What We Do
Peer Networking/Support
Mission: To create a statewide support and advocacy network of people who have a variety of experiences with the mental health system. Honoring our past, we envision an integrated community, which promotes the greatest degree of self-determination. We come together to link resources and engage as equal partners in creating person-centered services.
Policy Issues
Olmstead Decision
The state's response to the Olmstead Decision: A status report.
By
Wendy Fox-Grage
Kevin Horahan
Donna Folkemer
March 2001
In June 1999, the Supreme Court ruled in L.C. & E.W. vs. Olmstead that it is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for states to discriminate against people by providing services in institutions when the individual could be served more appropriately in a community-based setting. States are required to provide community-based services for people with disabilities if treatment professionals determine that it is appropriate, the affected individuals do not object to such placement, and the state has the available resources to provide community-based services. The court suggests that a state could establish compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act if it has 1) a comprehensive and effective working plan for placing qualified people in less restrictive settings, and 2) a waiting list for community-based services that ensures people can come of the list at a reasonable pace and receive services.
Purpose of the study
In light of this ruling, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) conducted a 50-state survey to determine the initial state responses to the Olmstead decision. The purpose of this study is to enhance informed decision making by helping state policy makers understand the choices states are making and the options that are available to meet the needs of people with disabilities.
The study is appropriately called a status report because states are in the early stages of implementing the Olmstead decision. The long-term effects of the decision are still unknown. NCSL will continue to track activity involving the implementation of the Olmstead decision and update this report pending permanent funding which NCSL is currently seeking.
Conclusion
At this point in time, it is too early to determine the full effects of the Olmstead decision. Every state is moving toward more home and community-based services, although some are moving faster than others. However, this study shows that most states are responding to the Olmstead decision by developing a plan, or appropriating more money toward home and community-based services, or in many cases are doing both.
The court's decision has caused providers, consumers, and state officials to come together with the shared commitment to provide more community-based services and reduce the waiting list for such services. It also has caused the federal government to revise its policies in this area and to offer states flexibility and funding for them to develop innovative solutions. At the same time, Several lawsuits have been filed or are pending in the states as a result of a lack of home and community-based alternatives. Olmstead implementation will take many years, and it involves not only health care but transportation, housing, education, and other social supports to fully intergrate people with disabilities into the least restrictive settings.
This study is a work in progress. Contact Wendy Fox-Grage at (202) 624-3571 or email at wendy.fox-grage@ncsl.org if the authors have incorrectly reported or inadvertently omitted certain Olmstead activities.
Rights & Advocacy
5 Fundamental Rights
THE FIVE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Any consumer, client or patient in any program or facility which is licensed or funded by the Department of Mental Health is guaranteed by law the following:
Reasonable access to a telephone to make and receive confidential telephone calls and to assistance when desired and necessary to implement such right;
To send and receive sealed, unopened, uncensored mail;
To receive visitors of such person's own choosing daily and in private, at reasonable times. Hours during which visitors may be received may be limited only to protect the privacy of other persons and to avoid serious disruptions in the normal functioning of the facility or program and shall be sufficiently flexible as to accommodate individual needs and desires of such person and the visitors of such person;
To a humane psychological and physical environment. Each such person shall be provided living quarters and accommodations which afford privacy and security in resting, sleeping, dressing, bathing and personal hygiene, reading and writing and in toileting;
To receive at any reasonable time as defined in department regulations, or refuse to receive, visits and telephone calls from a client's attorney or legal advocate, physician, psychologist, clergy member or social worker, even if not during normal visiting hours and regardless of whether such person initiated or requested the visit or telephone call.
For the full text of the law, please visit
Two Hats