RI Dodges Contempt With DD Action Plan

By Gina Macris

The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court welcomed Rhode Island’s action plan to turn around the lives of adults with developmental disabilities, saying in a hearing Oct. 20 that the state has taken “historic and comprehensive” measures to set it on a path to comply with a 2014 civil rights consent decree.

Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (left) approved the plan, which commits at $50 million in the next few years to stabilize and expand a skilled workforce and promises a structural overhaul of the way services are delivered and providers are paid, according to summaries provided by a lawyer for the state and an independent court monitor.

“This a major step in improving the lives” of adults with developmental disabilities, McConnell said in the hearing, which was streamed remotely via the Internet.

McConnell said that in his 30 years as a lawyer and ten years on the bench, he’s “never seen the state move as quickly, effectively and positively.”

“Make no mistake about it. Moving that mountain was a mammoth undertaking,” McConnell said.

“You have my thanks,” he said, singling out State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, and Kevin Savage, Director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, for their roles in negotiating the action plan.

Without the action plan, the state could have faced fines of up to $1.5 million a month for contempt of court for continued violations of the consent decree.

The ultimate goal is the systemic restructuring of the system so that those with intellectual and developmental disabilities can live the lives they want in their communities, consistent with the Olmstead decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, McConnell said. The Olmstead decision re-affirmed the Integration Mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Making a real difference in the lives of those protected by the consent decree “will be another heavy lift,” the judge said. “That’s a long-winded way of saying, good job; there’s a lot of work ahead of you.”

Both the monitor, A. Anthony Antosh, and a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), said they will be watching very closely to measure the real-life impact of the action plan on life circumstances of individual service recipients.

Victoria Thomas, the DOJ lawyer, said she and her colleagues in the civil rights division are “cautiously optimistic” that the action plan will achieve the goals of the consent decree by the time it is set to expire in 2024.

“Recent comments indicate that there are many people in Rhode Island that are not getting what they need, want, or are entitled to get” under the law, Thomas said.

Those eligible for services say “they want to be working,” Thomas said.

Families who “rely on day services to function” are essentially trapped,” she said. “They can’t go to work and in some cases can’t leave their homes.”

To focus on the state’s progress, the DOJ and the monitor will review data every 90 days to determine what services eligible persons receive and their duration, Thomas said.

“Rhode Island businesses are eager to hire, and people with developmental disabilities are eager to work,” she said. “The action plan has multiple strategies to do that,” both on a short-term and long-term basis, Thomas said.

Antosh, the court monitor, said the action plan responds to a years-long drive to stabilize and expand the private provider workforce which the state relies on to bring it into compliance with the consent decree, and more recently, a series of court orders spelling out what that effort should look like.

The one that sent ripples through the State House said the state wages must hit $20 an hour by 2024. The action plan says the state will deliver on that pay hike, along with an interim raise, from $15.75 to $18 an hour effective July 1, 2022.

McConnell said “the court’s role is not to tell state what it should do or to run the agency,” a reference with the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH.)

“The court’s role is to ensure compliance with the consent decree. The state, after many years, agreed it has systemically violated the rights of people with developmental disabilities All parties agreed the consent decree would be the vehicle to ensure (those) rights,” McConnell said.

Antosh, meanwhile, said the significant investment in funding higher wages will be accompanied by a shift in strategy for recruiting and retaining new staff to offset the fact that the traditional population interested in caregiving jobs is shrinking.

He said there will be a public-private partnership led by the Department of Labor and Training, the Community College of Rhode Island and other workforce and educational organizations. Together, they will re-define the roles of caregivers and creating targeted training programs, professional credentialling, and career ladders.

“A major strategy is to help people to achieve individual career goals,” Antosh said.

He explained other highlights of the action plan including an upcoming rate review, which he described as “the instrument” for changes that hopefully will create a better-functioning system.

Five consulting firms have bid for the job, and the state has committed to awarding the contract by November 1, with the work to be completed in a year’s time. It will include a reimbursement rate schedule that is indexed to the cost of living, Antosh said.

He said he will push to have a finished report sooner than that. The rate review, or portions of it, should be reflected in the next three budgets, he said.

In another change intended to stabilize financing, the state for the first time will include the developmental disabilities caseload in the semi-annual Caseload Estimating Conference, giving policy makers a realistic projection of developmental disability costs as a basis for budget preparations. The first such Caseload Estimating Conference will be later this month.

There will also be changes that will help increase individuals’ access to services by decreasing administrative burdens on providers. For example, the state plans to eliminate a requirement that staffers document their time individually in 15-minute increments for each person in their care, he said.

Another requirement on its way out is linking reimbursement to pre-determined staffing ratios based on each client’s general level of independence, or lack of it. These staffing ratios do not individualize needs, except for those with the most extreme disabilities, and do not take into account the amount of support necessary to carry out a particular task. Antosh said the complicated billing system will be replaced by two different rates.

The state has said the work on the administrative changes will be done by March 31.

Other innovations in the works will aim at increasing funding for transportation enabling the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority to become a Medicaid provider and by setting aside $2 million for the acquisition of technology for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, Antosh said.

There are already specialized 400 apps available which aim at improving the quality of life for people with varying intellectual and developmental challenges, he said.

Kate Sherlock, the lawyer representing Antosh in recent negotiations, said the will to “get there” by restructuring the system “has been there all along, among consumers, their families, providers, and state officials, but change has been held back by a lack of funding.”

The action plan is a “significant step in the right direction,” she said. “We’ll be watching carefully to see what happens.”

To read the state’s action plan, click here.

To read the monitor’s memorandum on the action plan, click here.

Judge Will Settle Argument Over Witnesses In Consent Decree Case

By Gina Macris

Sometime in September, the state of Rhode Island drafted a settlement agreement, aimed at avoiding upcoming federal court contempt proceedings, for continuing violations of a 2014 civil rights consent decree case affecting adults with developmental disabilities.

But as the state’s lawyers were planning to show the proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), pre-trial legal sparring moved front and center, and the chances for any settlement to resolve the contempt charges remain unknown.

In an email chain made public in a court filing, the state’s lead lawyer told a counterpart at the DOJ on Sept. 30 that his team hoped to confer with DOJ lawyers in the following days about the proposed settlement.

Those emails also showed the two sides sparred over pre-trial procedures, coming to an impasse over the deposition of witnesses in the contempt hearing, scheduled to begin Oct. 18. A longstanding lack of funding and staff to carry out compliance with a 2014 consent decree would be a be a key issue in the contempt hearing.

The DOJ asked Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of the U.S. District Court to intervene, and compel the state to make available a total of 15 witnesses, including the House and Senate fiscal advisors, in time for the DOJ to depose all of them in accordance with a pretrial deadline already established in a court order.

McConnell has scheduled a teleconference with the lawyers for 4 pm on October 7.

In asking McConnell to intervene, the DOJ included a Sept. 30 chain of emails between DOJ lawyer Victoria Thomas and two state lawyers, Marc DeSisto and Kathleen Hilton.

In the emails, DeSisto and Hilton pushed back the start of depositions, in the process postponing a deposition that had already been scheduled with the state’s chief auditor in the Office of Management and Budget.

In addition, DeSisto and Hilton said they could not make the House and Senate Fiscal Advisors available for deposition at all. Sharon Ferland holds the House post and Stephen Whitney advises the Senate.

Hilton wrote: “Without more information as to the reasons you are seeking to call Sharon and Stephen as witnesses, we cannot make a determination on whether we could agree to make them available. There very well may be privileges that need to be preserved by way of a motion for protective order. Additionally, we do not have the authority to accept a subpoena on their behalf.”

DOJ’s Thomas replied: “We are seeking the testimony of Sharon and Stephen based on the Court Monitor’s opinion that they have valuable information relevant to the funding provision of the Consent Decree. We have now exhausted our good faith efforts to resolve this dispute and will be filing a motion to compel shortly.”

Earlier in the email chain, DeSisto had mentioned the proposed settlement:

“As we discussed in last evening's phone call,” he wrote to Thomas, “it is my hope that in the next few days we can confer regarding the terms of settlement. We are waiting for some feedback from Tony (A. Anthony Antosh, the independent court monitor) in this regard. Once we receive his input, we would like to have a settlement conference with you, maybe as early as tomorrow.”

Thomas replied:

“We are eager to see the State's written settlement proposal and to conference with you tomorrow. That said, while we remain hopeful that a settlement may potentially resolve our contempt motion, we must preserve our litigation rights.” Thomas continued to press for assurances on the depositions.

In its contempt motion, The DOJ has stated that, if necessary, it is prepared to present evidence that the state “failed even to ask its Legislature for a sufficient appropriation” and that it “failed to make efficient use even of the resources it had – for example, by failing to modify State rules and incentives that favor providers of less integrated services over providers of more integrated services.”

The DOJ has proposed an escalating scale of fines, from $500,000 on the first day of each of the first two months to $50,000 a day beginning on the 70th day. At that rate, the fines would add up to about $1.5 million a month.

Pandemic Pushes Worry Over RI DD System Survival “Front And Center” - Judge McConnell

By Gina Macris

Judge McConnell

The federal judge overseeing the reform of Rhode Island’s developmental disability system says the COVID-19 pandemic has sharpened his concern about the financial ability of the state and its service providers to meet long-term goals of the consent decree, which mandates integration of the target population at work and at play.

Other participants in a May 18 hearing in U.S. District Court in Providence echoed the judge’s concerns, but they also said the pandemic has created a great opportunity to cement changes that might not otherwise have come as quickly.

“The fiscal health and stability of providers has always been in the back of my mind,” said Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., noting that his worry has come “front and center with this crisis.” Stability is “essential for the consent decree to play out and be seen as accomplished,” he said.

The state and federal governments in 2014 agreed to a civil rights consent decree mandating employment-related services to provide access to jobs in the community for people with developmental disabilities as well as supports to allow them to enjoy integrated non-work activities. The decree runs until 2024.

Kevin Savage

During the hearing, Kevin Savage, the state’s new Director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities, disclosed immediate financial concerns. He said that the state has not received approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the second of three advance payments promised to keep private providers fiscally afloat during the height of the pandemic.

On March 26, the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) announced that a total of $15.4 million in federal-state Medicaid funding had been set aside for these so-called “retainer payments” during April, May, and June.

While the April payment has received CMS approval, the one for May has not, Savage said. A BHDDH spokesman later said that $5.1 million in advance payments to providers were made May 15.

Savage said it was “important that the state make that payment” to the providers.

The BHDDH spokesman later elaborated:

“When the retainer payments were first described and provided in Rhode Island, CMS had not issued technical guidance on these types of payments.” Since then, he said, CMS has limited retainer payments to a 30-day period, but that “the state is actively working with CMS to expand this time frame.”

CMS reimburses a little more than half of any Medicaid cost applied to the Division of Developmental Disabilities, but if the federal government ultimately does not approve the May 15 payment to providers, the state will be responsible for the entire $5.1 million.

As to the June advance payment, Savage said during the court hearing that the money will be re-cast as an increase in Medicaid rates that adds up to the same amount originally promised to providers.

He also disclosed that one provider decided to change the type of services it offers and the executive director resigned over the issue. Going forward, Savage said, he understands that particular agency would be “less focused” on the kind of individualized work his division wants to do, but he reserved further comment until he has had a chance to speak in depth with agency officials.

The hearing was streamed via the internet application Zoom, as have been previous U.S. District Court proceedings since the federal court building on Kennedy Plaza was closed in early March at the start of the pandemic. For the first time on May 18, however, the hearing was arranged so that the public could see the participants as well as hear them.

Victoria Thomas, a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the DOJ is “very focused” on how those protected by the consent decree will get community-integrated services going forward.

The capacity of providers to deliver those services involves more than funding, she said. The state needs to make administrative changes to ensure a stable system of integrated services and supports.

A. Anthony Antosh, the independent court monitor in the case, pressed for two immediate administrative changes:

● Annual funding authorizations for service recipients to replace the quarterly allocations now in place.

● The end of prescribed staffing ratios according to five funding “tiers,” which are based on perceived levels of disability and do not necessarily reflect the amount of support needed for a task at hand.

Savage said the staffing ratios are written into Medicaid rules, and BHDDH could work administratively with CMS to eliminate them. The ratios were designed for center-based day care and providers have argued that the ratios do not work in an individualized community setting. Families and other advocates also oppose them.

Savage said the quarterly funding authorizations were enacted by the General Assembly and cannot be changed without its approval. The fiscal arm of BHDDH favors quarterly payments, he said.

Melody Lawrence, Director of Policy and Delivery System Reform at the state Executive Office of Health and Human Services, said the argument for quarterly authorizations is to “ensure that the resources go to those who need them most.”

McConnell questioned how often people’s service needs change.

“You are doing more frequent checks to make sure people actually need those services,” Lawrence replied.

Two experts have testified before a special legislative commission that Rhode Island is the only state with quarterly funding of adult developmental disability services, a feature which providers have said repeatedly makes it difficult for them to plan ahead or prepare for the kinds of long-term changes the consent decree demands.

The commission, led by State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, recommended more than a year ago that the state switch to annual funding of individualized service plans. It is generally accepted among developmental disability professionals that barring unexpected events, like the death of a family member, the needs of individuals with intellectual and developmental challenges remain fairly stable and predictable throughout their lives.

Savage said that fiscal officials at BHDDH are committed to creating a funding model that is “easier and more straightforward” for providers and families to navigate.

Thomas, the DOJ lawyer, told Savage: “We’ve been hearing that quarterly authorizations create an administrative burden on providers. We like hearing that you want to reduce administrative burdens.”

McConnell asked Antosh to report to the Court by the end of June what the state has done to ease administrative burdens on providers.

Antosh indicated his report will also include a rundown on the changes the state must undertake to satisfy the consent decree by 2024.

Based on his comments in the hearing, he is likely to include recommendations for increased reimbursement rates to providers and provisions for universal access to internet technology for those receiving developmental disability services.

During the hearing, Antosh asked Savage in the short term to eliminate the scale of rates it pays for various daytime direct support work and instead pay the highest one – assigned to community-based activities - for all front-line staff work.

Savage reminded Antosh of the state’s budget deficit, which has been estimated at $234 million in the fiscal year ending June 30 and a whopping $800 million if the next budget cycle is included in the total. He said his division would start on a case-by-case basis by focusing on funding the needs of each individual authorized to receive supports.

Antosh said a lack of access to internet technology has emerged as a big failing during the pandemic. Group home residents need access to wireless networks, as well as to tablets and other hardware that could help them feel less isolated and in the long run could assist providers with remote wellness checks and the like.

A relative handful of people receiving BHDDH-funded supported employment services have been able to work from home, Antosh said, but more would like to try, according to survey results passed on to him.

Technology must be part of the long-term future for the developmental disabilities service system, he said.

The pandemic has curtailed most daytime services and providers’ ability to bill for them in the current fee-for-service reimbursement system. Most of the daytime activities that have occurred have involved outdoor exercise, Antosh said.

At the same time, providers have had to bear the burden of costly cleaning protocols and other unexpected expenses in group homes that are not automatically reimbursed by the state.

As of Tuesday, May 19, the coronavirus affected 47 congregate care sites, according to the BHDDH spokesman. A total of 115 people in congregate care have tested positive, including 5 who were reported hospitalized on Tuesday. An additional 98 people have been exposed to the virus because of where they live but were asymptomatic. And 7 more persons have died from COVID-19, the spokesman said.

Antosh, meanwhile, said the coronavirus crisis has highlighted the fragility of families as well as providers as they have scrambled to support loved ones with developmental disabilities.

Families often have had no support in caring for adult children or siblings who may need attention of one kind or another all their waking hours – and during the night as well.

Antosh said those who direct their own program of services have had difficulty finding staff to relieve them during the crisis. About 700 persons or families direct their own programs, and BHDDH relaxed its rules on hiring staff to allow any capable adult – including parents and legal guardians who might otherwise be out of work.

Savage said a long-standing prohibition against paying legal guardians to support adults who receive BHDDH funding will not be re-instated after the state of emergency is over.

Antosh said 80 percent of family members answering a questionnaire distributed by a coalition of community organizations reported a high level of anxiety.

Seventy percent said they were concerned about what might happen if their loved one needed to be hospitalized or if they themselves became ill and could not continue as caregivers.

(The state Department of Health recently advised hospitals to make exceptions to their no-visitation policy during the pandemic for those who needed assistance in communications and the support of a familiar caregiver to understand medical procedures.)

Outside BHDDH and the Rhode Island Department of Education, which is responsible for transition services for high school students with developmental disabilities, state officials have been “slow to realize how vulnerable this population is,” Antosh said.

But once they understood, officials in other state agencies have become very sensitive to the needs of those with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

He cited the hazard pay awarded to group home workers, a large order of personal protective equipment (PPE) delivered to providers two weeks ago, and another large order for family caregivers that arrived last week, and an increased focus on testing individuals and staff over the last several weeks.

Antosh said “all parties” have joined in discussions about “what re-opening looks like.”

File photos by Anne Peters

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.

Feds Consider Early Termination Request For DD Oversight At Mount Pleasant High School

By Gina Macris

A Providence School Department request that the federal government end its oversight of a special education program at Mount Pleasant High School is encountering some resistance and concern because of a more immediate development: The state is taking control of the entire “broken” school district.

Months ago, the city of Providence sought early termination of a landmark federal Interim Settlement Agreement, reached in 2013, in which the school department promised to make major changes in the way special education students at Mount Pleasant High School were being shuttled into a sheltered workshop program in North Providence.

The school system agreed to prepare students in the Birch Vocational Center at Mount Pleasant High School to take advantage of supported employment in the community and to participate in integrated non-work activities in compliance with the integration mandate of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The U.S. Department of Justice and a federal court monitor are carefully considering the request and have solicited the opinions of various segments of the developmental disabilities community on the pros and cons of terminating the agreement now, a year before it is set to expire.

On July 23, the monitor, Charles Moseley, and Victoria Thomas, a lawyer for the DOJ, discussed possible early termination via conference call with members of the Employment First Task Force (EFTF), an advisory group on matters concerning the 2013 agreement and a broader, statewide consent decree signed in 2014.

On the same day, the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education voted, as anticipated, to empower the state Commissioner of Education to intervene in the Providence School District, taking temporary control, if necessary, of its budget, personnel, and governance.

Thomas said she was concerned about a recent report on Providence schools from Johns Hopkins University’s Institute on Educational Policy which found a deeply dysfunctional system where most students are not learning, principals are struggling to lead, teachers and students don’t feel safe, and some buildings are crumbling around them.

Mount Pleasant High School was one of 12 schools visited by the Johns Hopkins researchers.

At the same time, Thomas said, she personally has been “very impressed with the work Providence has done” with the Mount Pleasant special education students protected by the 2013 Interim Settlement Agreement. Over the last several years, Thomas has participated in many site visits at Mount Pleasant High, as has Moseley, who concurred with Thomas’ assessment. Having done similar visits in other states, Thomas said, she has been “blown away” by the quality of work done to put the needs and wants of students in Providence at the center of their individualized education plans.

“That doesn’t mean that everything is perfect,” Thomas said.

The Interim Settlement Agreement assumes that Mount Pleasant High School students will make a successful transition from school to adult services provided by the Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals. And Thomas said some of the comments that have been received from stakeholders in developmental disability services indicate that the DOJ and the monitor “really need to look into adult services.”

The Providence school department’s involvement in the Interim Settlement Agreement is set to expire in July, 2020, as long as the city is in “substantial compliance” a year ahead of time and the changes made during compliance are found to be lasting.

If the DOJ and the monitor agree to “early termination and we’re wrong,” Thomas said, the oversight of the state’s efforts to integrate adults with developmental disabilities in their communities will continue as part of the overlapping statewide consent decree signed in 2014.

“We’re not leaving anyone behind,” she said. Moseley added that the monitor and the DOJ will continue to have access to data about the progress of the same students as they merge into the adult population.

State Sen. Louis DiPalma, D-Middletown, who attended the task force meeting, expressed concern that even if implementation of the Interim Settlement Agreement has been going well at Mount Pleasant High School, the state of the school system around the program is in question.

Anne Peters, a parent who serves on the task force, asked whether continuing to monitor Mt. Pleasant High might be needed to protect the resources that have been brought to bear to change the prospects for special education students.

“I think we’re expecting quite the chaotic year” in Providence, she said.

“An excellent question,” Moseley said.

Several days before the meeting, Task Force leaders collected comments on early termination that made three main points:

• There seems to have been significant progress at Mt. Pleasant, with special education students having meaningful work trials

• Students still leave school unable to get the appropriate employment supports, like those from other communities, because providers are not accepting new referrals.

• ·The Johns Hopkins report will put Providence under pressure to make many reforms and it would be ill-advised to take the spotlight off students with developmental disabilities for fear they would once again get left behind.

Neither Thomas nor Moseley said when the decision would be made on early termination. Moseley has indicated he plans to complete a report on whether Providence is in substantial compliance with the Interim Settlement Agreement before he steps down as monitor on Sept. 30.

RI Consent Decree Judge Wants To Sharpen Focus On DD Services That Encourage Integration

By Gina Macris

For nearly three years, the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island has monitored the state’s progress in implementing a federal civil rights consent decree that seeks to integrate adults facing intellectual or developmental challenges with their communities, detailing the progress made and work yet to be done.

With the 2014 consent decree nearing the middle of its 10-year run, and an earlier, more limited companion agreement designed to expire in July, 2020, Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. has asked participants to come to court next time with a different approach.

In a hearing Oct.30, McConnell asked an independent court monitor, lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice and state officials to come to court next time with a focus on the areas of greatest concern and to be prepared with recommendations for what the Court can do other than monitor developments.

On Oct. 30, he boiled down the core issues into two parts.

• Each person protected by the consent decree should have a thoughtful long-range plan for a career that reflects his or her unique needs, preferences and goals.

• Actual services funded by the state should fit with the goals of the individualized career development plan.

To be sure, McConnell praised the “tremendous progress” made by the state, including the closure earlier this year of the last sheltered workshop. He also heard about increases in supported employment, the growth of a quality improvement unit aimed at assuring all services meet high standards, and cooperation among state officials and private providers. Providers have said in recent months that their working relationship with state officials is better than it has been in many years.

At the same time, problems persist in finding jobs for young adults and in providing high quality personalized support services for non-work activities that typically take up the majority of individuals’ time, according to the testimony McConnell heard.

Continuing concerns about inadequate funding surfaced during the Oct. 30 hearing when the independent monitor, Charles Moseley, described a visit he and another consultant had with state officials and 16 providers in early August.

In a report filed with the Court hours before the hearing, Moseley said “significant numbers” of the providers indicated that they continue to run deficits in key areas and that funding allocations for individual services are insufficient to cover the costs of the services that must be provided.

Among major barriers to providing services, 94 percent cited transportation, 88 percent pointed to a lack of funding and complicated billing procedures for reimbursement, and 69 percent highlighted high staff turnover and poor job retention.

All these factors become particularly problematic when the state and the federal government are asking providers to undertake more staff training to gain expertise in the principles and practice of individualization, to enroll more young adults as clients, and to provide individualized support in the community as each of their charges goes to different job sites and engages in non-work activities in various places.

According to the consent decree, all young adults who left high school between 2013 and 2016 – those seeking adult services for the first time - were to be offered employment by July 1, 2016. But the state still hasn’t fulfilled that requirement, even after the deadline was extended to Sept. 30 of this year.

Moseley reported that on Sept. 29, the state had achieved 77 percent of that goal, or 257 job placements out of an “employment census” of 334 young adults.

Victoria Thomas, the DOJ lawyer, said she believes the state is using effective strategies to reach out to the remaining young adults and will monitor the situation.

She said DOJ lawyers visited the Birch Academy at Mount Pleasant High School recently and while they were generally delighted with the transformation, they were surprised to learn “how few high school students exited directly into supported employment.”

Students at the Birch Academy are protected by the predecessor to the 2014 statewide consent decree, called the Interim Settlement Agreement. The agreement, signed in 2013, was limited to addressing the use of the Birch high school program as a feeder to a now-defunct sheltered workshop in North Providence called Training Through Placement.

Thomas said that, according to the Interim Settlement Agreement, students who turn 18 should have the support they need to make the transition to work or actually hold a job while they are still in school.

Thomas said she wants to address the transition issue in the time remaining for the Interim Settlement Agreement, which is to end July 1, 2020.

All parties to the settlement must be in “substantial compliance” with the Interim Settlement Agreement a year before it expires. What substantial compliance looks like might be different for the state than for the Providence School Department, said Thomas, telling the judge that the DOJ will prepare some recommendations on the matter.

The city has met virtually every target set out by the Interim Settlement Agreement and earned McConnell’s praise. “Keep it up,” he said.

The state is responsible to the court for the work done by the private service providers under the terms of both the Interim Settlement Agreement and the statewide consent decree.

The providers’ performance got mixed reviews from Moseley and another consultant, William Ashe, who in early October analyzed a small random sample of plans, looking for the degree to which they were individualized and how they compared to the actual services provided.

The consultants expected the providers to use a guide on “person-centered thinking” developed by the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College to formulate plans that put a particular person’s needs, preferences, and goals at the center of the planning process.

In 10 of the 17 plans, participants chose non-work activities from a menu of offerings that rotated on a weekly schedule, according to Ashe. But this kind of choice is not considered “person-centered” because the participants were not able to consider the the full range of opportunities available in the community.

“It is fair to say that the implementation of person-centered planning remains a work in progress where there has been significant but uneven advances in the development of person-centered planning practices. There remains a significant amount of work yet to be done,” Ashe wrote.

He found other instances in which plans indicated individuals had significant problems in communication. But neither the plans nor the actual services addressed ways in which communication could be improved.

“Frequently, there were clear instances of personal preference identified in the planning process that did not appear to be reflected in the services that were actually happening, Ashe said.

For example, one man indicated he wanted to learn to read and use a computer, but none of the goals written in his plan responded to that request.

Some of the plans reviewed were for clients of Easter Seals Rhode Island, formerly Community Work Services, an agency that nearly lost its license to operate in 2017 but has made a dramatic turnaround during the last year.

Ashe said “there are still very substantial steps that need to be taken in order to get this organization to an acceptable level of “person-centeredness” and to some extent, the same applies to other agencies.

Agencies should “diversify” the way that integrated day services are provided, he said.

From what Ashe observed, he said, it felt like community agencies like the YMCA and a bowling alley were becoming “a little bit like a day program” as staff and clients from one or more service providers gathered in the same place at the same time.

At the bowling alley, staff from several agencies sat together with their clipboards and watched the bowlers, Ashe said.

Based on a review of documents and direct observations, Ashe said, “there is a significant ongoing need for continued training on person-centered planning with an emphasis on how to take a plan and put it into action.”

“A good person-centered plan by itself does not produce good person-centered outcomes. How to individualize and implement these plans needs to be a focus for training,” Ashe concluded.

Read the full monitor’s report here.

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.

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.

DOJ Seeks up to $1 Million a Year from RI For Consent Decree Violations; State Objects

By Gina Macris

The U.S. Department of Justice is seeking penalties of up to $1 million a year from the State of Rhode Island if it does not move immediately to provide the job-related support services and day community programs for adults with developmental disabilities like it promised two years ago.

Employment-related services are at the heart of a 2014 consent decree in which the state agreed to shift away from reliance on sheltered workshops and segregated day programs and instead move toward integrating adults with developmental disabilities into the larger community. 

After two years of“failed outcomes and missed deadlines,” the state has shown that “compliance in this case requires accountability measures, not just deadlines,” according to a proposed order drafted by DOJ lawyers for the review of U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. 

 In response,  Marc DeSisto, lawyer for the state, called the DOJ order a “pre-determined contempt sanction ” that denies the state procedural safeguards, including a provision in the consent decree that allows the state to show it put forth its“best efforts,” but failed to comply because of factors beyond its control. 

The state did present evidence of its efforts in a hearing April 8. The DOJ argued in its request for sanctions that the “hearing revealed– and the state admitted – that it has only been through this Court’s continued attention and involvement that the state has taken any real steps toward compliance.”

The Justice department lawyers said the financial sanctions will “facilitate compliance” by addressing a barrier the state itself has identified – lack of funding. 

Without the Consent Decree Compliance Fund to provide “consequences for violations, the proposed order could end up being just another plan that the state fails to implement.” according to the DOJ filing. 

The judge has not yet responded to the DOJ proposal, submitted May 6, and DeSisto’s response, filed May. 12. 

McConnell made it clear from the bench just two weeks ago, however, that he would take “swift and dramatic” action to enforce compliance, holding the state responsible without distinguishing between the Governor and the General Assembly. 

The General Assembly is heading into final budget deliberations during the next three to four weeks.  The May Revenue and Caseload Estimating Conference has projected that the state will have $47.5 million more in revenue than Governor Gina Raimondo counted on in February, when she submitted a combined $9-billion fiscal plan for the remainder of the current fiscal year and the next one.

It remains unclear how much money the state needs to correct a structural deficit in the developmental disabilities budget and keep pace with the requirements of the consent decree during the next fiscal year. 

Raimondo has proposed an additional $24.1 million for developmental disabilities through June, 30, 2017, with $19.3 million of that total coming from reductions in residential costs. So far, very little of those savings have materialized, according to information the state Department of Behavioral Health, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) provided to the Senate Finance Committee about three weeks ago.

The savings depend on voluntary moves by some 300 group home residents into shared living arrangements with families throughout the state. Shared living has been available in Rhode Island for about 10 years, with 267 individuals taking that option at the end of the last fiscal year..Since July 1, 2015, the number of shared living arrangements has increased by 21, .according to the most recent figures made public by BHDDH.

Even if the added $24.1 million can be assured and the General Assembly approves Raimondo’s request, it is not clear whether that sum would be enough to satisfy the requirements of the proposed court order

 Neither the latest DOJ filing nor the consent decree itself puts a number on the cost. The decree says only that its requirements will be “fully funded.”

The proposed order takes a highly prescriptive approach, setting out a series of detailed benchmarks and deadlines for the remainder of the year, most of them during the next six weeks. 

The DOJ’s proposal was signed by Vanita Gupta, head of the civil rights division, and other officials, including trial attorneys Nicole Kovite Zeitler and Victoria Thomas. 

For each goal the state fails to achieve on time, it would be required to contribute to the Consent Decree Compliance Fund at a rate of $5,000 a day for as long as it remains in violation. In addition, the state would be required to pay $100 a day for each person affected by the consent decree “whose employment or integrated day services are delayed or interrupted as a result of violation of this order,” according to the DOJ’s language. 

At the evidentiary hearing April 8, there was much testimony about individuals aged 18 to 21 with developmental disabilities whose whose applications for adult services languish until shortly before they turn 21, leaving insufficient time to put a good program of adult services together. When BHDDH finally determines that the young adults are eligible for funding, they often go from the routine of a busy school day to sitting at home doing nothing, according to testimony.  

Finding appropriate services from a private provider is a a challenge for families. Agencies routinely refuse new clients because BHDDH does not them the full cost of providing the necessary supports.

If the proposed order is accepted by the federal court, the court monitor in the case, Charles Moseley, would oversee compliance and determine the amount due to the Compliance Fund. The monitor, in consultation with the DOJ and the state, also would decide how the money would be used to “fund consent decree activities that directly benefit target population members,” according to the DOJ’s filing. 

DeSisto, in his response for the state, argues that the proposal improperly delegates the authority decide individual fines to the monitor, when it should be the prerogative of the Court. As proposed, he said, the state would only be able to appeal after a penalty has been assessed. 

The corrective action topics and corresponding deadlines:   

Tools For Verifying Compliance

• May 30: The state would report to the DOJ its progress in developing a continually updated or “live” database that would allow federal officials to see how money is spent on required services for each person affected by the consent decree – at least 3400 people.

• June 30: The state would provide federal officials access to the database or a list of entries from which the judge, the monitor, and the DOJ could select to verify compliance.

• July 5: The monitor would give the state the list of records federal officials se;ect for verifying compliance. 

• July 12: The state would turn over the records the federal officials sought.  For example, federal officials would seek to determine whether all young adults who left school during the 2015-2016 school year had supported employment placements in the community by July 1, as required by the consent decree.

Funding Employment-Related Services 

• July 1: The state would implement a new model for reimbursing service providers that is flexible enough to cover the costs they incur. The current reimbursement system pays only for the time that workers spend in face-to-face contact with clients but not other activities like seeking out potential employers.

• July 1: In funding an array of services for a particular consumer, BHDDH would earmark some funds for supported employment. Currently consumers must give up something else to get employment-related services.  

• July 1: The state would “appropriately increase salaries, benefits, training, and supervision for employees of private agencies who work directly with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities

• July 1: The state would implement at least some performance-based contracts with service providers that link funding to numerical targets and implementation timelines for “quality” job placements.

•  Dec. 31: The state would show evidence that all service providers have signed performance-based contracts.

• Dec. 31: The state would file with the court examples of weekly activity plans used by each provider of community-based day services that has received additional funding for those supports required by the consent decree.  

Assessment of Individual Need and Funding

• June 1: BHDDH would amend its policy for determining an invidual’s need for services and supports to make it clear that this assessment process, called the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS), remains separate and apart from considerations of individual funding levels.

• June 30: BHDDH would file with the court agendas or meeting minutes that demonstrate that all SIS interviewers have been trained in the change to the policy.

CAREER DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

• June 1: The state would finalize a plan for ensuring that representatives of BHDDH and the Office of Rehabilitation Services of the state Department of Human Services (ORS) consistently attend annual educational planning meetings for high school students with developmental disabilities, with an eye toward their transition to adult services

• June 30: BHDDH, ORS and the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) must implement ongoing training in the use of career development plans and must provide ongoing supervision to ensure that the plans are utilized as envisioned by the consent decree

•  June 30: RIDE must train all school census clerks to accurately report the number of career development plans in place

•  June 30: The state would hire a Program Developer and Employment Specialist

Communications

• June 1: The state would finalize a detailed communications plan in which some information is disseminated to the public and other information is sought from the community.

Organizational Activities

•  June 1: The state would finalize a detailed project management plan for consent decree activities, showing the respective responsibilities of BHDDH, RIDE and ORS. 

•  June 1: The state would finalize a similar plan for engaging with individuals moving from school life to adult services, with the roles of each of the three agencies delineated.

The proposed order also requires the state to catch up with back pay it owes the court monitor, Moseley, and the state’s consent decree coordinator, Mary M. Madden, and to pay them on time in the future.

At the April 8 hearing, Madden said she had not been paid since she was hired in January. At the same time, Moseley, who began the job late in 2014, said he had received his first check at the end of March, 2016.