This article reviews implications of the Amici Curiae brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court by 21 state attorneys general which proposed a return to the warehouse care model for the retarded. The article then analyzes, point by point, the incorrect premises contained in this brief—providing a review of the actual characteristics of residents in today's institutions and, more importantly, the types of modern, developmentally oriented, and integrative alternatives that can be made available to currently institutionalized retarded citizens. Finally, the article points out future implications of recent Supreme Court decisions handed down in the case of Youngberg v. Romeo.
HoweS. G.In ceremonies on laying the cornerstone of the New York State Institution for the Blind at Batavia. New York: Henry Todd, 1886.
2.
National Association for Retarded Citizens.Residential services position statements. Proceedings of a symposium on residential services for the mentally retarded of the National Association for Retarded Citizens, Arlington, Texas, 1976.
3.
National Association for Retarded Citizens.Resolution on the reaffirmation of the developmental model. Adopted by the NARC Board of Directors, Arlington, Texas, 1976.
4.
National Association for Retarded Citizens.Resolution on the developmental model. Adopted by the NARC National Executive Committee, Arlington, Texas, 1979.
5.
United Nations.Bill of rights for the mentally handicapped. Resolution 1386, adopted by the United Nations, New York, 1975.
6.
McCannB.Plenary session: Evolving positions on programmatic issues: The grassroots speak out. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Retarded Citizens, Honolulu, November 1981.
7.
National Association for Retarded Citizens.Resolution on the developmental assumption. Adopted by the NARC Board of Directors, Honolulu, 1981.
8.
Horacek v. Exon. C.A. 70-L-299. U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska. Plan of implementation, Nebraska Mental Retardation Panel, November 1978.
9.
Eastern Nebraska Community Office of Retardation (ENCOR).Action plan. Omaha: ENCOR, 1979.
10.
Touche-Ross and Co.Cost study of the community-based mental retardation regions and the Beatrice State Developmental Center. Report prepared for the Nebraska Department of Public Institutions, Lincoln, Nebraska, August 15, 1980.
11.
Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. Press release, June 21, 1982, p. 2.
12.
Accreditation Council for Services for Mentally Retarded and Other Developmentally Disabled Persons.Standards for services for developmentally disabled individuals. Washington, D.C.: ACMRDD, 1980.
13.
AjelloC.McLeodD.ColemanM.EikenberryK.BrowningC.Amici Curiae, Brief of the States of Connecticut, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia. In Youngberg v. Romeo, C.A. 80-1429. U.S. Supreme Court, October 1981.
14.
BaerD. M.A hung jury and a Scotish verdict: “Not proven.”Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1981, 1, 91–98.
15.
BaroffG. S.On the size and the quality of residential care: A second look. Mental Retardation, 1980, 18, 113–117.
16.
BerksonG.Landesman-DwyerS.Behavioral research on severe and profound mental retardation (1955–1974). American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1977, 81, 428–454.
17.
BiklenD.The community imperative: A refutation of all arguments in support of institutionalizing anybody because of mental retardation. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, 1979.
18.
BlattB.Souls in extremis: An anthology of victims and victimizers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1973.
19.
BlattB.KaplanF.Christmas in Purgatory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1966.
20.
BogdanR.TaylorS.The judged, not the judges: An insider's view of mental retardation. American Psychologist, 1976, 31(1), 47–52.
21.
ConroyJ. W.LemanowiczJ. S.SokolL.PollackM.Development of seventeen former Pennhurst residents who are now in community living arrangements in Montgomery County. Pennhurst Study-Brief Report #1. Philadelphia: Temple University, October 1980.
22.
CookR. E.The free choice principle in the care of the mentally retarded. In KugelR. B.ShearerA. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded. President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, 359–366.
23.
DybwadG.Action implications, U.S.A. today. In KugelR. B.ShearerA. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded. President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, 383–428.
24.
EdgertonR.BercoviciS.The cloak of competence—Ten years later. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1976, 81, 485–497.
25.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Public Law No. 94–142, 89 Stat. 781 (1975).
26.
EllisN. R.BallaD.EstesO.HollisJ.IsaacsonR.OrlandoR.PolkE. E.WarrenS. A.SeigelP. S. Memorandum in Wyatt v. Hardin, C.A. 3195-N. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama, 1978.
27.
FerlegerD.BoydA.Anti-institutionalization: The promise of the Pennhurst case. Stanford Law Review, 3, April 1979.
28.
FlintB.The child and the institution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966.
29.
GilhoolT.Habilitation of developmentally disabled persons in a small group community setting versus a large group institutional setting. Philadelphia: PILCOP, 1978.
30.
GoffmanE.Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday, 1966.
Halderman v. Pennhurst. C.A. 74-1345, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1977.
33.
HoffmanJ.DunnJ.Beyond Rouse and Wyatt: An administrative law model for implementing the mental patient's right to treatment. Virginia Law Review, 1975, 6(1), 297–305.
34.
KugelR. B.ShearerA. (Eds.). Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded. President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969.
35.
KushlickA.Wessec, England. In KugelR. B.ShearerA. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded. President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, 297–312.
36.
LilyK.Deinstitutionalization—Right to treatment litigation. Amicus, March/April 1980, 5, 90–96.
37.
MenolascinoF. (Ed.). Challenges in mental retardation: Progressive ideology and services. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1977.
38.
MenolascinoF.McGeeJ.The new institution: Last ditch arguments. Mental Retardation, 1981(a), 19(5), 215–220.
39.
MenolascinoF.McGeeJ.Rejoinder to the Partlow Committee. Mental Retardation, 1981(b), 19(5), 227–229.
40.
MenolascinoF.PearsonP. (Eds.). Beyond the limits: Innovations in service for the severely and profoundly retarded. Seattle: Special Child Publications, 1974.
41.
MooreB.GrantG. W. B.The avoidance syndrome in hospitals for mentally handicapped. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 1977, 14, 91–95.
42.
National Association of State Mental Retardation Directors.Report on the costs of institutional care. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State Mental Retardation Directors, 1980.
43.
National Association for Retarded Citizens.Nursing home position statements. Arlington, Texas: NARC, 1975.
44.
NirjeB.The normalization principle and its human management implications. In KugelR. B.ShearerA. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded. President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, 179–196.
45.
President's Committee on Mental Retardation.MR 73: The goal is freedom. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
46.
President's Committee on Mental Retardation.MR 74: A friend in Washington. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975(a).
47.
President's Committee on Mental Retardation.People live in houses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975(b).
48.
President's Committee on Mental Retardation.Trends in state services. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.
49.
President's Committee on Mental Retardation.Mental retardation: The leading edge: Service programs that work. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.
50.
RoosP.Custodial care for the “subtrainable”—Revisiting an old myth. Law and Psychology Review, 1979, 5, 1–14.
51.
TaylorS.The custodians: Attendants and their work at state institutions for mentally retarded. Ann Arbor: University Micro-film, 1977.
52.
ThroneJ.Deinstitutionalization: Too wide a swath. Mental Retardation, 1979, 77, 171–175.
53.
TizardJ.Community services for the mentally handicapped. London: Oxford University Press, 1969.
54.
Youngberg v. Romeo. U.S. Supreme Court, No. 80-1429, June 1982.
55.
WolfensbergerW.The origin and nature of our institutional models. In KugelR. B.ShearerA. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded. President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, 59–172.
56.
WolfensbergerW.NirjeB.OlshanskyS.PerskeR.RoosP. (Eds.) The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation, 1972.
57.
Wyatt v. Hardin, C.A. 3195-N. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama, 1978.
58.
Wyatt v. Ireland, C.A. 3195-N. U.S. District Court, Middle District of Alabama, Memorandum, 1979.
