Longitudinal Study of the Court-Ordered Deinstitutionalization of Pennhurst. Preliminary Economic Analysis Report: Resource Allocation Section

摘要

This report discusses the progress made in analyzing the resource appropriations, allocations, and expenditures made by Federal, State, and local governments complying with the Halderman vs. Pennhurst State School and Hospital decision requirements. The decision upheld the right of mentally retarded persons placed in State facilities to adequate care free from discriminatory separation from nonretarded people and determined that the Pennhurst institution was incapable of providing such care. This part of a 5 - year longitudinal study of the multiple ramifications of the decision is based primarily on information collected in phone and personal interviews with State and county officials listed in the text. It presents data concerning all Federal, State, and local resource categories (funding streams) that could provide resources to the deinstitutionalization effort. Each resource category is described in terms of the (1) types and amounts of resources available; (2) policies, procedures, and factors that govern disbursement of these resources; (3) apparent applicability of the resource category to the court - ordered deinstitutionalization; and (4) key actors ultimately responsible for allocating resources in the funding stream. The 12 resource categories identified as potentially relevant included State and county mental health and mental retardation program funds, State capital funds, title XX program funds, medical assistance program funds, income maintenance, food stamps, Vocational Rehabilitation program, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act program, housing and community development programs, educational services for the handicapped, and the Developmental Disabilities Act grants and other Federal grant mechanisms. A preliminary analysis of the factors in the appropriation, allocation, and utilization of resources that support the Pennhurst decree focuses on current and prospective service providers located in the Southeastern Region and officials of the five counties in that region, as well as on State officials. Findings indicate that State and county officials have difficulty finding qualified providers, counties have little freedom to sponsor services for the mentally retarded of their own choosing, and State officials have failed to take advantage of Federal housing programs for the retarded. An interview guide and State mental health / mental retardation program allocations are appended. Footnotes and some tabular data are supplied.