Time to Settle

Neither the disabled nor the District benefits from continuing a protracted court battle.

MAYOR ADRIAN M. Fenty has done much to try to improve the District's care of the mentally and physically disabled: He's hired good people, allocated more resources and changed policies. Yet treatment of this vulnerable population remains distressingly inadequate. Serious deficiencies persist in health care and other vital services. This maddening disconnect -- the gap between effort and results -- is the conundrum facing a federal judge wrestling with how to bring about urgently needed improvements in some fragile lives.

U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle, presiding over a long-running lawsuit involving onetime residents of the infamous Forest Haven institute for the mentally retarded, found the District to be in "systematic, continuous, and serious noncompliance" with court orders to improve care. Her ruling in March 2007 has been followed by a series of reports detailing a depressing lack of progress by the city to make significant differences in the lives of the some 620 surviving members of the action brought in 1976. The most recent noted the city's failure to meet six of 13 goals that both parties agreed were within reach. University Legal Services, which represents the former Forest Haven patients, wants the courts to take over, either through a receiver or another form of outside supervision. The District is opposed, arguing that, just two years into Mr. Fenty's administration, it has taken big steps to bring about improvement and that a receiver would only disrupt and delay reforms underway. It would also displace the new people overseeing the system, who are getting good reviews.

There's merit to both arguments, as evidenced by the judge's exasperation with the unsatisfactory pace of change but her seeming reluctance to order a takeover. Her dilemma was on display during a status hearing last month in which she tried to focus attention on tangible actions that could make a difference for the disabled soon. She abruptly adjourned the hearing, summoning both sides to a private session in which, sources said, she urged the city and plaintiffs to try to reach a settlement. Chances of that happening are uncertain, as past efforts failed and the animus between the two sides is palpable.

Both should try to get past their resentments to see the value in the judge's sensible suggestion. Instead of fighting each other in a seemingly endless legal process that is consuming millions of dollars and untold time, it would be better for the two sides to work together to bring about the improvements both agree are needed. By no means are we suggesting that the city be let off the hook. As much as the city rails about the cost and distraction of the ongoing litigation, it's largely because of the work of the committed attorneys for the plaintiffs that attention is being paid to the needs of the disabled. Mr. Fenty would do well to listen to their concerns and try to make them a part of his effort to bring about change.