Deinstitutionalization is a National Trend
Since the 1960s, California has substantially reduced its reliance on state-operated developmental centers. In 1977, the majority of people with I/D lived in large, state operated institutions with only 40,000 individuals living in a setting with 15 or fewer residents. In 2010, this figure exploded to over 344,100 individuals living in settings of six or fewer people. What is astounding is the savings to the state of housing people in independent care facilities versus institutions. According to UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, the annual per capita cost of care is about $70,000 for individuals residing in small, residential homes compared to $276,000 for those in state institutions.
TO DATE, THE PRIVATIZATION OF HOUSING AND SERVICES HAS SAVED THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OVER $2 BILLION DOLLARS. THIS ALONE IS A STRONG INCENTIVE TO ALLOCATE STATE FUNDING TO THE PRIVATIZED SECTOR.
These closures are also occurring due to changing societal attitudes about people with disabilities and state and federal laws favoring community integration over institutional care. The California Supreme Court held that the Lanterman Act created
an entitlement to services enabling Californians with intellectual and developmental disabilities to avoid unnecessary institutionalization and live independent and productive lives in the community.
Deinstitutionalization is a National Trend Deinstitutionalization is a national trend for people with developmental disabilities,
particularly after the U.S Supreme Court's 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. decision provided that under the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, states must place individuals with mental disabilities in the least restrictive integrated community-based settings.
California is one of the only states in the nation that provides entitlement like services to every individual with a qualifying developmental disability. In contrast, most states budget a limited amount of funding to their programs for people with
developmental disabilities (sometimes just enough to meet federal funding matching requirements) and consequently maintain waiting lists for services