RI DD Services Get A "Status Quo" Budget, But Can It Keep Up With Client Needs And Consent Decree?

By Gina Macris

With Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo signing the $9.6 billion budget bill into law June 22, the service system for adults with developmental disabilities averts a crisis in the fiscal year beginning July 1, and instead continues the status quo.

That is to say, the system is still struggling to meet the needs of some 4,000 Rhode Island adults with developmental disabilities, including those who are seeking services for the first time.

Higher-than-expected revenue estimates in May enabled the House and the Senate to restore a number of reductions in the human services which Raimondo had proposed in January, including about $18 million in developmental disabilities.  On June 20, the Senate ratified the House version of the budget and sent it to the governor.

Until the state’s intent to restore the funds for developmental disability services became clear in mid-May, an independent federal court monitor had been preparing to make recommendations to U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. for an order to ensure adequate funding..

It was the second time since a federal civil rights consent decree was signed in 2014 that a court order, or the threat of one, has surfaced during the budget-making season at the State House. There’s no reason to believe that the monitor won’t re-visit that idea next year if funding for developmental disability services fails to keep pace with the stepped-up demands of the consent decree, which requires the state to shift from segregated services to those offering integrated, community-based opportunities by 2024.

One goal illustrates the challenges. The state is to have part-time jobs by Sept. 30 for all young adults who left high school between 2013 and 2016 and who who want to work, but with three months remaining until the deadline, those with jobs number 235, or 55 percent, of a population of 425, according to figures released last week.

The budget does include $1.5 million in technical assistance for private providers of developmental disability services trying to adjust to integrated services for clients, according to Carmela Corte, the chief financial officer of the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH). Those are federal-state Medicaid dollars that will be taken from the allocation for direct services.   

A relatively small number of adults with developmental disabilities who choose to use their funding authorizations from BHDDH for in-home care will be able to pay workers 10 percent more, which amounts to about $620,000 in the budget, Corte said.

By The Numbers 

The General Assembly also adjusted the current budget to close out the fiscal year, adding about $15.6 million to cover an operating deficit as recommended by Raimondo, who acknowledged the shortfall deficit as a one-time event.

The overall numbers in developmental disabilities:

•     $272.1 million for Fiscal 2018, which ends June 30    
• ·   $271.4 million for Fiscal 2019, which begins July 1

Administrators, however, tend to work on a day-to-day basis with an “operating budget,” which includes only federal and state Medicaid funds available for providing direct services.

For the current fiscal year, federal-state Medicaid dollars are budgeted at $269.8 million.  For the fiscal year beginning July 1, the federal-state Medicaid total is $269.2 million.

No Raises For Frontline Workers

One big-ticket item missing from the next budget is a pay increase for employees of private service providers who work directly with adults with developmental disabilities.  The underpaid workforce is sure to be a major issue for advocates when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.

Incremental raises for these workers during three budget cycles have allowed them to keep just ahead of the minimum wage, in a range which puts private service providers in competition with the same pool of workers as fast-food restaurants and other retail businesses. 

Including the most recent raises, in 2017, the average direct care worker is paid about $11.50 an hour. The minimum wage, which increased from $9.60 to $10.10 on Jan. 1, is due for another bump, to $10.50, on Jan. 1, 2019.

Before the General Assembly cut $26 million from the developmental disabilities budget in 2011, the average pay at some private agencies serving adults with developmental disabilities averaged close to $15 an hour, with comprehensive health insurance and other benefits.  Career ladders afforded front-line workers opportunities for advancement.

Since then, the workforce has become unstable, with employers unable to fill one out of six jobs, according to the Community Provider Network of Rhode Island, a trade organization. Turnover ranges from about 30 percent to about 75 percent, depending on the agency. In some cases, workers leave direct care work for other jobs with similar pay but much less responsibility. In other cases, they leave for the same type of work at better pay in Massachusetts, which is scheduled to offer a minimum of $15 an hour for such work July 1.

Budget Questions At Public Forum

The issue of worker pay surfaced at a public forum hosted by the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) June 18 at the University of Rhode Island, with one parent lamenting the lack raises in the year ahead.

Kerri Zanchi                         Photo By Anne Peters

Kerri Zanchi, Director of Developmental Disabilities, and other staff of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH), explained various aspects of the budget and outlined initiatives intended to help the service system in the long run.

Asked whether the “status quo” funding approved by the General Assembly would result in cost overruns in the coming fiscal year, Zanchi didn’t say.  Instead she emphasized that DDD must use its data “every single month” to support its projections and “really understand what our needs are going to look like.”  

But BHDDH projections of need for developmental disability services don’t figure in the semi-annual Caseload Estimating Conference that comes up with figures for Medicaid entitlement costs.

And the state Budget Office does not take actual costs into account in making recommendations to the governor, a spokeswoman said earlier this year.  Rather it uses “estimated growth rates in the cost of providing services,” according to Brenna McCabe. She did not say who makes the estimates or otherwise elaborate.

The new budget doesn’t allow for increases in individual funding authorizations – one of the chief causes of the cost overruns which prompted the BHDDH request for additional funding in the budget cycle now winding down.

The governor cited higher “acuity” in acknowledging that increased per-person costs fueled a projected $15 million deficit in developmental disability costs in the fiscal year ending June 30. That factor, however, was ignored in her presentation of Fiscal 2019 budget that begins July 1.

Ever since November, 2016, there has been an upward trend in individual authorizations, something  that is expected to continue for several years, until all clients have been evaluated at least once using a revised standardized interview that is considered more accurate than the previous one. Both the original interview, called the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS), and the revised one, called the SIS-A, were developed by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.  

Budget Language Opens Door To Innovation

The budget contains language that responds in to a variety of concerns about who manages resources available to adults with developmental disabilities and how providers are paid. 

It gives BHDDH the required state legislative authority to apply for a so-called “Health Home” and an “Alternate Payment Method” to create pilot programs for changes in case management and provider reimbursement better suited to integrated, community-based services that are tailored to individual preferences and needs, as required by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) hold that neither the states, as funding authorities, nor the services providers themselves can also be responsible for designing and managing individualized programs of activities without conflicts of interests.

States should have another disinterested party in the role of case manager, according to CMS.

The Health Home is the CMS name for the third-party case management organization that would oversee individual clients’ Medicaid and Medicare services, while the Alternate Payment Method allows states to explore changes to the usual fee-for-service reimbursement to private providers.

 Zanchi and Kimberly Reynolds, BHDDH administrator of financial management, explained the goals of the applications at the public forum June 18.

Reynolds described the Health Home as a “one-stop shop where individuals and families may get assistance in managing their services.  BHDDH has three health homes, mostly in the substance abuse and mental health areas.”

By way of background, Zanchi said that the idea for applying for a Health Home grew out of collective thinking in DDD during the last year about ways to put its clients in the driver’s seat in shaping their activities, or as she put it, developing “person-centered practice.”

For one thing, the system can’t be truly “person-centered” without case management that is free of conflicts of interest, Zanchi said.

She also said a pilot program for an Alternate Payment Method might generate solutions to problems faced by the current fee-for-service reimbursement system, which poses challenges to providers trying to get their clients into the community in meaningful ways.

The fee-for service system requires providers to bill in 15-minute increments, but only when a client is actually receiving services. It doesn’t allow providers to plan ahead, because reimbursement depends on day-to-day attendance at a particular activity, without exceptions for occasions such as client’s medical appointments, illnesses, or vacations.

As the state moves to a system with greater consumer control and consumer empowerment, Zanchi said, providers will need to be able to count on more staff to get their clients into the community.

Despite the consent decree, the reimbursement system is still geared to funding programs held in facilities like sheltered workshops and day centers, where one staff member can keep an eye on larger groups of individuals than is possible in the community.

Zanchi and Reynolds each said they want the public to participate in drawing up the applications for the Health Home and Alternate Payment Method.

“We have a lot of work to do in a very quick time frame, and like everything else we’ve done, we’re going to do it with our constituents,”  Zanchi said.

The state anticipates submitting the applications, receiving decisions, and beginning pilot programs by next Jan. 1, according to Zanchi. CMS would pay 90 cents on the dollar to support the pilot programs for a maximum of two years.

Flyers distributed at the meeting gave a schedule for public meetings on the applications, but the schedule was put on hold. Reynolds said she is the contact person for the Health Home. She can be reached at 401-462-3941 or at Kimberly.Reynolds@bhddh.ri.gov 

RI Consent Decree Monitor Will Draw Up Proposed Judicial Order to Ensure Adequate State Funding

By Gina Macris

Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of U.S. District Court signaled during a hearing April 10 that he is prepared to act to ensure that Rhode Island complies with a requirement of a 2014 consent decree that calls for “timely” funding of integrated services for adults with developmental disabilities.

But it is not yet clear what judicial action might look like in relation to the language of the consent decree, which does not quantify compliance in terms of dollars and cents.

Governor Gina Raimondo has proposed a developmental disabilities budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 that would cut $18.4 million in federal and state Medicaid funds from current spending limits on privately-operated developmental disability services for adults and another $3 million from a state-operated network of group homes.  

That reduction comes on the heels of an already-underfunded system of services and would “permanently derail compliance with the consent decree,” said Jeffrey Kasle, lawyer for nine service providers, who spoke during the informal hearing, or “status conference” at the invitation of an independent court monitor.

The monitor, Charles Moseley, said he would  draw up a list of proposed funding-related actions for the judge to consider. Marc DeSisto, the state’s lawyer, and Victoria Thomas, who represented the U.S. Department of Justice, each said they wanted to review the proposal before the judge takes action.

If there is no consensus, McConnell said, he will hold a formal hearing and take evidence before issuing an order.

Since 2016, when he began reviewing the consent decree, McConnell has tried to make information about compliance accessible to the public, insisting that periodic conferences be held in open court and stressing the informality of the proceedings.

The review on April 10 was no exception, as the lawyers and state officials spoke from a podium facing the audience in the towering, mahogany-paneled courtroom, so spectators could better hear the proceedings. McConnell, wearing business clothes instead of his judicial robes, sat near the court stenographer just inside a circular bar that normally separates litigants from the public. 

The informal atmosphere, however, belied the gravity of the funding issue, which McConnell called the “elephant in the room,” and its implications for judicial action.

The monitor, Moseley, and lawyers for the DOJ and the providers all concurred in their concerns over funding. 

Officials of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) said they needed better data to make a case for a bigger budget and noted that $116 million more will have been spent on developmental disabilities during the Raimondo administration,  between 2015 and 2019, than was spent from 2010 to 2014.

It was in 2014 that Rhode Island was found in violation of the integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by relying on a segregated system of work and non-work activities that could survive on significantly less staffing that is mandated today through the consent decree.

Kasle, the providers’ lawyer, noted that the current administration at BHDDH, led by department director Rebecca Boss and the director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, Kerri Zanchi, have shown a commitment to collaborating with providers that is the “best in a decade.”

But much of the state’s current compliance with the consent decree occurs because the private providers are doing the work, Kasle said.

“If all they can do is keep people safe,” he said, consent decree compliance will “fall apart.”

A decade ago, direct care workers made $3 to $5 more an hour than minimum wage, Kasle said. The legislative efforts to raise wages in the last two years, which added $11 million to the budget, are appreciated but they have just kept the workers on a par with the minimum wage, he said

For providers,  who can pay only $11 or $12 an hour, “it’s almost impossible to fill jobs,” Kasle said.

And if the state is to integrate individuals with developmental disabilities in the community, allowing them a choice in how their programming will be achieved, the state will need more direct care workers, he said.

Victoria Thomas, a lawyer for the DOJ, said that on the most recent site visit in February, she and her colleagues spoke to a provider who had had to lay off several middle managers because of budgetary constraints.

Employees have seen their salaries cut; paid vacation was eliminated, and workers have had to increase their contributions to health care, Thomas said.

The judge, meanwhile, asked Boss, the BHDDH director, whether the state can comply with the consent decree if Governor Raimondo’s budget for the next fiscal year is enacted without any changes.

Boss said she didn’t know the answer. Nor could she say whether BHDDH could comply with the consent decree if no cuts were made and current spending was maintained. 

Boss said BHDDH is “committed to implementing the consent decree. We want every individual to live in the community as they wish.”

Last fall, Boss submitted her department's budget request for the fiscal year beginning July 1 far higher than what Governor Raimondo later proposed to the legislature.  Boss asked for a total of $278.8 million in federal and state funds, or $28 million more than what Raimondo ultimately submitted to the General Assembly.

In a cover letter, Boss wrote at the time that “any further reductions could have further significant repercussions financially and operationally for the department further impacting some of the most vulnerable citizens within our state.”

For the fiscal year beginning July 1, Raimondo has proposed $250.8 million for developmental disabilities, which is $6.1 million less than the bottom line enacted by the General Assembly for the current fiscal year.

The proposal of $250.8 million is also $21.4 million less than current spending levels. Because of current cost overruns, Raimondo has proposed adding $15.3 million to the existing budget of $256.9 million, for a total of $272.2 million, to fill the budget gap through the end of the fiscal year June 30.

Jennifer Wood, Leader of RI DD Consent Decree Compliance, To Leave State Government

Photo by Anne Peters

By Gina Macris

Jennifer L. Wood, largely responsible for accelerating Rhode Island’s lackluster response to a federal consent decree affecting adults with developmental disabilities, is leaving state government to become director of the Rhode Island Center for Justice.

The non-profit public interest law center works with community groups and the Roger Williams University School of Law to strengthen legal services and advocacy on issues that reflect the most pressing needs of low-income Rhode Islanders, including housing, immigration, and workers’ rights.  

Miriam Weizenbaum, the board chair for the Center for Justice,  announced the appointment Wednesday, May 3, saying that Wood’s legal background in public interest law, combined with her extensive experience in education and health and human servicesin state government, “makes her an ideal leader for the Center for Justice at a time when basic rights are under significant challenge.” 

Wood was deputy secretary and chief legal counsel to Elizabeth Roberts until Roberts resigned in mid-February as head of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services amid fallout from the UHIP fiasco, the botched roll-out of a computerized Medicaid benefits system. Thousands of Rhode Islanders were left without a wide range of benefits, including from food stamps, health coverage, subsidized child care, and even developmental disability services. At the time Roberts left, Wood was demoted to general counsel.

AshleyG. O’Shea, spokeswoman for OHHS, noted in a statement that Wood has devoted two decades of her life to state service and said, “We wish her the best in her new endeavor.” 

In March, the office of the U.S. Attorney in Providence issued a demand for UHIP documents, saying it is investigating the “allegation that false claims and/or payment for services and/or false statements in support of such payments have been submitted to the U.S. government.“

In a statement May 3, Wood indicated that since the November election, she has been considering a change in career to go back to her roots. As a lawyer in the private sector, her work emphasized civil rights and disability rights. She represented inmates at the Rhode Island Training School and special education students, among others who otherwise might have lacked a legal voice.

Wood joined state government in 1998 as chief of staff at the Rhode Island Department of Education, leaving in 2007 to work as Roberts’ second-in-command after the latter was elected Lieutenant Governor. When Governor Gina Raimondo appointed Roberts as Secretary of Health and Human Services in 2015, Wood followed as deputy secretary and chief legal counsel.

At the end of 2015, when U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. signaled that he would personally oversee enforcement of the consent decree affecting daytime services for adults with developmental disabilities, Wood took charge of moving the implementation forward.

At that point, the agreement had brought virtually no change to the lives of adults with developmental disabilities since it was signed in April, 2014. By all accounts, Wood moved the implementation into high gear. 

O’Shea, the OHHS spokeswoman, said Wood is turning over her responsibilities in developmental disabilities to other officials, including Dianne Curran, a lawyer who is consent decree coordinator, and Kerri Zanchi, the new director of developmental disabilities. They are in touch with the federal court monitor and the U.S. Department of Justice weekly, according to O’Shea.

The consent decree requires the state replace sheltered workshops and segregated day programs with community-based supports so that adults with developmental disabilities may seek regular jobs and enjoy non-work activities in a more integrated way. The desegregation of services for everyone with disabilities was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Olmstead decision of 1999, which re-affirmed Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. 

Despite Missed Deadlines, Consent Decree Monitor Says Rhode Island Moving in the Right Direction

By Gina Macris

Rhode Island has not met all the deadlines so far in shifting toward integrated, community-based services for adults with developmental disabilities as required in a 2014 federal consent decree, according to the independent court monitor in the case.

But because the state has taken important steps in the right direction in the last few months, the monitor, Charles Moseley, says he believes it is appropriate to delay evaluating the state’s performance on the deadlines.

Even one missed deadline gives Moseley the option of asking U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. to conduct a show cause hearing as to why the state should not be held in contempt, according to an order McConnell issued in May.

The order says that the state must comply with every deadline contained in it and in the consent decree from May 18 forward or face possible contempt proceedings and fines. The consent decree contains deadlines running until 2024.

McConnell’s highly prescriptive order came after the state made little progress in complying with the consent decree in the two years since it had been put into effect. The judicial order lit a fire under a team of state administrators led by Jennifer Wood, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Moseley submitted his latest assessment to McConnell Sept. 9, in anticipation of a status conference on the case Sept. 16. Typically, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice also submit statements to the judge before a hearing, but any submissions from the DOJ have not yet surfaced in the case file.

Moseley, meanwhile, said in his report that the state missed job placement deadlines.  The most recent was a July 1 deadline for finding employment for all young adults with developmental disabilities who left high school during the 2015-2016 academic year. That class is estimated at a minimum of 74 individuals, according to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE). Many of them would be seeking part-time jobs.  

Eligibility specialists at the state Division of Disabilities have been working intensely to try to eliminate a backlog of applications from more than 200 individuals – most of them young adults – who seek developmental disability services.

In his report, Moseley said the state “is implementing substantive changes across the array of day and employment services furnished to individuals with I/DD (intellectual or developmental disabilities).”

He said continued refinements are needed in the data system that enables him and the DOJ to track compliance, and additional policies and practices must be implemented to expand the availability of high quality integrated and individualized day services.

“While challenges remain,” he said, “the foundational steps taken by the state to address key areas related to funding, administrative oversight, training and documentation” are moving Rhode Island “on a path toward achieving the requirements of the consent decree.”

Among the steps forward, Moseley cited the General Assembly’s approval of slightly more than $11 million in added revenue to increase salaries to underpaid direct service workers and implement performance-based contracts with financial incentives for private providers who help their clients find jobs.  

With that funding, the state has agreed to raise pay for direct service workers and job coaches to a minimum of $11.55 an hour, an average of 3.1 percent, Moseley said. The workers are still waiting for that increase to kick in. Wood, the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, has promised the pay increase, retroactive to July 1, would be processed by Oct. 1.

Moseley said the pay raise plan submitted to him by the state needs to be more specific to ensure that the added funding will be used to “increase salaries, benefits, training and supervision”  as required by McConnell’s May 18 order.                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Summarizing what he describes as other“substantive efforts” to comply with the consent decree, Moseley cited the development of performance-based contracts intended to give providers incentives to help clients find and retain jobs, as well as training for professionals and parents in career development planning that will guide individuals’ job searches.

He said funding for start-up costs – a total of $800,000 – has been distributed to nine private service providerswhich are planning to shift from segregated to community-based programs, and the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College is working closely with private service agencies  to help them make that change.

In addition, Moseley said, the state has provided heightened technical assistance and hired key staff, including an employment specialist and a program improvement officer, to beef up the leadership at the state Division of Disabilities.

Click here to read the monitor's report. 

Click here to read related article

Judge Orders RI to Fund Disabilities Reform; State Faces Possible Contempt, Fines

By Gina Macris

U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr. today (May 18) ordered the state of Rhode Island to appropriate the money necessary to fund the so-called “sheltered workshop” consent decree. The judge also set short-term deadlines for a series of incremental steps needed to begin changes in the developmental disability system.

 In the case of any missed deadlines or other violations of the order, either the court monitor in the case or the federal government may request a show-cause hearing to determine whether the state should be held in contempt.

 If the Court finds Rhode Island in contempt, the state will pay into a Consent Decree Compliance Fund at the rate of $5,000 a day for each day it is remains out of compliance and $100 a day for each person whose integrated day services are delayed or interrupted by a particular violation. The fund is capped at $1 million a year.

 The judge did not spell out how much the state must budget to fund the consent decree.

 The order comes after an April evidentiary hearing which showed the state had made little progress in gearing up for system-wide changes needed to offer job-seeking services and other community supports for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities who want them.

 Between 2009 and 2011, the state budget for developmental disabilities sustained an overall cut of about 20 percent and has not yet recovered. Since 2013, expanding caseloads have continuously outpaced increased appropriations, leaving a system of private service providers that operate at a loss.

 McConnell’s order largely follows recommendations of the U.S. Department of Justice, although he reserved for himself the right to decide whether the state must pay into the compliance fund.                                                                                                         

The DOJ would have allowed the court monitor to make the determination, arguing that a contempt finding shouldn’t be needed to trigger payments to the fund.

 In his order, McConnell disagreed on that point.

 He also responded to arguments made by the state that the series of deadlines and other provisions of the proposal originally made by the DOJ “contains ambiguous terms and mandates that are not defined.”

 McConnell’s order says that If the state believes any term “is ambiguous or any mandate ill defined,” it must immediately seek clarification with the DOJ and the court monitor. If the state is still not satisfied, it must promptly ask the court for a hearing on the matter, McConnell said.

 Governor Gina Raimondo’s budget proposal for the remainder of the current fiscal year and the next one would put an additional $24.1 million into the network of private agencies that provide most of the services to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

However, a Senate fiscal report raises doubts that projected revenue and expenses in the budget of the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals will balance out. In question is a projected $19.3 million in savings from a reduction in group home costs that depends on voluntary moves by residents into private homes with families throughout the state. 

Click here for Judge McConnell's order

DOJ: No Merit to Rhode Island's Objections to Compliance Fund

By Gina Macris

Saying Rhode Island’s objections have no merit, federal lawyers for a second time have urged a U.S. District Court judge to set aside state dollars to fund the so-called “sheltered workshop” consent decree – or to fashion whatever remedy he sees fit.

“The State’s objection to funding the Consent Decree is concerning and brings into questions its commitment to making the changes required,” lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justicewrote in a May 16 filing with the Court.

“Thus this Court must act to provide adequate incentive to the State to fund theConsent Decree, which it undoubtedly has the power to do,” the DOJ lawyers wrote to Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.

The DOJ’s plan would require the state to pay $5,000  each day it misses various compliance deadlines, and an additional $100 a day for each person whose services are delayed or interrupted as a result of inaction, with a cap of $1 million a year.

As an alternative to paying into the proposed Consent Decree Compliance Fund , the DOJ lawyers suggested that McConnell  come up with his own remedy.

The government’s remarks came in a filing in which it expressed surprise that the state is now offering “meritless objections” to paying into the proposed fund to  fulfill its responsibilities under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In 2014, a DOJ investigation found the state for decades had illegally segregated adults with disabilities in sheltered workshops that paid sub-minimum wage, and in day programs cut off from the community. Rhode Island then agreed to federal supervision over a ten-year period to transform its system to emphasize supported employment in the community, adopting an “Employment First” policy.

The 2014 agreement marked the first such consent decree in the nation aimed at turning around daytime services that violate the 1999 Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the decree is just one part of a much broader, aggressive push begun by the Obama administration in 2009 to enforce the  Olmstead order, which said that Title II of the ADA requires agencies to serve individuals with a variety of disabilities, day and night, in the least restrictive environment that is appropriate.

In Rhode Island, the DOJ’s civil rights division earlier in May asked McConnell to put the court monitor in the case in charge of a Consent Decree Compliance Fund, citing the state’s continued failure to implement reforms.

The court monitor, Charles Moseley, would decide how to spend the money to benefit adults with disabilities.

Marc DeSisto, the state’s lawyer, objected, saying, in part, that the proposal amounts to a contempt order without the procedural rights enabling a defendant to show it made its best efforts to comply but was thwarted by forces beyond its control.

On May 16, the DOJ replied that “a finding of contempt would be appropriate at this juncture,” but its proposal does not ask for that. Instead, the Consent Decree Compliance Fund is envisioned as a vehicle for funding the consent decree, something the state said it wanted to do, according to the latest DOJ arguments.

During the last few months, all sides have agreed – in open court – that the developmental disabilities system does not have enough money to meet the consent decree requirements.  

Moseley, the monitor, told McConnell at one point that if the state didn’t meet certain benchmarks now, it would be impossible to achieve overall compliance by the time the decree expires on Jan. 1, 2024.

It was the state’s lawyer, DeSisto, who initially approached the DOJ and the monitor to ask for an evidentiary hearing so that the judge could gauge the state’s progress on compliance and decide what yet needed to be done to put the state on track to meet long-term goals.

At the hearing, held April 8, the state could not provide an accurate census of the individuals covered by the consent decree, the DOJ noted, but it did present evidence about a plan for achieving compliance going forward.

Now, the state is objecting to its own plan,  the DOJ lawyers said.

“After two years of noncompliance,” federal lawyers wrote, “it is appropriate and necessary, in the absence of commitment by the State to the basic compliance measures outlined in the Proposed Order, for the Court to take action.”