National disability advocacy groups have increasingly sought legal guarantees to define and protect the rights of people with disabilities, including mental illness. The battle to secure the rights of people with mental illness to live in communities has taken place as policy emphasis has shifted from community residential facilities toward personal choice of where, how, and with whom to live.
This article describes efforts in Connecticut to assure access to housing and public accommodations by people with mental illness. It describes and analyzes the evolution of policy, legislative efforts, and service development. The Connecticut experience is viewed in relationship to national efforts to promote consumer choice and assure equal protection for people with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Carling, P.J., Randolph, F.L., Blanch, A.K., & Ridgway, P. (1987). Rehabilitation research review: Housing and community integration for people with psychiatric disabilities. (Monograph series on housing and rehabilitation in mental health). Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Center for Community Change through Housing and Support.
2.
Carling, P.J. & Ridgway, P. (1985). Community residential rehabilitation: An emerging approach to meeting housing needs. Excerpted from Allard, M. A. et al., Providing housing and supports for people with psychiatric disabilities. Boston, MA: Human Services Research Institute. Boston University, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Community Residential Rehabilitation Project.
3.
Carling, P.J. & Ridgway, P. (1986). An overview of a psychiatric rehabilitation approach to housing. Adapted from a chapter in Anthony, W. A. and Farkas, M. A. (Eds.), Psychiatric rehabilitation: Putting theory into practice. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
Conn. Const. amend. 1, § 20 (1984).
5.
Connecticut Department of Mental Health. ( 1987, December). Assertive community treatment services (ACTS). Proposal submitted to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Hartford, CT.
6.
Connecticut Department of Mental Health. ( 1989, November). DMH briefing book. Hartford, Ct.
7.
Connecticut Department of Mental Health. ( 1983, April) Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on Mental Health Policy interim report. Hartford, CT.
8.
Connecticut Department of Mental Health. ( 1982, rev. 1987). Mission statement. Hartford, CT.
9.
Connecticut Pub. L. No. 84-341, Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-3e, 3g; 19a-80a-80d; 19a-495 (1989).
10.
Connecticut Pub. L. No. 88-288, Conn. Gen. Stat. 46a-64 (1989).
11.
Lieberman, J. (1987, June 17). Equal protection for the mentally disabled: Much more than mere words. Press release.
12.
Lieberman v Board of Tax Review. (1985). Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford/Norwalk, Docket No. CV85 0076085 S.
13.
Lieberman v Board of Tax Review. (1987, May 22). Judgment. Docket No. CV85 00760855 S.
14.
Lublin, J.S. (1986, December 16) Group homes that serve the mentally ill face new barriers in some communities. The Wall Street Journal, p. 37.
15.
Mechanic, D. (1987). Correcting misconception in mental health policy: Strategies for improved care of the seriously mentally ill. Milbank Quarterly, 65 (2), 203-230.
16.
Milstein B., Pepper B., & Rubenstein, L. (1989, June). The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: What it means for people with mental disabilities . Clearing House Review, 128-140.
17.
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. (1987, December 15). Posjtion statement on housing and support for people with long term mental illness. Alexandria, Va.
18.
Rasky, S. (1989, August 14). Bill barring bias against disabled holds wide impact. New York Times, pp. A1, B6.
19.
Rubinowitz, S. (1988, December). Halfway house: Despite fears, land values keep pace in Greenwich. Stamford Advocate, p. 15.
20.
Wolf, J., & Silverman, S. (1986). Advocacy can work: A case study of a successful experience. Unpublished; available from the authors.
21.
Wolf, J. (1985, Spring). State-local perspectives: Turning policy into practice: paradoxes of government leadership. New England Journal of Human Services, 2, 35-38.
