article: On February 10, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section) released a letter of findings detailing the results of its investigation into the institutionalization of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Virginia. The investigation focused specifically on the Central Virginia Training Center (CVTC), an intermediate care facility for persons with developmental disabilities (ICF/DD), but also considered the statewide institutionalization of this population (DOJ's involvement began as an investigation of CVTC pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act but later expanded to include the statewide system's compliance with the ADA). The DOJ concluded that Virginia was systematically violating the Americans with Disabilities Act under the 1999 Supreme Court precedent, <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=11643">Olmstead v. LC</a>, in forcing the unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities. The DOJ found a lack of sufficient community-based services available to this population, an unreasonably long waiting list for Medicaid waiver services, inadequate discharge planning at CVTC, and other deficiencies. According to the DOJ, these policies lead to a situation in which individuals with developmental disabilities were housed unnecessarily in institutions and were unable to either remain in the community or transition from an institution to a community placement. Nearly one year later, the DOJ and Virginia entered into a settlement agreement to remedy the deficiencies outlined in the findings letter. The DOJ filed a complaint and settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on January 26, 2012. The court (Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.) gave preliminary approval to the agreement and allowed interested parties to submit letters and amici curiae briefs to the court in advance of the final approval of the settlement. On March 2, 2012, several individuals then living in institutions filed a motion to intervene in the litigation, claiming that they wished to remain in institutions and that the proposed settlement would force the closing of their institutions. The court found that they had adequately demonstrated that they stood to be affected by the outcome of the litigation and granted their intervention in the case on May 9, 2012. 282 F.R.D. 403. The intervenors then filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the United States' authority to bring the claim to enforce the ADA. On June 5, 2012, the court denied the intervenors' motion to dismiss, finding that DOJ's ADA enforcement authority included the ability to investigate and file suit in federal court as had occurred here, and that the government had followed all necessary procedures. On August 23, 2012, the court finalized its approval of the settlement between the United States and Virginia. Under the settlement, Virginia agreed to increase its community-based services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The goal of the agreement was to prevent individuals living in their communities from being forced into institutions, and to allow those living in institutions to transition to their communities. Virginia agreed to create additional slots on its Home and Community Based Services Medicaid waiver programs and to allow those on the waitlist to begin receiving services. The state also agreed to provide crisis services and employment training. Reports from the independent reviewer over the next three years noted significant progress in certain areas, including the discharge of adults from institutions and development of adult crisis services. However, in other areas, progress lagged. On September 23, 2015, the DOJ submitted a motion for a court-ordered schedule of implementation. Shortly afterward, the Intervenors filed a statement of interest asking that the court suspend the closure of remaining institutions until the State could show that adequate financial and community support structures were in place. Before the court made a determination on the DOJ's schedule motion, the parties negotiated and agreed on specific implementation schedules. The DOJ subsequently withdrew its motion in January 2016. On August 4, 2017, the Intervenors filed a motion for injunctive relief. The Intervenors alleged that several former residents who had never voluntarily consented to a move from the State Training Centers were coerced by the State into transitioning into the community. They asked that the court permanently enjoin the State from forcibly removing residents from Training Centers and that it issue a declaratory judgment stating that the State had acted in violation of state laws. A hearing on the motion took place on November 6, 2017. On February 2, 2018, the court (Judge Gibney) denied the Intervenors' motion. The court found that though the Intervenors had standing to pursue their motion for injunctive relief, the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the motion because the Intervenors' claims did not form part of the same case or controversy as the DOJ's ADA claims and, further, because Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity prevents federal courts from enjoining states based on state law claims. Even if it had jurisdiction, the court found that the Intervenors did not meet the standard for an award of injunctive relief. The court began the process of terminating the case in 2019. After a hearing on April 23, 2019, however, Judge Gibney found that the defendants had not complied with the terms of the consent decree, and that monitoring should continue. As of April 14, 2020, this case is ongoing and the independent reviewer continues to submit reports on compliance with the settlement agreement.
summary: The United States Department of Justice conducted an investigation pursuant to CRIPA and the ADA into the institutionalization of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Virginia. After finding systemic ADA violations, DOJ and Virginia entered into a settlement agreement to increase community-based services and ultimately prevent unnecessary institutionalization. Monitoring of the settlement continues.