This posting is very complicated. I’m trying to make the Support Intensity Scales (SIS), which are used to assess our folks with ID, understandable to those who are reading reports. These scores are used and have been reported in “research” by DDD but unfortunately, the author does not report the significance of the scores nor use as they are intended by the developers of the SIS. My hope is to clarify the issues and to show what these scores really do represent by the assessments that were completed in Washington State.
Information regarding the Supports Intensity Scales (SIS) – used in Washington State to assess the support needs of individuals with Intellectual Disabilities.
The purpose of the SIS has 3 sections:
Section 1: Support Needs Scale – 6 Life Activity Areas
- Home Living Activities
- Community Living Activities
- Lifelong Learning Activities
- Employment Activities
- Health and Safety Activities
- Social Activities
Section 2: Supplemental Protection and Advocacy Scale (WA does not use this portion in the DDD assessments)
Section 3: Exceptional Medical and Behavioral Support Needs – to be seen as significant, the score on this section must be greater than 5 (range 0-32 Medical, range 0-26 Behavioral) or have at least one area score a 2 (range 0-2). If the answer is yes to any of these questions, it is highly likely that the individual has a greater support need than others with a similar SIS Support Needs Index.
The presence of exceptional medical and behavior support needs is higher in the RHC populations than the other two populations. Those who score in “exceptional need” will have higher support needs than other clients who may have the same Support Needs Index Score.
This graph indicates the frequency distribution of the Support Needs Index – you can see it follow the typical bell curve. The cost of care increases as the SIS increases. For those with significant exceptional needs, their cost of care will be more than someone else with the same SIS Support Needs Index Score.
It is clear from the data presented that those in the RHC have significantly higher support needs and exceptional medical and behavior needs than the residents in the Community Residential and Other Community Residential. I have written to Barbara Lucenko and Lijian He, authors of the DDD Report several times to have them clarify and correct their information or to at least explain thier conclusions but they have not responded. I hope that other research which is done in our state is more reliable than some of these reports published by DSHS.