Subcommittee Hears Budget Request for Oregon Long Term Care Ombudsman; Governor’s Proposal Makes Five Public‑guardian Positions Permanent

The joint subcommittee on Human Services convened a public hearing March 3 on House Bill 5020, the primary budget bill for the Oregon Long Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO), during which agency leaders described a $17,550,000 governor’s recommended budget for the 2025–27 biennium and urged continued state support to maintain services for residents of long‑term care and developmental‑disability residential settings.

Kendra Beck, a Department of Administrative Services chief financial office analyst, told the committee the LTCO budget proposal is “the 25–27 governor's recommended budget for the long term care ombudsman,” and she summarized the agency’s revenue mix: about 92% general fund and roughly 8% other funds, primarily Older Americans Act and Senior Medicare Patrol grant pass‑throughs from the Oregon Department of Human Services.

The LTCO’s mission is to “protect individual rights, promote independence, and ensure quality of life for Oregonians living in long term care and residential facilities,” Fred Steele, the agency director and state long term care ombudsman, told the subcommittee. Steele and his staff outlined three distinct agency programs: the Long Term Care Ombudsman program (which covers nursing homes, assisted living and similar APD‑licensed settings), the Residential Facility Ombudsman program (which serves homes licensed by the Office of Developmental Disability Services and some OHA mental‑health homes), and the Oregon Public Guardian (OPG) program.

Why it matters: LTCO staff said the programs serve roughly 55,000 Oregonians across the three program areas and rely heavily on state general fund appropriations. Agency witness Dr. Nasreen Khan, the LTCO deputy director, said the governor’s recommendation would increase the agency’s requested total to $17.55 million for 2025–27 to cover cost‑of‑living adjustments, operational costs and targeted investments in data, training and quality oversight.

Key budget items and program details reported to the subcommittee included: - A policy package to convert five limited‑duration OPG positions (previously funded as temporary positions created in the 2023–25 cycle) to permanent status; those five positions were described in testimony as carrying active caseloads and as totaling approximately 2.5 FTE in prior budget documents. Steele and Khan said making them permanent would stabilize capacity for guardianship services. - A rent‑savings adjustment of about $200,000 tied to the agency’s move from a larger leased office to a smaller Department of Administrative Services‑owned space (the agency described shrinking office space from approximately 5,500 square feet to 1,700 square feet), with those savings redirected to temporary staff, volunteer support and screening. - The LTCO’s current service level for 2023–25 was presented as about $15.64 million (the 2023–25 legislatively approved budget was cited as $15.39 million); the governor’s recommended total is higher to address staffing and operational needs.

Agency witnesses flagged capacity gaps and operational risks. Khan said the public guardian program can serve “approximately 25 to 50” eligible clients under current capacity estimates—leaving many eligible adults without access to public guardianship—and that the Residential Facility Ombudsman currently meets roughly 21% of identified need because of staffing constraints. Steele emphasized the agency’s volunteer network as central to operations, reporting about 110 active volunteers statewide—down from prior years—and stating the program needs roughly 300–350 volunteers to substantially increase facility coverage.

On volunteers and service delivery: Steele described the ombudsman volunteer program as the agency’s “representative voice” in facilities and said volunteers perform much of the on‑site advocacy and complaint work. He reported nearly 11,000 recorded facility visits across the last two years (while noting volunteer reporting is incomplete), cumulative volunteer hours equivalent to multiple FTEs, and a complaint resolution rate that the agency characterized in testimony as roughly in the mid‑80 percent range (agency presenters described resolution as at least partial satisfaction to the resident).

The Residential Facility Ombudsman program director, Leslie Sutton, described the RFO’s caseload and law enforcement powers: unannounced visits, investigatory authority, subpoena power and the ability to obtain records and refer system‑level recommendations. Sutton told the committee the RFO covers roughly 3,219 facilities and foster homes and that, since the program’s 2013 creation, the number of facilities and people covered has grown substantially—Sutton cited a 77% increase in facilities and a large rise in case volume—while staff staffing has not kept pace. The RFO reported meeting its new draft key performance measure for response time (91% of first actions within two business days in 2024) but visiting 17% of homes in 2024 against a 30% annual target.

System and regulatory context: Steele discussed a recent facility‑related death that prompted the LTCO office to press for systemic changes and to use its authority to investigate public agencies and licensing practices. He said gaps in the regulatory system and consumer‑protection focus at the Department of Human Services had become apparent and that stakeholders, including legislators and ODHS leadership, had begun an audit or program assessment of the licensing system. Senator Gelser (speaker listed in the record) praised agency and ODHS leadership for publicly acknowledging the harms and engaging in oversight hearings.

Questions from legislators focused on funding sources, performance measures and volunteer recruitment. Representative Scharf asked about the 8% of LTCO funding not from the general fund; agency witnesses said it was mainly federal Older Americans Act funds and Senior Medicare Patrol grants. Representative Nelson asked about complaint‑resolution metrics and guardianship caseloads; witnesses said detailed OPG caseload counts would be presented in the public guardian program briefing scheduled for the committee’s subsequent day of testimony.

Outcome: The subcommittee held the public hearing on House Bill 5020; no final vote or appropriation action occurred during the hearing. Co‑chairs closed the hearing after member questions and committee discussion.

Ending note: Agency leaders asked legislators to consider the governor’s recommended adjustments—particularly making five OPG positions permanent and preserving general fund support—citing service continuity concerns for vulnerable residents and the need to rebuild volunteer capacity and staffing to meet rising complaint volumes.