Olmstead Plan Chronology

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

2015

The legislature authorized initial policy changes to the Group Residential Housing program, intended to increase the flexibility of housing benefits to allow more individuals to move from segregated to integrated settings.

January 9, 2015

The Court provisionally approved the Olmstead Plan with revisions required: On November 10, 2014, the state of Minnesota submitted its proposed revisions to the Olmstead Plan ("Revised Olmstead Plan") to the Court and the court monitor for review. For the reasons set forth below, the Court provisionally approves the revised Olmstead Plan. Pursuant to the Court's September 18, 2014 order, the state filed the revised Olmstead Plan that is now before the Court for review. The state also submitted an accompanying exhibit that outlines the measurable goals for certain Olmstead Plan action items and, pursuant to the court monitor's request, includes worksheets with additional explanatory information. Although the state has made progress in developing a comprehensive Olmstead Plan since its initial draft submission to the Court on October 31, 2013, the Court remains concerned that certain aspects of the revised Olmstead Plan do not meet the requirements set forth in Olmstead v. L.C. and in the numerous prior orders of this Court. In reviewing the revised Olmstead Plan, the Court finds a number of specific items to be deficient. The Court provided a section-by-section review of the seven topic areas included in their revised Olmstead Plan (employment, housing, transportation, support services, lifelong learning and education, healthcare and healthy living, community engagement). Based upon the presentations of all parties and the current procedural status of the case, and the Court having reviewed the record and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:

The Court provisionally approves the state of Minnesota's proposed revisions to the Olmstead Plan, subject to the Court's review of the state's modifications and any submissions by plaintiffs' counsel.
Plaintiffs' counsel may file any comments or objections to the Olmstead Plan as currently submitted by February 6, 2015.
The state shall file a revised Olmstead Plan by March 20, 2015.

January 28, 2015

Governor Mark Dayton issued Executive Order 15-03 which gave the Olmstead Subcabinet the responsibility of further defining the role and nature of the Olmstead Subcabinet, including appointment of an executive director of the OIO who would report to the chair of the Olmstead Subcabinet. Additionally a new Chair for the Olmstead Subcabinet, Mary Tingerthal, Commissioner of Minnesota Housing, was appointed.

February 2015

The Quality of Life survey pilot was completed. Key recommendations centered on improved data gathering methods, rather than findings from self-reported data.

February 9, 2015

The Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed and approved the report: Olmstead Barriers and Disincentives Identification Survey Results. For each of the Olmstead Plan's seven topic goals, the questionnaire asked people to list barriers or disincentives that prevented each goal from happening. For each barrier or disincentive, people were asked to list the federal or state policies, procedures, laws or funding that created the barrier or disincentive. The report was given to agencies and advocates to use as a tool as they reviewed proposals. For a complete list of participant responses by barrier or disincentive, see page 40 of the February 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

The Olmstead Subcabinet also reviewed and approved the 2014 Olmstead Plan annual report, which reviewed work that happened between November 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014.

During this timeframe, activities were focused in large part on administrative and operational processes. In summary:

Since the promise of Olmstead can only be achieved with cross-agency collaboration and dedication, staff roles were formalized and clarified for: the Olmstead Subcabinet, OIO, agency leads, and compliance function.
Plan activities were focused in these five primary areas: implementation, reporting, modification, community engagement, and quality improvement.
The Subcabinet and Olmstead staff engaged members of the disability community in order to learn from their perspective as well as build partnerships for Plan implementation.
Financial activities by, or on behalf of, the OIO took place throughout the reporting period.

For additional details, see page 146 of the February 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Additionally, the Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed and approved the OIO report in response to the strategic action: By August 31, 2014 the Subcabinet will issue a report on the staffing, funding and responsibilities of the OIO and on the oversight and monitoring structure described, including timelines for completion of any outstanding action items. The report covered activities that occurred through December 31, 2014. The report covered the execution of the first and second executive orders and the transition process. The report also included the overview of the status of outstanding action items, structure of the office, and the utilization of DHS compliance team. For additional details, see page 158 of the February 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

The Olmstead Subcabinet also reviewed and approved two reports in response to the strategic action: By December 31, 2014, publicize statistics, research results, and personal stories illustrating the contributions of persons with disabilities in the workplace.

A report to the legislature on the status and evaluation of the individual placement and support approach to supported employment for people with serious mental illness. The report included data, statistics, comments, and recommendations for expanding the program to comply with the Olmstead Plan and meet the needs of Minnesotans with mental illness who require employment services. For additional details, see page 192 of the February 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

An annual report from the State Rehabilitation Council. The report contained statistics and results of the Vocational Rehabilitation program, including personal stories about individuals who had obtained employment. For additional details, see page 200 of the February 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

The Olmstead Subcabinet also reviewed and approved MnDOT's ADA Transition Plan. In addition to establishing a baseline of the accessibility of the state's transportation system, the plan tracked MnDOT's progress to ensure that transportation was accessible to all users. The intent of MnDOT's transition plan was to be a living document that would receive routine updates. Updates were scheduled to occur on a four year cycle. For additional details, see page 238 of the February 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Additionally, the Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed and approved Minnesota's statewide plan on building effective systems for implementing positive practices and supports, subject to a requirement that an implementation progress report be provided to the subcabinet by August 1, 2015. This report was drafted in response to the following strategic actions:

By July 1, 2014, the state will create an inventory and analysis of policies and best practices across state agencies related to positive practices and use of restraint, seclusion or other practices which may cause physical, emotional, or psychological pain or distress.
By July 1, 2014, a report outlining recommendations for a statewide plan to increase positive practices and eliminate use of restraint or seclusion will be delivered to the Olmstead Subcabinet or their designee by an assigned team of representatives from Olmstead Subcabinet agencies.
By August 1, 2014, the state will develop, across state agencies, a common definition of incidents, including emergency use of manual restraint, that are to be reported, and create common data collection and incident reporting processes.

The report identified areas where gaps existed and included plans and timelines to address those gaps. Four major activities were used to further the vision outlined in the Olmstead Plan:

Inventory Minnesota policies and best practices.
Unify cross-agency definitions of key terms.
Use best practices in positive supports.
Use Minnesota's state-wide plan for implementing positive supports.

For additional details, see page 362 of the February 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Finally, a Quality of Life Workgroup was established to identify and analyze the recommendations of the Quality of Life report and determine the cost of the survey and the appropriate vendors. The workgroup was tasked with presenting recommendations to the Olmstead Subcabinet for next steps on the implementation of the Quality of Life survey.

February 27, 2015

The Court monitor issued a report to the Court on the Olmstead Plan update: In this report, the court monitor strongly advises the Subcabinet to immediately examine and decide how it will monitor and assure agencies' compliance with the manifold implementation requirements of the various plans, which the Subcabinet is adopting under the Olmstead Plan. The court monitor noted that the Olmstead Plan updates essentially report on the Subcabinet's approval/review processes and generally on Olmstead Implementation Office activities. The updates do not report on what is being done under the various approved plans. In a previous report, the Court monitor urged an "immediate fix" to the lack of a "system, which operates effectively to track and ensure timeliness, or to explain lateness, with regard to deliverables."

The court monitor is pleased to report to the Court that the State has undertaken to improve the situation. Governor Dayton's Executive Order 15-03 was issued on January 28, 2015, amplifying the role and authority of the Subcabinet and the Olmstead Implementation Office. A clear decision-making process is being established, along with establishment of an Executive Committee. Mary Tingerthal, Commissioner of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, is the new chair. The staffing reported to the Court is insufficient to achieve effective oversight of the Plan. The Court monitor previously expressed concern about staffing: "It is imperative that the OIO have sufficient resources." The annual report now provided includes only two staff in addition to the full-time executive director. One is a full-time assistant director and one is a half-time communications manager. The assistant director "focuses on plan compliance, interagency coordination, quality assurance and community relations." The court monitor urged an "immediate fix" to the lack of a "system, which operates effectively to track and ensure timeliness, or to explain lateness, with regard to deliverables." The Subcabinet report provides a schedule for action to ensure completion of all overdue deliverables at its February and March meetings.

The narrative in the Subcabinet update on movement from segregated to integrated settings includes much important data and graphs of some data. However, it does not graph census information for intermediate care facilities for persons with developmental disabilities (ICF/DD), Anoka, and Minnesota Security Hospital. The census information status over time is an important window into movement from one to another setting. Graphs for census should be provided along with the other information, which is graphed.

One key requirement was not met. The Subcabinet approved a report, which on its face is non- compliant, and the Subcabinet report does not explain the deficiency. The Olmstead Plan's earliest substantive section ("Overarching strategic actions") requires a "concrete plan for change, through administrative alignment and collaboration, legislative action, policy and rule changes, and funding changes and prioritization." This concrete plan "includes other agencies and departments in Minnesota (not only subcabinet agencies)." With regard to the requirement undergirding Exhibit 6-2. Olmstead Barriers & Disincentives Identification Survey Results, the state and DHS will address the matters in the Olmstead Plan by means in addition to opinion surveys (but may include opinion surveys) and will comply with the requirement to identify options to address barriers to integration that are linked to federal legislation, regulation, or administrative procedures. This will be completed by June 1, 2015. A plan for timely completion will be provided to the court monitor by April 1, 2015.

With regard to the Quality of Life Survey, the next Subcabinet update will include analysis of the results of the pilot, and future updates will include qualitative and quantitative analysis of the survey results, and any recommendations arising therefrom.

With regard to access to services and supports for people with disabilities leaving the corrections system, the next and subsequent updates will provide qualitative and quantitative reports on both the process and results of access to services and supports.

With regard to SS 2G/SS 2G.1, the next and subsequent update will set forth a revision of the "goals" section which will include measurable goals related to demonstrating benefits to the individuals, and which will fulfill the anticipated need over the current report's timeline (through fiscal year 2019), and with deadlines for accomplishing those efforts. There shall be no arbitrary or unexplained goals related to demonstrating benefits to the individuals.

With regard to the statewide plan for positive practices and supports, the Plan shall be supplemented in the next update to include commitments that funding, staff and other supports will be provided for all the steps in the Plan's implementation.

March 10, 2015

The Olmstead Subcabinet procedures were approved. The procedures set forth clear and orderly processes for the Olmstead Subcabinet to implement the Olmstead Plan in furtherance of the order of the governor and the Court. The procedures outlined Olmstead Subcabinet membership, expectations of members, duties of the chair, the public nature of the meetings, the development and purpose of the executive committee, meeting regulations, duties of the Olmstead Subcabinet, the Olmstead Subcabinet's relationship with the OIO, convening of workgroups, and procedure amendment processes. The procedures were revised twice since their initial development.

The Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed and approved the crisis triage and hand-off process. The report summarized the crisis services available through community-based mental health services, home- and community-based services, and state-operated facilities. The report also identified barriers that existed in access, available services, and follow-up for people in crisis. The barriers were addressed in a three-pronged approach to improve crisis responses, including improving crisis triage and hand-off, use of positive supports and person-centered planning, and mental health system reform. One strategy that was being piloted included a single call-in number to handle referrals that came into DHS when people were at-risk and in need of crisis services. The report included measurable goals that would result from efforts to improve the crisis system. For additional details, see page 40 of the March 27 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Additionally, the HCBS waiver waiting list report was reviewed and approved by the Olmstead Subcabinet. The report specified a structure based upon urgency of need by the individual to allow individuals to move from the wait list at a reasonable pace. The report outlined an enhanced assessment to better gather information about the urgency people have for services. Additionally, the report specified actions to enhance data collection and analysis to improve monitoring and transparency of the process. For additional details, see page 72 of the March 27 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

The The Olmstead Subcabinet also reviewed and approved the report on districts' progress in reducing the use of restrictive procedures in Minnesota schools from the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE). This report included a summary of activities completed by the restrictive procedure stakeholder workgroup. The governor's budget for fiscal year 2016– 2017 recommended additional support at $2.3 million per year to accelerate the implementation of school wide positive behavioral intervention and supports (PBIS) in schools and districts throughout Minnesota. This funding would build on legislative priorities around the reduction in the use of restrictive procedures and actions in the Olmstead Plan. For additional details, see page 94 of the March 27 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

The Olmstead Subcabinet also reviewed and approved the Health Care and Community Supports Administration's overview of behavioral health homes (BHHs). This report summarized the work accomplished in meeting the objective: By December 31, 2014, DHS is to engage consumers of services to inform the design of the first framework to serve adults and children; design the model; obtain approval to implement the framework and develop a contingency plan for moving work forward if approval was not obtained; and determine the fiscal effects of statewide implementation in the near term. At the time, the report was presented, DHS was working to implement BHHs as a first step in the development of a framework. The BHH work group contracted with an external entity to conduct consumer focus groups; determine service eligibility; design the service definitions and structure; determine the team makeup, qualifications and responsibilities; develop provider standards and preliminary certification process; develop a legislative proposal for submission in the governor's budget; and develop a state Plan amendment to be submitted to CMS for review and approval. It was noted that implementation would require additional funding and that the governor's 2015 budget proposal included funding for the project. For additional details, see page 170 of the March 27 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Additionally, the Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed and approved the baseline data for the current care report. In accordance with objective 2G under the healthcare and healthy living section of the Olmstead Plan, the Health Care Research and Quality (HQR) Division within DHS established baseline data for care of people with disabilities. HRQ selected several measures of health care utilization from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS). Specific measures were chosen for three age groups: children birth to 20, adults aged 21-64, and adults aged 65 and older. For each measure examined, the rate of service use (i.e., billing) by Medical Assistance (MA) enrollees with disabilities was compared with the rate of service use by MA enrollees without disabilities. Summary findings included:

Across all age groups, 48.3 percent of all comparisons (14 out of 29 comparisons) showed significantly greater service use among persons with disabilities than persons without disabilities.
Across all age groups, 20.7 percent of all comparisons (6 out of 29) showed significantly less service use among persons with disabilities than persons without disabilities.
Across all age groups, 31.0 percent of all comparisons (9 out of 29 comparisons) had non-significant differences in service use between the disabled and non-disabled populations.

For additional details, see page 198 of the March 27 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

The Olmstead Subcabinet also reviewed and approved a system analysis describing barriers that needed resolution for transitioning youth with special health care needs to adult health care. This report was based, in part, on information gathered during a series of community meetings. For a complete listing of barriers and suggested strategies, see page 260 of the March 27 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Measurable goals regarding receipt of services by transition age youth with disabilities to adult health care were reviewed and approved by the Olmstead Subcabinet, for submission to the court monitor. The approved baseline was: There are 76,735 children aged 12-17 in Minnesota with special health needs. Of those youth, 36,065 or 47.1 percent receive the services necessary to make transitions to adult health care. Measurable goals included:

By December 31, 2014, the number of Minnesota's transition age youth with disabilities who receive the services necessary to make transitions to adult health care will increase to 38,368 (50 percent).
By December 30, 2016, the number of Minnesota's transition age youth with disabilities who receive the services necessary to make transitions to adult health care will increase to 42,204 (55 percent).
By December 30, 2018, the number of Minnesota's transition age youth with disabilities who receive the services necessary to make transitions to adult health care will increase to 46,041 (60 percent).

For additional details, see page 266 of the March 27 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Finally, the Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed and approved the community engagement plan, which included strategies to meet the goals of four action items whose deadlines were not met:

By December 31, 2014, leadership opportunities will be identified and implemented.
- The plan set forth three ways to increase leadership opportunities: active engagement with governor-appointed councils, groups and boards; increased participation of self-advocates on Tuesdays at the Capitol; and increased state agency employment (as set forth in Executive Order 14- 14).
By December 31, 2014, the state will develop a plan to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to meaningfully participate in policy development and provide the plan to the Olmstead Subcabinet.
- Each of the Olmstead Subcabinet agencies were provided with the community engagement plan and toolbox to supplement the engagement processes they already use. The measurement processes within the Plan were used to assess engagement of people with disabilities and the level of meaningfulness of that engagement process. The OIO provided technical assistance and training related to the engagement plan to ensure understanding.
By December 31, 2014, in consultation with people with disabilities, family members, and diverse community groups, the state will assess the size and scope of peer support and self-advocacy programs; based on this information the state will set annual goals for progress. Recommendations, including funding and any necessary legislative changes, will be made to the Subcabinet.
- The OIO reviewed literature regarding self-advocacy and peer supports and consulted with people with disabilities, family members, community groups and state agencies in order to assess the size and scope of programs in Minnesota.
By December 31, 2014, the state will evaluate, revise as necessary, and disseminate guidelines and criteria when public dollars are used for ensuring that people with disabilities are incorporated in public planning processes, and that plans for public facilities and events are informed by attention to inclusion of people with disabilities. The guidelines and plans for incorporating them in public processes will be reported to the Olmstead Subcabinet or their designee.
- The OIO was working with the State Treasury and Bonding Office and Minnesota Management and Budget to determine appropriate data sources for the creation of a baseline measurement of publicly funded action items at the state level. This information was the first step toward ensuring that people with disabilities were included and engaged in action items that were publicly funded and that their input was used in meaningful ways. This baseline measure was to be established by June 30, 2015. In addition to the baseline measurement and goals to be set related to publicly funded projects, cities, counties, and other local governments were to be provided with the community engagement plan and toolbox to aid them in engaging people with disabilities in their projects. The OIO was to offer education sessions to train county and other local government staff at least two times per year on the Olmstead community engagement plan. The purpose of these sessions was to familiarize staff with the plan and its requirements as well as teach them to train others on the same material.

For additional details, see page 274 of the March 27 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

March 20, 2015

The Olmstead Plan was revised. After considering the revisions, the Olmstead Subcabinet determined that more work was needed in order to appropriately respond to the Court order from January 9, 2015.

April 13, 2015

The Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed legislative and fiscal changes for the 2015 legislative season, including:

Reform of Minnesota Supplemental Aid/Shelter Needy and Group Residential Housing to increase access to integrated housing.
Expansion of funding for services in supportive housing for people with serious mental illnesses.
Expansion of integrated health care for persons with mental illnesses through BHH.
Expansion of mental health crisis services.
Creation of assertive community treatment services for adults with mental illnesses exiting the DOC.
Increasing funding for rental assistance for adults with mental illnesses.
Expansion of PBIS in schools.
Increasing funding for reducing the use of restrictive procedures and elimination of prone restraint in schools.
Increasing funding for individual placement and supports employment service.

Budget documentation related to these items can be found on page 42 of the April 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Roles and responsibilities for DEED/Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VRS), DHS, and MDE in expanding competitive employment in the most integrated setting were reviewed and approved by the Olmstead Subcabinet. Roles and responsibilities were broken down into three categories:

Roles that increase the number of people getting competitive, integrated jobs by implementing the informed choice mandates of Minnesota's Employment First policy.
Roles that facilitate the movement of adults into integrated, competitive employment.
Roles that expand the numbers of transition age youth who achieve competitive, integrated employment under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).

For additional details on cross-agency coordination, see page 72 of the April 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

The Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed and approved the Interagency Employment Panel annual report. The report included recommendations to ensure that policy and practice strategies aligned with Employment First principles. Major changes at the federal level, including WIOA and the new HCBS settings rule, drove the policy and funding changes necessary to increase opportunities to competitive employment for people with disabilities. Action steps for the next year included implementation of the Employment First Policy and seeking opportunities to move employment goals forward within existing resources and any additional resources made available through the 2015 legislative session. For additional details, see page 132 of the April 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

The Olmstead Subcabinet also reviewed proposed legislation regarding housing and supportive services and increasing access to transportation. The housing and supportive services legislative proposal would reform state‐funded income supplement programs to offer a housing benefit with flexible housing stability services. Upon full implementation, this reform would make integrated housing affordable for 3,100 people exiting institutions and other segregated settings into the community. Additional details about this proposal can be found on page 144 of the April 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court. The transportation legislative proposal sought to increase public transit (i.e., hours of service and number of rides) in Greater Minnesota. Additional details about this proposal can be found on page 150 of the April 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

A legislative proposal for electronic health records in correctional facilities to assist with release to community settings with appropriate levels of support was also reviewed by the Olmstead Subcabinet. The Minnesota DOC submitted a request to the governor's office for funding for an electronic health record system in September 2014. The governor included this request in his budget that was released to the legislature in January 2015. The DOC presented this request to the oversight committees in both the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate on February 10, 2015. For additional detail on this proposal, see page 160 of the April 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

Additionally, the Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed a legislative proposal for forensics assertive community treatment (FACT) teams. DHS submitted a request to the governor's office for funding to develop a FACT service in October 2014. The governor included this request in his budget that was released to the legislature in January 2015. For additional detail on this proposal, see page 172 of the April 20 Subcabinet status report to the Court.

May 2015

OIO moved from DEED to Minnesota Housing. May 6, 2015

The Court declined the March revisions to Olmstead Plan and ordered a new Plan: Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the state and the Department of Human Services (DHS) were to develop and implement a comprehensive Olmstead Plan within 18 months of the Court's approval of the settlement agreement. After the state and DHS failed to develop and implement a comprehensive Olmstead Plan by the original due date, the Court ordered the state and DHS to file the Olmstead Plan with the Court by November 1, 2013—five months after the due date—for the Court's review and approval. On March 20, 2015, the State filed the proposed Olmstead Plan that is now before the Court for review. In response to the state's proposed Olmstead Plan, the plaintiff class filed objections with the Court, asserting that: [T]his Court's specific, important guidance has been repeatedly rejected by DHS which now offers another revised Olmstead Plan without the fundamental measures needed to be successful, and accountable, to the people with disabilities and their families DHS seeks to serve. The result remains an incomplete plan in violation of the Jensen settlement agreement, the many prior orders of this Court, and the civil rights of people with disabilities in Minnesota. Accordingly, the plaintiff class requests that the proposed Olmstead Plan "be rejected as insufficient and in violation of the Jensen Class Action Settlement Agreement."

On April 6, 2015, interested nonparties to this litigation, Advocating Change Together (ACT) and the Minnesota Disability Law Center (MDLC) of Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid filed letter responses to the proposed Olmstead Plan. ACT's concerns focus on the proposed Olmstead Plan's community engagement section, specifically, the lack of supports and follow-up for person-centered plans and the lack of recognition of different engagement levels. MDLC's concerns pertain primarily to the lack of "sufficient sound baseline data, measurable goals, or outcomes." Consequently, MDLC contends that "[t]he Court should reject the state's proposed plan but allow the state to continue developing a plan that fully complies with applicable law and that delivers upon the promises of the Olmstead decision and the Jensen settlement."

On April 14, 2015, the Court monitor filed his report to the Court: "Verification of Representations by the State," in which he observes that "[t]he current proposed revised Plan does not comply with the Court's orders." In light of this observation, the court monitor recommends that "[t]he state should revise the entire Olmstead Plan on a short timetable in accordance with the Court's orders[.]" The Court has repeatedly provided defendants with the standards against which the Olmstead Plan is to be measured. As the Court has previously stated, "the proposed Olmstead Plan must contain concrete, reliable, and realistic commitments, accompanied by specific and reasonable timetables, for which the public agencies will be held accountable." "Vague assurances of future integrated options is insufficient; to be effective, the proposed Olmstead Plan must demonstrate success in actually moving individuals to integrated settings in furtherance of the goals." In addition, reports to the Court must be accurate, complete, and verifiable. The Court has provided numerous illustrative examples of the application of these standards in previous orders. After carefully reviewing the proposed Olmstead Plan, the Court concludes that the proposed Olmstead Plan does not comply with the comprehensive standards and requirements set forth in the settlement agreement, Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), and in numerous prior orders of this Court. The Court has detailed with specificity the deficiencies of previous submissions by the state based on these requirements for the Olmstead Plan. Without citing each instance in which the proposed Olmstead Plan fails to meet these requirements, the Court finds that the state's submission as a whole fails to meet the above standards. To the extent that defendants request "further clarifications" of these standards, defendants' request is denied. The Court encourages defendants to review the above-named requirements, the Court's previous orders, and review and revise its Olmstead Plan accordingly to comply with these requirements. Based upon the presentations and submissions of the parties and the Court monitor, and given the continued concerns of this Court relating to the status of the case and defendants' noncompliance with the settlement agreement; and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the state's proposed Olmstead Plan.
The parties shall submit a revised Olmstead Plan to the Court by July 10, 2015. The revised Olmstead Plan shall encompass the requirements of the settlement agreement
and prior orders of this Court and shall respond to previously identified gaps and deficiencies in the state's proposed Olmstead Plan.
In lieu of contempt and other sanctions at this time, the Court requires defendants to fulfill their obligations in a timely manner for the Court's review and approval; attend any status conferences that may be scheduled by the undersigned or Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson regarding the Olmstead Plan; and actively seek input from the consultants to the parties, Dr. Colleen Wieck and Roberta Opheim, in this process.
The Court expressly reserves the right to issue an order to show cause or impose sanctions, depending upon the status of compliance with the specific provisions of the settlement agreement and the Court's orders, as noted above.

June–August 2015

With mediation from Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson as required in the May 6 court order, a new draft of the Olmstead Plan was developed.

August 10, 2015

Minnesota's Olmstead Plan was submitted to the Court for approval. The plan established a person-centered, informed-decision vision in which people with disabilities could choose where they live, with whom, and in what type of housing. This version of the plan focused on setting measurable goals to both:

Increase opportunities for people with disabilities to receive services that best meet their individual needs in the most integrated setting, and
Improve service delivery to promote a better quality of life.

In this way, the Plan differed from the original and other previous versions, which laid out processes to implement tasks, but in many areas lacked measurable goals to achieve defined outcomes.

September 29, 2015

The Court approved the Olmstead Plan: The plaintiff class asserts that the state's submission is deficient in some respects. For example, the plaintiff class objects to the revised Olmstead Plan to the extent that it fails to expressly prohibit the use of restraint and seclusion for individuals with disabilities with a single emergency exception. The plaintiff class also objects to the waiver waiting list provisions of the Olmstead Plan. The plaintiff class further expresses concerns regarding the state's funding commitment and implementation plan to "ensure [the state and DHS] bring about actual tangible achievements rather than empty statements on a piece of paper." The state, on the other hand, asserts that its revised Olmstead Plan meets, and in certain respects exceeds, the requirements set forth by the Court. Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The Court APPROVES the state's Olmstead Plan.
The Court reserves ruling on the approval of the Olmstead Plan's implementation plan because corresponding workplans are not yet submitted to the Court. Once these workplans are submitted, the Court will review and approve the implementation plan based on the recommendations and input of Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson.
The Court reserves the right to exercise its continuing jurisdiction with respect to the revised Olmstead Plan to ensure that compliance with the settlement agreement is verified going forward. This paragraph contemplates that the Court will continue to carry out its oversight responsibility to oversee the state's efforts in following through on the significant commitments it has made.

Two topic areas remained under development when the Court approved the Olmstead Plan: assistive technology and preventing abuse and neglect. The approved Olmstead Plan stated that these topic areas would be developed during the first year of implementation of the Plan and would be included in the Plan as amendments.

October 10, 2015

Workplans for the 2015 Olmstead Plan were developed. The Olmstead Plan, approved by the Court on September 29, 2015, included specific strategies needed to achieve the identified measurable goals. The Plan required that these strategies be supported by workplans. These workplans were designed to make progress toward the Olmstead Subcabinet's commitment to ensure that Minnesota is a place where people with disabilities experience lives of inclusion and integration in their communities. In developing the workplans, agencies were asked to identify actions necessary to support each of the Plan's key strategies over a one to two year period. These actions needed to include verifiable outcomes, specific deadlines, and identify the agency responsible for implementation. By regularly reviewing the progress of the workplans, both the Olmstead Subcabinet and the public would be able to see that work was being done to support the achievement of the measurable goals. The workplans were data driven and focused on important process steps.

October 21, 2015

The Olmstead Subcabinet reviewed and approved (with minor changes) the compliance plan, measurable goal report process, workplan report process, and proposed timeline for reporting procedures. For an overview of these procedures, see page 3 of the October 21, 2015 meeting minutes.

December 1, 2015

Reasonable pace guidelines for waivers were implemented. These guidelines stipulated that lead agencies would approve funding at a reasonable pace (no later than 45 days) for persons:

Exiting institutional settings;
With an immediate need; and
With a defined need for the DD waiver.