The State of Minnesota has become well known for its reliance on group homes, and lack of progression when it comes to the rights of individuals with disabilities. Due to a large number of individuals living in group homes, Minnesota has also become known for segregating individuals into group homes. At first glance, this might seem to be a progressive movement, compared to the traditional institutionalization that used to take place. These individuals with disabilities are given the opportunity to live in a home and be in a community setting. But, these homes that are in a community setting are just amounting to be smaller institutions that are now in a different location.
These individuals may have more access to the community, but Minnesota is not doing enough to integrate these individuals into the community. “‘The system Minnesota has relied on has not evolved since the early 1980s. The state has promised people with disabilities the chance to be integrated into their communities, but for many it only offers housing in group homes. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires more than that[.]’”
Stories told from residents in the home about treatment and conditions of the homes confirm that Minnesota is not meeting its required standards. Many individuals who live in the homes are not there by choice, and it is not easy for them to leave. According to the State of Minnesota, these individuals have no other options, thus, they are forced to stay against their will.
The implementation of group homes began in the 1950’s with the deinstitutionalization movement. The movement began with public developed community-based housing for the mentally disabled. The purpose of the movement was to integrate individuals with disabilities into the community. Eventually licensed privatized group homes were created to get individuals out of psychiatric institutions, and integrated into the community. However, the group homes that were created have begun to resemble the institutions they were trying to dispense with in the first place.
In 1999, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case Olmstead v. L.C., and the Court held that unjustified institutionalization of individuals is discrimination, and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Olmstead addressed the question of whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires individuals to be placed in community settings rather than in institutions. The United States Supreme Court in Olmstead answered this question, and decided the answer was yes. States are required to place individuals with disabilities in community settings rather than place them in an institutionalized setting.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) provides special protections against segregation and discrimination. The Olmstead decision combined with the protections of the ADA mandate how the states treat individuals with disabilities. Thus, states must give an alternative to institutionalization once an individual is found to be ready to live in the community.
Finally, the basic human rights of individuals in group homes are being violated. One of the goals of this paper is to demonstrate through the analysis of group homes – their history, function, and presence in Minnesota – that, “[h]owever different persons with disabilities may be, they are nevertheless born free and equal in dignity and rights and, hence, are entitled to equality of respect and treatment, even if that equality does not entail identical treatment under all circumstances.”
This article analyzes the laws, constitutional rights, and basic human rights of individuals with disabilities. Minnesota has frustrated the community integration purpose behind the deinstitutionalization movement, in violation of the rights of people with developmental disabilities. This is in violation of Olmstead and the ADA, discussed briefly above. This article explores the Olmstead decision and the ADA, and how the State of Minnesota is violating the protections they provide.
This paper first reviews the definition of disability. Reviewing the definition assists in examining the problem in Minnesota regarding the institutionalization of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In addition, this article touches on the definition of institution, and how Minnesota is institutionalizing what should be considered to be community settings.