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

Oregon (DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON) - H240A180038 - FY2018

General Information

Designated Agency Identification

NameDisability Rights Oregon
Address511 SW 10th Ave Suite 200
Address Line 2
CityPortland
StateOregon
Zip Code97207
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 areas300
2. Individuals receiving I&R outside PAIR priority areas799
3. Total individuals receiving I&R (lines A1 + A2)1,099

B. Training Activities

1. Number of trainings presented by PAIR staff3
2. Number of individuals who attended training (approximate)605

Guardianship--Legal Rights Training 1) the topics and issues covered by the trainings Topics covered were least restrictive alternatives and rights for persons who may be and are under guardianship. 2) the training methods used (i.e., lecture, hands-on learning, etc.); Group presentation 3) the purpose of the training. Provide two education and training sessions in Bend, Oregon to service providers, family members, and self-advocates regarding their options and legal rights in the context of support with decision making and guardianship. Facebook Live: Know Your Rights: Reasonable Accommodation in Employment 1) the topics and issues covered by the trainings Reasonable Accommodation in Employment under state & federal law (e.g. legal rights to accommodation, how & when to request an accommodations, the interactive process) 2) the training methods used (i.e., lecture, hands-on learning, etc.) Facebook Live Event: DRO attorneys took questions on reasonable workplace accommodations, along with a presentation as to legal rights and best practice in requesting accommodations. The event was archived for future viewing. 3) the purpose of the training Provide Oregonians with Disabilities training regarding reasonable accommodation in employment to build self-advocacy skills. An Overview of Disability-Based Employment Discrimination Law in Oregon 1) the topics and issues covered by the trainings Walked through the various titles of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as Family Medical Leave Act as they apply to employees with disabilities. 2) the training methods used The method used to conduct this training was the presentation of a hypothetical intake client followed by discussion of the issues, relevant claims, and strategies to consider when assisting this client. 3) the purpose of the training This was a group presentation to legal aid attorneys throughout Oregon who handle employment cases but may be forgetting about some critical legal protections.

C. Information Disseminated to the Public

1. Radio and TV appearances by PAIR staff29
2. Newspaper/magazine/journal articles101
3. PSAs/videos aired0
4. Hits on the PAIR/P&A website155,238
5. Publications/booklets/brochures disseminated25,901
6. Other (specify separately)0

Narrative

- 56 emails went out to the DRO listserv, with an average open rate of 30% - 27 blog posts on the DRO website authored - Mentioned in 83 Newspaper and Digital Outlets - 3 infographics created - 5 client stories shared - Facilitated 9 separate coffees between DRO staff and individual journalists - Secured meeting w/ Oregonian editor & DRO staff on writing about people w/ disabilities - Helped secure Oregonian editorial board meeting w/ staff member and director - Media relations work helped lead to 5 favorable editorials on DRO issues - Worked with staff/external messengers to edit/pitch 9 op-eds published in newspapers - Worked with staff/Board to edit/pitch 7 letters to the editor published in newspapers - Worked with board member on authoring letter to the editor that was published in The Oregonian - Helped secure Think Out Loud coverage of our issues/staff appearance 5 times - Unexpected messengers: Worked with business owner to author op-ed on disability employment published in Portland Business Journal - Nat’l coverage: worked with advocate to draft op-ed published in Washington Post and reprinted in The Oregonian

Part II. Individuals Served

A. Individuals Served

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

1. Individuals still served as of October 1 (carryover from prior FY)29
2. Additional individuals served during the year30
3. Total individuals served (lines A1 + A2)59
4. Individuals w. more than 1 case opened/closed during the FY. (Do not add this number to total on line A3 above.)0

B. Individuals served as of September 30

Carryover to next FY may not exceed total on line II. A.3 above 27

C. Problem Areas/Complaints of Individuals Served

1. Architectural accessibility8
2. Employment3
3. Program access2
4. Housing20
5. Government benefits/services7
6. Transportation0
7. Education13
8. Assistive technology0
9. Voting0
10. Health care1
11. Insurance0
12. Non-government services0
13. Privacy rights0
14. Access to records0
15. Abuse2
16. Neglect0
17. Other2

D. Reasons for Closing Individual Case Files

1. Issues resolved partially or completely in individual favor22
2. Other representation found1
3. Individual withdrew complaint1
4. Appeals unsuccessful5
5. PAIR Services not needed due to individual's death, relocation etc.1
6. PAIR withdrew from case0
7. PAIR unable to take case because of lack of resources0
8. Individual case lacks legal merit0
9. Other2

Please explain

1) provided client with advice for self-advocacy

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-advocacy1
2. Short-term assistance9
3. Investigation/monitoring0
4. Negotiation12
5. Mediation/alternative dispute resolution0
6. Administrative hearings7
7. Litigation (including class actions)3
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 - 2215
3. 23 - 5928
4. 60 - 648
5. 65 and over8

B. Gender of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Females32
2. Males27

C. Race/Ethnicity of Individuals Served

For individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only

1. Hispanic/Latino of any race9
2. American Indian or Alaskan Native0
3. Asian0
4. Black or African American1
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0
6. White21
7. Two or more races1
8. Race/ethnicity unknown31

D. Living Arrangements of Individuals Served

Multiple responses not permitted.

1. Independent23
2. Parental or other family home12
3. Community residential home10
4. Foster care1
5. Nursing home1
6. Public institutional living arrangement0
7. Private institutional living arrangement0
8. Jail/prison/detention center1
9. Homeless3
10. Other living arrangements8
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 impairment3
2. Deaf/hard of hearing1
3. Deaf-blind0
4. Orthopedic impairment24
5. Mental illness17
6. Substance abuse0
7. Mental retardation0
8. Learning disability2
9. Neurological impairment1
10. Respiratory impairment0
11. Heart/other circulatory impairment1
12. Muscular/skeletal impairment1
13. Speech impairment1
14. AIDS/HIV0
15. Traumatic brain injury3
16. Other disability5

Part IV. Systemic Activities and Litigation

A. Systemic Activities

1. Number of policies/practices changed as a result of non-litigation systemic activities8

2. Number of individuals potentially impacted by policy changes320,000

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.

1. Enforced ADA requirements for effective communication for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) Community in jails, hospitals, public entertainment events, and governmental services by successfully advocating for Live captioning for state legislature and legislative committees. 2. Facilitated effective discharge and release planning from Oregon State Hospital (OSH), prisons, jails, Stabilization and Crisis Units (SACUs), and private hospitals to prevent re-institutionalization through systemic advocacy efforts that improved private hospital discharge practices with a focus on ending homelessness through the participation in rulemaking to implement new emergency department discharge planning requirements and participating in Stabilization and Crisis Units (SACUs) rulemaking committee 3. Advocated for the prevention of the use of shortened school day and inadequate behavior supports by partnering with FACT and other parent advocacy groups develop a toolkit to ensure parents have information on their right, and translated toolkit to other languages for language accessibility. 4. Enforce reasonable accommodation in the workplace (Title I ADA) and applying Olmstead and Lane to employment settings by working to identify job advertisements for positions throughout Oregon that had obviously discriminatory, exhaustive lists of physical requirements for jobs. These job postings created improbable employment barriers based on the physical “requirements.” For example, an advertisement for ordinary office work required applicants be able to “talk, hear, sit, stoop, bend, crawl, kneel, and use near, distance, color, and peripheral vision.” DRO sent letters to seven Oregon employers urging them to stop posting such discriminatory advertisements. Multiple employers responded positively or removed the offending advertisements and submitted advertisements that did not violate the law. Others have not changed course, and DRO is reviewing how to respond. 5. Increased protection of due process rights when there was a risk of Medicaid-funded long-term service cuts through the review of Seniors and People with Disabilities (APD) budget cuts in long-term care and in-home services and for possible/likely violations. which resulted in a MOU (monitoring in FY19); through monitoring transition planning and exit for individuals being exited from nursing homes due to funding cuts and new eligibility criteria, which was addressed with the APD settlement; and through working with the Oregon Disabilities Commission and the Governor’s Council on Senior Services to address policy issues, outreach to individuals and families affected, which was also addressed with APD settlement. 6. Enforced ADA requirements regarding service animals. DRO wrote letter to Port of Portland and worked with their attorney to ensure that revised port policies allowed individuals with service animals to have equal access to airport amenities including the ability to travel with their service animal. DRO also encouraged constituents to write to the Department of Transportation regarding their concerns and input regarding the Air Carrier Access Act and how it could impact people with disabilities who require service animals to travel. 7. Enforced ADA requirements as it relates to companion tickets. On behalf of a client with mobility disabilities, DRO wrote a letter and negotiated a policy change in how companion tickets were provided by a large concert and event venue in Portland. While DRO had only one client, the event center’s policy chance means that all other individuals with disabilities will now have access to a free companion ticket as part of DRO’s advocacy. 8. DRO started a systemic investigation regarding local hospitals coding patients as “unwanted” and discharging them to the streets or calling on law enforcement to arrest based on “trespassing.” Upon receipt and reviews this information, DRO is planning a public report with policy recommendations in FY2019.

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.

ODOT: In February 2016, the Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living (AOCIL) and eight individuals with mobility and visual impairments, charged that Oregon Department of Transportation (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. In FY2018,monitoring the AOCIL-ODOT Settlement Agreement Monitoring, which entailed 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. Additional monitoring activities included 1) 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; 2) reviewing Access Consultant reports and related monitoring and compliance documents; and 3) reviewing pedestrian signal inventory and negotiate for remediation. In the past 12 months, ODOT put out a full survey of all curb ramps and pedestrian signals in Oregon, indicating that roughly 97% of all curb ramps were noncompliant with accessibility standards, as were the majority of all pedestrian signals. DRO reviewed the survey and identified several areas that marked serious deficiencies in the survey, noting that ODOT had wrongly labeled hundreds of Marion County ramps as compliant when the ramps were largely noncompliant and often missing entirely. DRO engaged in a sustained press campaign to draw the public’s attention to the serious deficiencies documented in the survey, putting pressure on ODOT to improve the speed of its response. APD: In 2017, APD announced a number of changes to that would end a service option for live-in caregivers, reduce the number of care hours available to some individuals, and make it more difficult for some individuals to qualify for services. Disability Rights Oregon along with the Oregon Law Center (OLC) and Legal Aid Services of Oregon (LASO) worked with the Oregon Department of Human Services, Aging and People with Disabilities (APD) to address concerns with how these changes impacted the individuals who use these vital services and supports. On February 7, 2018, DRO, OLC, and LASO reached a temporary agreement with APD to restore some services while the groups worked on a final agreement. DRO, OLC, and LASO reached an agreement with APD to strengthen in-home services in May of 2018. As a result of the agreement, people who receive hourly in-home care may see their hours of service increase modestly or remain the same. People who used to receive live-in care will be reviewed individually to set an appropriate number of hours for their in-home care services. Everyone getting any kind of in-home care will receive clearer explanations of how their services are determined. Thousands of Oregonians with physical disabilities or older Oregonians wish to live independently, but need help meeting their daily care needs. APD’s in-home services make it possible for these individuals to safely stay in their homes and APD’s long-term care residential services make it possible for many Oregonians to live in a home-like residential setting and get the care they need. Long-term care is generally not covered by traditional health insurance or Medicare. On May 7, 2018, the advocacy organizations reached a final agreement with APD. Under the agreement, APD has committed to: 1. Improve the notices that consumers receive when their services are reduced, terminated, or denied. 2. Enact new administrative rules that will improve the transparency and fairness of the process for getting exceptional in-home hours that exceed regular maximums. 3. Restore the maximum hours available for each Activity of Daily Living (ADL). ADLs are those personal functional activities required by all of us for continued well-being, health, and safety. The affected ADLs include bathing, eating, mobility, and dressing. 4. Make changes in eligibility rules that will help guide case managers in assessing individuals’ abilities to accomplish tasks with safety and dignity. 5. Remove a rule that would consider whether an individual’s decision not to take medication was impacting their cognitive function. 6. Conduct surveys of individuals’ satisfaction with their services and any unmet needs. 7. Review service plans for individuals who were formerly in the live-in service option to ensure their new hourly plans meet their needs. APD committed to surveying consumers about their satisfaction with their services every three years through 2024. APD also agreed to share data about service utilization on a quarterly basis. The full MOU is available here: https://droregon.org/wp-content/uploads/Memorandum-of-Understanding.pdf.

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.

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: o Monitoring compliance with Department of Justice/Oregon Olmstead Performance Plan, with a focus on allocation of duties between state/counties/contractors/CCOs o Launching new initiative dedicated to expanding availability of accessible, affordable, and (if needed) supportive housing, particularly for people who have experienced homelessness and disability o Monitoring to ensure that community crisis response is adequately supported and accessed o 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 o 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 o Review Seniors and People with Disabilities (APD) budget cuts in long-term care and in-home services and for possible/likely violations o Reviewing state service budget cuts relating to eligibility criteria for possible/likely violations o 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 o Monitor transition planning and exit for individuals being exited from nursing homes due to funding cuts and new eligibility criteria o 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: o 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 o Participating in the City of Portland Master Pedestrian Plan to review ADA issues and compliance o 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 1) Number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. 47 PAIR Priority 1) Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. 1) Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) represented a veteran with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who was being terminated from the client’s home and community based services that would allow the client to stay in their own home. DRO conducted the following steps on the client's behalf: a) wrote demand letter to previous provider and the Veterans Administration in an attempt to resolve the issue at the lowest level possible; b) because DRO’s attempts to resolve this issue with a letter did not work, DRO next filed a Temporary Restraining Order in federal court to prevent the client from being irreparably harmed; c) DRO worked with local or national experts; d) collaborated with the Disability Rights Advocates in California and the national Paralyzed Veterans of America to develop legal and media strategy; and e) finally, DRO developed a media strategy to raise attention to the horrible position the client and their family found themself in. As a result of DRO’s media strategy, a new provider stepped forward to assist the client. DRO then filed a stipulated motion to withdraw the litigation. The client currently resides at home with the support services the client needs. 2) DRO represented a person with physical impairments and mental illness. The client came to DRO because client received a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), and, when the client’s landlord raised their rent, the local housing authority had increased the client’s portion of rent and utilities by an amount that posed an undue burden. Unlike the average rental units in the geographic area, accessible units are harder to come by and more expensive. As a result of the increased rent and utilities, the client would no longer be able to afford client accessible rental unit, yet could not easily move into another accessible unit. The housing authority’s policy on reasonable accommodations permitted requests for a higher payment standard to permit tenants with a disability to stay in an existing accessible unit despite the higher cost of living there. At the client’s current payment standard, they were paying more for an accessible unit than other HCV participants for an average rental unit because accessible units were both in short supply and more expensive in the client’s geographic area. In order to have expenses comparable to a non-disabled participant in the HCV program, the client would have to conduct a housing search for an average rental unit with fewer accessibility features. The client’s mental health diagnosis made a housing search particularly difficult for them and risked destabilizing the client’s mental health. The client’s current residence had a number of accessibility features well-suited to their physical and mental disabilities. DRO submitted a reasonable accommodation request to the housing authority to increase client payment standard, which would reduce the client’s rent payment and restore their utility reimbursement. The housing authority granted the client’s reasonable accommodation. As a result, the client no longer had to pay rent and utilities that they could not afford, and the client could stay in their accessible residence. 3) DRO represented a person with physical and mental impairments related to a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Seizure Disorder. The client lived in an apartment with their ailing grandmother. The client came to DRO because the client’s landlord had given both the client and their grandmother a 24-hour notice of termination of residency and filed an eviction complaint. The complaint alleged that the client had intentionally inflicted extensive damage to the premises. The client’s TBI and Seizure Disorder diagnoses led to behavioral dysregulation if unmanaged. The client denied that they intentionally caused any damage, as any damage to the unit was caused by unintentional disability-related behavior. A seizure caused the client to enter into a postictal state during which the client could not control their behavior and caused significant damage to the client’s apartment. DRO submitted a request for a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act to modify the landlord’s eviction policy and enable the client to continue their residency. Since the incident, the client had worked with a social worker, a primary care physician, and a county crisis team to access services that would ensure a better crisis management plan. Those measures were likely to avoid further dysregulated behavior and property damage. DRO negotiated a settlement agreement between the parties that resulted in a stipulated judgment of dismissal in the eviction case. The client agreed to reimburse the landlord for damages caused by their disability-related behaviors in exchange for continuing the client’s tenancy. 4) DRO represented a person with mental illness who had received an involuntary exit notice from a residential facility and would be discharged to a hotel. The client had been kicked out of the facility for exhibiting mental health issues and violating a no-smoking policy. Because the provider would not permit client to stay there, DRO submitted multiple letters and appeals to program management and the relevant county behavioral health official pursuant to administrative rules. DRO challenged the sufficiency of the notice provided and the substantive grounds for terminating the client’s residency. DRO also made a reasonable accommodation request under the Fair Housing Act. The county behavioral health official issued a favorable decision in the appeal process. The decision found that the behaviors cited as grounds to terminate client residency did not demonstrate a health and safety concern or potential harm to the client or others. The decision also concluded that the program did not adequately demonstrate steps taken to mitigate the situation. It recommended that staff work with the client to identify services that would help client comply with the program rules. As a result, client was able to maintain client residence. 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 2) Number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. 1 PAIR Priority 2) Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. 1) DRO investigated allegations that a client was placed in isolation due to the client’s mental illness where the client then suffered a stroke that was unaddressed for several weeks potentially causing lasting damage. DRO Investigated and shared the findings with constituent that established concerns regarding when and how the client was put in isolation as well as contraindications as it related to their blood pressure. Given this harm, DRO referred client to several personal injury attorneys. DRO also plans on addressing the investigatory concerns at the next quarterly meeting with the county jail in November 2018 as the concerns pertain to the health and safety of all inmates with disabilities that have both mental illness and acute medical needs. 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 3) Number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. 13 PAIR Priority 3) Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. 1) A student was being denied a full day of educational services due to behavior issues. In addition, the student was being subjected to frequent restraint and seclusion. DRO representation resulted in access to appropriate behavior and mental health supports in a supported educational setting. The numbers of restraints and seclusion dropped and the client’s day was lengthened. 2) A kindergarten student who experienced ADHD and PTSD was exhibiting behavior issues at school. Rather than providing behavior supports in the general education setting, the district staff sent the client home from school repeatedly. Parents were being called to pick the client up weekly. Staff decided to send the student to the most restrictive setting in the district, rather than conduct a functional behavior assessment and implementing a behavior support plan based on that FBA. DRO advocated on behalf of the student to return to a less restrictive setting that could support the student appropriately without relying on shortening the student’s school day by sending the client home. When placed in the less restrictive setting with appropriate supports, the student thrived and was able to access education in the general education environment. 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 4) Number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. 1 PAIR Priority 4) Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. 1) Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) represented a person with mental illness in order to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect. The client came to DRO because a local hospital refused to modify its plan to discharge the client despite the fact that they expressed suicidal ideation on the day of discharge. The hospital’s discharge plan also involved discharging patient back to the home of their ex-spouse and domestic violence abuser. The client had repeatedly informed their psychiatric team that the client required additional treatment, observation, medication adjustments, and possibly transfer to a residential treatment facility. DRO contacted the client’s discharge coordinator at the local hospital to resolve the client’s concerns regarding obtaining necessary mental health treatment and poor discharge planning. The hospital refused to modify its discharge plan and discharged client the day after DRO contacted them to request additional services on the client’s behalf. DRO subsequently requested the client’s hospital records and reviewed the patient record of hospitalization. The records reinforced the fact that the client had reported suicidal ideation on the day of discharge and that they would be discharged to their former spouse’s home. DRO assisted client in submitting a safety complaint to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations because the local hospital discharged patient at a time when the client was still expressing suicidal ideation and behavior and to an unsafe place. The Joint Commission acknowledged receipt of the complaint. 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 5) Number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. PAIR Priority 5) Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. There were no individual advocacy services charged to the PAIR program in FY2018 under this program priority. Work under this priority was in the form of systemic advocacy and information and referral. 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 PAIR Priority 6) Number of cases handled under the priority. Indicate how many of these, if any, were class actions. 1 PAIR Priority 6) Provide at least one case summary that demonstrates the impact of the priority. The one individual advocacy service charged to the self-determination priority has not yet been resolved.

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: o Monitoring compliance with Department of Justice/Oregon Olmstead Performance Plan, with a focus on allocation of duties between state/counties/contractors/CCOs o Launching new initiative dedicated to expanding availability of accessible, affordable, and (if needed) supportive housing, particularly for people who have experienced homelessness and disability o Monitoring to ensure that community crisis response is adequately supported and accessed o 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 o 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 o Review Seniors and People with Disabilities (APD) budget cuts in long-term care and in-home services and for possible/likely violations o Reviewing state service budget cuts relating to eligibility criteria for possible/likely violations o 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 o Monitor transition planning and exit for individuals being exited from nursing homes due to funding cuts and new eligibility criteria o 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: o 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 o Participating in the City of Portland Master Pedestrian Plan to review ADA issues and compliance o 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

Part VI. Narrative

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

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

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

A. Sources of funds received and expended Federal (Section 509) FY 2018 Amount Received: 270,730.00 Federal (Section 509) FY 2018 Amount Spent: 270,730.00 State - Program Income FY 2018 Amount Received: 309,000.00 Program Income FY 2018 Amount Spent: 311,733.00 All other funds - All other funds - Total (From All Funds) FY 2018 Amount Received: 579,730.00 Total (From All Funds) FY 2018 Amount Spent:582,463.00 B. Budget for the fiscal year covered by this report Expenses: 2018 2019 Salary Expense   123,617.88 125,472.15 Accrued Vacation   859.31         872.20 Employee Benefits 20,823.49    21,135.84 Payroll Taxes    9,754.83      9,901.15 Supplies       159.39         161.78 Travel Expenses    4,583.04      4,651.78 Rent Expense    7,310.01      7,419.66 Staff Development & Training       529.15         537.09 Library Expense    2,113.65      2,145.36 Dues, Fees, & Insurance    2,753.10      2,794.39 Miscellaneous Expense       216.30         219.54 Contract Services         33.65           34.15 Postage & Delivery       467.11         474.11 Printing & Copying           1.29             1.31 Subtotal Direct Expenses   173,222.20 175,820.53 Indirect Cost Allocation 29,967.44    30,416.95  Total expenses   203,189.63 206,237.48 C. Description of PAIR staff (duties and person-years) Type of Position FTE % of Year Filled Person Years Professional Full-Time           2.57 100% 11    Part-Time - - -   Vacant - - - Clerical   Full-Time 0.79 100% 4   Part-Time - - -    Vacant - - - During FY 2018 there were a total of 15 positions that supported the PAIR Program. None were 100% dedicated to the program, but each contributed a portion of their time. The professionals contributed 2.57 FTE's and the Clerical Team contributes .79 FTE. No positions were vacant at any time thru FY2018. 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: 10 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 in Oregon is housed at Disability Rights Oregon. Collaboration with OLTCO: A DRO attorney is a Member of the Oregon Long-Term Care Ombudsman (OLTCO)’s Residential Ombudsman and Public Guardian Advisory Board (ROPGAB). For part of this year, this attorney was the Assistant Chair for this Board, which meant taking part in planning for the meetings as to topics, logistics, etc. The ROPGAB meets monthly and the Attorney provides advice and monitoring suggestions as to the OLTCO’s functioning and receives updates on the three OLTCO programs; (1) the LTCO (serving residents in Nursing Facilities and other facilities for people who are elderly), (2) the Oregon Public Guardian (serving people who have generally been victims of abuse or neglect), and (3) the Residential Facilities Ombudsman (serving residents who have disabilities in many sorts of housing settings). The latter two programs have come into being in the past several years and, therefore, ROPGAB has an opportunity to help develop them. DRO’s involvement in this advisory board is to advocate for the greatest opportunity, access, and choice for people with disabilities. Given the broad base of people served by the OLTCO, the discussions are wide ranging from emergency preparedness and legislative concepts to notice of rights under guardianship. The DRO attorney serving on the advisory board has participated in meeting with directors for state-level service providers and collaborating around the legal rights of people with disabilities. The attorney has also participated in writing letters to legislators regarding budgets. DRO’s goal in serving on this board is to ensure that the civil and human rights of the residents in whatever facility or residential setting, as well as those of people who are protected persons, are upheld to the highest level.

Certification

Signed?Yes
Signed ByRobert C. Joondeph
TitleExecutive Director
Signed Date12/17/2018