1. March 29, 2019 Jennifer Bronson Lindsey Weinstock
The Department of Justice and the ADA’s Integration Mandate: A Year in Review
Very happy to be invited to speak to you all. We learn so much from having the opportunity to dialogue with individuals with disabilities, their families, advocates, public entities, and service providers.
The Dept. of Justice takes complaints. Information about filing a complaint is available on our website, ADA.gov. That’s the way to officially file complaints with us.
And anyone can call our ADA Information Line for information about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
But you are also welcome to contact us directly if you would like to speak with me. So I encourage you to take down our contact information, which is on this slide.
March 29, 2019
Jennifer Bronson
Lindsey Weinstock

2. Overview
DOJ’s Enforcement of Title II of the ADA’s Integration Mandate
Cases in Litigation
Cases in Compliance

3. Important Principles in DOJ Olmstead Enforcement
Relief designed to create integrated, quality community-based alternatives—not just about moving people out of segregated settings.
Ensure that people have opportunities for integration in all aspects of their lives: where they live and how they spend their days.
Engagement of a range of stakeholders – consumers, families, advocates, providers – is essential to successful outcomes.
Read slide

4. DOJ Olmstead Cases in Litigation

5. U.S. v. Florida
Filed in 2013.
Complaint alleges unnecessary segregation and risk of segregation of children with disabilities in nursing facilities.
District court dismissed, sua sponte, in September 2016: held that the U.S. did not have standing to sue to enforce Title II of the ADA.
The United States appealed. Oral argument before the 11th Circuit took place in October 2018.

6. U.S. v. Mississippi Filed in 2016.
Complaint alleges segregation of individuals with mental illness in state-run psychiatric hospitals.
Trial is set for June 2019.
Specifically, the complaint alleges:
Individuals frequently cycle through Mississippi’s 500 short-term hospital beds, with an average Length of Stay of 43 days.
More than 100 individuals languish in long-term units, where the average Length of Stay is more than 7 years.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

7. Steward v. Perry Background
Alleges that Texas unnecessarily segregates individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD) in nursing facilities.
Two-year interim settlement agreement expired in , and litigation resumed.
Trial was held in October-November 2018.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

8. Steward v. Perry DOJ Conclusions of Law
United States has the authority to bring suit under Title II of the ADA.
ADA obligations are not limited by the scope of the Medicaid requirements.
Community placement is “appropriate” (1) when the state is serving persons in the community whose disabilities and support needs are similar to residents of the institution or (2) when the person previously lived in the community with supports that adequately addressed similar needs.
I want to highlight a few of the US’s conclusions of law…..
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

9. DOJ Conclusions of Law (cont’d)
Steward v. Perry
DOJ Conclusions of Law (cont’d)
The ADA requires that states provide sufficient, individualized information and opportunities that allow individuals to make an informed choice whether to remain in or enter a segregated setting.
An effectively working Olmstead Plan cannot ignore specific groups of people in particular institutions.
After first bullet:
Evidence that people likely would not oppose community services if provided this type of individualized information about community services indicates non-opposition to community-based services.
In order to raise a fundamental alteration defense, a state must prove that it has a comprehensively, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with disabilities in less restricted settings.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

10. Select DOJ Olmstead Cases in Compliance

11. United States v. Louisiana
Complaint
In June 2018, the U.S. filed a complaint alleging:
unnecessary institutionalization of adults with serious mental illness (SMI) in nursing facilities
3,800 nursing facility residents with SMI
73% stay in those facilities for more than a year
In June 2018, U.S. filed a complaint alleging that:
Louisiana administered its programs and services in a way that resulted in the unnecessary institutionalization of adults with serious mental illness (SMI) in nursing facilities.
There were at least 3,800 nursing facility residents with SMI in 2016
73% of people with SMI in nursing facilities stay in those facilities for more than a year.
Read Slide
[Notes to self:
-Investigation was initiated in 2014
-Letter of findings was issued in December 2016]
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

12. United States v. Louisiana
Agreement
Addresses diversion, pre-admission screening, in-reach, transition planning, post-discharge case management, community support services, and quality assurance
State must develop an “Implementation Plan”
Plan must set targets for creating housing units and rental subsidies
By December 2019, State must establish a minimum of short-term rental subsidies
Agreement addresses diversion, pre-admission screening, in-reach, transition planning, post-discharge case management, community support services, and quality assurance
State must develop an “Implementation Plan”
Plan must set targets for creation of additional housing units and rental subsidies for the target population
By December 2019, State must establish a minimum of 100 short-term rental subsidies to assist with initial transitions
[Note to self: Implementation Plan must develop an initial 18-month schedule followed by a second schedule that establishes annual goals and targets.]
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

13. United States v. New York
Background
The U.S. and private plaintiffs are monitoring an agreement remedying discrimination by the State of New York in the administration of its mental health service system.
Agreement ensures that individuals with mental illness who reside in 23 large adult homes in New York City receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.
In September 2018, the Court approved the parties’ proposed supplemental agreement.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

14. United States v. New York
Supplemental Settlement Agreement
Consolidates in-reach, assessment, and housing responsibility within the housing contractor agency
Requires State to implement a peer bridger program
Adds timelines and metrics to each stage of the transition process
Requires State to create a Quality Assurance process
(Talking points associated with first three agreement provisions)
The goal of consolidating in-reach, assessment, and housing responsibility is to eliminate the backlog of assessments
2) The goal of the peer bridger program is more frequent and effective engagement of individuals to ensure that they have the information and experiences necessary to decide whether to transition. The expectation is that peer bridgers address doubts and concerns and counter-act adult home environment/misinformation.
3) The original Settlement Agreement did not have measurable benchmarks until four years after the entry of the Settlement Agreement. In an effort to speed up the process of transitioning from adult homes, the Settlement Agreement adds a series of metrics to each stage of the transition process.
[Internal note: Intended termination date is December 31, 2020]
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

15. United States v. North Carolina
In 2012, the United States and the State of North Carolina entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the United States’ claims that North Carolina’s mental health service system violates the ADA. 
Agreement covers adults with SMI in, or at risk of entry into, adult care homes.
Read slide
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

16. United States v. North Carolina (cont’d)
Provide community-based supported housing to 3,000 individuals 
Provide supported employment services to 2,500 individuals
More than 1,700 people are living in supported housing and more than 2,000 people are receiving supported employment services
Requires the state to provide….
Provide community-based supported housing to 3,000 individuals who currently reside in, or are at risk of entry into, adult care homes.
Expand integrated employment opportunities for individuals with mental illness by providing supported employment services to 2,500 individuals.
Today more than….
More than 1,700 people are living in supported housing and more than 2,000 people are receiving supported employment services.
Criteria for housing slots:
Permanent housing with tenancy rights
Tenancy support services, as needed and desired by the resident
Enable individuals with disabilities to interact with individuals without disabilities to the fullest extent possible
No limitation on ability to access community activities at times, frequencies and with persons of the individual’s choosing
Scattered site housing; no more than 20% of units in any large development occupied by people with disabilities
Choice in daily life activities such as eating, bathing, sleeping, and visiting
Priority is for single-occupancy housing
Housing slots cannot be used in adult care homes, family care homes, group homes, nursing facilities, boarding homes, assisted living residences, supervised living settings, or any setting required to be licensed
Individuals are free to choose other housing options after being fully informed of all options available
Agreement expires in July 2021
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

17. Segregated Employment Services
The integration mandate applies not only to residential settings, but also requires public entities to administer day services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the individual.

18. DOJ Enforcement of Title II in Employment Service Systems
United States v. Rhode Island and the City of Providence (2013)
United States v. Rhode Island (2014)
Lane v. Brown (formerly Lane v. Kitzhaber) (2015)
The Department of Justice has entered into agreements with Rhode Island and Oregon that deal with Title II in Employment Service Systems

19. U.S. v. Rhode Island and the City of Providence
Settlement (2013):
Involved one sheltered workshop for adults and one school
Relief for 200 individuals
Opportunities for competitive, integrated employment
Integrated day services
The Interim Settlement Agreement arose out of the Department of Justice’s investigation of one adult sheltered workshop and one school in the Providence Public School District called Birch Academy at Mt. Pleasant High School. The United States later expanded its investigation to the entire state, resulting in the Statewide Consent Decree.
The agreement was signed almost six years ago, in June 2013, and spans 8 years, until Under this agreement, the City is responsible for compliance as it relates to the student and youth target populations. The State is responsible for the adults who worked in the sheltered workshop.
At the time of the agreement, adults at the sheltered workshop and students at Birch were in segregated settings where individuals had little choice of day activities and limited interactions with non-disabled peers in violation of Title II of the ADA and Olmstead. The agreement requires that the State and Providence Public School District remedy those violations on a timeline.
The City of Providence is well on the road to substantial compliance with its obligations under the Interim Settlement Agreement, and the monitor has raised the possibility that the parties may jointly terminate the agreement early with respect to the City. And the State of Rhode Island has made great strides in placing individuals from the sheltered workshop into integrated employment, though they still have work to do before the Agreement terminates in 2020.
What was once a segregated, locked wing of Mt. Pleasant High school is now open with classes that are integrated into the general high school community. Teachers are helping students learn skills that will be useful in competitive employment, not a workshop. Transition counselors are building community and business connections that will help students successfully transition from school to jobs. Parents who once feared leaving the safety of a workshop are now seeing a better future for their adult child. Most importantly, the students themselves have independence and are making their own choices.
As a result of the agreement, the State and City have provided many adults from the workshop and youth from the school with robust person-centered career development planning, youth transition services and supports, placements in integrated employment, and integrated day services.
Where are they now? Individuals who spent as long as thirty years in the sheltered workshop no longer make sub-minimum wage for work done in a segregated environment. These individuals are now working in competitive integrated employment making at least minimum wage. Students are receiving work experiences in competitive integrated settings while still in school.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

20. United States v. Rhode Island
Settlement (2014):
Provides opportunities to 2,000 people with I/DD to transition to integrated employment
Provides transition services to 1,250 youth
Builds provider capacity
Requires Employment First policies, person-centered planning and benefits plans, and outreach, education, and training
Read slide
In 2014, a federal court in Rhode Island entered a consent decree resolving the United States’ claims that Rhode Island’s day activity service system unnecessarily relies on segregated settings, including sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs, instead of integrated alternatives, such as supported employment and integrated day services, in violation of Title II.
Original language from consolidated slide:
Provide opportunities to 2,000 people with I/DD who are in sheltered workshops or facility-based day programs, or who have recently left high school, to transition to integrated employment.
Provide transition services to 1,250 youth between the ages of to ensure that they have access to transition, vocational rehabilitation, and supported employment services designed to lead to integrated employment after they leave secondary school.
Notes:
This statewide agreement went into effect in 2014 and spans 10 years, until Requires Rhode Island to…..
The agreement:
Requires Employment First policies, making work in integrated employment settings a priority service option
Person centered planning & benefit plans
Build provider capacity:
Conversion Institute
$800,000 fund to help former SWs transform their businesses
Outreach, education and training for state workers (VR counselors, teachers, etc.), private agency folks, advocates, individuals with disabilities & their families
Youth in transition receive integrated vocational and situational assessments, trial work experiences, and an array of other services to ensure meaningful opportunities to work in the community.
**UPDATE BELOW**
The State’s progress on supported employment is a dramatic change from where things were just a few years ago. The State met or exceeded several employment placement benchmarks.  Part of this change has been the improved communication between agencies, between agencies and providers, and between agencies, providers, and the individuals receiving services.
The early requirements of the Consent Decree focused on employment, and the State has made great strides in that area.  Now the parties are focusing on integrated day services.  Currently, some of the State’s day services are not sufficiently individualized. (Section VI.B.3 of the Consent Decree requires that Integrated Day Services be individualized, flexible, purposeful, and productive, tailored to a person’s interests, abilities, and goals, with an opportunity to interact with non-disabled individuals to the fullest extent possible during the day.)
The State, monitor, DOJ, and the court are working together towards the goal that the State will meet all the employment and day service requirements by 2024 as required by the Consent Decree.
The court monitor’s July 2017 report indicates that 544 people are working in integrated employment placements.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

21. Lane v. Brown Statewide Settlement (2015):
Provides 1,115 working-age individuals with I/DD with services so that they will obtain integrated employment
Provides 4,900 youth ages years old with supported employment services
Original previous slide:
In 2013, the United States intervened in a similar Olmstead case brought by private plaintiffs in Oregon.
Alleged that Oregon’s employment service system unnecessarily relied on segregated sheltered workshops to the exclusion of integrated alternatives, such as supported employment services, and places individuals, including youth, at risk of entering sheltered workshops.
ADA and Olmstead apply to all government services, programs, and activities, including employment services.
ADA and Olmstead not limited to residential services and programs.
Original Slide
Parties settled in 2015
Provide 1,115 working-age individuals with I/DD who are currently being served in segregated sheltered workshops with services so that they will obtain integrated employment
Provide 4,900 youth ages years old with supported employment services designed to assist them to choose, prepare for, and obtain integrated employment.
Agreement requires State to…..
“The Reviewer stated in her Annual Report for 2016 that ‘[b]y the end of SFY 2016, the State indicated that 143 new individuals had worked in Competitive Integrated Employment for 90 days or more.’”
RELIEF:
Settlement agreement went into effect in early 2016, and spans 7 years, until 2022.
Requires person-centered planning for youth and adults.
All individuals in the target populations of the agreement will receive a career development plan.
Supported employment services must be individualized, evidence-based, flexible, offered in an integrated employment setting and based on an individual’s capabilities, choices, and strengths.
All persons who receive supported employment services under the agreement will have a goal of working the maximum number of hours consistent with their abilities and preferences
The Oregon Department of Education will improve employment-focused transition services by:
Allowing the transition process to begin as young as age 14, if deemed appropriate by an IEP team;
Providing students with information about, and opportunities to experience, supported employment services in integrated settings;
A technical assistance provider(s) to offer training, assistance, and support to supported employment services agencies;
Grants for the transformation of existing sheltered workshop providers, the development of new supported employment service providers, or the expansion of existing providers.
**UPDATE BELOW**
The State reported that only one year into the agreement 141 individuals who formerly worked at a sheltered workshop have obtained integrated employment.
In February 2017, the independent reviewer issued her first annual report on implementation of the settlement agreement for the period covering January 1-December 31, The report’s overall assessment is that the state is making progress, but the report notes areas of concern where the state could improve.
The independent reviewer found the state achieved the agreement’s required yearly outcome metrics in 2016 for the reduction of the sheltered workshop target population; the number of sheltered workshop hours; the number of competitive, integrated employment placements; and the number of transition-age youth who receive employment services.
The report also notes where the state lags in implementing the settlement agreement including the requirement for 2,500 individual career development plans by the end of the agreement and the prohibition on mock sheltered workshop activities in schools.
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

22. Filing an ADA Complaint/ADA Resources
File a Complaint at:
Call the ADA Information Line:
(voice) or (TTY)
Further information regarding DRS complaint process:
We receive thousands of complaints from the public each year.
We do not open investigations for every complaint.
If one is opened, either by us or by a U.S. Attorney’s Office partner, the DOJ conducts an investigation of the alleged discrimination at issue. This may include requesting documents from the entity alleged to have discriminated, witness interviews, and meetings with the complainant, among other things.
If we find that the ADA has been violated, we seek authorization to take action to resolve the violation. In the first instance, we always try to resolve the issue through a negotiated resolution.
Should that not work, or if the entity is unwilling to cooperate, we seek authorization to take other appropriate action, up to and including the filing of a lawsuit.
We now have a few minutes for questions.