How does Connecticut define intellectual disability for DDS eligibility?

Section 1-1g of the Connecticut General Statutes defines intellectual disability as a significant limitation in intellectual functioning, together with deficits in adaptive behavior, that began before age 18. A significant limitation means an IQ more than two standard deviations below the mean, which in practice is a full-scale score of about 69 or below. Both must be shown with individualized, standardized tests.

Is Connecticut changing its intellectual disability definition?

Not yet. Public Act 26-151 directs the DDS commissioner to produce a plan for a new definition in which no single test score is determinative, with a report due by July 1, 2027. Until lawmakers change Section 1-1g or a court rules otherwise, the current IQ-based definition still applies.

Connecticut IQ cutoff for DDS services faces lawsuit

Four Connecticut residents with intellectual disability diagnoses are suing over the IQ cutoff DDS uses to decide eligibility. A state-ordered plan for a new definition is due July 1, 2027.

policy · connecticut · eligibility · intellectual-disability · dds · lawsuit · waiting-lists · deep-dive

Four young Connecticut residents who have each been diagnosed with an intellectual disability are suing the state over the IQ cutoff the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) uses to decide who qualifies for its services. The case was filed in August in Connecticut Superior Court, and Connecticut Public reported on it in depth on Oct. 26.

The plaintiffs are Andrew Baylis, Daynasha Bohannon, Carriella Borchetta and Alexander Capuano. According to the Center for Children's Advocacy, which represents them along with the firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder and attorney Andrew Feinstein, DDS turned each of them down because at least one IQ test score came in above the state's threshold. They argue the law violates their due process and equal protection rights under the federal and state constitutions. They are asking the court to declare the IQ requirement unconstitutional, block its use and reverse their denials.

What Connecticut law says

The rule is written into the statutes, not just DDS policy. Section 1-1g of the Connecticut General Statutes defines intellectual disability as a "significant limitation in intellectual functioning" alongside deficits in adaptive behavior that began before age 18. It then defines a significant limitation as an IQ "more than two standard deviations below the mean."

In practice, Connecticut Public reports, that means a full-scale score of 69 or below, documented before 18. If a score lands above the line, other evidence of need does not change the answer, and one higher result can outweigh several lower ones.

Carriella Borchetta's case shows how that plays out. She has Williams syndrome and an intellectual disability diagnosis, and her mother told Connecticut Public she has had profound adaptive deficits since birth. Her full-scale IQ results across several tests ranged from 67 to 76. DDS found her ineligible twice. She is now in her school district's transition program for 18- to 22-year-olds, where she works at a bookstore, and has two years left before she ages out.

DDS declined to discuss the case. In an emailed statement to Connecticut Public, the agency said it recognizes eligibility decisions are "deeply personal and consequential" and that it is committed to treating people "with dignity."

How other states handle it

The plaintiffs argue Connecticut is out of step with current clinical practice. Since 2013, the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual has treated an IQ score as one part of an intellectual disability diagnosis, alongside conceptual, social and practical skills.

A University of Connecticut review of every state and the District of Columbia, cited by Connecticut Public, found eight states, Connecticut among them, relied on a single score. Nineteen used IQ as one factor and 24 did not use IQ at all. The Center for Children's Advocacy describes Connecticut as one of only three states that mandate and rely exclusively on a strict IQ threshold. The two counts measure slightly different things, and both come from parties to the debate rather than a neutral national survey.

The state has studied this before

The lawsuit lands on a question lawmakers have been working through for three years.

A 2023 law directed the Office of Policy and Management to recommend a new definition. Its contractor, Altarum, delivered a report on Nov. 15, 2024 with two options:

Remove the IQ score requirement and focus on clinician-determined limitations in intellectual functioning.
Fold intellectual disability into a broader developmental disability definition that covers conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy and Down syndrome.

Altarum interviewed four states that had revised their definitions, Washington, Arkansas, Minnesota and Vermont. It warned that either change would need a multi-year rollout with effects on budgets, eligibility workflows, enrollment and the workforce.

When a 2026 bill proposed adopting the psychiatric manual's definition outright, DDS Commissioner Jordan Scheff opposed it in March testimony. He said a broader definition would likely expand the number of people eligible and "significantly expand current waitlists," that staffing shortages already limit capacity, and that no analysis yet predicts the budget impact. He also noted DDS services "have never been an entitlement" and depend on appropriations.

Lawmakers instead passed a study. Public Act 26-151, approved in June, directs the DDS commissioner to produce a plan for a new definition in which "no single test score or single measure" is determinative. The definition must rest on the totality of clinical, educational and functional evidence and be consistent with accepted professional standards.

The plan must include a transition timeline, any federal approvals needed, and one-time and recurring cost estimates for DDS, other agencies and school districts. The act sets the report deadline at July 1, 2027. Connecticut Public's story gives Jan. 1, 2027; we are using the date in the enacted text.

State Rep. Jay Case, ranking member of the Human Services Committee, told Connecticut Public the study route was chosen because no funding was available. DDS told the outlet it is talking with stakeholders about redefining the term.

What this means for providers and DSPs

No change yet. The IQ requirement is still state law, and DDS is still applying it. Nothing changes for current eligibility until a court rules or the legislature acts.
Watch the July 2027 report. The cost and timeline estimates in the DDS plan will shape whether, and how fast, lawmakers move. That is the document that could reshape DDS intake.
Broader eligibility means more demand. DDS's own testimony says a new definition would likely grow the eligible population and the waitlist. For provider agencies already short on staff, that would mean more referrals for residential, day programs and in-home supports under Connecticut's Medicaid waivers.
Adaptive behavior records matter. The direction both the lawsuit and the new law point toward is a "totality of evidence" approach. Day-to-day observations from direct support professionals and frontline supervisors, along with plans like the individual support plan, describe functional need in ways a test score cannot.
Families may ask. People who were turned away from DDS, or who are approaching 18, may ask staff what this means for them. The case is pending and the state has not changed its rules, so the honest answer is that it is too soon to know.

We will follow the case and the DDS report.