An Interesting Development
Recently, an Associated Press article appeared in the print version of the Register-Star and online in the Times Union reporting that "a federal appeals court on Friday reversed a judge's order making the state provide apartments and small homes to thousands of mentally ill people." Nine years ago, a lower court ruled that the system of housing people with mental illness in group homes was more restrictive than necessary and ordered the state to move people into supportive housing, where they live in their own apartments but continue to receive specialized treatment and services. Friday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was made on procedural grounds. It was decided that the Albany-based not-for-profit Disability Advocates Inc., which initiated the litigation in 2003, did not have legal standing to do so.
One wonders what impact, if any, this decision might have on the Mental Health Association's plan to build a new facility of clustered apartments and to demolish the historic house where they now operate a group home.
Last year, Jeffrey Rovitz, MHA's executive director, defended the organization's proposed action in a "My View" in the Register-Star primarily on the grounds that MHA was complying with the goals of the New York State Office of Mental Health: "The current philosophy of the OMH is that whenever feasible, these large community residences should be replaced with clustered one or two bedroom apartments that are more in keeping with the way most people live." The funding for the MHA project is coming from the OMH. It's not clear how much OMH's philosophy was determined by the 2003 court order, but in accordance with that philosophy, MHA's proposed new two-story building has four two-bedroom apartments, one one-bedroom apartment, and a studio apartment.
An article about the decision in the New York Times says that "the long-term implications for the mental health system [of Friday's appeals court decision] are unclear." It also reports that a spokesman for Governor Andrew Cuomo said the administration was "reviewing the decision."
When Clarence Sundrum headed up the Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled he consistently shed light on the horrible conditions in many group homes. (Sundrum, by the way, is a Director of the Van Amerigen Fdn.). But once Sundrum left the CQC that level of advocacy evaporated and last year the Times reported on the horrid conditions in some group homes. We go through cycles on this issue -- the nursing home scandals of the 70s, the Adult Home scandals, the mentally disabled group home scandals, the homeless shelter scandals. The State investigates, the Times quiets down, we have a respite and then it cranks up again. Why we can't get this right despite the huge institutions and money built around the issues of mental illness, homelessness, drug addiction, alcoholism and corrections is for another much longer discussion. The original ruling to move the mentally disabled out of groups homes into supportive housing was aimed at NYC only. The recent ruling struck down the lower court ruling on procedural grounds and not on OMH housing policy which over the years has shifted away from warehousing and towards community living. In fact, it should be noted that many NYS counties moved away from group homes years ago and do have supportive housing including scattered site housing for the mentally disabled (the further away from NYC the less supportive housing across all "disabled" populations because they cannot advocate as strongly as NYC and its immediate suburbs like Westchester and Rockland.) I would think that whatever supportive housing for the mentally disabled that is now in the pipeline will proceed if the money has already been allocated. Those in the planning stages may be put on ice until the state figures out next steps.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but the disabled must live in their community, on their block, with their neighbors. That is part of what all humane and healthy mental health living situations must consider. To throw the disabled out of an integral piece of Hudson history is a shame; to destroy that history because of them is even worse. To have these people live in housing that has nothing to do with the community context is completely unfair to them and further alienates these folks from their community. Tearing this building down is an insult to the clients that the OMH pretends to represent. Our disable citizens deserve better. Much better. They deserve to live in a fully rendered and historic part of Hudson.
ReplyDelete