1
The Legal Obligation
ADA / Olmstead
Permanent Injunction
Virginia must provide services to people with developmental disabilities in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs. The Permanent Injunction in U.S. v. Virginia sets measurable targets including increased participation in integrated day services (Term 37) and data collection on individuals with complex needs (Term 44).
→
2
SPARC Fills the Gap
Integrated Day Program
Complex Needs
SPARC operates an integrated community day program for adults with significant medical and adaptive support needs — exactly the population and service model the Permanent Injunction addresses. SPARC reports data on participation and outcomes to DBHDS that directly supports compliance with the Permanent Injunction.
→
3
Count It in the Record
Budget Amendment
Compliance Evidence
SPARC's proposed budget amendment directs DBHDS to include SPARC data in its Permanent Injunction reporting. The Court has already treated appropriations as compliance evidence (ECF 525, May 2024). The Commonwealth demonstrates compliance through existing mechanisms — not by creating new pathways.
Why This Matters to the General Assembly
Reduces legal risk by showing measurable progress on integrated day services
Leverages state investment twice: once to serve families, again as compliance evidence
Uses existing infrastructure — SPARC is already operating with data systems in place
Supports DBHDS by providing quality data for Independent Reviewer reporting
Aligns with legislative precedent linking appropriations to Injunction compliance
Demonstrates leadership before the federal court and incoming Administration
The Straight Line in One Sentence:
When the General Assembly funds SPARC and directs DBHDS to report SPARC data under the Permanent Injunction, those dollars move Virginia measurably closer to ADA compliance and help close documented gaps in integrated day services for people with the highest support needs.
From SPARC's Proposed Budget Amendment (Item 300, Paragraph S):
"Out of this appropriation, $1,330,000 the first year and $1,370,000 the second year from the general fund ....to support essential day programs for adults with multiple disabilities and complex medical needs in support of the Commonwealth's continued progress toward compliance with the ADA which remains subject to federal court oversight in United States v. Virginia, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00059-JAG (E.D. Va.). The Department shall include SPARC participant data in its reporting to the Independent Reviewer regarding Permanent Injunction Term 37 (Integrated Day Services) and Term 75 (Compliance Monitoring)."
More on the Permanent Injunction Terms
- Term 37 (Integrated Day Services): Requires a 2% annual increase in the percentage of individuals on DD waivers receiving day services in the most integrated settings. Virginia achieved compliance for the first time in the 26th reporting period. Term 37
- Term 44 (Complex Needs Data): Requires annual collection and analysis of data regarding individuals with complex medical and adaptive support needs. Virginia has not yet achieved compliance. Term 44
- Term 75 (Compliance Monitoring): Establishes that documented achievement of specified goals satisfies provisions, and contemplates reporting of "any other pertinent information" relevant to compliance. Term 75
The December 2025 Independent Reviewer's Report found Virginia achieved compliance on only 3 of 29 required Terms.
Why Haven't SPARC Funds Been Counted Before?
The only reason SPARC appropriations haven't been counted toward compliance is procedural — no one brought them to the attention of the Independent Reviewer or the Court.
Virginia's compliance reporting infrastructure was built around Medicaid billing codes because that's how most DD services are funded and tracked. But this reflects data limitations, not a policy that only Medicaid services count toward ADA compliance.
The ADA's integration mandate applies regardless of funding source. The proposed budget amendment fixes this gap by expressly directing DBHDS to include SPARC data in compliance reporting.
Legislative Precedent
- Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF 525, May 2024): Virginia asked the Court to take judicial notice of budget provisions "relevant to the consent decree."
- Item 294 (2025 Appropriation Act): Required DBHDS to report on compliance status, including planned actions and expected compliance dates.
- Bipartisan Legislative Letter (November 2024): General Assembly leaders wrote to Judge Gibney affirming their "commitment to these Virginians" and noting $274 million in additional resources in the prior budget.
Contact Information
References: United States v. Virginia, No. 3:12-cv-00059-JAG (E.D. Va.); Permanent Injunction Order (Jan. 15, 2025); Independent Reviewer Reports (June & Dec. 2025); ECF 525 Motion for Judicial Notice (May 17, 2024)
