Bend, OR – Oregon’s caregivers, who are responsible for protecting some of the state’s most vulnerable residents, have called for the removal of the head of the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS), Fariborz Pakseresht, citing a loss of confidence in his leadership. Hundreds of union members, represented by two of the state’s largest unions, SEIU and AFSCME, have expressed their dissatisfaction with Pakseresht’s ability to address ongoing issues within the department, especially in its care facilities for individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities.

In a letter sent earlier this month to Governor Tina Kotek, union members urged the governor to take action, stating that they no longer trust Pakseresht to lead the agency. They requested that the governor ensure the agency is led by a director who is “experienced, supportive, and effective.” The Oregon Department of Human Services is one of the state’s largest agencies, and its child welfare system and long-term care facilities have long been plagued by failures that have yet to be addressed adequately.

At the center of the current controversy are the state-run Stabilization and Crisis Unit (SACU) homes, which house around 90 individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities along the I-5 corridor from Portland to Eugene. These homes, often seen as the last line of defense for those in crisis, have become a focal point of union complaints due to understaffing, high turnover, and inadequate pay for caregivers.

The situation at SACU homes took a turn last year when union members voted “no confidence” in Pakseresht following repeated concerns over staffing and working conditions. Caregivers raised alarms over working extensive overtime hours, as well as the need for additional resources and support to properly care for the residents.

Jade McCredy, state manager at Oregon AFSCME, pointed out that there had been plans to expand SACU homes. However, these plans were reportedly shelved as the unions voiced their concerns. McCredy believes the proposed budget cuts to SACU services are a retaliatory response to the unions’ complaints, an accusation denied by state officials.

Jake Sunderland, a spokesperson for DHS, asserted that the budget reductions were not punitive but part of a broader effort to “right-size” the program. According to Sunderland, Governor Kotek’s office has called for adjustments to bring SACU services back to their original intent — offering short-term support to stabilize individuals and then transition them to community-based homes. Sunderland clarified that the department had solicited proposals to repair and replace current homes, but no expansion plans were ever officially presented.

Governor Kotek’s office has remained largely silent on the unions’ request to remove Pakseresht. A spokesperson for the governor stated that Kotek values the staff at SACU and is working closely with the department to adjust the stabilization program. However, the spokesperson did not comment on the call to remove the DHS director.

The core issue with the SACU homes, advocates say, lies in the mismatch between the intended role of these facilities and their current use. While the homes were designed to provide short-term crisis intervention, many individuals are staying for much longer periods. In some cases, the average stay for adults with complex medical needs has stretched to eight years, far beyond the intended 90-day stay. For some residents, these facilities have become a permanent residence.

Financially, the system is becoming unsustainable. The average monthly cost for each resident is approximately $103,000, a figure that includes rent, utilities, staff, and medical costs. With around 700 employees working in the SACU homes, the overtime costs have added up to about $1.1 million per month.

The proposed cuts to SACU funding have sparked concerns from a wide range of advocates and political figures. Many agree with the long-term goal of transitioning individuals into community-based care settings. However, the challenge lies in finding suitable alternatives in a state already struggling with affordable housing, particularly for people with complex needs.

“If SACU doesn’t exist, those people are homeless,” said McCredy, highlighting the lack of alternative options for individuals currently housed in these facilities.

Critics of the proposed cuts argue that the state is moving forward with budget reductions without a clear plan for what will happen to current residents. Dana Hittle, director of the state’s Office of Developmental Disabilities Services, acknowledged that the rollout of the plan has been less than transparent. According to Hittle, the governor’s office has instructed the department to create a plan for a future plan, but a clear strategy has yet to be presented.

Former state lawmaker Ed Lindquist, who testified before lawmakers regarding the budget cuts, shared his personal experience with SACU. Lindquist’s son, who was born with significant medical challenges, has lived in a state-run facility for much of his life, including the now-closed Fairview Training Center. Lindquist emphasized the importance of the stability and continuity provided by the SACU homes, saying that the caregivers who have worked with his son for years understand his needs, and any disruption to that care could be detrimental.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit Disabilities Rights Oregon, which advocates for the rights of individuals with disabilities, has been closely monitoring the situation. The group recently visited all 18 SACU homes and plans to hold a statewide conversation about the future of these facilities. Melissa Roy-Hart, a spokeswoman for the organization, emphasized that any changes must focus on the well-being of the residents rather than budgetary concerns.

“This can’t be about a budget line-item,” Roy-Hart said. “It has to be about the people.”

As the debate over the future of SACU homes continues, the Oregon governor’s office has stated that a plan for next steps will be presented to the state legislature this spring. However, with significant concerns about staffing, funding, and the long-term viability of the program, the fate of those relying on these facilities remains uncertain.