You need Javascript enabled for this to workState Household and Dependent Care Tax Credits to Support Personal Assistant Services.
Logo for Center for Personal Assistance Services New Browser Window, University of California, San Francisco  
Jump over main navigation bar to the sub navigation barHome (press control H in some browsers)Current directory is Need for PAS (press control N in some browsers)Home and Community PAS (press control C in some browsers)Workers and Caregivers (press control W in some browsers)Economics and Workplace PAS (press control E in some browsers)Emergency Preparedness (press control P in some browsers)PAS Users (press control U in some browsers) 
Jump over the sub navigation bar to the main body content





  Jump over the main body content to the main navigation bar
 

Printer-friendly page

Mendelsohn, S., Morris, M. & Myhill, W. (2010). State Household and Dependent Care Tax Credits to Support Personal Assistant Services. New York: The Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University.

Abstract

Among the 280 million people over the age of five living in the United States, 6.1 million (2.2%) reside in institutional settings and the majority of them have disabilities. More specifically, people with disabilities comprise 97.5% of persons (2.1 million) living in skilled nursing facilities, 27.1% of persons (569,000) living in adult correctional facilities, and 65.9% of persons (1.3 million) living in other residual institutions. In comparison, persons who reside in non-institutional community settings (i.e., their homes) have a disability prevalence rate of 16.4% (44.9 million persons).

In Olmstead v L.C. the Supreme Court ruled that under the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA), unnecessarily placing individuals with disabilities in nursing homes and other institutional residential settings was in violation of the law. The Court that Title II of the ADA contained an "integration mandate" requiring public agencies to provide services in community settings rather than in institutions. The Court explained that the states must administer programs in the most inclusive setting appropriate to the needs of the individual with a disability. The Court held that integration is required when: (1) the state determines community placement is appropriate; (2) the individual does not oppose the less restrictive setting; and (3) "the placement can be reasonably accommodated taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with … disabilities."

Obtain the Full Version