Indiana Community Integration Planning Process
Introduction
Indiana, like many other states, is in the midst of paradigm change in its delivery of services to persons with disabilities. In cooperation with advocates and persons with disabilities themselves, it has begun the process of more fully integrating persons with disabilities into community-based living. In June, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Olmstead v L.C. and E.W. ruled that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, unjustified isolation is discrimination based on disability. An executive order by Governor O'Bannon makes clear his intent to plan for moving individuals into community settings. The FSSA planning effort is designed to implement this Executive Order with a planning effort that is responsive to existing and potential problems and sensitive to the needs and priorities of persons with disabilities, their families and advocates.
The Olmstead Case
In 1999, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in Olmstead v L.C and E.W., that maintaining publicly funded persons in an institutional setting when they could benefit from community placements was a practice of segregation. This, the Court decided, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Court concluded that when a state's treatment professionals determine that community placement is appropriate and the affected person does not oppose this alternative, then this alternative should be effected when it can be reasonably accommodated. Such "reasonable accommodation" takes into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others with disabilities. It also does not require a "fundamental alteration" of the State's services and
programs. While limited by these practical parameters, the ruling has the potential to unleash a large amount of litigation as persons within institutions and their advocates seek to address specific cases and change policies regarding whole classes of persons who might be within the purview of this ruling. However, the Court indicated that: If, for example, the State were to demonstrate that it had a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the State’s endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated, the reasonable-modifications standard would be met.
10/3/00
