FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CDR Contact: Bruce Darling, 585-546-7510 or bdarling@cdrnys.org

NYAIL Contact: Melanie Shaw, 518-465-4650 or mshaw@ilny.org

September 9, 2009

JUDGE RULES STATE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS

(Rochester, NY): New York State discriminated against thousands of people with mental illness in adult homes in New York City, according to a ruling by Judge Nicolas Garaufis of federal district court in Brooklyn, issued September 7, 2009. In response to the ruling, disability advocates are calling on Governor Paterson to direct the state not to appeal the decision, and to redouble efforts to produce an Olmstead plan which meets the court’s requirements and a budget that implements the plan as soon as possible.

As the first governor of New York with a disability, Governor Paterson must exercise new leadership and make a commitment now to a system of fully integrated, community-based services for people with disabilities. New York has not produced an Olmstead plan more than six years after the creation of the Most Integrated Setting Coordinating Council. Not only does the ADA require that people with disabilities be served in the most integrated setting, but as the court showed in great detail with respect to adult homes, the state will save money by providing services in integrated settings rather than segregated and institutional settings.

The integration mandate of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision requires that when a state provides services to individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” The Olmstead case recognized that “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life . . . and institutional confinement severely diminishes individuals’ everyday activities.” The court found that New York had failed to serve people with mental illness in adult homes in the most integrated setting, which constitutes discrimination under the ADA and the Olmstead decision.

“We are outraged that 10 years after the Olmstead decision, New York State is still denying people informed choices about where they live and what services they receive,” said Melanie Shaw, Executive Director of the New York Association on Independent Living. “And once again, the lack of affordable, accessible and integrated housing has been shown to be the leading factor in placing people in institutions.”

Bruce Darling, Executive Director of Center for Disability Rights, said: “While this is a landmark victory for people being served in the mental health system, this decision also has broader implications for the greater disability community in the state.” On the spectrum of long term care settings, New Yorkers with disabilities should have optimal choice and control over their supports and services. “It is especially disheartening that our public officials charged with implementing the Olmstead decision apparently don’t know what ‘most integrated setting’ actually means,” said Mr. Darling.

The case, brought by Disability Advocates, a non- profit law firm in Albany, challenged the state’s long time practice of placing individuals with mental illness in adult homes. The court found, despite the state’s assertion that adult homes are appropriate community placements, that they are in fact institutions and in some ways are even more institutional than state psychiatric centers. Moreover, the court found that virtually all of the individuals with mental illness in adult homes could be appropriately served in more integrated settings.

The court stated that adult homes do not enable interactions with nondisabled people to the fullest extent possible, as required under the ADA and Olmstead. Many adult homes house well over 100 people, all of whom have disabilities and most of whom have mental illness, according to Judge Garaufis. Adult homes are designed to manage and control large numbers of people and do so by establishing inflexible routines, restricting access, and limiting personal choice and autonomy. Residents line up to receive meals, medication, and money at inflexibly scheduled times during the day. They are assigned seats in the cafeteria, roommates, and treatment providers. They have next to no privacy or autonomy in their own daily lives, and they are discouraged, and most often prohibited, from managing their own activities of daily living, such as cooking, taking medication, cleaning, and budgeting.

People with mental illness, the court noted, are often placed in adult homes not for clinical reasons, but because the adult home is the only housing available when they are discharged from the psychiatric hospital. The practice by the state of discharging residents of psychiatric centers into adult homes began in the 1960’s and 1970’s, the era of “deinstitutionalization.” The adult home residents at issue in the litigation, however, have expressed preferences for living in more integrated settings, and would likely choose to live in an independent setting such as supported housing if given an informed choice. The court found that the state gave people with mental illness little or no choice regarding whether to move into an adult home. By and large, people with mental illness come to live in adult homes not by choice, the court stated, but because a mental health professional determines that an adult home is the most appropriate setting to serve their needs. Most of the adult home residents at issue in the litigation entered adult homes because they had nowhere else to go.

The court found the state does not have a comprehensive or effective plan to enable adult home residents to receive services in more integrated settings. To the contrary, the court found the state has routinely and systematically excluded adult home residents from their efforts to comply with Olmstead and the integration mandate of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The court has ordered the state to propose a remedial plan consistent with the court’s findings no later than October 23, 2009. Disability advocates call on the state to end the practice of segregating people with mental illness in adult homes now.

For more information, contact Melanie Shaw, Executive Director of the New York Association on Independent Living at 518-465-4650 or mshaw@ilny.org and Bruce Darling, Executive Director of the Center for Disability Rights, at 585-546-7510 or bdarling@cdrnys.org .

The New York Association on Independent Living (NYAIL) is a statewide membership organization of Independent Living Centers, community-based not for profit organizations run by and for New Yorkers with disabilities of all ages. NYAIL strengthens local Independent Living Centers and is a leader in the civil rights movement for all people with disabilities.

The Center for Disability Rights, Inc. (CDR) is headquartered in Rochester, NY, with satellite offices in Geneva, NY and Corning, NY, and a policy office in Albany, NY. CDR is a statewide organization providing services and advocacy devoted to the integration, independence and civil rights of all people with all disabilities