*Note: These contents are assembled from several web sites, some of whom are now defunct. Although I have the documents in my records, I've provided the current links to available items. Copies of material from defunct sites, as well as my works, are provided below. Copyright belongs to the authors and/or publishers of the material according to the information contained in the documents. An internet search of the titles or of content from the material should be made for referencing purposes. The owner of this web site only claims authorship where indicated within the material.
ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF CLOSING THE ARIZONA TRAINING PROGRAM AT COOLIDGE -2002 — Division of Developmental Disabilities, Arizona Department of Economic Security BY Charles Moseley, Ed.D. & Matt McCue, Consultant
Deinstitutionalisation and Community Living: Outcomes and costs - a report of a European Study -2007 — This project aimed to bring together the available information on the number of disabled people living in residential institutions in 28 European countries, and to identify successful strategies for replacing institutions with community-based services, paying particular attention to economic issues in the transition. It is the most wide-ranging study of its kind ever undertaken.
Deinstitutionalisation and community living: Progress, problems and priorities -2006
deinstitutionalisation and housing futures: final report -2001 — prepared by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute UNSW-UWS Research Centre
DEINSTITUTIONALISATION IN AUSTRALIA PART I: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE -2004
Deinstitutionalisation in Australia Part II: Results from a long-term study -2004
Deinstitutionalization and People with Intellectual Disabilities: In and Out of Institutions -2006 — Book ReviewFree articles from the British Journal of Developmental Disabilities available at http://www.bjdd.org/
Deinstitutionalization for Older Adults With Severe Mental Retardation: Results From Australia -2004
Deinstitutionalization in California: Mortality of Persons withDevelopmental Disabilities after Transfer intoCommunity Care, 1997-1999 (2005) — [results] appear to reflect an increased mortality rate associated withthe less intensive medical care and supervision available in the community
Deinstitutionalization in intellectual disabilities -2007 — This review explores recent literature on deinstitutionalization and intellectual disabilities and focuses on papers published in academic journals mainly during 2006.
Deinstitutionalization of People With Developmental Disabilities: A Review of the Literature 2009 — Although community services are of variable quality, this literature review suggests that the Ontario plan to close institutional facilities in favour of community-based residential services will be of general benefit to former institutional residents.
Excerpts from The Economics of Deinstitutionalization -2004 — More at The Center on Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies http://thechp.syr.edu/
Olmstead at Five: Assessing the Impact -2004 — This paper examines the impact of Olmstead v. L.C. five years after the United States Supreme Court’s 1999 landmark decision. Olmstead established two legal principles fundamental to health policy for persons with disabilities. The first is that the medically unjustifiable institutionalization of persons with disabilities who desire to live in the community violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which applies to publicly funded services. The second is that states have a legal obligation to affirmatively remedy such discriminatory practices through reasonable modifications to public programs and services.
People with intellectual disability or cognitive impairment residing long-term in health care facilities: Addressing the barriers to deinstitutionalisation 2013 Australia — The Public Advocate strongly recommends that the Queensland Government make a whole‐of‐government commitment to improving care and support for people with intellectual disability or cognitive impairment residing long‐term in health care facilities, and ensures that this commitment is funded, prioritised, participatory, individualised and coordinated to enable appropriate opportunities for social inclusion and community participation for these vulnerable Queenslanders. These core principles are summarised below and further detailed in Part 7 of this Report.
Proposed National Plan on Deinstitutionalization Discussion Paper — More resources at http://www.institutionwatch.ca/
research articles and reports related to deinstitutionalization and community living.
Residential Care Facilities Selected CANSIM tables from Statistics Canada — Example: Expenditures per resident-day in residential care facilities, by principal characteristic of the predominant group of residents and size of facility, Canada, provinces and territories
Serbia’s Segregation and Abuse of Children and Adults with Disabilities -2007 — A report by Mental Disability Rights International http://www.disabilityrightsintl.org/
Status of Institutional Closure Efforts in 2005 — A summary of research on policy issues affecting persons with developmental disabilities. Published by the Research and Training Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration (UCEDD), College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. More at http://ici.umn.edu/
Still Waiting ... the Unfulfilled Promise of Olmstead -2009
Sustaining the Entitlement for the Developmental Services System -2010 — The Board of Directors of Lanterman Regional Center has developed this paper out of a sense of urgency about the community-based system serving people with developmental disabilities. http://www.lanterman.org/
“Money Follows the Person” and Long Term Care System Rebalancing Study August 8, 2008 — The July 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. Supreme Court decision serves as a catalyst for improving our country’s LTC system. The decision requires states to administer services, supports, programs and activities “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” It guarantees that individuals with disabilities have equal access to public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications under an interpretation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).