Olmstead & That "STATE PLAN"

Why does the Olmstead Decision talk about the "STATE PLAN" (for people with disabilities)?

• We often think of "Olmstead" as the Brown v. Board of Education for people with disabilities ---
• BUT a lot of the US Supreme Court's Olmstead decision was a give to the States:
  • ​The State of Georgia and subsequent States have said that ----
    • ​we can't make these changes overnight
    • these changes have MULTIPLE RAMIFICATIONS to our overall STATE PLAN for people with disabilities including institutions, housing, services, etc.
  • The "Olmstead Plan" is really a STATE DEFENSE to a LAWSUIT under Title II of the ADA --- so if there is no lawsuit --- right now there's no independent requirement for an Olmstead Plan. 
    • Others might view it differently -- BUT that's my take. 
    • And it also goes a long way to explaining why ENFORCEMENT has been "CHALLENGING."
      

If States don't have an OLMSTEAD PLAN then the State cannot succeed on a "FUNDAMENTAL ALTERATION DEFENSE" if Housing & Services are not adequate to avoid the unnecessary institutionalization or risk of institutionalization for people with disabilities.​

• ​This has proven PROBLEMATIC for people with disabilities.
• There is a NEED to provide PRACTICAL AVENUES for ENFORCEMENT:
  • ​FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT would be the most practical --- BUT
  • ​Agencies are afraid of EXCEEDING THEIR LIMITS.

People with Disabilities generally need Protection & Advocacy Offices and Large Pro Bono Efforts to get these TITLE II matters into COURT.

• ​It has tended to be a CLASS ACTION requesting DECLARATORY,  INJUNCTIVE & PERMANENT RELIEF.

​
​​​​What we're trying to do by just seeking DECLARATORY JUDGMENT initially is to:

• Make it easier for people with Disabilities to communicate a CREDIBLE LEGAL THREAT to STATES.
  • ​Get States to either voluntarily comply or 
  • Get this into Court on a streamlined less expensive basis.
  • NUDGE that "voluntary compliance," and
  • if we can't get voluntary or semi voluntary compliance --- take the DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (IF WE CAN GET IT) to DOJ or appropriately resourced entities to seek INJUNCTIVE & PERMANENT RELIEF.
  • After all is said and done we would prefer that INCLUSIVE STAKEHOLDER GROUP to a COURT MONITOR ---

​
​We hope it doesn't take a COURT MONITOR to get us MEASURABLE GOALS and REASONABLE TIME FRAMES on SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, but if it does --- we need a more PRACTICAL PATH to get there.