The Future of Southbury Training School: Facts, Law, and the Path Forward for Disability Services in Connecticut
April 20, 2025
Posted by
Max Kupperberg
Recent Update: Governor Ned Lamont reaffirmed in March 2025 that Connecticut will keep Southbury Training School open for its remaining residents while acknowledging the annual cost exceeds $500,000 per person. The governor noted: "These are senior people who have spent their whole lives in this facility, or most of their lives. So, you've got to be very cautious and humane about what happens next."
As debates continue over the future of Southbury Training School, significant misconceptions persist about legal requirements, resident evaluations, and policy options. This comprehensive analysis separates fact from fiction, examining the legal framework, resident assessments, institutional costs, and competing visions for the future of services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Connecticut.
Introduction: A Legacy Institution at a Crossroads
Southbury Training School (STS) stands as one of the last large state-run institutions for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States. Built in the late 1930s, this sprawling 1,600-acre campus once housed more than 2,300 residents. Today, fewer than 100 individuals remain—most elderly and having lived there for decades—while Connecticut continues a decades-long debate about its future. According to Connecticut's Department of Developmental Services, STS was built as a home for individuals with intellectual disability and is the only large residential facility of its kind remaining in the state.
The conversation about STS encompasses fundamental questions about disability rights, cost-effective service delivery, family choice, and the appropriate role of state government in supporting its most vulnerable citizens. Yet this crucial policy discussion has often been clouded by misunderstandings about legal requirements, resident evaluations, and available options for the future.
This analysis examines the facts, legal framework, and competing perspectives that must inform responsible decision-making about Southbury Training School and Connecticut's broader system of disability supports.
Legal Framework: Separating Fact from Fiction
One of the most persistent misconceptions about Southbury Training School involves its legal status. Both supporters and critics of the institution sometimes assert that various court orders or legal agreements either require STS to remain open indefinitely or mandate its closure by a specific date. Neither claim is accurate.
Legal Status: There is no case, law, or legal agreement that either requires Southbury to remain open or mandates its closure. Connecticut has full legal authority to make policy decisions about the institution's future within existing federal and state frameworks governing disability services.
The Messier Settlement: What It Actually Requires
Southbury Training School operates under federal and state laws and a 2010 settlement agreement from the case Messier v. Southbury Training School. This class action lawsuit, filed in 1994 on behalf of STS residents and advocacy organizations including The Arc of Connecticut, was resolved after 16 years of litigation with a court-approved settlement.
The settlement requires that each resident's interdisciplinary team make professional recommendations about the "most integrated setting" appropriate to meet their needs. For purposes of the agreement, the "most integrated setting" is defined as "a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible," consistent with the landmark Supreme Court Olmstead decision. According to the Messier Settlement Agreement documentation on the DDS website, this requirement applies to all class members at STS.
In explaining her order, Judge Ellen Bree Burns stated, "There is nothing in the settlement agreement that expressly or impliedly provides for the closing of STS. Closing STS was never an issue in this case." This statement is documented in official Q&A materials regarding the Southbury Training School.
Critically, the court specifically rejected any provision for readmissions to STS, noting that such a provision would "run counter to the Court's specific finding that STS is not an integrated setting, but is a segregated institution in which all residents are mentally disabled."
Admissions Status and Historical Context
Admissions to Southbury Training School have been closed for the last 45 years—since 1986 by court order and since 1997 by state statute. This long-standing policy means that the institution's population has steadily declined through attrition, transitions to community settings, and natural mortality. According to recent reporting by the CT Post, the census of residents at STS was approximately 100 as of December 2024, down 15 from the previous year.
The restrictions on admissions originated from a 1986 consent decree after the U.S. Department of Justice challenged the adequacy of services provided at the institution under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). This federal intervention signaled serious concerns about conditions at STS that persisted for many years. Court documentation from Messier v. Southbury Training School provides extensive background on the legal history and conditions that led to multiple lawsuits regarding STS.
State Options Under Current Law
Connecticut maintains full policy discretion regarding Southbury's future. The state's options include:
Any approach must ensure that residents' individual needs continue to be met in appropriate settings with adequate supports and protections for their rights.
Resident Evaluations: What Professional Assessments Show
A central fact often overlooked in discussions about Southbury Training School is the extensive professional evaluation of every resident conducted as part of the Messier settlement implementation. These assessments provide crucial information about residents' support needs and potential for community living.
Professional Team Recommendations
Over the past 15 years, every remaining STS resident has been evaluated by interdisciplinary teams of professional staff to determine whether they could live successfully in community settings with appropriate supports. The results challenge longstanding assumptions about institutional necessity:
These evaluations directly contradict the perception that STS residents are too disabled, too medically fragile, or too behaviorally challenged to live in more integrated settings. Instead, they demonstrate that with appropriate planning and supports, nearly all current residents could benefit from community living.
Successful Transitions
The track record of transitions from STS provides compelling evidence of community living viability. Since the 2010 Messier settlement, dozens of residents have successfully moved to community homes, including many with complex medical needs or behavioral challenges who had spent decades in the institution.
These transitions have been supported by a court-appointed Remedial Expert who has helped families and service providers maintain appropriate services in community settings. The extensive planning and support processes created through the settlement have ensured successful community integration for former residents once believed to require institutional care.
| Common Concern | Evidence from Transitions |
|---|---|
| Medical Complexity Residents with complex medical needs cannot receive adequate care outside STS. |
Many former residents with multiple medical conditions, including those requiring feeding tubes, specialized diets, seizure management, and other complex protocols, have successfully transitioned to community homes with appropriate nursing supports. |
| Behavioral Challenges Residents with significant behavioral issues cannot be safely supported in community settings. |
Former residents with histories of aggression, self-injury, and other challenging behaviors have successfully transitioned with positive behavior support plans, often experiencing significant reductions in challenging behaviors after moving to less restrictive environments. |
| Age and Institutionalization Elderly residents who have spent decades at STS would be traumatized by relocation. |
With careful planning and transition supports, many long-term residents in their 70s and 80s have successfully moved to community settings, often showing improvements in engagement and quality of life measures after initial adjustment periods. |
Cost Implications: Fiscal Realities and Resource Allocation
Beyond the legal and clinical considerations, discussions about Southbury Training School must address the substantial cost implications of maintaining the institution versus redirecting resources to community-based alternatives.
Comparative Costs: Institution vs. Community
According to Governor Lamont's March 2025 statement, the annual cost of care for each resident at Southbury Training School exceeds $500,000 per person. This figure represents a significant increase from previous estimates and reflects the escalating costs of maintaining an aging physical plant for a declining population.
When compared to community-based alternatives, the disparity is striking:
This cost differential means that for every resident served at STS, nearly four people could receive supports in community-based settings provided by private, non-profit organizations. This resource allocation question becomes particularly significant in the context of Connecticut's waiting list for residential services.
The Waiting List Crisis
Connecticut faces a significant waiting list crisis for disability services:
This resource imbalance raises fundamental questions about equity in the disability service system and the state's responsibility to serve all eligible individuals efficiently and effectively.
Campus Utilization and Potential Repurposing
The Southbury Training School campus represents a significant state asset that could potentially be repurposed to meet other community needs while transitioning residents to more integrated settings. With 1,600 acres and 47 residential buildings designed to house over 2,000 people, the campus is severely underutilized with fewer than 100 current residents.
Governor Lamont acknowledged this potential in his March 2025 statement, noting that "the campus of the training school could be freed up for other purposes if the remaining residents were relocated to community-based settings." This recognition opens the possibility for creative approaches that balance resident needs with broader public interests.
Competing Visions: Advocacy Perspectives
The debate over Southbury Training School's future reflects broader philosophical differences about disability services, institutional care, and community inclusion. Various stakeholders bring distinct perspectives to this conversation.
Deinstitutionalization Advocates
Organizations like The Arc of Connecticut have consistently advocated for transitioning residents to community settings and eventually closing STS. They argue that:
"What are we saying as a society when we continue to segregate and isolate more than 500 of our citizens solely because of their disability?" - Shelagh McClure and Tom Fiorentino, The Arc Connecticut, 2015
Institution Preservation Advocates
Family associations like the Home and School Association and some guardians of current residents have advocated for maintaining STS as a residential option. Their perspectives include:
These competing perspectives reflect genuine care and concern for residents' wellbeing, but they operate from different assumptions about what constitutes quality of life and appropriate support for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Legislative Initiatives and Policy Options
Connecticut's legislature has periodically considered bills to establish closure timelines or planning processes for Southbury Training School. In recent years, various proposals have been introduced but have not resulted in definitive action.
The 2020 Campaign
Several years ago, a coalition including the Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities, The Arc Connecticut, the Office of Protection and Advocacy, and the University of Connecticut Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities launched what they called the "2020 Campaign." This initiative, described in detail in a CT Mirror op-ed, called for closing all state institutions for people with intellectual disabilities by 2020 and redirecting savings to reduce the residential waiting list.
While this timeline was not achieved, the campaign brought attention to the resource allocation questions and policy options available to the state. The key principles of this initiative included:
Legislative Studies and Program Review
In 2012, the General Assembly's Program Review and Investigations Committee issued a comprehensive report that recommended closing state institutions, including Southbury Training School. This report included detailed analysis of costs, transition outcomes, and policy options, but its recommendations have not been fully implemented.
More recently, in a previous legislative session, the state Senate approved a bill that would have required development of a comprehensive plan for closing STS and five regional centers by December 15th of that year. According to a WLAD news report, the legislation would have required a detailed financial analysis of costs and savings in both short and long terms, but it did not receive final approval in the House.
Elements of a Responsible Transition Approach
A thoughtful approach to STS transitions would include:
Experience from other states and from past Connecticut transitions demonstrates that carefully planned moves can be accomplished with positive outcomes for individuals, regardless of the complexity of their support needs.
Lessons from Other States
Connecticut's deliberations about Southbury Training School can be informed by extensive experience in other states that have already completed the deinstitutionalization process.
Complete Deinstitutionalization States
According to advocacy documentation, 18 states have closed all large state institutions for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. These states, including most of Connecticut's New England neighbors, now provide services exclusively in community-based settings, demonstrating that complete systems change is possible.
These states serve individuals with the full range of support needs—including those with complex medical conditions, significant behavioral challenges, and profound intellectual disabilities—in various community models. Their experience contradicts claims that some individuals require institutional settings due to the nature or severity of their disabilities.
Connecticut's Own Experience: Mansfield Training School
Connecticut has its own successful deinstitutionalization example in the closure of Mansfield Training School. Parts of that campus were repurposed for other uses, benefiting individuals and families who require support services from the Department of Developmental Services.
This precedent demonstrates that Connecticut has both the capability and experience to manage institutional transitions effectively while repurposing valuable state resources for new public purposes.
Moving Forward: A Balanced Approach
As Connecticut considers the future of Southbury Training School, the path forward should be guided by accurate information, meaningful stakeholder engagement, and a commitment to both current residents' wellbeing and broader system improvement.
Any responsible approach must:
With these principles in mind, Connecticut can move beyond polarized debates toward a constructive process that honors its obligations to all citizens with disabilities—both those currently residing at Southbury Training School and those awaiting essential services in the community.
Conclusion
The future of Southbury Training School represents more than just the fate of a single institution—it reflects Connecticut's broader vision for disability services in the 21st century. The facts are clear: no legal mandate requires STS to remain open indefinitely, professional assessments confirm that nearly all residents could thrive in community settings with appropriate supports, and the fiscal implications of maintaining the status quo are increasingly untenable.
While legitimate concerns exist about transition processes for elderly residents who have known STS as home for decades, these concerns can be addressed through thoughtful planning and individualized supports. The experience of other states—and Connecticut's own history with Mansfield Training School—demonstrates that institutional closure can be accomplished with positive outcomes for residents.
By separating fact from fiction and focusing on evidence-based approaches, Connecticut can move toward a disability service system that honors the rights, preferences, and potential of all citizens with intellectual and developmental disabilities—both those currently residing at Southbury Training School and the thousands awaiting services in the community.
[Note: This analysis was developed based on documents and statements available through May 2025. For the most current information about Southbury Training School and Connecticut disability services, please consult official state sources and disability advocacy organizations.]
