DOJ And RI Can't Agree On Next Consent Decree Monitor; Judge McConnell To Decide

By Gina Macris

For more than four months, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the state of Rhode Island have been unable to agree on a new monitor of the state’s compliance with a 2014 civil rights consent decree affecting adults with developmental disabilities.

The stalemate now leaves the choice to U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., who will consider apparent differences between the DOJ and the state over the extent of the monitor’s authority in making his selection. McConnell must choose from up to six candidates – a maximum of three names submitted by each side.

In the absence of a monitor, whose duties include mediation of disputes, a disagreement simmered between the state’s consent decree coordinator and an Employment First Task Force. The argument, concerning the the independence of the task force, escalated to the point of prompting a letter from the DOJ to the state’s lawyers.

The monitor’s job became vacant with the retirement of Charles Moseley, who notified all concerned on July 9 that because of health concerns, he would step down effective Sept. 30.

The state and the DOJ had 30-days to agree on a replacement once Moseley gave his notice, according to the consent decree. After 30 days, the decree says, the judge makes the selection from the candidates submitted by the two sides.

McConnell initially set a deadline of Sept. 30 for the two sides to conclude discussions, but at the end of September, he extended the deadline to Nov. 25, requiring the DOJ and the state to check in with him every two weeks on the progress in talks.

Earlier this month, he asked the two sides to submit statements on their respective views of the role of the consent decree monitor. That deadline also was extended, from Nov. 19 to Nov. 22.

The statements appear similar in many details but suggest that the DOJ envisions greater independence for the monitor than does the state. The DOJ has asked for a phone conference with the state and the judge on the matter of the monitor’s selection.

During the time there’s been no monitor, comparatively small differences between the state’s consent decree coordinator and an Employment First Task Force (EFTF) have coalesced into a dispute over the independence of the Task Force that reached the ears of the DOJ in at least one telephone call.

The EFTF was created by the consent decree to serve as a community-based advisory group to the state, the monitor, and the court. Its members are drawn from many non-profit organizations working to improve the quality of life of adults with developmental disabilities, as well as representation from those receiving services and their families. .

The flap appears to finally have been settled with a Nov. 13 letter from the DOJ to the private lawyers representing the state in the consent decree, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton.

The letter said EFTF members informed the DOJ that the state’s consent decree coordinator, Brian Gosselin, has told the task force not to communicate with the DOJ without Rhode Island’s oversight.

Gosselin, queried briefly by Developmental Disability News after an EFTF meeting Nov. 19, which he attended with Kathleen Hilton, one of the state’s consent decree lawyers, said it was a “genuine misunderstanding.”

The DOJ said in its letter that it hoped it indeed was a misunderstanding that was at the heart of the disagreement:

“We hope that there is simply a misunderstanding or miscommunication here, as such an instruction would be inconsistent with the role of the Task Force as set out in the Consent Decree,” wrote DOJ. While the consent decree required the state to create the task force,” the letter said, the consent decree ”does not contemplate that the State will supervise its work, dictate its findings, or limit its communications. The Task Force’s members are independent stakeholders whose role is to assist in successful implementation of the Consent Decree, including by providing recommendations to the Monitor and State officials.”

“Indeed, any limitation on open communication would undermine the intended autonomy of the Task Force. We ask Rhode Island to help ensure that the channels of communication between the Employment First Task Force, the United States, and the Monitor are uninhibited,” the letter said. It was signed by trial attorneys Jillian Lenson, Victoria Thomas and Nicole Kovite Zeitler.

The letter was not discussed at the most recent EFTF meeting, but there appeared to be some tension between Gosselin and members of the task force around a discussion that began with EFTF questions about the details of the state’s latest quarterly compliance report and ended with the state’s own questions about ways the task force could do more to work in the field to present the benefits of employment.

Members of the task force indicated they do what they can in the community, but added that they are a group of volunteers, most of them with full time jobs. (Some of them are also family members with responsibilities for individuals with special needs.) Task force members emphasized the advisory nature of the committee, echoing the DOJ letter.

If a monitor were in place, he or she might be expected to mediate differences between the consent decree coordinator and the EFTF before they got the point of requiring a lawyer’s letter from one side to the other. In fact, the consent decree explicitly authorizes the monitor to mediate, although the monitor’s recommendations for settling disputes are not binding, unless they happen to overlap with requirements of the consent decree, according to the DOJ.

As to the monitor’s powers, one of the main points made by the DOJ is its view that the monitor is not bound by the preferences of the state or the DOJ, unless the preferences are also required by the consent decree itself. By the same token, the state is not bound by the DOJ’s preferences and vice-versa, according DOJ view.

The state does not spell out that distinction between either sides’s preferences s the requirements of the consent decree. The differences between the DOJ and the state are highlighted in red or blue type in a in an extra document submitted to McConnell by the federal government.

In the highlighted document, the two sides differ on the monitor’s independence in evaluating situations in which there is a change in the relevant facts, like fluctuating numbers of people in the consent decree “target populations”, or subgroups, who are required to be placed in jobs in the community. (There are four “target populations,” depending on whether or not individuals ever were employees of a sheltered workshop or whether they were in high school or young adults at the time the consent decree was signed.)

If, for example, the number of target population members is lower than the number of target population members required to be placed in integrated employment, the state says that monitor will make recommendations or ask advice from the court on how to evaluate the state’s compliance in light of the changed numbers.

The DOJ, however, just asks that the monitor report the changed numbers to the court.. Its preferences would not put any qualifiers on the monitor’s authority to evaluate the new situation.

There is agreement that the annual budget for the court monitor, including expenses any consultants that may be hired, should not exceed $300,000, as required by the consent decree. The state pays the monitor.

But the DOJ points out that the consent decree allows the monitor to ask for increase that would exceed the $300,000 limit. The state’s document omits that point. Any expenditure over $300,000 would require approval by the state, according to the consent decree.

In many respects, the submissions by the state and the DOJ are identical.

Read the state’s view of the monitor’s role by clicking here.

Read the DOJ’s view of the monitor’s role by clicking here.

Read the DOJ comparison of the two documents by clicking here.

Two Pilot Programs, Two Approaches to Supported Employment, Aired at RI DD Task Force Meeting

By Gina Macris

(This article (been corrected.)

Between January and mid-August, about one in four Rhode Islanders with developmental disabilities who were enrolled in a new supported employment program landed jobs, with help from private service agencies funded through the state Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD).

But there are signs of strain on the ability of these agencies to train the workers they need to continue to deliver results over the long haul.

 In the meantime, the Office of Rehabilitation Services (ORS) has started a much smaller pilot project , now in its second quarter of operation.

The two pilots take different approaches to funding employment-related supports for adults with developmental disabilities.

The DDD program adopts a fee-for service reimbursement model – based on the severity of a client’s disability - and a complicated billing mechanism that is similar to the one set up six years ago by the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) for funding all developmental disability payments to private providers.

There is no provision for funding up front to support agencies’ costs for training workers to provide employment-related services.

The ORS project offers a flat rate of $7,000 per client, with $1750 up front so provider agencies can train and assemble a team of employment specialists. Providers are eligible for two additional quarterly payments of $1750 as long as they document the progress the clients are making.  A final payment  of  $1750 is awarded at the end of a year’s time only if the client has landed a job.

According to a recent report to a federal court monitor, state officials are evaluating both the ORS and DDD approaches to determine “what aspects of each model work for providers, what challenges exist, and how ongoing efforts of the two agencies can be coordinated.”

Tracey Cunningham and Joseph Murphy

Joseph Murphy, an administrator at ORS in the Department of Human Services, and Tracey Cunningham, Chief Employment Specialist in the developmental disabilities division at BHDDH, gave status reports on their respective programs at the monthly meeting of the Employment First Task Force Sept. 12.  

Cunningham said that between January and mid-August, the DDD program found jobs for 116 of a total of 425 adults with developmental disabilities who were enrolled. Nine others found jobs that didn’t work out, Cunningham said, and they are looking for better matches.

The program could take on an additional 92 clients, up to a maximum of 517, according to figures provided by Cunningham. However, service providers are having trouble lining up the trained staff to expand their rosters and want to focus instead on doing a good job with the clients they already have, Cunningham said.

Claire Rosenbaum, Adult Services Coordinator for the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College, said one training course was cancelled recently for lack of enrollment. The Sherlock Center has a contract with the state to provide the needed training tuition-free.

In addition, the “self-directed” families, those who manage services independently for loved ones, are having a difficult time finding properly trained job developers and job coaches, Rosenbaum said. 

Cunningham said about 90 percent of “self-directed” families who seek supported employment services purchase them from private agencies.  But Rosenbaum said families are having difficulty identifying agencies able to help them.

Cunningham said three agencies are accepting clients from “self-directed” families:  Goodwill Industries, Work, Inc., and a new program called Kaleidoscope.

Nicole Kovite Zeitler

Nicole Kovite Zeitler, a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice who monitors supported employment in conjunction with a 2014 consent decree enforcing the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), asked what was driving the providers’ inability to expand.

 Low salaries are the primary reason, said Donna Martin, executive director of the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, a trade association representing about two thirds of the private agencies providing services in Rhode Island.

She said aging baby boomers also are creating an increased demand for direct care workers. Turnover is high – about 35 percent - and one in six jobs goes vacant in the developmental disability system, she said.

The General Assembly this year enacted the second consecutive raise for direct care workers. (Read related article here.)

But the increase, an estimated 42 cents an hour before taxes, is not expected to make a significant difference in the existing subsistence-level wages. Nor will it be any easier for developmental disability agencies to hire or keep new workers.

Meanwhile, the funding for the DDD supported employment program has been greatly under-utilized, even while the developmental disability service agencies have struggled to hire and train enough workers. (Read related article here.)                                 

The DDD program provides increased allowances for  job-seekers, based on the degree to which they lack independence,  but  most of the expenditures are set-aside for one-time performance bonuses to the agencies when:

•  A job coach or job developer completes training
•  A client gets hired
•  A client remains employed for 90 days
•  A client remains employed for 180 days.

Agencies receive $810 for each worker who has completed training. The remainder of the bonuses are arranged on a sliding scale, depending on the severity of the client’s disability, with the largest payments resulting from placement and retention milestones for those with the most complex needs.

Excluding any reimbursements for worker training, which were not part of the original design of the DDD program, the average maximum one-time reimbursement was initially projected to be $9,700 for young adults and $15,757 for older adults – those who left high school before 2013. Any updated figures were not immediately available.

The pilot operated by the state Office of Rehabilitation Services (ORS)  works with seven developmental disability service agencies to help a total of 49 clients find jobs. Five have had success so far, Joseph Murphy, program administrator, told task force members.

The ORS program, which receives technical assistance from Salve Regina University in Newport,  is now in the second quarter of the program year, while DDD program is in the third quarter. 

The ORS program considers a successful placement to be a minimum of ten hours a week in competitive, integrated employment in the community, although Murphy said Sept. 14 that it accepts clients no matter how many hours' work they seek. The ORS program offers a $1,000 bonus for job placements that exceed 20 hours a week and last at least six months. In the DDD program, a successful placement may involve fewer than 10 hours' work a week.

Victoria Thomas

The employment goal of the consent decree is an average of 20 hours a week of work at minimum wage or higher, although DOJ lawyer Victoria Thomas said there are no hourly employment requirements in the ADA.

“It just says people with developmental disabilities should have the option of integrated services,” she said.

The consent decree resulted from findings of the DOJ in 2014 that the state’s developmental disability services  over-relied on segregated sheltered workshops paying sub-minimum wages and non-work programs resembling day care.  As part of a system-wide overhaul, the state must support increasing numbers of adults with developmental disabilities in competitive employment in the community through Jan. 1, 2024.

The Employment First Task Force was created by the consent decree to serve as a bridge between state government and the community.

All photos by Anne Peters

This article has been corrected to reflect the fact that the up-front payment to providers in the ORS supported employment program is $1,750, one quarter of the total $7,000 allocation per client. In a clarification, Joseph Murphy, the program administrator, said it accepts clients no matter how many hours a week they seek competitive employment, even though a placement must be for at least ten hours a week to be considered successful for the purposes of the program.

RI DD Officials "Trying To Do The Right Thing," Says Judge In Review of 2014 Olmstead Consent Decree

By Gina Macris

Rhode Island’s efforts to implement a 2014 consent decree to help adults with developmental disabilities become part of their communities won plaudits from a federal judge July 28, althougth some officials indicated there’s still a long way before the changes permeate the system of state services. 

Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. said he is heartened “when a state entity is trying to do the right thing. It’s not the case where the state is acting in any way in bad faith.”

“Compared to about a year ago we are in a very different place,” he said.

In May, 2016, McConnell issued a 8-page order warning the state he would entertain contempt proceedings unless it moved forward with implementation of the consent decree, which at that time had been stalled for two years.

At the latest hearing, July 28, McConnell said there had been “positive movement” in the state’s efforts to carry out the requirements of the consent decree and urged state officials to “keep it up.” 

The judge acknowledged that sweeping changes in the leadership of state agencies responsible for the disabilities programs in recent months had left him feeling “quite nervous” about the state’s ability to comply with his orders, but he said “now it doesn’t feel that way at all.”

McConnell chose a relatively informal setting for the hearing, convening his review not in his courtroom but in the richly paneled library of the Beaux Arts federal building on Kennedy Plaza in Providence, and inviting participants around a conference table to remove their jackets.

A lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, Nicole Kovite Zeitler, and an independent court monitor, Charles Moseley, cited advances in the handling of bureaucratic issues that are pre-requisites for a turn-around in the system that will take years to accomplish. The areas they covered included:

• The realignment of social work staff to better oversee changes in the way services are delivered
• Additional steps intended to lay the foundation for an active, multi-faceted quality improvement effort involving the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) and the Office of Rehabilitation Services (ORS)
• Improved communication with service providers, and with the publicThe expanded availability of training and information on the principles of individualized planning and personal choice that are at the heart of the consent decree – and the federal law behind it.

There were, however, signs that, for some individuals who depend on developmental disability services, change has not yet arrived.

For example, Zeitler said that of 22 private agencies participating in a pilot program to encourage job-placements, 42 percent –nearly half - say they can’t take new clients.

Moseley said he “regularly” gets reports from families who say that they have been turned down by service providers they sought out.

Although the pilot project in supported employment is billed as an “incentive” program, participating agencies report privately they operate at a loss for each client they place in a job.

The legislature allocated $6.8 million for supported employment in the fiscal year which ended June 30, but the pilot program did not begin operations until January, and in the first six months it paid out a total of about $122,000 to participating agencies, according to BHDDH calculations obtained by Developmental Disability News.

Rebecca Boss, the BHDDH director, acknowledged there are “challenges” to delivering those supported employment services but did not elaborate. A report from Moseley to the judge submitted the day before the hearing said there have been multiple meetings between state officials and the providers to discuss various factors affecting the supported employment program, including “operational issues that are reported to be impeding the ability of the organizations to meet their placement goals.”

McConnelland the consent decree officials at the table spent considerable time discussing a relatively low employment rate of young adults – the very group most likely to have had the broadest experiences in high school, including school-to work internships. 

The participants acknowledged that the employment rate for that group, 32 percent, was artificially depressed, because the number of individuals in the young adult category has grown dramatically, from 151 to 497, in the last nine months.  It takes time to find the right job, Zeitler said. 

But the monitor said in his latest report to the judge that progress in finding jobs for young adults “has been slow.”  Even if one analyzes only the original 151 young adults and discounts 60 of them who are not receiving BHDDH services, the employment rate is 51 percent, Moseley said in the report.

He recommended that the state contact each of the 60 not receiving services to make sure they know that supports are available if they need them.

Clients recently interviewed by Zeitler and DOJ colleagues said they were sometimes “bored” with their daytime non-work activities, Zeitler reported. The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) says persons who receive public supports must have personal choice in deciding what they do with their time, both for work and leisure.

But the way resources are currently invested does not necessarily promote “inclusivity,” noted Boss, saying the department is hoping to do some “rebalancing” of the way money is spent.

The individual choice mandated in the consent decree implies one-to-one or small group staffing, assuming that a few friends want to do something together in the community. But a fairly rigid regulatory structure currently in place doesn’t allow for such staffing unless clients are deemed to have extensive disabilities.  

The Division of Developmental l Disabilities is in the process of rewriting all its regulations to change from a system that assigns funding based on the severity of a disability to one that stresses individualization and personal choice, or“person-centered planning,” in accordance with the ADA and the consent decree.

As Moseley noted, the state must make these changes anyway to comply with the broader federal Medicaid Home and Community Based Rule (HCBS). The federal-state Medicaid program pays for all developmental disability services in Rhode Island.

Like the consent decree, HCBS derives its authority from the 1999 Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Olmstead decision re-affirmed Title II of the ADA, which emphasizes its primary purpose to integrate those with disabilities into the mainstream of society and respects their individual choices on the degree to which they wish to participate. 

The last time BHDDH attempted regulatory reform along similar lines, in 2015, an internal BHDDH work group came up with recommendations that would have cost tens of millions of dollars. The proposed changes did not move forward.  

In his most recent report to the judge,  Moseley said that the effort to gain greater flexibility over existing funding “is a positive move, but additional steps need to be taken to map out a process for ensuring that funding supports integrated person-centered day services” that meet the standards of the consent decree.

Zeitler said management officials of direct service agencies seem to understand the principles of individualized, or “person-centered” activity plans, but some direct care workers “don’t speak the language.” 

Zeitler suggested that more training is in order.  Although the training is available, tuition-free, Kerri Zanchi, developmental disabilities chief at BHDDH,  indicated there was no “quick fix” to this problem, given the high turnover in the workforce.

Zeitler, meanwhile, praised the way Zanchi has moved around staff to make the most of available personnel, calling the reorganization “very creative.”  

Zanchi has added four workers to the case management unit, reducing caseloads from 205 to 152 per person. Two of the workers came from the unit that determines eligibility for services and two came from a separate group that assesses the support needs of clients once they are found eligible for services. 

Another worker has been tapped to serve in the newly created position of transition coordinator, to serve teenagers and young adults moving from high school to adult services. The Division of Developmental Disabilities has hired a new residential coordinator to address housing options for those who do not live with their families.

An outside quality improvement expert enlisted by Moseley has said in a report that "there is a significant commitment to change" at BHDDH and ORS to ensure high program standards are implemented across the board. 

"But the staff available to implement change are stretched very thin," wrote Gail Grossman in a report that is part of Moseley's latest filing with the court. Grossman continued: "Serious consideration needs to be given to the need for additional staff resources if DDD (the Division of Developmental Disabilities) and BHDDH are going to develop, manage and oversee a strong QMIS (Quality Management and Improvement System) structure."

BHDDH has a unit entitled quality improvement, but its scope is limited to investigations of neglect or abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Click here for the monitor's latest report to the judge.

Related articles: Judge Willing To Intervene In RI Budget Impasse

Supported Employment Program Falls Short Of Initial Goals in RI

Judge McConnell: Consent Decree Progress Should Not Distract State From Long Road Ahead

By Gina Macris

U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. says Rhode Island has made considerable progress in laying the groundwork to comply with a three year-old consent decree aimed at improving the lives of adults with developmental disabilities.

But that progress should not distract all concerned from “how far we have to go,” McConnell said.

In a quarterly review of the case on March 10, McConnell called attention to the remarks of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Nicole Kovite Zeitler, who spoke of the state’s progress and the unrealized potential of the consent decree to transform lives for a generation. 

“From where we were a year ago the work the state has done is commendable,” Zeitler said, “but the ultimate goal of the 2014 agreement is the transformation of services” for adults with developmental disabilities.

“These people have goals, just like anyone else,” Zeitler said.

Yet, a recent review of the day services typically offered adults with disabilities conveys a lack of purpose.  “There’s a feeling that attending a day program is just something people do,” she said.

The DOJ is committed to ultimate compliance with the consent decree, Zeitler said, but the decree means more than financing plans for services.  

Rather, the effort must put individuals’ goals and dreams at the center of the process and incorporate ongoing quality assurance practices to ensure continued compliance with the consent decree, she said.

Zeitler referred to a review of the day services of 21 adults by consultant William H. Ashe that was incorporated into a recent report to the court by the independent monitor in the case, Charles Moseley.

In many cases, Ashe found the signposts of individualized or “person-centered’” planning absent.  The service planning process required by the state  ”feels rigid and automatic,” Ashe noted. ”The ISP (individual service plan) for a person this year may often look remarkably similar to the one that was done last year. The funding that agencies receive is based on assessed ‘functioning level’ and not based upon what people may want or actually need,” Ashe said.

”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,” he said.

The monitor, Moseley, has given the state notice in a recent report to the court that he wants changes in the funding and planning process that meet the “person-centered” requirements of the consent decree. The state must give him progress reports quarterly, beginning April 1.

McConnell asked why the percentage of young adults finding employment was so low – only 22 percent. Moseley said the percentage dipped as the state complied with a request he made last fall to fully identify all eligible individuals who have left school since 2013.

The count of the so-called “youth exit” group initially stood at 151 young adults with developmental disabilities. By November the figure had jumped to 501, and, now is 516, Mary Madden, the state’s consent decree coordinator, told the court.  

The number of young adults with jobs is 109, according to the latest reports of the state to the monitor.

Referring to a provision of the consent decree decree which requires “all” young people to have jobs the same year they leave school,  McConnell asked why the employmentbenchmark for young adults is so “aggressive”.

Zeitler said the goals were designed that way because the generation going through school now is learning the skills necessary to prepare for adult life.

These young people have the most to gain from the consent decree and the most to lose without it, Zeitler said. They know their own potential, but under the old system they would spend years in isolation from the larger community, she said.

The 2014 consent decree settled findings of the DOJ that the state relied on sheltered workshops and segregated day programs in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which was reaffirmed in the Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999. The Olmstead decision said that individuals with disabilities have a right to receive services in the least restrictive environment that is therapeutically appropriate, which is presumed to be the community.

The Rhode Island decree is not the first Olmstead enforcement action in the country, but the first one that addresses daytime programs that segregate adults with disabilities. Because they ard the DOJ.

A year ago, the state had made virtually no effort to implement the consent decree and lacked the financing, data, and staff to respond to requests made by the monitor. After an evidentiary hearing in April, McConnell issued a multi-faceted order which put the state on short deadlines for responding to discrete tasks – or face contempt proceedings.

So far, the order has brought results:  $11 million more in federal-state Medicaid funding, a larger staff to work on policy changes, and better cooperation and communication among the agencies responsible for implementing the agreement – the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, the Office of Rehabilitation Services, and the Rhode Island Department of Education.

One part of McConnell’s order has led to an incentive program for service providers to find jobs for their clients and help them stay employed. That program has placed 20 new hires since January, although Zeitler said the state needs to have “frank discussions” with service providers about continued gaps in job placement targets in two of three segmentsof the population represented by the consent decree.    

Moseley, the monitor, has followed McConnell’s lead in adopting short-term deadlines for specific tasks he has assigned the state. One such inquiry led to the identification in November of young adults with autism or multiple disabilities who hadn’t previously been counted as part of the consent decree population. That’s what boosted the so-called “youth exit” population to more than 500.

More recently, Moseley has enumerated dozens of tasks relating to the individualization of services, better internal quality improvement efforts, methods of funding, employment, and other consent-decree issues, along with short-term deadlines for responses.

Jennifer Wood, General Counsel to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the head of the state’s response to the consent decree, said Rhode Island now has the bureaucratic “infrastructure” to delve into the actual service delivery system.  “Person-centered planning is at the heart of that,” she said.

The next court review will be scheduled for mid-July, but McConnell said he wants to receive interim progress reports from Moseley.  McConnell also noted that from time to time, he receives letters from parents and makes them part of the case file, which is a public record. 

Related articles: 

"RI Still Lags in DD Consent Decree Compliance, But Shows Progress in Number of Job Placements"

"Monitor Seeks Changes In BHDDH Funding Methods to Satisfy Consent Decree"

"Monitor Wants Mountains of Details to Push Compliance With RI Olmstead Consent Decree"

Judge, DOJ Praise RI's Compliance Efforts In DD Case; Contempt Hearing Avoided, For Now

By Gina Macris

The state of Rhode Island has done more in the last six months to comply with a federal consent decree aimed at ending the isolation of adults with developmental disabilities than the previous state administration did in the first two years of the agreement. 

That assessment came from the U.S. Department of Justice Sept. 16 in a conference on the status of the 2014 agreement before U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.   

Because of those efforts, McConnell deferred, for now, a request by DOJ lawyer Nicole Kovite Zeitler that he hold contempt proceedings in early October over the state’s failure to hit specific targets in the order McConnell issued last spring to force compliance with the consent decree.

By signing the consent decree in 2014, the state promised, over a ten-year period, to establish a system of community-based, integrated work and leisure activities for individuals with developmental disabilities that would replace sheltered workshops and segregated day programs. The transition is mandated by the Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.  

While acknowledging the state’s intensive efforts, led by Jennifer Wood, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, Zeitler cited two non-compliance issues: the scarcity of young adults with developmental disabilities holding jobs, and the state’s failure to distribute increased reimbursement rates to private service providers by Aug. 1 as the judge had required.  

Wood said rate increases would be implemented Oct. 1. That is the date the computer system will be adjusted to reflect a 36-cent hourly increase, from $11.55 to $11.91, in the average reimbursement rate paid to private service providers.  

Approximately 4000 workers at private agencies will get raises, retroactive to July 1, after their employers start receiving the higher reimbursements. 

Mary Madden, the state’s consent decree coordinator, elaborated on the lack of job placements for young adults. 

Of a total of 151 individuals with intellectual disabilities who left school in the 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 academic years, 99 are receiving adult services, including 79 who are receiving employment-related services and 29 who are actually employed, Madden said. 

She did not have data for the 2015-2016 academic year. 

The employment number is “not where anyone wants it to be,” Madden said.   

Of the 151 identified, 52 individuals are not enrolled for any services. 

Later, Zeitler said the notion that 52 young adults have not been connected with adult services is a serious concern. 

Charles Moseley, the independent monitor in the case, said he wanted to echo both Zeitler’s concerns and her praise of the state’s efforts so far. 

He said he “wrestled with the idea of a show-cause hearing,” a proceeding that might lead to a contempt order, but decided against recommending it, because he believes the state can work with him to plan and provide employment services. 

While McConnell noted that a missed deadline in a judicial order is a serious issue, he deferred to Moseley’s confidence that he can work things out with the state. 

“I tend to be a ‘half-full’ kinda guy,” McConnell said, explaining his decision. 

“Some may call me Pollyanna-ish,” he said, but the compliance effort put forth by the state in the last six months “deserves a compliment and a thanks.”  

McConnell said state government doesn’t move quickly, even with court sanctions hanging over its head, as they were after McConnell issued a 22-point compliance order May 18. 

The fact that the Governor and the General Assembly acted late in the legislative season to add $11 million to the developmental disabilities budget should be acknowledged, McConnell said. He also thanked Health and Human Services Secretary Elizabeth Roberts, Deputy Secretary Wood, and her administrative team. About half a dozen of them attended the hearing.  

“We wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the Department of Justice,” McConnell continued, praising its “tenacity and advocacy in taking on an incredibly complex task for those who wouldn’t otherwise have a voice.” 

But McConnell said he wasn’t about to unfurl a “Mission Accomplished banner” just yet.  

A report that the monitor filed with the court on the eve of the hearing outlines a plan to put the state on short-term deadlines for developing employment strategies for young adults and making sure all those eligible for services are identified. The employment-related strategies are due Oct. 1. 

 Moseley gave the state until Nov. 15 to identify all young adults who have left school in the last three academic years who are eligible for developmental disability services, but he wants to hear how it will approach that problem by Sept. 30. 

The effort will require cooperation by the state Department of Education, the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals, and the state Office of Rehabilitation Services. 

Moseley has expressed concern that the state is missing those who do not have an intellectual disability but are eligible because of a developmental delay.   Depending on the individual, a young adult on the autism spectrum may fall into the latter category. 

With the average cost of services at about $59,000 a year per person, Moseley’s directive for better identification of eligible young adults has the potential to add significantly to the developmental disabilities budget. 

For example, it would cost an estimated $3 million a year to serve the 52 young adults who have been identified but who are not enrolled in developmental disability services. 

Moseley, meanwhile, reflected on concerns expressed by the DOJ about the need for quality career development planning, a newly-implemented exercise that is intended to drive thoughtful, individualized job searches. 

“Person-centered planning, person-centered thinking, is a challenge that is facing all states. It needs to be done on an ongoing basis,” he said. 

Earlier in the hearing, Deputy Secretary Wood said the new chief employment specialist, Tracey Cunningham, had personally trained more than 200 people in how to write career development plans. 

But Moseley said it’s not a matter of one training. “You have to learn it and live it,” he said.