the disabled, Ted Wenk, May 23, 2017 Statesman Journal, op-ed, Democracy works best when everyone is involved, Esther Harlow & Gabrielle Guedon, May 3, 2017 The Oregonian, Letter to Editor, People w/ disabilities also lose, Bob Joondeph, March 17, 2017 Portland Tribune, op-ed, Jail is no place for the mentally ill, Sarah Radcliffe, March 17, 2018 Radio (17) KBOO Community Radio, Disability Awareness, Medicaid cuts loom large over disabled Oregonians, July 24, 2017 OPB News, What the Republican health bill means for Gresham family with disabled daughter June 15, 2017 KBOO Community Radio, Behind the Eleventh Door, June 5, 2017 (Joel Greenberg, Bob Joondeph) OPB News, Oregon Governor Kate Brown prepares to sign pay equity bill (June 1, 2017) OPB News, Portland police want to keep their guns - even at psychiatric hospitals (May 26, 2017) KBOO Community Radio, Changes afoot for mental health treatment at OSP, May 11, 2017 OPB News, Mentally ill prisoners still in their cells an average 23 hours a day, April 26, 2017, picked up by Jefferson Public Radio OPB News, DHS temporarily restores services for Oregonians with disabilities, April 20, 2017 Jefferson Smith/XRAY-FM In the Morning, interview with Tom Stenson, min. 1:13, April 19, 2017 OPB's Think Out Loud, Oregon DHS sued over reducing in-home care for people with disabilities (April 18, 2017), Tom Stenson and plaintiff KLCC-FM (Eugene), Court settlement will make Oregon road crossings safer, more accessible for people with disabilities (March 29, 2017) OPB News, Judge approves ODOT disability rights settlement, March 28, 2017 (Laura Klinkner) OPB News, audio only, March 27, 2017 (Amanda Peacher) Prison Pipeline, KBOO, interview w/ Sarah Radcliffe, MCDC report, March 13, 2017 Jo Ann Hardesty, KBOO, interview w/ Sarah Radcliffe, MCDC report, March 9, 2017 Think Out Loud, OPB, interview w/ Sarah Radcliffe, MCDC report, March 8, 2017 Jefferson Smith/XRAY In the Morning, interview w/ Sarah Radcliffe, MCDC report, March 7, 2017 OPB News, aired story on MCDC report just audio, March 2, 2017 TV (14) KATU News, Pedestrian advocates not surprised by deadly crash in crosswalk, September 25, 2017 KPTV News, Portland teen with autism will make trip United Nations, June 19, 2017 KOIN News, Teen with autism will go on UN trip after all, June 18, 2017 KPTV News, Tigard police arrest school bus driver accused of sexually abusing special needs student, May 4, 2017 KOIN News, Teen with autism denied trip he won to the U.N. May 1, 2017 KATU News, Organization rescinds trip to NY for autistic boy who won essay contest April 30, 2017 KGW News, Portland teen with autism disqualified from national contents April 28, 2017 KPTV News, Family: Portland teenager denied national trip because he has autism April 28, 2017 KOIN News, In-home care cuts tough choices for DHS, families April 21, 2017 KPTV News, People with disabilities suing DHS after in-home care is cut, April 12, 2017 KOIN News, DHS sued for cutting in-home care hours (web story, 04/11/2017, on-air 04/12/2017) KATU News, ODOT required to replace most curb ramps to comply with ADA, March 28, 2017 KDRV News (Medford), ODOT will reconstruct up to 90% of sidewalk ramps near highways, March 28, 2017 KTVL News (Medford), ODOT will replace 90 percent of highway curb ramps in coming years, March 28, 2017 KTVZ News (Central Oregon), Judge Oks settlement of ADA lawsuit, March 27, 2017 KPTV News, Reports find mental health services lacking at Multnomah County detention facilities, March 27, 2017 KOIN News, Tigard family fears for son’s future if ACA explodes, March 26, 2017 New Media Facebook Live, Oregon Justice Resource Center, interview w/ Sarah Radcliffe, March 16, 2017 --- Narrative Disability Rights Oregon received quite a bit of coverage of the finalization of the ODOT settlement agreement, including two separate op-eds that were published, one by a DRO attorney and the other by one of the plaintiffs in the case. There was also a strong editorial by the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin.

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)38
2. Additional individuals served during the year16
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)54
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)1

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 30

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility8
2. Employment8
3. Program access3
4. Housing1
5. Government benefits/services9
6. Transportation1
7. Education19
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting0
10. Health care1
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services1
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse1
16. Neglect0
17. Other3

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor17
2. Other representation found0
3. Individual withdrew complaint3
4. Appeals unsuccessful1
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.0
6. PAIR withdrew from case1
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit2
9. Other1

Please explain

Other: Lost contact with client.

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-advocacy4
2. Short-term assistance3
3. Investigation/monitoring1
4. Negotiation9
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution0
6. Administrative hearings7
7. Litigation (including class actions)1
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 - 2220
3. 23 - 5922
4. 60 - 643
5. 65 and over9

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females29
2. Males25

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race11
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native1
3. Asian2
4. Black or African American1
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White8
7. Two or more races0
8. Race/ethnicity unknown31

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent26
2. Parental or other family home20
3. Community residential home6
4. Foster care1
5. Nursing home0
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center1
9. Homeless0
10. Other living arrangements0
11. Living arrangements not known0

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 hearing1
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment18
5. Mental illness16
6. Substance abuse1
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability2
9. Neurological impairment3
10. Respiratory impairment0
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment0
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment0
13. Speech impairment1
14. AIDS/HIV0
15. Traumatic brain injury0
16. Other disability8

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities3

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes15,325

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.

During the 2017 Legislative Session, Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) successfully educated policy makers on bills affecting Oregonians experiencing disabilities. These bills included regulating the use of abbreviated school days (SB 263), duties of I/DD case managers in end-of-life decisions, improvements on the guardianship process (HB 2630), pay equity, keeping students safe from abuse, banning discrimination in organ transplants (one of just a handful of states nationally to have done this). 1) Protecting Individuals’ Right to Self-Determination (HB 2630) Oregon law does not require a court hearing before the appointment of a guardian and does not provide lawyers for indigent people for whom a guardian is proposed. Guardians can make major changes to a person’s life without the person having a meaningful opportunity to object. Guardianship is a highly intrusive restriction on the rights and self-determination of persons for whom a guardian is appointed. When people with disabilities have greater self-determination, they are more likely to be employed, independent, healthier, and safer. DRO advocated for HB 2630, which requires a person who asks to be the guardian for an adult to tell the court what less-restrictive alternatives to guardianship were considered and why they were inadequate; formal notices to include how the adult can be contacted; the adult to be informed how to lodge oral objections to the proceeding; interested parties to be notified how to inform the court if they have concerns about the guardianship; and guardians to give notice to the court, the adult and other concerned parties when proposing to change the adult’s abode or placement. The bill becomes effective on January 1, 2018. 2) Limiting Short School Days for Students with Disabilities (SB 263) As a result of a growing number of students with disabilities across the state being excluded from the classroom and school because of behaviors caused by their disabilities over the last three years, DRO has been working to reverse this trend. The culmination of this work resulted in proposed legislation (Senate Bill 263) to limit school districts’ ability to shorten child’s school day because of behavior problems that are part of his or her disability. SB 263 sets clear standards for when and how a school district may substitute a special education students’ in-school program with an abbreviated school day program. It requires that parents be kept fully engaged in decision-making about the student’s place of instruction. A companion bill, HB 3318, sets out procedures for conducting functional behavioral assessments and for developing, reviewing, and revising behavior intervention plans for students with individualized education programs or 504 Plans. Both bills became effective on July 1, 2017. DRO advocated for this legislation in collaboration with Confederation of Oregon School Administrators, Oregon School Boards Association), Oregon Department of Education, and FACT Oregon to take this step forward for students with disabilities who have behavioral needs. 3) Inadequate Oregon Foster Care System In FY17, DRO attorneys have been working on addressing the Oregon foster care system. The foster care system generally works very poorly, but it clearly serves children with disabilities worst of all. Because of acute lack of foster care homes, children are placed wherever the Department of Human Services can find places — even if the placements are not appropriate to an individual child’s needs. Children are also placed without adequate individualized instruction and training to parents. Foster parents who don’t know what to expect or how to respond to a child experiencing a psychiatric crisis are unlikely to keep a child with disabilities in their home for a long time. DRO attorneys met twice with the state official charged with organizing foster care reforms to urge greater resources for children with disabilities and to ensure that the foster care system engages in systemic case-planning that will meet the long-term needs of children with disabilities. DHS must break the cycle of repeated emergency placement that don’t serve the needs of children with disabilities, leading to the failure of the placement, and more inappropriate emergency placements. DRO is also reaching out to community organizations that represent children in or coming out of the foster care system, and are devising a plan to reform the child welfare system, including litigation as necessary.

B. Litigation/Class Actions

1. Number of individuals potentially impacted by changes as a result of PAIR litigation/class action efforts4,028,977
2. Number of individuals named in class actions8

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.

In February 2016, the Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living (AOCIL) and eight individuals with mobility and visual impairments, charged that ODOT had failed to build and maintain accessible curb ramps and pedestrian signals across the state. On behalf of and in partnership with AOCIL, DRO filed the suit, a tentative settlement agreement in November 2016, and public forums were around Oregon January and February 2017. The settlement agreement between AOCIL and ODOT was approved in US District Court in April 2017. The agreement includes a quick-start commitment of $5 million to address curb ramps and pedestrian signals in locations identified by AOCIL, with input from the community of people with disabilities. It is intended to get design work started as quickly as the locations are identified. The $5 million will help start the effort to bring more than 10,000 curb ramps and 1,500 pedestrian signals into compliance with current legal standards under federal law. In addition to the $5 million as part of the agreement, $18 million has been programed in ODOT’s State Transportation Improvement Program for spending on curb ramps and other ADA features beginning in the program cycle that begins in 2018. Additionally, Oregon Walks named Disability Rights Oregon its Weston Award winner in November 2016 for its a lawsuit against the Oregon Department of Transportation over inaccessible sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian signals on ODOT-managed highways.

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.

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: 22 cases A.6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Case Summary 1) The client is an employee at a grocery store’s warehouse and is legally blind. He contacted DRO after receiving a three-day suspension from work, without pay, due to missing a mandatory employee in-service on Labor Day in 2016. The client’s employer posts each week’s work schedule on a bulletin board. He had an accommodation in place where he would work a fixed schedule, but a manager would verbally inform him if any scheduling anomalies took place. He does not normally work holidays, and he was not informed of the mandatory in-service. After speaking with the client, the DRO attorney discovered he was a member of a union. It emerged that the union had not filed a grievance on his behalf over the suspension. After contacting his union representative, the DRO attorney was put in touch with the legal counsel for his union on September 19th, 2016. Counsel was not aware of his case at the time and DRO inquired about them filing a grievance, and he agreed to examine why they had not done so. The following day, the union filed a grievance on client’s behalf. The DRO attorney remained in contact with the union’s attorney; a settlement agreement was reached on September 23rd. The DRO attorney agreed to review the settlement with our client before signing. The DRO attorney and the client met on September 29th to discuss the grievance settlement and other options, including his rights under the ADA. On October 7th, DRO wrote a counter-offer which incorporated a reasonable accommodation agreement and a greater reimbursement for lost wages. The client considered the counter-offer for a couple of weeks and it was submitted to his employer and union on October 24th. The DRO attorney explained the counter-offer to the client’s employer, and a finalized settlement offer was signed on November 9th. The DRO client was able to recoup lost wages and keep his job with appropriate accommodations. Case Summary 2) The client was a remote customer service representative for a tech company. When he started his job, he was able to work remotely from home, and it was a good fit. This ended in December of 2015. After that point, he was required to move to Oregon and work in a large, open-plan office with hundreds of other employees. The work environment made it difficult for the client to manage his anxiety disorder, and a few months later, in May of 2016, he went on a leave of absence. He used his FMLA and sick leave time over the next two months. He requested a reasonable accommodation to work from home and have a fixed schedule. This was denied, and he was given until August 15th to return to work without accommodations or be terminated. The client contacted DRO on August 10th. The DRO attorney spoke with him about the issue on August 11th, and sent an e-mailed letter to the employer on August 12th. They did not immediately respond. However, on August 17th, the DRO attorney received assurances that the client would not be terminated and that the case had been referred to their legal department. Due to repeated delays on their end, the DRO attorney first met with counsel on September 2nd. Over the next few months, DRO engaged in repeated reasonable accommodation negotiations with the client and his employer. Working from home was rejected as an accommodation, but some progress was made in terms of agreeing to some accommodations in the workplace. Though in the process, employer repeatedly cancelled meetings and would backtrack regarding agreed accommodations. This lengthened the “interactive process.” The client was not paid during this time. On December 16th, reasonable accommodations including a new position, a fixed office space, and fixed schedule were agreed to. The client was to begin January 9th. However, this did not occur because his employer did not get the required authorization together in time. On January 13th, his employer then offered a return-to-work date of January 25th, if a settlement agreement was approved with some back pay and a release of claims. This was again delayed. A revised settlement agreement was proposed. However, on January 30th, the client advised the DRO attorney that his doctor would not approve a return to work because the delays in securing accommodations had aggravated his condition. DRO informed opposing counsel of this and noted the months in delays in the interactive process caused by their side. Employer’s counsel then received approval for a larger settlement agreement with back and front pay, with a severance package that would include job search assistance. The client accepted the settlement agreement, and although the interactive process had failed, the settlement agreement gave him necessary resources to find alternative employment. Case Summary 3) The client is an individual with orthopedic and mobility impairments who uses a mobility device to get around from his downtown apartment to engage in his regular daily activities in the area community. He contacted DRO because he was unable to open the entrance door to the McDonald's near his home. He would have to stand and wait for someone to come along and open the door for him because of the door pressure opening force required. Once inside, he could not independently enter the bathroom for the same reason. An advocate from DRO went to the restaurant location with a pressure gauge and noted the door pressure for the exterior and interior doors to be far in excess of Oregon Building Code on Accessibility. A DRO attorney sent a demand letter to McDonald's corporate office stating that the location was inaccessible and in violation of the ADA and state code. The restaurant manager next contacted DRO that a door opening button had been installed, with signage marking the accessible entrance and that both bathroom doors had the pressure adjusted to come into compliance with state code. The client can now independently visit and eat at his neighborhood McDonald's. 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: 14 cases B.5. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Case Summary 1) After changes in federal overtime rules, Oregon (like many states) put limits on the number of hours homecare workers can work. DHS Aging and People with Disabilities moved to cap the client’s homecare worker from 50 hours per week to 40 hours per week. Facing an untenable loss of income, the homecare worker informed client that she would need to quit and seek other employment. The client sought DRO’s assistance helping the client to restore the homecare worker’s hours to 50 per week. DRO’s assistance was successful, which prevented the client from experiencing a gap or loss in homecare services. C.1 Getting a free and 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: 18 cases C.6. Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. Case Summary 1) Client was a kindergarten student who was being excluded from school for half of every school day due to behavior related to her disability. The district had not provided any behavior supports to attempt to stabilize the student in the classroom prior to excluding her. They were proposing to move the student to a very restrictive special school placement because a self contained classroom placement was not available in the district for her age group. The DRO attorney negotiated with the district to ensure the student could remain in that school until the end of the school year so the district could then establish an appropriate program. Over the summer, the district opened a self-contained classroom for the client’s age range in her home school. The student accessed the self contained classroom as her home base, but was successfully participating in the general education classroom with minimal behavior issues for much of her first grade year. 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’s concern is that he was Tasered twice by a group of police officers. Client contacted Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) because he wanted something to be done about the city police’s actions. Client is articulate and able to relay the details of his interaction with the police. However, given all of the overwhelming factors in his life, he indicated that completing a grievance with the police department was too much. Client was feeling suicidal at first contact in addition to later becoming homeless. DRO drafted a grievance against the police in question on behalf of the client. DRO’s grievance includes facts that client was not violent, threatening violence or difficult prior to being tasered either time. Client was not given an option to comply or a verbal warning prior to either tasering. Moreover, the client requested to have his handcuffs placed in front of him because his chronic pain was exacerbated by handcuffs behind his back. Client has fibromyalgia, arthritis and other physical disabilities that caused the handcuffing for thirty minutes to be cause for concern. Additionally, Client was outside in the cold in pajamas and no additional clothing for thirty minutes. DRO included the police’s own taser policy as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as laws that were violated. DRO is continuing to work with client to finalize the complaint. The client has expressed his gratitude on multiple occasions for DRO’s caring intervention. DRO hopes to update this case in FY18.

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.

PAIR Priority 1) Fulfill the ADA’s community integration mandate for individuals experiencing disability PAIR Priority 1 needs addressed Enforcement of ADA requirements for effective communication for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Community in jails, hospitals, public entertainment events, and governmental services Enforcement of reasonable accommodation in the workplace (Title I ADA) and applying Olmstead and Lane to employment settings Facilitation of effective discharge & release planning from Oregon institutions, such as Oregon State Hospital (OSH), prisons, jails, Stabilization and Crisis Units (SACUs), and private hospitals to prevent re-institutionalization Promotion of community-based supports, healthcare, housing, crisis response Protection due process rights when there is risk of Medicaid-funded long-term service cuts Promote accessibility of sidewalks, crosswalk improvements, and public transit Priority 1 description of the activities to be carried out In order to fulfill the ADA’s community integration mandate for individuals experiencing disability, DRO will carry out the following activities: Enforce ADA requirements for effective communication for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Community in jails, hospitals, public entertainment events, and governmental services by: Studing of the DHH community needs assessment (http://www.wou.edu/rrcd/files/2016/07/DHS-Interagency-Agreement-151333-Final-Report-with-Exec-Summary.pdf) Meeting with DHH community leaders to identify urgent need areas which present immediate action for advocacy and legal remedy Advocating for live captioning for state legislature and legislative committee Exploring appropriate usage and quality of video remote interpreting (VRI) Meeting with DHH service providers to explore on-going deficiencies with VRI delivery throughout Oregon Enforce reasonable accommodation in the workplace (Title I ADA) and applying Olmstead and Lane to employment settings by: Developing a survey study of job postings and listings which list position functions that unnecessarily screen out people with disabilities in order to develop legal and advocacy strategy regarding results Providing limited individual advocacy where lack of reasonable accommodation for job-related certification and licensing prevents advancement of employment opportunity, with a focus on occupations in high-demand and strong job market Continued implementation of Lane Settlement Agreement and related State Governor Executive Orders, Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act regulations, and CMS guidance through a variety of means including participation in administrative rule advisory committees (RACs), workshop visits, limited individual advocacy, participation with court-appointed independent reviewer, monitoring of state reports and data analysis and outreach to community rehabilitation providers and individuals and family members who seek integrated employment options Establishing a task force within Oregon Disabilities Commission to implement Work Matters (http://www.csg.org/NTPWD/WorkMatters.aspx) report recommendations in Oregon Facilitate effective discharge & release planning from Oregon institutions, such as Oregon State Hospital (OSH), prisons, jails, Stabilization and Crisis Units (SACUs), and private hospitals to prevent re-institutionalization by: Continuing to monitor Seniors and People with Disabilities (APD) services at Oregon State Hospital (eligibility determinations, case management, discharge planning) Researching other states to better understand best practices for service delivery in community/residential settings Connecting with the Governor’s re-entry task force to develop proposed improvements in DOC prison release planning practices Improving private hospital discharge practices with a focus on ending homelessness by continuing to seek commitment from community hospitals to track homelessness, discharge destination, and readmission; promoting hospital financial investment in recuperative care and housing; preventing and investigating patient-dumping and arrest in lieu of discharge; participating in rulemaking to implement new emergency department discharge planning requirements Advocating on behalf of residents who have stabilized in the Stabilization and Crisis Unit (SACU) population (40 percent ready to place) to ensure they are moved to a less restrictive environment efficiently by ongoing monitoring of SACUs Providing limited individual advocacy services in the following cases in the following instances: 1) Preventing imposition of guardianship as a condition of Oregon State Hospital (OSH) discharge; 2) Individual Oregon State Hospital cases where there are significant barriers to discharge; 3) Individual Stabilization and Crisis Unit cases when individual has stabilized and is ready to be moved to a less restrictive environment efficiently Promotion of community-based supports, healthcare, housing, crisis response by: Monitoring compliance with Department of Justice/Oregon Olmstead Performance Plan, with a focus on allocation of duties between state/counties/contractors/CCOs Launching new initiative dedicated to expanding availability of accessible, affordable, and (if needed) supportive housing, particularly for people who have experienced homelessness and disability Monitoring to ensure that community crisis response is adequately supported and accessed Performing public advocacy through participation in Stabilization and Crisis Unit committee to ensure placement in a more restrictive environment only occurs when less restrictive options have been exhausted Investigating systemic issues in the foster care system for children with disabilities Protection of due process rights when there is risk of Medicaid-funded long-term service cuts by Review Seniors and People with Disabilities (APD) budget cuts in long-term care and in-home services and for possible/likely violations Reviewing state service budget cuts relating to eligibility criteria for possible/likely violations Providing limited individual advocacy services and monitoring to ensure that resolution of services cuts addresses similar issues with assessment, notice, hearings process, and exceptions process for home modifications Monitor transition planning and exit for individuals being exited from nursing homes due to funding cuts and new eligibility criteria Working with the Oregon Disabilities Commission and the Governor’s Council on Senior Services to address policy issues, outreach to individuals and families affected Promotion of the accessibility of sidewalks, crosswalk improvements, and public transit by: Monitoring the AOCIL/Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Settlement Agreement Monitoring, which entails Coordinating regional public forums with ODOT and AOCIL to inform public on implementation of the assessment of priority sites and remediating construction of ramps as well as Work Zone alternative access route notice’ Reviewing Oregon Public Transportation Plan documents and conferring with new consumer advocate members on Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) on emerging issues regarding inclusion and equal access Reviewing Access Consultant reports and related monitoring and compliance documents Reviewing pedestrian signal inventory and negotiate for remediation Participating in the City of Portland Master Pedestrian Plan to review ADA issues and compliance Outreach to community partner programs across state (e.g. ILR, VR, DSAC’s) to see if/where paratransit issues happen to address paratransit issues, such as ‘no show’ suspensions and ‘true’ comparability to fixed route PAIR Priority 2) Protect core civil rights of individuals experiencing disability in institutions PAIR Priority 2 need addressed Enforcement of ADA compliance within institutions Prevent discrimination in institutions, focusing on intersectionality for individuals experiencing disability and other marginalized identities PAIR Priority 2 description of the activities to be carried out In order to protect core civil rights of individuals experiencing disability in institutions, DRO will carry out the following activities: Advocate for every facility to have a designated ADA coordinator and a publicized process for making a reasonable accommodation request Enforce the right to an interpreter for individuals with hearing impairments Prevent institutions from punishing or isolating individuals as a result of disability-related behavior Provide limited individual advocacy when activities of daily living are significantly impacted Participate in Oregon State Hospital transgender healthcare and LGBTQ policy workgroups Require institutions, jails, hospitals, and prisons to track and make public demographic data regarding population, use of force, seclusion + restraint, and discipline Limited individual advocacy services or referral to private attorney Promote training of institutional staff to reduce discrimination PAIR Priority 3) Enforce the State of Oregon’s obligation to properly operate a comprehensive system that makes appropriate education available to all children PAIR Priority 3 need addressed Preserve access to appropriate education K-12 available to all children Prevention of use of shortened school day and inadequate behavior supports Prevention of seclusion and restraint in K-12 education settings Support parents in accessing IEP documents in their native language PAIR Priority 3 description of the activities to be carried out In order to enforce the State of Oregon’s obligation to properly operate a comprehensive system that makes appropriate education available to all children, DRO will carry out the following activities: Preserve access appropriate education K-12 available to all children by monitoring school age transition services per Lane settlement, MOU’s, and WIOA; monitor possible lawsuit based on one or more individual cases Prevention use of shortened school day and inadequate behavior supports by Participating in rulemaking committees and provide feedback on any guidance issued Developing DRO’s partnership with FACT and other parent advocacy groups to ensure parents have a toolkit with information on their rights Translating DRO toolkits to other languages Collecting data and monitoring of effectiveness of statute Providing limited individual advocacy services Developing Functional Behavior Assessment (or Analysis) and Behavior Intervention Plan publication Prevention of seclusion and restraint in K-12 education settings by: Providing limited individual advocacy services Requesting public records from ODE for all reports from districts with data Explore a writing letter to districts who do not publish data on ODE website Support parents in accessing IEP documents in their native language by developing an education campaign directed at parents, providing limited individual advocacy services, and collecting prior written notices from parents when denied translation of IEP documents PAIR Priority 4) Advocate for freedom from abuse and neglect for people experiencing disability PAIR Priority 4 need addressed Investigate allegations of abuse and neglect with probable cause when not adequately addressed by state and local authorities PAIR Priority 4 description of the activities to be carried out In order to advocate for freedom from abuse and neglect for people experiencing disability, DRO will carry out the following activities: Investigate allegations of abuse and neglect with probable cause when not adequately addressed by state and local authorities by monitoring abuse and neglect reports via DRO intake process, abuse and neglect reports in school settings, and critical incident reports PAIR Priority 5) Promote access to healthcare for individuals experiencing multiple disabilities PAIR Priority 5 needs addressed Monitoring non-emergency medical transport (NEMT) to prevent transportation barrier to accessing medical care Prevention of use of law-enforcement tactics on patients in clinical settings Promotion of comprehensive, trauma-informed healthcare and crisis-response, with special emphasis on individuals experiencing multiple disabilities PAIR Priority 5 description of the activities to be carried out In order to promote access to healthcare for individuals experiencing multiple disabilities, DRO will carry out the following activities: Monitor non-emergency medical transport (NEMT) to prevent transportation barrier to accessing medical care by monitoring Tri-County non-emergency medical transport (NEMT) Advisory Committee and participating in the rules advisory committees (RACs) for OAR 410-136.3000 Prevent use of law-enforcement tactics on patients in clinical settings by B) i. Monitor the use of guns, tasers, handcuffs, and law enforcement personnel in hospitals; consider policy/publicity work and/or individual advocacy services auditing Portland area hospital calls to law enforcement (and possibly publishing report of audit findings) Promote comprehensive, trauma-informed healthcare and crisis-response (with special emphasis on individuals experiencing multiple disabilities) by: Investigating and preventing Emergency Department “boarding” with special emphasis on individuals experiencing co-occurring disabilities Preventing treatment providers from excluding patients due to disability-related behavior Exploring network adequacy, especially in rural Oregon communities Requiring hospitals to provide adequate discharge planning after inpatient and/or emergency department visits, with a focus on patients who are discharging to homelessness PAIR Priority 6) Preserve self-determination for people experiencing disability PAIR Priority 6 need addressed Intervene when a respondent or protected person’s civil rights are being violated due to guardianship, including abuse or neglect PAIR Priority 6 description of the activities to be carried out In order to preserve self-determination for people experiencing disability, DRO will carry out the following activities: Intervene when a respondent or protected person’s civil rights are being violated due to guardianship, including abuse or neglect by: Provide Limited individual advocacy services on legal rights under guardianship, including termination of guardianship Provide community education on empowering clients, guardianship law, including less restrictive alternatives Monitoring and partnering with LTCO, including the Oregon Public Guardian, through work on advisory council

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

Sources of funds received and expended Federal grant 2016 Carryover - $98,562.00 Federal Grant 2017 $175,927.00 Program Income $615.00 SPENT $ 197,886. balance 33,096. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report Expenses: Salary Expense 120,017 Accrued Vacation 834 Employee Benefits 20,217 Payroll Taxes 9,471 Supplies 155 Travel Expenses 4,450 Rent Expense 7,097 Staff Development & Training 514 Library Expense 2,052 Dues, Fees, & Insurance 3,288. Miscellaneous Expense 210 Contract Services 33 Postage & Delivery 454 Printing & Copying 1 Subtotal Direct Expenses 168,792 Indirect Cost Allocation 29,095 Total expenses 197,887. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years) Attorneys, Intake Specialists and Administrative support provide services to PAIR eligible callers and clients as appropriate for the expertise needed and workload capacities. In FY 2017 13 attorneys and other professionals spent part of their time in PAIR related activities for a total FTE of 1.57. 1 support staff spent approximately .24 FTE on PAIR related duties Involvement with advisory boards (if any) 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. Grievances filed under the grievance procedure - 5 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 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.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByRobert C. Joondeph
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/28/2017