June 22nd marks the 25th anniversary of the Olmstead Act. I want to take a moment to reflect on this landmark case because of its importance to the independent living movement.
With the passing of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) in 1990 came new protections and opportunities for persons with disabilities. Despite being a robust work of legislation, it left gaps in protections and rights for people with disabilities. Olmstead is based upon ADA provisions but goes further to state that the segregation of people based upon disability in institutional facilities is unlawful and is discriminatory.
Olmstead requires that states provide home and community-based services (HCBS) for people with disabilities and that they have the right to live in the community. Prior to the independent living movement and the ADA, there was a rapid expansion of institutions and nursing homes where people with disabilities often had to reside to receive care. Institutions and nursing homes were often places that had high incidents of abuse and neglect and did not feel like homes to the people residing in them. Also important to note is that they segregated people with disabilities from their communities. They had no access to school or employment. They were disallowed relationships of their choosing, not provided choice in their daily activities, what they ate, what they wore and when they woke up or went to sleep. There were few to no alternatives to receive the care that was needed.
As is the way in many instances of social injustices, change occurred because people advocated for change. In 1999 the case, Olmstead v. Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, made its way to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in the case were individuals with disabilities who had a history of being institutionalized and then leaving institutional care and failing, causing them to be readmitted into institutions. The argument made by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, was that people with disabilities have the right to receive care in the community rather than an institution. Furthermore, that to truly bring about the change that the ADA promised there must be HCBS services and people must have access to those services. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff of course.
What does this mean for us at the IC? There is so much work to be done to truly create independence and equality for all. Still, through our work we carry forward the efforts of so many advocates in the past. What you do in your work at the IC is important in providing people with independence, but also in realizing the promise of Olmstead that so many fought for. You don’t have to do something so grand that you get a conference room named after you, but being here, no matter your position, you are protecting the rights of people to be independent and to be known, valued and included in the life of their communities.
Scott Bartlett
Advocacy Specialist