it did not count those individuals toward compliance. Dec. 2014 Monthly Rep. (Jan. See, e.g., 27, 2015) Ex. W, at 2 (reporting compliance as serving 62 individuals or at risk of [adult care “in home] placement”). For example, in May 2015, the State reported that of the 460 individuals receiving Supported Employment Services, it was those services to 62 individuals “providing that meet the requirements of the settlement.” 2014 Annual Rep. (May 15, 2015) Ex. X, at 2. It described those 62 individuals as in or at risk of entry to an adult care home. at 4. See id. Furthermore, the State did not report on compliance in its June 2015 and July 2015 reports because the State was if all individuals reported [met] the in or at risk “assess[ing] definition for supported employment.” July 2015 Monthly Rep. (Aug. 25, 2015) Ex. Y, at 2; June 2015 Monthly Rep. Ex. K, at 2. Similarly, the State conducted reviews to ensure that those receiving services met definition of or at risk of entry to an adult care home’ as laid out “the ‘in Oct. 2014 Monthly Rep. (Nov. 25, 2014) Ex. Z, at 2 (emphasis added). in the settlement.” E.g., For three years, the State reiterated its understanding that only individuals in the target population count toward compliance with section III(D)(3). It recognized that individuals outside the target population receive employment services, but it did not count them toward compliance. It cannot do so now to avoid its obligations under the Agreement. B. The State Has Failed to Meet Its July 2016 Employment Services Obligation. The has failed to meet the Agreement’s requirement that it provide Supported Employment Services to 1,166 individuals in the target population by July 1, 2016. S.A. See § III(D)(3). As of June 30, 2016, only 708 individuals in the target population received Supported Employment Services, representing a shortfall of 458 individuals. June 2016 See
it did not count those individuals toward compliance. See, e.g., Dec. 2014 Monthly Rep. (Jan. 27, 2015) Ex. W, at 2 (reporting compliance as serving 62 individuals “in or at risk of [adult care home] placement”). For example, in May 2015, the State reported that of the 460 individuals receiving Supported Employment Services, it was “providing those services to 62 individuals that meet the requirements of the settlement.” 2014 Annual Rep. (May 15, 2015) Ex. X, at 2. It described those 62 individuals as in or at risk of entry to an adult care home. See id. at 4. Furthermore, the State did not report on compliance in its June 2015 and July 2015 reports because the State was “assess[ing] if all individuals reported [met] the in or at risk definition for supported employment.” July 2015 Monthly Rep. (Aug. 25, 2015) Ex. Y, at 2; June 2015 Monthly Rep. Ex. K, at 2. Similarly, the State conducted reviews to ensure that those receiving services met “the definition of ‘in or at risk of entry to an adult care home’ as laid out in the settlement.” E.g., Oct. 2014 Monthly Rep. (Nov. 25, 2014) Ex. Z, at 2 (emphasis added). For three years, the State reiterated its understanding that only individuals in the target population count toward compliance with section III(D)(3). It recognized that individuals outside the target population receive employment services, but it did not count them toward compliance. It cannot do so now to avoid its obligations under the Agreement. B. The State Has Failed to Meet Its July 2016 Employment Services Obligation. The has failed to meet the Agreement’s requirement that it provide Supported Employment Services to 1,166 individuals in the target population by July 1, 2016. See S.A. § III(D)(3). As of June 30, 2016, only 708 individuals in the target population received Supported Employment Services, representing a shortfall of 458 individuals. See June 2016
nc_iso_motion.docx