The Case for NYC Supportive Housing : Will Governor Patterson Do What’s Right?
By HHR | November 20th, 2009 | Category: Featured, General, HHR Contributors, Urban Issues |
BY: Cleo Brown
My neighbor is a recovered drug addict. At the height of his addiction he smoked the equivalent of twenty dime bags of crack-cocaine per day. As the result of his addiction, he was homeless for at least ten of the twenty-three years he spent as an addict.
One of the first orders of business for him, once he became sober, was to find housing. My friend entered The Interline Drug Program, which was a halfway house and a Drug Treatment Program, all rolled into one package. My friend lived on The Interline Premises for one-and-a-half years. He hated Interline then as he hates Interline now although he has not been affiliated with the Drug Program for almost five years. The facility was dirty; the other men whom he shared a room with, and had no control over, were not kind; and the employees were cold, callous, and uncaring individuals whose sole motivation was to earn a pay-check.
As a matter-of-fact, as Ed was to find out, the entire Interline Drug Program was a money-making venture in which the husband and the wife who owned the program were eventually convicted of Welfare Fraud. Unfortunately, The Interline Drug Program reminds me of the New York State Adult Group Homes which the Federal Courts invalidated in September of 2009.
I have never visited an Adult Group Home. I have visited both Single Adult and Family Shelters in the United States’ Network of shelters from The East Coast to The West Coast to The Gulf Coast . I have visited Convalescent Hospitals, Board and Care Facilities, and programs such as Feggs, Alanon, and Fountain House on both the East and on The West Coast.
This is all to say how isolated the inhabitants of Adult Group Homes are. For, in all of my travels I can never remember having seen an Adult Group Home; nor can I remember ever having met an inhabitant of an Adult Group Home. The isolation of mentally ill people in Group Homes, from the society and from the communities in which they live, is the bases upon which Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis, on September 8th, 2009 ruled that New York State, in its use of large Adult Group Homes, had violated The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as well as section 504 of . Judge Garaufis ordered the state of New York, consequently, to develop a plan by November 6th, 2009 in which as many as 4,300 Adult Group Home Residents with a diagnosis of severe mental illness would be assimilated into the community in supportive housing.
Judge Garaufis did not reach his decision without counsel from President Barrack Obama who cited the ADA in Olmstead v. L.C. This case was decided in 1999. In Olmstead v. L.C. it was decided that “mental illness is a form of disability and therefore covered under the ADA, and that unjustified institutional isolation of a person with a disability is a form of discrimination because it ‘perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life.’” According to Community Access, which is a non-profit/ self-help organization, in his final decision the Judge stated, “In some ways, Adult Homes are even more restrictive or ‘Institutionalized’ than psychiatric hospitals.” Up in arms, however, over the decision are the families of Group Home Residents who worry about the care which their loved ones will now receive. The families worry that their loved ones will not be cared for by anyone, and that their loved ones will go off of their medication without the intervention which the Group Home provides.
More understandable, however, are the Group Home Owners who are in danger of losing their businesses and who see their profits going down the drain. Community Access also states that according to New York Times reporter named Clifford Levy, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his expose of New York State Adult Homes in 2002 and 2003: “adult homes were exposed to be dangerous and unsuitable housing for consumers, citing numerous abuses including lack of recreational or vocational services, inadequate case management, incorrect dispensing of medication, lack of routine medical care, and subjecting residents to unnecessary medical procedures for the purpose of billing Medicaid.”
As the result of Levy’s article, consequently, Disability Advocates Inc. v. Paterson was filed on July 1st, 2003 in New York, New York against then Governor George Pataki, The New York State Department of Mental Health, and The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene . The case was finally heard in May and June of 2009 in a month long trial. DAI sought the creation of more supportive housing in which their clients could be housed.
Unfortunately, despite the decision by the lower Federal Court Judge, it does appear that now Governor David Paterson might invalidate the decision of the lower court by vetoing the judges’ decision. Should this happen, will Congress override Governor Paterson’s Veto? If the Veto is not overridden, will DAI seek a decision from the appellate court? Will the Supreme Court eventually need to intervene? Will President Obama then sign this necessary measure into Law. Only time will tell.
About The Author: Cleo E. Brown has a Master’s Degree in Contemporary African-American History from The University of California at Davis in Davis, California. She also has a B.A. Minor Degree in Political-Science and has completed course work towards a Ph.D. in Education from The University of San Francisco in San Francisco, California. She is a Free Lance Writer and a Senior Editor at HHR.
New York State MUST Appeal
In regard to Judge Nicholas Garaufis’s decision (Sept. 8, 2009) in a case brought by Cliff Zucker of Disability Advocates against the State of New York, there are many disturbing aspects. This lawsuit was about whether or not NYS violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by referring former psychiatric patients for housing in adult homes. The plaintiffs argue that these adult homes are in affect segregating their residents from a normal life within the community by virtue of the homes being too large, too regulated, and not providing the proper services. The defendant in this case is the State of New York and was defended by the NY Attorney General’s office. The judge wrote a 210 page decision outlining the reasons (all based on newspaper articles from 9 years ago, and misinformation presented by the plaintiff) why he ruled that the State is in violation of the ADA. The plaintiffs demanded, and the judge agreed, that these residents should be moved to Supported Housing units (which don’t exist) because it will not cost the State more than the cost of Adult Homes (???).
Let us for a moment look at the numbers. This ruling was focused on almost 30 facilities all in the NYC area housing approximately 4,300 ‘mental health’ residents according to the suit. The residents of these Adult Homes receive monthly SSI checks (level 3) to cover the rent and for their own spending money. The monthly rent amount that the facility gets is $1190 ($39 per day), which covers room and board, daily housekeeping services, recreational activities, case management services, medication management, three meals (and snacks), laundry, security, and coordination of all outside services such as medical appointments and transportation. It is important to note that these homes do not bill Medicaid and are not health or medical facilities and therefore do not have any other source of funding.
“Supported Housing” is basically an apartment with a kitchen and the necessary services are brought in from the outside at extra cost. These units cost approx. $100 per day per bed ($3,000 per month). Not even accounting for NYC’s current housing crunch, it would cost the State a conservative $200,000 per bed to construct these units. That means the State would be looking at approximately $860,000,000 just to create 4,300 new beds, and this number doesn’t even include the interest payments or operating costs! The existing adult home system at $39 per day from SSI (half of which comes from the feds) times the 4,300 residents in question is a State cost of only $31 million. So, any idiot (advocates and judges not included) can figure out that 31 million is cheaper than 1 billion plus.
The taxpayers and citizens of New York State should not only be demanding that the State appeal this ridiculous ruling, but we also deserve an answer to some other questions such as:
• What is the real agenda of the ‘advocates’ (Plaintiffs)? Do they have hidden interests in the creation of Supported Housing? Do they also represent housing groups looking for a windfall from the State?
• Are the Plaintiffs really representing all (or even a majority) of the residents of these homes? How many residents do the advocates speak for? Are the satisfied residents getting the same opportunity to be heard?
• Why weren’t the facilities named as defendants with the State? Were the plaintiffs concerned that they would put up a real defense and not lose? Why weren’t these facilities at least called to testify at the trial as to the mental and physical conditions of their residents?
• Why does it seem that the entire case was based on old information as to the condition of the homes, the condition of its residents, and old newspaper articles? Why are the real facts as to costs not represented? Why wasn’t a recent study showing that very few of these residents are actually able to live on their own given more credence?
• Why was this entire case only about the facilities in NYC? If the agenda was really to enforce a perceived violation of ADA laws, why not include all the facilities in the entire State?
• Was the Judge’s apparent conflict of interest (his wife is Elizabeth Seidman, a director/board member of a supported housing group) waived by the State? If so, WHY? Does that explain why this judge takes this case so ‘personally’?
Let’s not be fooled into thinking that the New York Times articles in 2001 describing bad conditions at a few facilities (which have since closed) are the norm in the Adult Home industry. The vast majority of facilities do an outstanding job (even with the limited resources) at caring for a population that would otherwise be homeless, in hospitals, or in jail. The fact is that residents of adult homes are not segregated, to the contrary, they live in the community, many go to work or outside day programs, and get the many services they need within the home. Not a single adult home resident was forced to live there or sign a contract. They chose to live in a place that they can call home and receive the many services they desperately need. Many comments have been posted online from ordinary citizens objecting to these residents living next door to them, with some even saying that they should be moved next door to the judge. Newspaper articles have been written claiming that the homes will be shut down because of this verdict. The sad fact is that many adult home residents are reading all this and wondering who these advocates are and who appointed them as representatives.
Stand up Governor Paterson and appeal this crazy verdict. New York State is facing a 10 billion dollar deficit and doesn’t need to be extorted into making a payoff to those with their own questionable agendas.