Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel Zimring (1999) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is impermissible discrimination; specifically, if the clinician and client believe community integration to be appropriate, the state must have reasonable accommodations in place for the client to be in the community. Enforcement of the Olmstead decision for people with serious mental illness (SMI) has taken many shapes, from the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) settlement agreements requiring substantive development of community mental health services and aggressive community integration protocols, to the Third Circuit approach which requires only lower census numbers in the state psychiatric hospital (SPH). The question of whether Olmstead is being differentially enforced is addressed in an empirical, qualitative analysis of legal documents, including court opinions and settlement agreements. Through legal research spanning all U.S. jurisdictions, five distinct Olmstead enforcement approaches in ten different states were identified. The enforcement approaches are described, and limitations and future directions are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

奥姆斯特德的实施：执行方法的差异。

Olmstead v. LC ex rel Zimring (1999) 是美国最高法院一项具有里程碑意义的判决，该判决认为对残疾人的不合理隔离是不允许的歧视；具体而言，如果临床医生和客户认为社区融合是适当的，国家必须为客户融入社区提供合理的便利。针对严重精神疾病 (SMI) 患者的奥姆斯特德判决的执行采取了多种形式，从美国司法部 (DOJ) 要求实质性发展社区精神卫生服务和积极的社区融合协议的和解协议，到第三巡回法院的方法仅需要州立精神病院 (SPH) 的人口普查人数较少。奥姆斯特德是否受到差别执行的问题是通过对法律文件（包括法院意见和和解协议）进行实证定性分析来解决的。通过涵盖美国所有司法管辖区的法律研究，确定了十个不同州的五种不同的奥姆斯特德执法方法。描述了执行方法，并讨论了局限性和未来方向。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。