You asked three questions about the Department of Mental Retardation's (DMR) actions concerning dangerous clients: (1) what is the status of the interagency committee that PA 01-154 required to evaluate the use of state-owned property to house such clients, (2) what is the status of the regulations DMR is supposed to adopt under that act, and (3) is DMR currently placing dangerous clients in community settings?

We answer each of those questions separately, below.

INTERAGENCY SITE STUDY COMMITTEE

PA 01-154 requires the DMR and public works commissioners to evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of using state-owned properties of over 12 acres to house up to 15 clients who DMR determines cannot appropriately be placed in the community.

The DMR commissioner submitted a report on this matter to the Public Health Committee on February 1, 2002 as required (a copy is attached). It lists 24 properties identified as meeting the statutory ownership and size criteria. Of these, it rates six as "most desirable" after applying five additional criteria: cost, program suitability, location (near DMR sites or far from residential sites), anticipated development time, and special considerations (e. g. , legal barriers, opposition to use by controlling agency). The six are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Most Desirable Potential Sites for Dangerous DMR Clients

REGULATION STATUS

PA 01-154 requires the DMR commissioner to adopt regulations setting policy and procedures for placing and caring for clients it determines pose a serious threat to others without specific measures for their supervision and security. It requires the regulations to include criteria to be considered in (1) evaluating and placing dangerous clients, (2) siting residential facilities for them, (3) giving notice, if any, to communities where such clients are to be placed, (4) determining appropriate levels of security and supervision, and (5) providing appropriate programs and quality of life for these clients in the least restrictive environment. The regulations must prohibit siting more than one facility for dangerous clients in a single town.

A copy of a draft of these regulations is included in the February 1 site feasibility report. They call for a forensic review committee, at the request of specified staff, to assess the risk posed by any DMR client or any person DMR is planning to serve. The regulations do not specify this committee's composition. The risk review must (1) evaluate the client's records, available court documents, and other evaluation instruments; (2) use a risk screening instrument DMR develops; and (3) review DMR's legal responsibility to the individual.

An interdisciplinary team, regional placement team, or the forensic review committee is responsible for coordinating an individual's program and placement based on the needs the risk review identifies. The forensic committee is also responsible for reviewing and overseeing the program, placement, service, and support plans. And it and the department's forensic coordinator must provide enhanced oversight of programs and placements for DMR clients. A person who is determined to pose a risk of harm to himself or others without appropriate support and supervision could receive programming and placement, if appropriate, through DMR's cooperative placement, following established department protocols.

When DMR decides to develop a non-community-based facility for potentially dangerous clients, the draft regulations call for it to:

1. design it to promote the safety of residents and members of the public;

2. have a regional forensic committee review the facility and program design;

3. consult, as needed, with the Public Safety and Corrections departments or other security personnel; and

4. if it involves an individual who poses a serious risk to others, notify the chief elected and law enforcement officers of the affected town and the members of the Public Health Committee.

Michelle Cormier, DMR's legislative liaison, reports that this draft will next be reviewed within the department. This may take several months. Cormier does not expect publication in the Connecticut Law Journal of the formal notice of intent to adopt regulations until later this spring at the earliest. Publication of this notice means the draft regulations are subject to external review and comment.

CLIENT PLACEMENT

Cormier reports that, to her knowledge, DMR is not placing any clients in the community who are a danger without specific security and supervision measures. We have asked the department for further clarification on this matter but have not yet received a reply. We will forward it to you when we do.

SS: ts