Skip to main content
With An Eye to the Future

Zoom Text:

Olmstead Plan Chronology

Department of Administration Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities
July 1, 2019

2013

January 28, 2013

Governor Mark Dayton issued Executive Order 13-01 establishing a Subcabinet to develop and implement a comprehensive plan supporting freedom of choice and opportunity for people with disabilities. The Olmstead Subcabinet was chaired by Lieutenant Governor Yvonne Prettner Solon.

January 29, 2013

The Olmstead Subcabinet agencies began work on a comprehensive Olmstead Plan, including establishing working groups, writing teams, and holding facilitated sessions. It was agreed that consultants should provide technical assistance to agency teams as they wrote and refined the Plan. Consultants provided services and regularly attended Olmstead Subcabinet meetings through October 2013.

June 11, 2013

The Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed the first draft of the Olmstead Plan, including a discussion of goal statements and releasing the draft plan to the public for comment. For details on these discussions, refer to page 2 of the June 11, 2013 meeting minutes.

June 13, 2013

The first Olmstead Plan was submitted to the Court for review. This plan included the recommendation to form the Olmstead Implementation Office (OIO) for day-to-day oversight of the plan. Goals focused on supports and services, housing, transportation, employment, community engagement, lifelong learning and education, and healthcare and healthy living.

Next steps outlined in this plan included:

  1. The Olmstead Subcabinet holding listening sessions across the state and agencies seeking feedback from stakeholders.
  2. Experts on Olmstead planning assisting Olmstead Subcabinet agencies.
  3. Cross-agency and agency teams continuing to develop and revise plans.
  4. Cross-agency teams of data experts meeting to develop measurements that could be used to show how well Minnesota was meeting its integration goals.
  5. The Olmstead Subcabinet publishing revised drafts of the Olmstead Plan to gather additional feedback.
  6. The final version of the Plan being released on November 1, 2013.
  7. Implementing and monitoring the Plan.

June 25–August 19, 2013

A public comment period was held on the first (June) Olmstead Plan draft. Comments were solicited from the Minnesota Olmstead Plan website and email address, yielding 112 comments.

July 9, 2013

A public Olmstead Subcabinet listening session was held in St. Paul, yielding 22 comments. August 2, 2013

A public Olmstead Subcabinet listening session was held in Moorhead, yielding 13 comments. August 13, 2013

A public Olmstead Subcabinet listening session was held in Duluth, yielding 23 comments. August 19, 2013

A public Olmstead Subcabinet listening session was held in Rochester, yielding 22 comments. August 28, 2013

A Court order was issued for what the Olmstead Plan should include in the November draft: Based upon the presentations and submissions of the parties since the Court's order of April 25, 2013, including the submissions of the court monitor, and given the continued concerns of this Court, relating to the status of the case and ongoing concerns with noncompliance with the settlement agreement by the defendants; the Court having again reviewed the procedural history of the case; and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:

  1. The Court, having been advised by the court monitor that the parties have agreed that the Court's retention of jurisdiction over the above-entitled matter may be extended for an additional year to December 4, 2014, beyond the current December 4, 2013 date, pursuant to Section XVIII.B. of the settlement agreement, the Court hereby extends its jurisdiction over this matter to December 4, 2014. However, the Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an additional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of compliance by the defendants with the specific provisions of the settlement agreement, absent stipulation of the parties.
  2. On or before October 15, 2013, the Minnesota Department of Human Services ("the DHS") shall submit a proposed implementation plan for the Court's review and approval, having first submitted by October 4, 2013 a draft of the proposed plan to the court monitor and the plaintiffs. The implementation plan shall encompass the settlement agreement requirements (aside from Rule 40 and the Olmstead Plan), shall be keyed to the evaluation criteria as set or amended by the court monitor, and shall include: tasks, specific deadlines for each task, persons responsible, anticipated obstacles or challenges, actions to be taken to overcome such obstacles or challenges, and resources required. The implementation plan shall also include a separate chronological timetable of tasks and deadlines to facilitate tracking and reporting. The implementation plan format shall be subject to approval by the court monitor and submitted to him forthwith. Monthly updates to the implementation plan shall include activities.

  3. With regard to the replacement of the Cambridge facility with community-based services, the implementation plan required above shall separately include:

    • A timetable for all tasks and activities;

    • Identification of resources to be reallocated to the community services, including funding and staffing for such services;

    • The nature, quantity and location of the community-based services (residential and non-residential), sufficient to serve current Cambridge clients and those who would otherwise be served if the Cambridge facility had been maintained; and

    • A description of the mechanisms through which the DHS will carefully track and monitor the replacement process.

  4. The monthly updates to this section of the implementation plan shall provide the above information, as then current, together with information, including settlement agreement-required transition plans, for each person who leaves the Cambridge facility on or after the date of this order. The monthly updates shall also include activities undertaken pursuant to the plan, documentation of such activities, and any requests for modification of the plan's deadlines or other elements.

  5. With regard to implementation of the Rule 40 modernization, on or before October 30, 2013, the DHS shall submit a proposed Rule 40 implementation plan for the Court's review and approval, having first submitted by October 15, 2013 a draft of the proposed plan to the court monitor and the plaintiffs. The Rule 40 implementation plan shall comply with the DHS' own commitment, that is, that it will "[d]evelop an implementation plan that adopts the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, including a phased implementation plan that provides for the necessary training and technical assistance to support best practices, and a plan for the oversight, and monitoring of provider practices and any emergency use of restraint or seclusion." It shall include: tasks, specific deadlines for each task, persons responsible, anticipated obstacles or challenges, actions to be taken to overcome such obstacles or challenges, and resources required. The Rule 40 implementation plan shall also include a separate chronological timetable of tasks and deadlines to facilitate tracking and reporting. The Rule 40 implementation plan format shall be subject to approval by the court monitor. Monthly updates to the implementation plan shall include activities undertaken pursuant to the plan, documentation of such activities, and any requests for modification of the plan's deadlines or other elements.
  6. With regard to implementation of the Olmstead Plan, which is due from the State and the DHS by November 1, 2013 for the Court's review and approval, the state and the DHS shall submit a proposed implementation plan within the Olmstead Plan. The Olmstead Plan shall also include a separate chronological timetable of tasks and deadlines to facilitate tracking and reporting and for regular updates to the Court setting forth the status and progress in implementation. Updates to the Olmstead Implementation Plan shall include activities undertaken pursuant to the plan, documentation of such activities, and any requests for modification of the plan's deadlines or other elements.
  7. Any requests for modification of due dates under the above provisions of this order and memorandum, or for modification of the Plans' deadlines or other elements, shall be in writing, for good cause shown, and shall, in the first instance, be addressed and resolved by the court monitor, subject to review by the Court on written application by any party.
  8. In light of the pending replacement of the Cambridge facility, and the submission by defendants of implementation plans under this order and memorandum, the court monitor need not submit a comprehensive quarterly report this Fall, 2013, but may submit compliance or other reports which may advise the Court on matters of concern. After submission of the DHS's implementation plan under Paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the court monitor is requested to provide the parties and the Court with a monitoring plan, which may address resumption of quarterly and other reports.
  9. The Court specifically and respectfully directs the court monitor and Deputy Commissioner Anne Barry to discuss and seek an agreement on the amount of an additional deposit to the Court's Registry to not only accommodate the additional responsibilities of the court monitor, as described herein, but to carry out the provisions of the settlement agreement in the best interests of all parties concerned, absent stipulation of the parties and approval of the Court.

September 10, 2013

During the Olmstead Subcabinet meeting, new materials for the September draft of the Olmstead Plan were reviewed, including:

  • Goals for healthcare, healthy living, lifelong learning, and education were reviewed and adopted.
    • Healthcare and healthy living: People with disabilities, regardless of their age, type of disability, or place of residence, will have access to a coordinated system of health services that meets individual needs, supports good health, prevents secondary conditions, and ensures the opportunity for a satisfying and meaningful life.
    • Lifelong learning and education: People with disabilities will experience an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning opportunities that enable the full development of individual talents, interests, creativity, and mental and physical abilities.
    • Four overarching strategic actions: See the September 2013 draft Plan for additional details.
  • Quality assurance, oversight and monitoring.

September 11 – October 8, 2013

A public comment period was held on the second (September) Olmstead Plan draft. Comments were solicited from the Minnesota Olmstead Plan website and email address, yielding 32 comments.

October 8, 2013

The third Olmstead Plan was drafted. In this version of the Plan, writing teams developed specific actions and timelines related to different topic areas, such as employment, housing, and transportation. In developing this Plan, the Olmstead Subcabinet agencies listened to input from individuals with disabilities, family members and guardians, advocacy organizations, service providers, and integration experts. Goals continued to focus on supports and services, housing, transportation, employment, community engagement, lifelong learning and education, and healthcare and healthy living and overarching strategic actions remained unchanged from the September draft. An implementation plan was proposed to allow people to evaluate progress on the Plan.

October 10–31, 2013

A public comment period was held on the third (October) Olmstead Plan draft. Comments were solicited from the Minnesota Olmstead Plan website and email address, yielding 17 comments.

November 1, 2013

The fourth Olmstead Plan was drafted. Similar to previous versions of the Plan, writing teams from Olmstead Subcabinet agencies developed specific actions and timelines related to topic areas such as employment, housing, and transportation. The teams used an iterative writing process, listening to input from individuals with disabilities, family members and guardians, advocacy organizations, service providers, and national experts as they revised the draft Plan. Goals continued to focus on supports and services, housing, transportation, employment, community engagement, lifelong learning and education, and healthcare and healthy living and overarching strategic actions remained unchanged from the October draft. Plan actions and timelines were outlined for each of these topic areas, though measurable goals were not yet identified.

November 1, 2013–April 23, 2014

A public comment period was held on the fourth (November) Olmstead Plan draft. Comments were solicited from the Minnesota Olmstead Plan website and email address, yielding 63 comments.

December 11, 2013

David Sherwood-Gabrielson was named the Interim Executive Director of the OIO; David Thompson was named the Deputy Executive Director.

December 27, 2013

OIO staff were introduced to the court monitor. December 31, 2013

The court monitor submitted a report to the Court on the Olmstead Plan: The court monitor recommends provisional approval of the Minnesota 2013 Olmstead Plan subject to de novo review after the state revises the Plan based on this report by the court monitor, and on any submissions by the plaintiff class and the litigation's consultants. Major concerns of the court monitor include the assurance of sufficient resources in the Olmstead Implementation Office to carry the Plan forward. There are some issues which arise at the intersection of the state's implementation of the Plan and the Court's enforcement role:

  1. The Plan does not provide any suggestions for the state's demonstration of sufficient substantial compliance to enable the Court to relinquish active jurisdiction.
  2. The Plan should more carefully address the consequences under the Court's orders of a failure of the legislature to provide any needed statutory change, sufficient support and funding for implementation of the Plan.
  3. Modification of the Plan is permitted under the process instituted by the Court. Unilateral modification of a court-ordered plan is not permissible. Therefore, the Plan's anticipation that financial challenges would permit unilateral modification is misplaced. The Plan does not state that the Plan and amendments to it are subject to the approval of the Court.

In addition, a number of general structural matters are of concern which are present throughout the proposed Plan:

  1. The settlement agreement and the order of April 25, 2013 require that the Olmstead Plan "uses measurable goals" to achieve its purposes. In very many of its action steps, the Plan falls short of stating measurable goals.
  2. The Plan often references future development of baselines upon which future action steps will build. The Plan does not state that these baselines and future action steps will be incorporated into the plan subject to review and approval by the Court.
  3. The Plan often references future development of recommendations, policies and processes. The Plan does not state that these policies and processes will be incorporated into the plan subject to review and approval by the Court.
  4. The Plan's baseline development requirements are weakened by further unmeasurable plans which do not require actions to be taken or results achieved.
  5. Often, "goals" are mentioned without specification of whether this term refers to a requirement which is to be considered measurable for accountability of the Plan.
  6. Commitments in the Plan are often phrased weakly, in a manner which would make it difficult for the state or Court to evaluate compliance.

The Plan does not address technology and assistive technology. Additionally, the Plan references "prevention" of abuse and neglect but does not cover receipt of allegations, investigations, and the competence and training of investigators. Should the Court approve this report, it is suggested that:

  1. Within twenty days of the date of the approval order, the plaintiff class will file any comments or objections to the Plan as currently submitted.
  2. Within twenty days of the date of the approval order, the executive director of the Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities and the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities will file any comments or objections to the Plan as currently submitted.
  3. The state will file its first update on the Plan within 30 days of the approval order. See order of August 28, 2013 ("updates to the Olmstead Implementation Plan shall include activities undertaken pursuant to the Plan, documentation of such activities, and any requests for modification of the Plan's deadlines or other elements."). Given the anticipated revised Plan, the first update may, but need not, include requests for modification.
  4. The state will file a revised Plan within 120 days of the date of the approval order, after first providing a draft to the court monitor within 90 days of the date of the approval order.
2013