Val's Take:

• I don't know that there is anyone "gunning" for Olmstead the way conservatives targeted Roe v. Wade and Chevron.
• Disability services have often enjoyed bipartisan support.
• Olmstead was not decided on constitutional grounds, but on statutory grounds and associated regulations, specifically Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Integration Mandate.
• The "balancing of equities" of people with disabilities and the State in the Olmstead decision is Solomon-like.
• Further, the decision announced by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1999 is a landmark decision in disability law, but it actually is extremely deferential to States.
• The US Department of Justice provided "Guidance" not even regulations regarding enforcement of Olmstead.
• Agency "Guidance" didn't go through a formal rule-making process as regulations do.
• That "Guidance" is not particularly prescriptive, but does say that Olmstead Plans should provide measurable goals, reasonable time frames and funding to support the plan.
• The "Olmstead Plan" is the State's defense to a lawsuit under Title II of the ADA alleging unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities.
  

Further, when talking about Olmstead Plans there are many Stakeholders, including:

• Providers,
• Taxpayers,
• Family Members,
• Community Organizations,
• Law Enforcement,
• Municipalities and Counties,
• Etc.

in addition to the State and People with Disabilities.

Code of Federal Regulations -- Title 28
PART 35—NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Authority:5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 42 U.S.C. 12134, 12131, and 12205a.

We need State Statutes and regulations to provide the specificity sufficient to address process issues, provide transparency and accountability.

Olmstead Plans can be thought of as a Portfolio of several Projects:

• Housing
• Employment
• Education
• Transportation accessibility
• Service Provision
• Etc.

Historically, many states did not create an Olmstead Plan and if they did it was vague and almost always lacked "measurable goals."

Further, the plan was not modifiable often because it wasn't really doing anything.

To me, Olmstead Planning needs fair time frames to occomplish specific objectives with measurable goals and CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK on accomplishing those goals that is posted on a State Public Website.

Further, the Olmstead Plan or Sub-Project Plans need to be relatively easy to modify.

National Development Team for Inclusion:  Research on Homelessness & Neurodiversity.

Trying to address pretty much  anything while living on the streets is difficult, but adding on to that serious health challenges --- it's ridiculous.

We are seeing Homelessness as a MORAL ISSUE which is important --- it is also a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE for the individuals as well as the communities involved.

Some understandings of these public health issues have not been great and that has led to a lot of bad things.

Those understandings appear to be improving in a big way but ---- it is taking years and decades to incorporate the research.

In the meantime, the US Supreme Court decided Olmstead in 1999.