|
Home
| Projects
| Publications
|
Training
| What's
New |
ILRU & NCIL: National Training & Technical Assistance Project
Expanding the Power of the Independent Living Movement
Disability Policy and the Olmstead DecisionOlmstead and Community:
|
| Disability Policy Framework Checklist |
The questions to ask yourselves |
| A. History |
Do we know the history? |
| B. Core Precept
|
|
| C. Four Goals of Disability Policy
|
Are the decisions based on the individual? |
|
How are people with disabilities involved in decisions
that affect their lives? |
|
Does the system support independent living? |
|
Does the system support work? |
| D. General Administration |
Does the plan respond to peoples’ needs? |
Examine TABLE 1 and notice each of the questions pertaining to the sections Bobby Silverstein talks about. These questions are key as you look at policies you are interested in to determine if all of the components are in place.
Methods of Administration
In this course so far you have learned, according to Bobby, “only half” of what you need to know in order to advocate effectively for people with disabilities. Why does he say that? Because while the history, core precept, and four goals are important, what we really care about is implementation—are the policies working or making a positive difference in the community? Bobby calls this other part “methods of administration.”
Do the principles really guide behavior? Paying attention to the methods of administration means that you need to find out if the programs or rules are responding to the needs of people with disabilities or are they instead responding to the needs of the bureaucracy or the historical administrative structure? Do the laws work as intended? Are they having a positive effect for people with disabilities?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is an example of a law that reflects the core precept and the four goals of disability policy. The ADA is intended to ensure that people with disabilities are treated fairly. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Olmstead decision that one state was violating the ADA. And it was a warning to all states that they need to pay attention to the Equality of Opportunity principle.
The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was a huge breakthrough for persons with disabilities. The Olmstead decision is based on the ADA.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law. Title II of the ADA prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against people with disabilities in the provision of public benefits and services (e.g. public education, employment, transportation, recreation, health care, social services, courts, voting, and town meetings).
The regulations implementing the ADA state: A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. (28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d))
The regulations defined the “most integrated setting” as “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” (28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. A, p. 450)
Advocates were able to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to challenge states that would only provide extensive care and supports in institutions. This meant that the only options for people with disabilities were to live in segregated settings. Advocates argued that states were not following the law because they were only providing services in segregated settings. One of these challenges—Olmstead vs. L.C.— went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Application and Discussion
1. If “segregate” is the opposite of “integrate,” what does “segregate” mean?
2. Think of situations in which people with disabilities have been segregated. Have you ever experienced segregation?
Read more about the ADA in Appendix A: The ADA and Other Examples of Major Federal Legislation that Contain the Disability Policy Framework.
SESSION NINE: Background on the Olmstead Decision
The story begins with two women, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, who lived in an institution in Georgia and who wanted to move into their own homes. Lois and Elaine were people with disabilities and the State of Georgia said it would be too expensive for the state to support them to live in the community. Lois and Elaine sued the state, and eventually the highest court in the land heard their case.
In this session you will learn about an important U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Olmstead vs. L.C. that was made in June of 1999. The Olmstead decision has the potential to make a huge difference in the choices that people with disabilities make to live in the community.
You will listen to Lois and Elaine tell some of their story and the challenges they faced. You will listen to an audio recording of an interview conducted by Richard Petty of ILRU (Independent Living Research Utilization) in June 2001. Hearing their story will help you to better understand the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Olmstead vs. L.C.
Lois and Elaine (The Background)
In order to gain a better understanding of the interview, first read the biography of Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson.
Biography: Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson
Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, two women with disabilities who lived in a Georgia state hospital, asked state officials to allow them to move into their own homes in the community. After the state’s refusal, Atlanta Legal Aid attorney Susan Jamieson filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ms.Wilson and Ms.Curtis. In the lawsuit, they again sought to have the State of Georgia allow the two hospital residents to live in the community. After appeals the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case.
The two Georgia women with disabilities (mental retardation and mental illness) claimed that living in a nursing home deprived them of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to live in an integrated community setting. [For more information on the ADA see Appendix A: The ADA and Other Examples of Major Federal Legislation that Contain the Disability Policy Framework.]
Lois and Elaine argued that they had a right to receive services
in a community-based setting under Title II of the ADA. The law
requires public entities to provide their services “in the
most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified
individuals with disabilities... [that] enables individuals with
disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest
extent possible.”
The state argued that Lois and Elaine were placed in state-run institutions to obtain needed services. Physicians for the women disagreed, stating they could receive appropriate services while living in the community.
In July 1999, the Supreme Court issued the Olmstead vs. L.C. decision. The Court ruled in favor of Lois and Elaine, affirming that where individuals live must be appropriate to their needs and can include home and community-based arrangements. The Court noted that institutionalizing a person with a disability, who wants to live in the community and can benefit from it, is discriminatory.
Interview
Play the audio clip: “Interview with Lois and Elaine” (6 minutes).
Application and Discussion
- What did Lois and Elaine want so much that they went to court to get it?
- Do you know people like Lois and Elaine in your community? Where do they live?
- What are Lois and Elaine’s lives like now? What advice do they give?
SESSION TEN: Olmstead Decision —What It Says
What the Decision Says: Victory
On June 22, 1999, the United States Supreme Court held in Olmstead
vs. L.C. that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with
disabilities in institutions may constitute discrimination based
on disability. The court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities
Act may require states to provide community-based services rather
than institutional placements for individuals with disabilities.
The decision is a victory in several ways because it supports the
following:
- Most integrated setting: It upholds the U.S. Department of Justice’s regulations, which mandate that a state must administer its programs in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of individuals with disabilities.
- Unjustified isolation: It states that unjustified isolation is considered discrimination under the ADA.
- Secure community living opportunities: It recognizes that Congress intended the ADA to continue earlier efforts in the Developmental Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act to secure community living opportunities for people with disabilities. [Advocacy and Protection, 2001]
For more information on these federal laws, see Appendix A: The ADA and Other Examples of Major Federal Legislation that Contain the Disability Policy Framework.
Requirements
Rather than merely affirming (agreeing with) the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court put a number of requirements on the states when they place individuals in the community. Specifically, the Court held that a state:
- Must provide services in a fair and equal manner: A state must consider the cost of providing community-based care to individuals, and the range of services the state provides to others with mental disabilities. The state has an obligation to provide those services in a fair and equal manner.
- May rely on assessments of its own professionals: A state may generally rely on the reasonable assessments of its own professionals in determining whether an individual meets the eligibility requirements for a community-based program (see For More Information at the end of this module).
- Is protected by law if meets requirements: A state that has a comprehensive working plan for placing persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that move[s] at a reasonable pace, is protected in a lawsuit.
Application and Discussion
1. Why would living in an institution be considered “isolating”?
2. Does the Olmstead decision mean that everyone living
in an institution can immediately move to the community?
3. Why is having a working Olmstead plan important for
a state?
SESSION ELEVEN: Olmstead Decision —What It Means-1
What the Decision Means
According to ADAPT (American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today), a grassroots advocacy organization, the Olmstead decision changed the debate from “should people with disabilities live in the community?” to “how to integrate people with disabilities into the community?”
The Supreme Court laid out the “roadmap” that states must follow to develop their integration plans. To comply with the Olmstead ruling, states must show they have comprehensive and effective plans for placing qualified individuals with disabilities in less restrictive settings. Beyond that, they must show that waiting lists move at a reasonable pace and are not influenced by attempts to keep institutions fully populated.
“The Supreme Court construed Title II of the A D A to require states to place qualified individuals with mental disabilities in community settings, rather than in institutions…”
New Freedom Initiative
On February 1, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his New Freedom Initiative to promote the full integration of people with disabilities into all aspects of American life. The goals of this comprehensive plan include expanding educational and employment opportunities; increasing access to assistive technologies and public accommodations; and providing accessible transportation and housing options for individuals with disabilities.
In June 2001, President George W. Bush signed the Olmstead Executive Order saying that, “the Supreme Court construed Title II of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) to require states to place qualified individuals with mental disabilities in community settings, rather than in institutions when:
- Treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate
- The affected persons do not oppose such placement
- The state can reasonably accommodate the placement, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others with disabilities.”
This executive order paved the way for states to do exactly what
the Supreme Court ruled they should do.
The Olmstead decision applies to people with all types
of disability—not only to people with mental disabilities
(intellectual and/or psychiatric disabilities), such as Lois and
Elaine. The ruling applies to any person with a disability who meets
the requirements for living in an institution. Thus, people with
physical disabilities, sensory impairments, or other disabilities
- who meet the care requirements of a nursing home or similar institution
- are covered by the Olmstead decision.
“At Risk” Issue
Some states interpret the Olmstead decision to cover those “at risk” of institutionalization. If individuals might, at some time in the future because of the nature of their disability, need more intense services then they could be considered “at risk” of needing an institutional level of care. For example, an individual with a disability living at home with adequate supports today might be at risk for institutional placement in the future. While there have been some interpretations from federal agencies and courts that support this position, it is not a consensus and a few states are going to court over the “at risk” issue.
Olmstead upholds the integration mandate of the ADA. The Court affirmed the right of individuals with disabilities to receive public benefits and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The Supreme Court noted that unnecessary segregation and institutionalization constitute discrimination and violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) “integration mandate.” The decision presents new opportunities for expanding community-based services and supports for people with disabilities.
In the next audio clip, Bob Williams, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging Disability and Long-Term Care, talks about what the Olmstead decision can mean. Read Bob’s biography and then play the audio.
Biography: Bob Williams
On July 23, 1998—the third anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act — Bob Williams became the first American with a significant disability to be appointed the Commissioner of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities in the Department of Health and Human Services. He later became the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Disability, Aging, and Long-Term are Policy under Health and Human Services Secretary, Donna Shalala.
Bob Williams was born with cerebral palsy in Connecticut, about five miles from the state institution. Because he had parents, brothers and sisters, family and friends who believed in him, he never spent a day in the state institution until he volunteered with the Connecticut ARC to help prepare the lawsuit that closed it down. Since that time, Bob Williams has contributed significantly to the development of home and community services. He uses a communication device to express his ideas when he presents his recommendations to the Administration or talks about home and community services to groups of policymakers and advocates, as in the audio clip accompanying this manual.
Play the audio clip: “Vision for the Future” (2 minutes). When finished, proceed to the exercises below.
Application and Discussion
- Why does Bob Williams say that the ADA and Medicaid are “polar opposites”?
- Why does he encourage people with disabilities and the aging community to “sit down together”?
- What does he say is one of the most important things the decision does?
- How will aging Baby Boomers be different from previous generations?
- Why does he see this as a resource?
SESSION TWELVE: Olmstead Decision—What It Means-2
The Decision’s Name
In this session you will read an article from Georgia’s Macon Telegraph and see some of Olmstead’s comments on the decision that bears his name.
In order to understand who Tommy Olmstead is, read the
biography, then the article, and proceed to the exercises following
the article.
Biography: Tommy Olmstead
Tommy Olmstead was the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Services. In that position, he represented the State of Georgia in Lois and Elaine’s lawsuit against the State.
Article: Georgia Lags in Responding to Olmstead Decision by Don Schanche Jr., Telegraph Staff Writer March 30, 2003
In a battle that is building all over Georgia and the nation, one man’s name has become a rallying cry: Tommy Olmstead.
When a crowd of people demonstrated Wednesday in Macon on behalf of people with disabilities, many carried signs bearing a mysterious phrase: “Implement Olmstead Now.”
Translation: Release people who are unnecessarily confined in state hospitals and nursing homes.
Olmstead’s name turns up everywhere these days in the “disabilities community. ”
It comes up in connection with every person with disabilities who wants to be released from a nursing home or hospital in Georgia. And the name “Olmstead” is now known in all 50 states, where government officials are busy doing something called “Olmstead Planning,” for the release of unnecessarily institutionalized people.
The Bibb County Commission chairman’s name comes up because he was a defendant in a lawsuit while he was commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Resources from 1995 until 1999.
In 1995, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson sued for the right to be released from Georgia Regional Hospital in Atlanta, where they had been treated for psychiatric disorders. In 1999, the nation’s highest court said that unjustified isolation of people with disabilities inside institutions is discrimination based on disability — a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court didn’t call for the abolition of institutions for people with disabilities, and acknowledged that states must have some leeway to work within their budgets. But it established a disabled person’s legal right not to be locked in an institution if there is a way to serve that person in their home outside the institution’s walls.
“Georgia in 1978 was 7th or 8th in the country for community funds and now we’re 50th.” ~Joyce Ringer
Olmstead’s name represents a state’s unwillingness to acknowledge that right, as well as the legal obligation to do so.
Some wish there were a different name on the case. “I prefer to call it ‘Lois and Elaine’s case,’” said Joyce Ringer, executive director of the nonprofit Georgia Advocacy Office, which speaks up on behalf of people with disabilities.“I have to laugh about it,” Olmstead said last year. “My name’s there because I was commissioner of DHR. If Joe Dokes was commissioner, his name would be there.”
But it is Olmstead’s name that stuck. And in a way he never anticipated, the Olmstead case may turn out to be Tommy Olmstead’s most pervasive legacy.
The Olmstead Decision has become as significant for people with disabilities as “Brown v. Board of Education” was for the civil rights movement.
“It is seen as the Emancipation Proclamation for people with disabilities,” says Eric Jacobson, executive director of the Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities.
According to a recent report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, “As 2002 ended, the vast majority of states were engaged in structured planning efforts around Olmstead. Most states have published their plans or information on their ongoing planning processes on the Internet.”
Many advocates believe Georgia lags behind on Olmstead planning because the interests that support nursing home and state hospitals have strong, long-standing political power here. “Georgia in 1978 was 7th or 8th in the country for community funds and now we’re 50th,” Ringer said. “That really shows the power of the nursing home and institution lobby.”
Georgia’s sluggish pace in implementing the Olmstead Decision prompted the GAO, Atlanta Legal Aid and several other advocate groups to file a complaint in 2001 with the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Used with permission. Copyright 2003. The Macon Telegraph and wire services
Application and Discussion
- What does the reporter say that Olmstead’s name represents?
- What do some advocates prefer to call the case?
- What do you think it should be called?
- What do Georgia advocates believe is the reason that the state has not implemented Olmstead planning?
- Do you know how much your state pays to institutions and how much is spent on providing services in the community? How can you find out?
SESSION THIRTEEN: Role of CILs and “Fifth Core Service”
The Role of Independent Living Centers
Many people in the independent living movement believe that centers can and should play a leading role in assisting people to live in the community and helping people leave institutions.
Read Mike Oxford’s biography below and listen to him as he describes the role centers can play.
Biography: Mike Oxford
Mike is the Executive Director of Topeka Independent Living Resource Center, Inc. and was the President of the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL). He is a leader in ADAPT and is committed to “freeing our people” from nursing homes and institutions.
Play the audio, “Where I Got Started” (6 minutes). When finished, proceed to the exercises below.
Application and Discussion
- What do many people in the independent living movement believe should be the “fifth core service”?
- What is your center or organization doing to keep people out of institutions/nursing homes or moving people out of institutions/nursing homes?
- Can you think of other ideas that you can implement in your community? Make sure to put down everything you can think of. Each idea can generate more.
- What organizations in your community can you partner with in these activities? For example, UCP, ARC, PTC, etc. What perspectives do they bring?
SESSION FOURTEEN: Advocacy Plan
An Advocacy Plan
This session will help you understand how to apply the knowledge you gain throughout these sessions to real world problems of interest to you.
The Disability Policy Framework lays the groundwork for advocating for better quality of life for individuals with disabilities. The sessions that follow will describe the U.S. Supreme Court decision, known as Olmstead vs. L.C., and its implications for people with disabilities living in the community. In order to tie all the sessions together and enable you to integrate what you have learned; we encourage you to develop an advocacy plan based on an issue or problem you see or experience. Identify a problem or issue relating to a person with a disability that you want to change. This issue may be the goal you wrote down in Session 1 of this course. The following planning model will provide guidance for you as you work on your advocacy goal(s).
Four Steps
There are four steps to constructing an advocacy plan in this planning model. The four steps are: 1) Take stock, 2) Set goals, 3) Develop strategies and take action, and 4) Document progress. These steps can be repeated as many times as necessary to reach a goal.
- Take stock: Review the situation. Find out what has led to the problem or issue. Identify what action may have been taken previously and what the results were. Bobby Silverstein recommends taking time to “understand the history,” which refers back to the checklist question, “Do we know the history?”
- Set goals: Identify a specific and measurable outcome that you would like to see happen. Specify goals that are consistent with the core precept (disability is a natural part of human experience; and fix the environ ment). The more specific the goal, the easier it will be to measure progress. A broad, long-term goal can be broken into smaller steps to better understand and illustrate the planning model.
- Develop strategies and take action: Decide what action to take. Identify the approach you will use to solve the problem and take action. Develop strategies that are consistent with the four goals of Disability Policy (Equality of Opportunity, Full Participation, Independent Living, and Economic Self-Sufficiency).
- Document progress: Record the results of the actions that were taken. Are your methods effective? Remember, implementation is what is important. By reviewing the progress that you have documented, you are again “taking stock” of the situation to decide if the actions are bringing you closer to your goal. If progress has not been made, repeat the steps of the planning cycle with new, improved strategies until the goal is completed.
Example
The following is an example of how to develop and advocacy plan.
Advocacy Goal: Assist Joe in obtaining transportation in the community to go to work.
Take stock: Joe lives in an apartment one block from Main Street. There is a public bus system in his city, but there are not enough accessible buses on every route. Joe has an opportunity for a job across town, but he must take the public bus system to get there.
Set goals: Joe’s advocates want to get an accessible bus route on Main Street so Joe can take the bus to work. They have set the goal to persuade the public Transit Authority to schedule accessible buses along Main Street, at least during commuter times when Joe is traveling to and from work.
Develop strategies and take action: Joe and his advocates decide on some action steps consistent with the four goals of disability policy that they need to take to work toward their goal: a) Find out the process used by the public bus system to determine accessible routes. b) Attend the Transit Authority’s advisory committee that discusses transportation for people with disabilities. c) Write letters to the Transit Authority general manager about the need for an accessible route on Main Street.
Document progress: Joe and his advocates meet to review their efforts, record the results of each of their actions. Are the authorities responding to the requests? If so, are these actions that have been implemented responding to Joe’s needs? This action takes them back to the first step of “taking stock,” which may then lead to the rest of the steps. After they take stock, they will see how they may need to change the goal and develop alternate strategies, etc.
Application and Discussion
Review the goal you wrote at the beginning of this course. Discuss how this goal may be related to public policy.
Scenario: John is in an institution and wants out. He has cerebral palsy and needs support for eating, toileting, and bathing. He used to hold a job as a telemarketer and could still make calls with the correct equipment. List some of the barriers you may face in advocating for John. These courses will assist you in developing a strong plan for addressing the barriers and challenges you may face in advocating for John.
SESSION FIFTEEN: Summary and Preview of Course Two
Beyond Olmstead—What’s Next
In this course you have learned about the views of the old paradigm of disability policy. In the new paradigm you learned about the two concepts of the core precept which are that disability is a natural part of the human experience and the approach is to fix the environment and not the individual. You also heard Bobby Silverstein explain the four Goals of Disability Policy which are: One: Equality of Opportunity, Two: Full Participation, Three: Independent Living, and Four: Economic Self-Sufficiency.
To go along with these principles, you were given checklist questions to help you decide if methods of administration of programs are working and are strong in all of these areas.
You learned that the Americans with Disabilities Act reflects all of the four goals of disability policy, and is the law that forms the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead Decision.
You have read about the background on the Olmstead decision where Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson were denied the right to live in their own homes in the community. A lawsuit was filed and eventually the case went all of the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lois and Elaine, affirming that where individuals live must be appropriate to their needs and can include home and community-based arrangements.
The Olmstead decision says that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities, in institutions, may constitute discrimination based on disability. This means that the Supreme Court laid out the “roadmap” which states must follow to develop their integration plans which also means that independent living centers and you can benefit from these requirements in developing advocacy plans.
You also learned from Mike Oxford, the Executive Director of Topeka Independent Living Resource Center, Inc., on how centers for independent living are working to help people get out of nursing homes and live in the community.
You were presented with an approach to developing an advocacy plan that will assist you to help people with disabilities achieve their goals for living in the community.
As you complete the course, you have increased your knowledge of how the goals of disability policy are being implemented in your community—and how you can advocate and ensure that your particular goals can be achieved.
Summary Application
- Return to your notebook entry for session 1. Have your goals changed during the course? Either create an advocacy goal or select one of the goals you originally wrote down in session 1. Write down your primary advocacy objective and address the following questions.
- You have learned about four steps in developing and implementing a plan successfully. Also Bobby Silverstein provided a checklist of questions we should ask about our own issue of advocacy. Using these two resources for developing and measuring the advocacy plan, answer the following questions:
a. For your advocacy goal, take stock—review the situation. Find out what has led to the problem or issue.
Identify actions that may have been taken previously and what the results were. Bobby Silverstein recommends taking time to “understand the history.” This is the background of the problem I have selected for my advocacy plan:
b. Set goals—identify a specific and measurable outcome that you would like to see happen.
These are smaller steps that will lead to the accomplishment of your main advocacy goal. Specify goals that are consistent with the core precept (disability is a natural part of human experience; and fix the environment not the person). The more specific the goal, the easier it will be to measure progress. A broad, long-term goal can be broken into smaller steps to better understand and illustrate the planning model. These are the specific goals of my advocacy plan:
c. Develop strategies and take action—decide what action to take.
Identify the approach you will use to solve the problem and take action. Develop strategies that are consistent with the four Goals of Disability Policy. These are my strategies:
d. Document your progress—Evaluate your results
Identify how you will know if you have achieved your goals. What will you observe if you are successful?
Appendix A: Information on the Americans with Disabilities Act
The ADA: A Major Piece of Federal Legislation that Reflects the Disability Policy Framework
The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), is an example of a major piece of legislation that reflects the disability policy framework. The ADA is a federal civil rights law designed to prevent discrimination and enable individuals with disabilities to participate fully in all aspects of society. The ADA was passed by Congress and signed by the President in July 1990. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/publicat.htm#Anchor-14210
The ADA recognizes the history of treatment of people with disabilities
The first part, the Findings section, states the reasons that Congress passed the law.
This section describes problems that the law is intended to address. For example: “Historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem.”
It also states: “Individuals with disabilities have been…subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society.”
The ADA states the four goals of disability policy
The goals of the law are stated as follows:
“The Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with
disabilities are to assure:
- Equality of opportunity
- Full participation
- Independent living, and
- Economic self-sufficiency for such individuals.”
The ADA reflects the new paradigm that disability is a natural part of human experience, and the solution is to fix the environment, not the person.
The law has five major sections that address:
- Employment
- State and local government services including public schools and public transportation
- Public accommodations and services operated by private entities
- Telecommunications
- Miscellaneous provisions
Throughout the law, the focus is on how to “fix the environment” to eliminate discrimination and level the playing field to allow people with disabilities to participate in and contribute to society. The ADA relies on the concept of “reasonable accommodation” under the employment provisions (Title I), which is a legal term for fixing the environment.
To be protected by the ADA, a person must be a qualified person with a disability. For example, under the employment section, “a qualified employee or applicant with a disability is an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job” in question.
Reasonable accommodation may include, but is not limited to:
- Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.
- Job restructuring, modifying work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position.
- Acquiring or modifying equipment or devices, adjusting modifying examinations, training materials, or policies, and providing qualified readers or interpreters.
To read the full text of the ADA, visit the following website: http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/index.htm
Appendix B: Methods of Administration
On the tape in Course One Bobby Silverstein described the four goals of disability policy. He wants you to understand the goals, but says that the goals are “only half” of what is important. He uses the phrase “methods of administration” to refer to components of laws and procedures that affect how a policy is carried out or implemented. Here is Bobby’s list of components for assessing methods of administration.
Methods of Administration - Bobby Silverstein’s Checklist for Administration:
- State and local plans
- Monitoring and enforcement by government agencies
- Personnel development
- Procedural safeguards for individuals, their families, and representatives
- Accountability for results (outcome measures)
- Representation at individual and systems levels
- Single line of responsibility, coordination, and linkages among agencies
- Service coordination (case management)
- Financing service delivery
- Privacy, confidentiality, access to records, and informed consent
- Responsiveness to cultural diversity
- Financial management and reporting
- Support for improving program quality (system change initiatives, research)
Examples of Checklist questions
Bobby implies that what really matters is not only what is written down, but how people act on those written words. Do these laws improve the lives of people with disabilities? That is the important question. Below are three examples of methods of administration and how they may affect an individual’s services. You will see examples of Checklist questions to determine if these components are present in a policy or program.
Monitoring and Enforcement by Government Agencies
Laws don’t mean much without anyone to enforce them. If there
are no highway patrol officers to enforce highway speed limits,
do you think most people would obey them? Disability laws must be
enforced just like any other laws. To be effective, laws must have
people in outside agencies watching for compliance and taking legal
action if they are not followed.
v Checklist question: What agencies are charged with monitoring
and enforcing the policy?
Procedural Safeguards for Individuals, Their Families and Representatives
This means you can appeal decisions that you don’t like. You don’t have to settle for what a service worker says you can or cannot get. Appeal mechanisms are “procedural safeguards” and allow you to ask for other persons to review the decisions that were made about you or your services.
- Checklist question: Does the program have a system for appealing decisions that the consumer or family member or representative does not like?
Financing Service Delivery
Follow the money! Traditional financing approaches often favor existing programs or institutions. The financing of services has a big impact on whether individuals have flexibility and choices that meet their needs. How are the services paid for? Does the program allow individuals with disabilities to decide what services are purchased for them?
- Checklist question: Does the system of financing maintain existing
programs or institutions? Does it allow for flexible service delivery?
The mission of the IL NET is to provide training and technical assistance on a variety of issues central to independent living today--understanding the Rehab Act, what the statewide independent living council is and how it can operate most effectively, management issues for centers for independent living, systems advocacy, computer networking, and others. Training activities are conducted conference-style, via long-distance communication, webcasts, through widely disseminated print and audio materials, and through the promotion of a strong national network of centers and individuals in the independent living field.
Substantial support for development of this publication was provided by the Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education. The content is the responsibility of ILRU and no official endorsement of the Department of Education should be inferred.
ILRU is a program of TIRR (The Institute for
Rehabilitation and Research), a nationally recognized medical rehabilitation
facility for persons with disabilities.
This site is hosted as a courtesy of Baylor College of Medicine
Privacy
Notices
[About
the IL NET] [IL
Coach] [Regional
Coordinators] [ILRU
Directory of CILs/SILCs] [IL
Information You Asked For ] [SILC
Information] [Webcast]
[Publications]
[IL
Video Lending Library] [ADA]
[Contacting
IL NET] [Join
our mail lists]
| Home | Projects | Publications | Training | What's New |
©2005 ILRU Program, All rights
reserved
Contact Us: IL
NET or ILRU
713.520.0232 (Voice) 713.520.5136 (TTY) 713.520.5785
(Fax)
Last Modified: 10-10-05