By Gina Macris 

A two-hour discussion about the Supports Intensity Scale, used by Rhode Island to assign funding to adults with developmental disabilities, exposed a big gap between the vision of the professionals who created the assessment and the practical experience of families and service providers who must respond to the extensive questionnaire.  

At the Arnold Conference Center in Cranston Nov. 17, Christine Vriend, senior trainer for the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), explained the newest version of the assessment as a guide for developing better individualized plans of support.

But many family members and service providers described the SIS as a tool for cutting funding. They said interviewers administering the questionnaire have been argumentative and combative, showing little respect for them, while seeming determined to lower assessment scores.

Heather Mincey, administrator of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, said she and other officials are working as hard as they can to make changes.

Vriend, said new features of the Supports Intensity Scale are designed to better capture the need for support for exceptionalmedical needs or behavioral issues. 

AAIDD did not design the SIS as a funding tool, but many states use it that way, Rhode Island included. 

In July, in response to a federal consent decree and U.S. District Court order, the state changed its assessment policy in an attempt to separate a determination of what kind of support someone needs from the allocation of money to pay for it. The U.S. Department of Justice and the independent court monitor in the consent decree both have said there was a conflict of interest in having the same agency of state government conduct the assessments and determine the funding.

Most provisions of the consent decree address a shift away from sheltered workshops and isolated day programs to a network of community-based job and leisure activities, in keeping with the 1999 Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that a reliance on segregated services violates the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Since July, state developmental disabilities officials, under the direction of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), have begun to re-train their assessors to use the relatively new SIS-A, released by AAIDD in 2015.

One mother, Tammy Russo, had an interview with a newly re-trained assessor last week. She said the assessor collapsed eight questions into one, stringing together references to several types of medical care into a single sentence, making the information sound so complex that she couldn’t follow what was being said.

Russo, however, said the interviewer ultimately gave her a copy of the questionnaire so she could read along as the questions were being asked.

Russo was asked by officials at the forum to follow up on her experience by calling the supervisor of the SIS interviewers.

Ed McLoughlin, another parent, said that in the SIS interview he attended, “the woman clearly was working to get a lower rating.”

Mincey said that kind of feedback has been discussed a great deal: “If you’re not describing exactly what you need and we’re not getting what you need, that information is not part of the SIS.”

The key to answering the questions, Vriend explained, is not to explain what a person can or cannot do but to think about what supports are needed for someone to be successful at a particular activity – even a hypothetical one. Interviewers are instructed to ask all the questions on the form, whether the topics fit an individuals’ current activities or not.

She declined to answer funding-related questions, emphasizing that she works for AAIDD, not the state.

One woman, who declined to give her name, said a mother who knows exactly how to answer questionsin a SIS interview had a “really horrific” experience when her daughter’s funding was reduced from the highest levelto an average level, even though there had been no change in her condition.

“What the mother and the agency had to go through (on appeal) was heartbreaking,” the woman said.

Megan DiPrete, a family member of an adult with developmental disabilities, said it’s her experience that SIS interviews are conducted in a “combative environment.”

“It’s clearly an issue that needs to be addressed, she said.

Another woman spelled out the disrespect she said she witnessed, although she declined to give her name because she works for a direct service provider and is not authorized to speak on the agency’s behalf.

The woman said she asked the interviewer not to speak so fast so that the person under assessment could better follow the conversation. The interviewer refused, saying that if she did so, she would stutter.

Then three people told the interviewer that the person under assessment could not advocate for himself, and the interviewer responded, “Well, he can talk can’t he?”

Vriend likened the discussion that is supposed to occur at SIS interviews as a “table of supports.” The various participants are not supposed to be “butting heads,” she said.

Interviewers have a responsibility to describe the question using consistent language and to help respondents understand the intent of the item, she said. It is important for respondents to be “fully engaged in that process” and provide “perspective and justification for a score.”

All sides should be in agreement with the scores, but if “if you disagree, you should have an avenue to take this further,” Vriend said.

Vriend said AAIDD verification procedures generally confirm the accuracy of the SIS as it is administered in the field. The SIS is used in about half the United States and abroad.

But recurring complaints about the SIS in Rhode Island that have surfaced at public sessions throughout the year indicate there a lack of public confidence in the SIS. AAIDD says public confidence is important in the successful implementation of the assessment program.

In her role as a trainer, Vriend addressed one of the most controversial parts of the assessment in Rhode Island; the need for exceptional supports for individuals for behavioral issues. Those supports can be labor-intensive, and therefore costly. 

She said,  ”We’re not rating the severity of the behavior or how often it occurs. What we’re rating is the support needed to address that behavior or prevent it. If you haven’t had an assault in three years, but one of the reasons is solid support, then we’ve got to recognize that.”

In other public sessions, parents and providers have expressed the view that in some cases, once such exceptional supports are in place and have been given time to stabilize a client, the assessor looks only at the improved behavior. In those cases, all the effort put into realizing those improvements are discounted in the ratings, which lead to lower scores and less funding, they say.

Several suggestions emerged from the audience to help family members and providers feel more confident in the SIS process. They urged the state to put into place several safeguards. Among them:

·         Families and providers should be given copies of the questionnaire so they can read the questions as they are being asked. (On Nov. 18, Mincey issued a statement saying this change will be implemented immediately.)  

·         Families and providers should be informed at the interview that they have a right to appeal and should be given contact information for lodging complaints. They should be asked to fill out evaluation forms on the interviewers

·         Families and providers should be given copies of the completed questionnaires to better understand the scores.

Individuals with developmental disabilities and their guardians have a legal right to their own health care records, including assessments like the SIS, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

At the meeting, Mincey acknowledged that families have had difficulty in the past obtaining copies of their loved ones’ SIS results, but she said the Division of Disabilities is now granting those requests.

Mincey referred questions about the SIS to Donna Standish, the SIS supervisor. Standish can be reached at 401-462-2628 or Donna.Standish@bhddh.ri.gov