By Gina Macris

Rhode Island’s method of allocating funding to adults with developmental disabilities does not meet the requirements of a 2014 consent decree in that it does not take into sufficient account the needs and goals of the individuals involved, according to a new report from an independent court monitor.

The monitor, Charles Moseley, wants the state to review and modify its methods of assigning funding to make sure that “service dollars are targeted to meet the individual’s personal goals and preferences.”

That’s not all. In a report submitted to the U.S. District Court Feb. 10, Moseley incorporated recommendations from outside experts that would bring sweeping changes to the organization of the state Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). (A court hearing scheduled for Feb. 14 has been postponed.)

The report focuses on the degree to which community-based non-work services are individualized, concluding that Rhode Island has a way to go to achieve compliance.

It also incorporates recommendations from a quality improvement expert who suggested a merger of fragmented licensing, investigative, and program improvement functions at DDD, clearer regulatory standards, and a more precise definition of the future role of the social worker in light of burdensome caseloads (last reported by the state at 205 clients per worker.)

The consultant, Gail Grossman, a former Massachusetts state official, envisioned a unified and continual quality improvement initiative encompassing both DDD and the Office of Rehabilitation Services at the state Department of Human Services. Both agencies oversee employment-related services for adults with disabilities.

Grossman said there should be enough staff to review the performance of 38 service providers every two years. ORS now has only enough staff to make the circuit every nine years, which Grossman found “totally insufficient.”

The court monitor asked the state for quarterly progress reports, beginning April 1, on its progress in meeting a number of goals. They include specific quality improvement recommendations made by Grossman as well as modifications in funding methods and other changes necessary to personalize the planning and delivery of services according to the needs and preferences of individuals entitled to them.

Recommendations concerning the funding of individualized services resulted from a review undertaken in November by Moseley, A. Anthony Antosh, director of the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College, and a Vermont-based independent consultant, William Ashe. They examined the non-work community-based services provided to a sample of 21 adults with developmental disabilities who had widely varying profiles.

From Ashe’s report on the study of 21 individuals and from other data, Moseley concluded that so-called “person-centered” planning and community-based services do not meet the requirements of the consent decree.

The consent decree defines “person-centered planning” as a “formal process that organizes services and supports around a self-directed, self-determined and goal-directed future.” It gives additional detail on how such a plan is to be written.

Ashe and Moseley emphasized that the person-centered plan should drive services, not a funding formula based on a person’s ability to function independently, as is currently the case.

“The funding that agencies receive is based on assessed ‘functioning level’ and not based upon what people may want or really need,” Ashe wrote.

Moseley put it this way: there should be a connection between a “person-centered planning process” and funding methods so that “service dollars are targeted to meet the individuals personal goals and preferences.”

Moseley also wants the state to strengthen its oversight and the capacity of private providers to deliver “truly person-centered plans and services based on clear standards and expectations.”

Ashe said the annual plans written for the 21 individuals in the study were too similar. The state’s planning process “feels rigid and automatic,” and an individual’s current plan “may often look remarkably similar to the one that was done last year.”

“Agencies are often in a situation where their staffing levels prohibit them from individualizing supports to the extent that is necessary to really implement services that are based upon real choice, ” Ashe wrote.

What appears to be lost in the allocation process is an idea of the outcomes that are important for the persons involved, Ashe said.

Ashe said the consent decree recognizes that the state uses the Supports Intensity Scale, a standardized assessment tool, to determine an individual’s need for support.

The current funding method connects the results of the assessment to one of five allocation levels, based on an algorithm developed by a healthcare management consultant for the state. Planning for services occurs only after funding limits have been established.

In some of the case records reviewed by Ashe, Moseley, and Antosh, it was “exceedingly difficult to see how the service to be delivered could ever be realized to the standard expected by the consent decree,” the report said.

For most of the individuals whose services were reviewed, the choice of activities was limited..

Ashe placed a high priority on training for everyone involved in developmental disability services - private providers as well as state workers, services recipients, their families, and advocates - on the meaning of purposeful activities in integrated, community settings and how to provide them.

Click here to read the monitor's report.