TY - JOUR
T1 - Olmstead’s Implementation
T2 - Differences in Enforcement Approaches
AU - Avila, Andrea
AU - Spaulding, William D.
AU - Evans, Eric A.
N1 - Funding Information:
The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grant (e.g., dissertation fellowship) from the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) funded as part of the Disability Research Consortium of the Mathematica Policy Center. The opinions and conclusions expressed are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent the opinions or policy of SSA or any agency of the Federal Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the contents of this report. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021. American Psychological Association
PY - 2021/6/10
Y1 - 2021/6/10
N2 - Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel Zimring (1999) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is impermissible discrimination; specifically, if the clinician and client believe community integration to be appropriate, the state must have reasonable accommodations in place for the client to be in the community. Enforcement of the Olmstead decision for people with serious mental illness (SMI) has taken many shapes, from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) settlement agreements requiring substantive development of community mental health services and aggressive community integration protocols, to the Third Circuit approach which requires only lower census numbers in the state psychiatric hospital (SPH). The question of whether Olmstead is being differentially enforced is addressed in an empirical, qualitative analysis of legal documents, including court opinions and settlement agreements. Through legal research spanning all U.S. jurisdictions, five distinct Olmstead enforcement approaches in ten different states were identified. The enforcement approaches are described, and limitations and future directions are discussed.
AB - Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel Zimring (1999) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is impermissible discrimination; specifically, if the clinician and client believe community integration to be appropriate, the state must have reasonable accommodations in place for the client to be in the community. Enforcement of the Olmstead decision for people with serious mental illness (SMI) has taken many shapes, from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) settlement agreements requiring substantive development of community mental health services and aggressive community integration protocols, to the Third Circuit approach which requires only lower census numbers in the state psychiatric hospital (SPH). The question of whether Olmstead is being differentially enforced is addressed in an empirical, qualitative analysis of legal documents, including court opinions and settlement agreements. Through legal research spanning all U.S. jurisdictions, five distinct Olmstead enforcement approaches in ten different states were identified. The enforcement approaches are described, and limitations and future directions are discussed.
KW - Americans with disabilities act
KW - Community transition
KW - Disability rights
KW - Olmstead
KW - State psychiatric hospitals
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108945581&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85108945581&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/ser0000551
DO - 10.1037/ser0000551
M3 - Article
C2 - 34110868
AN - SCOPUS:85108945581
SN - 1541-1559
VL - 19
SP - 243
EP - 251
JO - Psychological Services
JF - Psychological Services
IS - 2
ER -