Opinion ID: 718736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Funding Crisis.

Text: 13 Judge Trager accurately characterizes the controversy giving rise to this lawsuit as an unfortunate funding dispute between the City and the State of New York. 3 908 F.Supp. at 1143. In October 1994, New York City notified the State that it would stop paying for out-of-state care after December 31, 1994, a step that would thereby release the State from any reimbursement obligation under the TCF Statute. On December 7, 1994, according to plaintiffs' amended complaint, the City's Human Resources Administration (the HRA) wrote to guardians and the out-of-state residential institutions to advise them of the City's termination of transitional care. 4 The City told the guardians that the HRA's Child Welfare Administration will assist [the OMRDD] in facilitating the transfer of all young adults out of Transitional Funding.... Please be assured that New York City looks forward to working with you in planning for a smooth transition for your family member. One day before the scheduled funding cut-off, on December 30, 1994, the City partially relented and agreed to provide funds until the earlier of June 30, 1995, or such date as the City's budgetary allocation of $1.116 million was exhausted earlier. This undertaking was recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding, dated January 31, 1995, between the HRA and the OMRDD. 14 On January 11, 1995, the OMRDD wrote to guardians of its TCF clients, advising that the City would continue payments for a limited time in order to permit TCF recipients to be placed in-state. The OMH sent a similar letter, dated February 27, 1995, informing the guardians that the City would provide transitional care payments for a limited period to facilitate the orderly transfer of clients seeking placements in publicly funded programs operated or licensed by OMH within New York State. (Emphasis added.) The letter continued, Clients may, of course, choose to remain in their current placement with the cost becoming the responsibility of the client or family. (Emphasis added.) The letter concluded: Please be assured that [OMH] is committed to providing smooth transfers to appropriate mental health programs. 15 During the first half of 1995, the OMRDD and the OMH attempted to place TCF recipients in State facilities. Of the 108 OMRDD clients from New York City, 58 accepted in-state placements and were removed from the TCF program by June 1, 1995. It is unclear how many of the unknown number of OMH clients receiving TCF have been similarly placed. It is undisputed, however, that there are no satisfactory in-state placements presently available to accommodate any of the plaintiffs. 16