Have 1,000 People Transitioned Out of Institutions With Mainstream Category 2 Vouchers?

Have 1,000 People Transitioned Out of Institutions With Mainstream Category 2 Vouchers? Information Bulletin #335 (7/2011).

It’s been about seven months since HUD awarded its Mainstream Category 2 Vouchers. These were the special vouchers that were intended to be used solely for people with disabilities to transition from institutions to the community. Housing Authorities and other public entities had to apply for these vouchers, and HUD awarded them on a competitive basis.

We know there were a lot of advocates for individuals with disabilities who were very disappointed that their Housing Authorities had not been awarded these vouchers. This was particularly so, after advocates had worked with and encouraged their Housing Authorities to apply.

Okay folks - now is the time to check out if the “winning” Housing Authorities have actually used these Category 2 Vouchers as they were intended - to help people to leave institutions.

Has your State Medicaid agency been actively involved? Has it helped identify people who want to transition out? How has the Housing Authority identified the person who was institutionalized?

Has there been any press regarding the successful transitions? If we want additional vouchers to be similarly targeted in the future, let’s make sure at the least that the 1,000 Category 2 vouchers have worked properly.

If you reside in one of the following 28 locales, please contact the recipient. If you find out, let us know.

Below find, by State, the 28 recipients and the number of Category 2 Vouchers awarded to each winner.

ARIZONA - Pima County c/o City of Tucson	25
CALIFORNIA - Housing Authority of the County of Alameda	10
CALIFORNIA - Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara	25
CALIFORNIA -Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara	10
CALIFORNIA - Orange County Housing Authority	50
CALIFORNIA- Pasadena Community Development Commission	40
FLORIDA - Collier County Housing Authority	25
GEORGIA - Housing Authority of the City of Decatur, Georgia	35
ILLINOIS - Housing Authority of the Village of Oak Park	15
ILLINOIS - Springfield Housing Authority	10
MASSACHUSETTS - Lynn Housing Authority & Neighborhood Development	35
MARYLAND - Baltimore County Department of Social Services Housing Office	50
MARYLAND - Housing Authority of Baltimore City	40
MARYLAND - Howard County Housing Commission	10
MARYLAND - Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development	12
MICHIGAN - Traverse City Housing Commission	10
NORTH CAROLINA - Housing Authority of the City of Wilmington, N. C.	5
NEW JERSY - New Jersey Department of Community Affairs	100
NEW YORK - Belmont Shelter Corp. as agent for Erie County PHA Consortium	20
OHIO - Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority	100
OHIO - Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority	60
PENNSYLVANIA - Housing Authority of the County of Dauphin	10
TEXAS - Housing Authority of the City of Austin	36
WASHINGTON - Housing Authority of Snohomish County	50
WASHINGTON - Housing Authority of the City of Longview	35
WASHINGTON - Housing Authority of the City of Yakima	15
WASHINGTON - Housing Authority of the County of Clallam	15
WASHINGTON -Housing Authority of the City of Tacoma	100

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at http://www.stevegoldada.com

with a searchable Archive at this site divided into different subjects.

As of August, 2010, Information Bulletins will also be posted on my blog located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@cs.com or call 215-627-7100.

DOJ and Enforcement of Integration Mandate in ADA/Olmstead

DOJ and Enforcement of Integration Mandate in ADA/Olmstead. Information Bulletin # 334 (7/2011).

In recognition of the 12^th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, the United States Department of Justice issued an extremely important and comprehensive “Statement … on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate” of the ADA and Olmstead.

This is DOJ’s “technical assistance guide.” All advocates should download it and use it in your advocacy efforts. Quote it in your briefs in Court. Quote it in your meetings with government officials. Cite it in your letters to the editor and opinion editorials. This document represents the official position of the highest law enforcement agency in the country. http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/q&a_olmstead.htm

This Information Bulletin is intended only to wet your appetite. Please read the entire document. We’ll summarily quote as much as possible. In the original, there are 18 questions. We’ve added (arbitrarily) emphases.

DOJ stated: The “goal of the integration mandate – to provide individuals with disabilities opportunities to live their lives like individuals without disability – has yet to be fully realized…. Many people who could and want to live, work and receive services in integrated settings are still waiting for the promise of Olmstead to be fulfilled.”

1. What is the most integrated setting?

“Integrated settings are those that provide … opportunities to live, work, and receive services in the greater community, like individuals without disabilities. Integrated settings are located in mainstream society; offer access to community activities and opportunities at times, frequencies and with persons of an individual’s choosing; provide the opportunity to interact with nondisabled persons to the fullest extent possible…. Segregated settings include, but are not limited to: congregate settings populated exclusively or primarily with individuals with disabilities….”

2. When is the ADA’s integration mandate implicated?

Anytime a “public entity administers its programs in a manner that results in unjustified segregation” whether by operating segregating programs, or financing them in private facilities, or “funding choices or service implementation practices that promotes or relies upon the segregation in private facilities or programs.”

3. What factors are relevant in determining whether an individual does not oppose an integrated setting?

“Public entities must take affirmative steps to remedy this history of segregation and prejudice in order to insure that individuals have an opportunity to make an informed choice. Such steps include providing information about the benefits of integrated settings, facilitating visits in such settings, and offering opportunities to meet with individuals with disabilities living in integrated settings.

4. Does ADA apply to persons at serious risk of segregation?

“Yes… People need not wait unit the harm of institutionalization or segregation occurs or is imminent.” Persons can show such risk “if a public entity’s failure to provide community services or its cut to such services will likely cause a decline in health, safety, or welfare that would lead to the individual’s eventual placement in an institution or segregation.”

5. May the ADA require a State to provide additional services than are provided in their Medicaid program?

“A state’s obligations under the ADA are independent from the requirements of the Medicaid program. The ADA may require states to provide services beyond what a state currently provides under Medicaid.” “Caps… do not exempt state from serving additional people in the community by seeking a modification of a waiver to remove the cap.”

6. Can budget cuts violate the ADA?

“Yes, budgets cuts can violate ADA when significant funding cuts to community services create a risk of institutionalization or segregation…. In making budget cuts, public entities have a duty to take all reasonable steps to avoid placing individuals at risk of institutionalization or segregation… including making exceptions to the service reductions or to provide alternative services to individuals who would be forced into institutions as a result of such cuts.”

7. What budgetary resources are relevant?

“All money the public entity allots, spends, receives, or could receive if it applied for available federal funding to provide services. All relevant costs, not simply those funded by the single agency that operates or funds the segregated or integrated settings.”

8. What about an Olmstead Plan?

It must do more than provide vague assurances of future. Must contain concrete and reliable commitments to expand integrated opportunities. Must include commitments for each group of persons who are unnecessarily segregated. Must address the needless segregation of the group at issue in the case.

9. What about budgetary shortages?

“Even in times of budgetary constraints, public entities can often reasonably modify their programs by re-allocating funding from expensive segregated settings to cost-effective integrated settings. Whether the public entity has sought additional federal resources available to support the provision of services in integaated settings – such as Medicaid, MFP and federal housing vouchers.

Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at http://www.stevegoldada.com

with a searchable Archive at this site divided into different subjects.

As of August, 2010, Information Bulletins will also be posted on my blog located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@cs.com or call 215-627-7100.