integration vs segregation implications for institutionalization and employment under the ada 1...
TRANSCRIPT
Integration vs SegregationImplications for Institutionalization and
Employment Under the ADA
1
Robin A Jones, Director
Great Lakes ADA Center
Springfield ConferenceMay 22, 2014
2
Olmstead v. L.C.U.S. Supreme Court, No. 98-536
527 U.S. 581 (1999)
O“[We] confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions.”
O “The answer … is a qualified yes.”
3
The “Integration Mandate” of the Americans with Disabilities Act
28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(d)
O “A public entity shall administer services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”
4
“Reasonable Modifications”28 C.F.R. Section 35.130(b)(7)
O “A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices and procedures …
O unless … making the modifications would fundamentally alter the service, program or activity.”
5
The Supreme Court:
Why is institutionalization discriminatory?
O “First, institutional placement of persons who can handle or benefit from community settings … perpetuates unwarranted assumptions … that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life.”
6
The Supreme Court:
Why is institutionalization discriminatory? (2)
“Second, confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including:
O Family relations,O Social contacts,O Work options,O Economic independence,O Educational advancement, andO Cultural enrichment.”
7
Federal ResponseO HHS issued Letter in 2000 to State
Governor’s:“We encourage you to develop and implement such plans, and to involve individuals with disabilities and other stakeholders in the process of design and implementation” “…Supreme Court's guidance to states regarding how they might come into compliance with the ADA by developing comprehensive, effectively working plans.”
8
Federal ResponseO HHS issued letter in 2000 to State
Medicaid Directors:“the Olmstead decision applies to all states programs, but acknowledges that Medicaid is the primary funding source for both institutional and community-based services for persons with disabilities, and therefore the implementation of Olmstead will have its most significant impact on state Medicaid programs.”
9
Federal Response
O Subsequent letters sent to Medicaid Directors with further policy guidance re: Olmstead, funding, application of waivers, etc.
O Numerous initiatives funded to support community living and development of options at the state level
O http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/2001/olmstead.htm#section2
10
Recent Developments
O Progress toward implementation of Olmstead:O Tom Harkin NPR Interview
O Report: “Separate and Unequal: States Fail to Fulfill the Community Living Promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act,”
O HELP Committee 2013 (Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee)
8
Olmstead is a top priority for DOJ’s Civil Rights Division
O “Year of Community Living”O "The Olmstead ruling . . . articulat[ed] one
of the most fundamental rights of Americans with disabilities: Having the choice to live independently. [T]his initiative reaffirms my Administration’s commitment to vigorous enforcement of civil rights for Americans with disabilities and to ensuring the fullest inclusion of all people in the life of our nation.” President Obama June 22, 2009
8
U.S. v. Virginia Settlement Agrmt.O Reforms of entire ID/DD system; relief for more than 5000
peopleO HCBS waivers for people transitioning out of state-operated
ICFs, youth transitioning from nursing homes and large ICFs, and people with “urgent needs” on the waitlist (4200 waivers)
O Family support program created for people on waitlists (1000 people)
O Full range of community-based crisis services (crisis hotline, mobile crisis teams, crisis stabilization programs)
O Expanded case managementO Develop and implement Employment First policy and expansion
of supported employment and integrated day opportunitiesO Integrated housing (including subsidies for independent living)O Expansive quality management system for community services
8
U.S. v. New York
O Agreement between U.S., New York and proposed class of adults with mental illness in large NYC adult homes
O Resolves litigation brought by New York P&A in 2003 alleging that State violates the ADA and Olmstead by relying on institutional adult homes to provide services to persons with MI
O U.S. intervened following trialO Agreement must be approved by Court
8
U.S. v. New York (2)
O Agreement provides relief to the roughly 4000 individuals with mental illness in 23 large adult homes in NYC
O NY will provide supported housing to all eligible individuals with SMI in adult homes. At least 2000 and potentially more than 4000 individuals will transition to supported housing
8
Other Agreements in Implementation
O US v. GA – community svs. for 1,000+ people in state DD facilities and on waitlist and 9,000+ people in or at risk of entering state psych hosp.O DD relief includes waivers, family supports, crisis
services, and case management
O US v. DE – community svs. for 3,000+ people in or at risk of entering state psych hospital and private facilities O ACT, crisis services, supported housing,
supported employment
8
Ongoing Litigation AddressingSegregated Service Settings
8
U.S. v. Florida
O Complaint filed in July 2013
O U.S. alleges Florida violates the ADA and Olmstead by relying on nursing homes to provide services to children with significant medical needs
8
U.S. v. New Hampshire
OCase addresses people with MI in or at risk of entering state psych hospital and state-run nursing facility for people with MI
8
Statements of Interest
O DOJ has filed more than 35 statements, including in Illinois of interest in Olmstead case since 2009
O Statements put forth DOJ’s position on various Olmstead issues, including policies putting persons at risk of unnecessary institutionalization
O Statements filed in support of both plaintiffs and states
8
Segregated Days
O ADA and Olmstead not limited to where people live; also applies to how people spend their days:O Lane v. Kitzhaber (Oregon):
OCourt found that ADA and Olmstead applies to all government services, programs and activities, including employment. Rejected argument that only applies to residential services and programs.
8
Segregated Days (2)O US v. Oregon (Lane v. Kitzhaber)
O Ongoing litigationO US v. Rhode Island and Providence
O Settlement AgreementO US v. North Carolina
O Settlement AgreementO US v. Delaware
O Settlement AgreementO US v. Georgia
O Settlement AgreementO US v. Virginia
O Settlement Agreement
8
Lane v. KitzhaberO Complaint and Motion to Intervene– alleges Oregon
administers the State’s employment, rehabilitation, vocational, and education service system such that people with disabilities are denied the benefits of the State’s vocational and employment services, programs, or activities in the most integrated setting.O Includes “at risk” class: alleges Oregon fails to
ensure that students with I/DD are provided with meaningful choices and preparation for work in integrated settings.
8
Segregated Days (3)O Lane v. Kitzhaber/U.S. v. Oregon (cont’d):
O Factual allegations in the complaint:
OOver 52% of participants earn less than $3.00 per hour. Some earn only a few cents per hour.
OIndividuals with ID/DD remain in sheltered workshops an average of 11-12 years. Some remain for as long as 30 years.
O61% received services in segregated sheltered workshops, while only 16% received any services in individual supported employment.
8
Segregated Days (4)O U.S. v. Rhode Island/City of Providence:
O Found the state of Rhode Island and the City of Providence violated the ADA by overly relying on sheltered workshops to the exclusion of more integrated alternatives.O Vast majority of people in sheltered workshops could
and want to be served in more integrated settings, like supported employment and integrated day settings.
O Students with ID/DD at risk of unnecessary segregation in sheltered workshops. In-school sheltered workshop served as pipeline to adult workshop; lack of transition services to prepare students for more integrated options (e.g., internships, part-time jobs, and work-based learning)
8
Segregated Days (5)
O U.S. v. Rhode Island/City of Providence: Interim Settlement AgreementO Provides relief to: (1) Individuals currently
at state’s largest sheltered workshop provider (TTP) or who have received services at TTP in the last year; (2) youth preparing to leave in-school sheltered workshop program (Birch) or who left Birch within the last two years; and (3) youth participating in the Birch program.
8
Segregated Days (6)O U.S. v. Rhode Island/City of Providence: Interim
Settlement AgreementUnder the Interim Agreement, over the next year, the State and City will work together to:• Provide career development plans, vocational
assessments, and benefits counseling for all individuals at TTP and all youth leaving, or who recently left, Birch.
• Provide supported employment services and placements to all individuals at TTP and youth leaving, or who recently left, Birch;
• Provide access to integrated transition services to Birch students through a youth transition planning process beginning at age 14;
8
Segregated Days (7)O U.S. v. Rhode Island/City of Providence: Interim
Settlement Agreement (cont’d)• Adopt appropriate Employment First Policies (the
State adopted an Employment First Policy in March 2013 but, under the Interim Agreement, the City of Providence will also adopt one);
• Increase supported employment and integrated day service provider capacity;
• Implement quality improvement programs for supported employment, day activity, and transition services.
8
Guidance and WebsiteO Statement of the Department of Justice on
Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. (June 22, 2011)
O Website: www.ada.gov/olmsteadO All settlement agreements, findings letters,
briefs, guidance, testimony, speeches, etc.
How Is This Playing
Out In Illinois?
29
30
Williams v Quinn
O Lawsuit filed in 2005 by people with mental illness residing in large private State-funded facilities called Institutions for Mental Diseases (“IMDs”).
O Class action case on behalf of all of the 4,300 IMD residents across Illinois.
O Consent Decree reached in 2010
What is required?O Interested IMD residents are to be informed of community-based
options, receive individualized, independent evaluations, and be given the opportunity to live in the community (including permanent supportive housing) with appropriate services.
O Over 5 yr period – those that desire placement in the community will be transitioned into the most integrated community-based setting appropriate for their individual needs.
O The State is required to provide appropriate community-based services and housing for people transitioning out of the IMDs, consistent with residents’ personal vision, preferences, strengths and needs.
O The State is now eligible to receive federal Medicaid reimbursements for medications and health care when an individual is receiving these services in a community-based setting.
O Independent Monitor appointed to oversee implementation and compliance with the Consent Decree.
31
Status
O Approximately 900 people have moved from IMDs and are receiving community services (as of May 1, 2014)
O Coordinated Employment Services are being delivered via the IPS Supported Employment Model (Individual Placement and Support) with more than 80% of individuals retaining employment.
32
Ligas vs HamosO Lawsuit filed in 2005 by nine people with
developmental disabilities who resided in large private State-funded facilities (ICF-DDs) or who are likely to be placed in an ICF-DD facility.
O Court battle regarding the class and whether or not it included people who had not indicated a desire to live outside of an institutionO Agreement reached in 2010 to cover individuals
who had currently expressed a desire to live in the community and additional 3000 individuals already living in the community without services/supports.
33
What is required?O ICF-DDs residents who desire community placement are eligible to
receive an individualized, independent evaluation and the opportunity to live in the community with appropriate services.
O Over a 6 yr period, any of the approximately 6,000 ICF-DD residents who desire placement in the community will be supported to transition to the most integrated community-based setting appropriate for their individual needs.
O All ICF-DD residents who are happy with their current placement are not part of the class and are not be required to move.O The Consent Decree ensures that resources necessary to meet the
needs of those who choose to continue to reside in ICF-DDs will be made available.
O Over a 6 yr period, an additional 3,000 people with developmental disabilities currently living at home without services will be given community services.
O An Independent Monitor was appointed to oversee implementation and compliance with the Consent Decree.
34
StatusO Approximately 2200 people are currently
receiving community services (this number includes people moving from ICFDDs and people who were previously living in the family home awaiting services)O Since 2000 Illinois has closed 3
Developmental CentersO 7 Facilities remain open
O Murray Developmental Center Closure on “hold” due to court action to stop the closure
35
Colbert vs Quinn
O Lawsuit filed in federal court in 2007 by people with disabilities who reside in Cook County nursing facilities and who want to live in community based settings and receive community services.
O Class action suit representing 16,000 Medicaid-eligible people living in Cook County nursing facilities.
O Concent Decree reached in 201136
What is required?O In the first 30 months, provide housing assistance that will
permit more than 1,000 class members currently living in nursing facilities to move into housing in the community who otherwise would not be able to do so.
O State to develop a plan to transition other nursing facility residents into less restrictive and less costly community-based settings.
O State to develop community-based services and housing for class members moving out of nursing facilities.
O Independent Monitor was appointed to oversee implementation and compliance with the Consent Decree. O The Monitor found the State was out of compliance when it
failed to provide community placements and services to 300 class members in the first year. O Under a new implementation plan the oversight of this program
was moved to Aging in close collaboration with DHD-DRS37
StatusO Approximately 250 people have moved from
nursing homes and are receiving community services
O December 2013 Court Monitor Report strongly criticized the State for lack of progress
O Department of Aging is in the process of revamping the program O Increased outreach to Nursing Homes to recruit
participantsO Developing and supporting peer mentoring
programs for potential class membersO Increased education to managed care agencies
responsible for managing the program
38
Information on Illinois CasesO Equip for Equality;
O www.equipforequality.org
O State of IL Website:O http://
www2.illinois.gov/hfs/PublicInvolvement/Colbert%20v%20Quinn/Pages/default.aspx
O http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=58321O http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=51834
39
Employment FirstIllinois Implementation
40
What is Employment First?
O A concept to facilitate the full inclusion of people with the most significant disabilities in the workplace and community.
O Under the Employment First approach, community-based, integrated employment is the first option for employment services for youth and adults with significant disabilities.
O 33 States have some form of Employment First Initiatives
41
Forward Movement
O Illinois Task Force on Employment and Economic Opportunity for Persons with DisabilitiesO Established by legislation in 2009
O Mandate to review existing policies and procedures regarding employment in Illinois and make recommendations for changes in policies and practices
42
Progress????O Employment First Summit
O January 2012 – Springfield ILO Over 90 legislators, Agency Heads, Service Providers,
consumers, families attendedO ARC and the Task Force supported legislation in the
2012-2013 Legislative SessionO Employment First Law passed unanimously
O Signed into law on July 16, 2013
O Executive Order PendingO Creating a plan for implementation
O Task Force on-going activitiesO Working with agencies to develop Strategic Plan for
implementationO Exploring other areas that impact employment
O Housing, transportation, etc. 43
Employment First Resources
O Office Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)O http://
www.dol.gov/odep/topics/EmploymentFirst.htm
O APSEO http://www.apse.org/employment-first
/resources/
44
Questions?
45
Robin A Jones, DirectorGreat Lakes ADA Center800-949-4232 (V/TTY)