According to 2025 Connecticut Department of Correction (DOC) statistics, 64 of Connecticut’s 11,028 incarcerated people have an intellectual disability, 39 have autism, and another four have both. That number, however, is reliant on Connecticut’s use of IQ tests, rather than the modern psychological evaluations used by all but seven states. Advocates say dated evaluation strategies are leaving many disabled people without needed support after they commit a crime.

The Connecticut Sentencing Commission (CTSC) is the organization charged with informing updates to the law, and its leadership believes that modernization would help those with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and corrections staff, leading to better outcomes for safety and justice in Connecticut. Currently opposed are state officials and other skeptics who point to the unknown price tag and lack of a clear off-ramp, which could allow repeat offenders to escape accountability.

“People that would have been in state hospitals”

Rich Sparaco, CTSC’s Interim Executive Director, credited State Senator Cathy Osten (D-Norwich) with bringing the conversation about IDD needs before the Commission.

“A lot of this was championed by Senator Osten, specifically wanting to look into more areas at the intersection of mental health and criminal justice, and I think this is one of the areas,” said Sparaco.

Osten, who worked at the state’s Department of Correction (DOC) for 21 years as both an officer and lieutenant, first requested that the Commission study the prevalence of chronic mental illness among Connecticut’s prison population in 2019. That culminated in a study published by the CTSC in January 2023, which found 28% of the state’s male inmates, and 80% of its female inmates, are chronically mentally ill. 

“I went on to this group of people who are identified as having intellectual and developmental disabilities, and saying we should also figure out, ‘Where are we on this?’” said Osten. “Primarily, because Connecticut identifies people as having IDD by IQ scores, and often people are IDD but fall outside the parameters of that, and I wanted to start having that discussion from a criminal justice perspective.”

Connecticut is one of only seven states where officials rely on a strict IQ score cutoff for legally defining individuals with IDDs. This has led to pushback in recent years, even litigation, as many families of IDD-diagnosed individuals have been denied access to state services because a score of 70 or above on a single IQ test can disqualify them. Proponents of a bill proposed this year, HB 5557, hoped to change that. The bill would have replaced Connecticut’s IQ-based definition of IDD with that of the DSM-5, the newest version of the psychiatric diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association. Department of Developmental Services (DDS) officials testified against the bill, claiming it would “significantly expand current waitlists for DDS services.”

“Staffing shortages in programs continue to be an issue resulting in service capacity issues and workforce challenges for those who currently qualify,” wrote DDS Commissioner Jordan Scheff. “For the reasons listed above, and the lack of any predictive analysis to determine the budgetary impact and increased demand for service, we cannot support revising the definition of intellectual disability at this time.”

HB 5557 was ultimately amended in the final days of the session, giving DDS until July 2027 to submit a plan and recommendations to the legislature on how the statutory definition of intellectual disability could be rewritten without strict IQ cutoffs, as well as a timeline for DDS’s implementation of this new definition. The bill passed both chambers and is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature.

Osten said she proposed a bill on the issue of incarcerated IDD individuals “a number of years before 2023,” but that it failed, as “some folks did not see it as having value.”

“I knew that until I did something that showed the numbers, that people would not pay attention to it, they would think that it was a one-off situation,” said Osten. “Relative to those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, the numbers are higher than people anticipate them to be, because of how we identify people with intellectual and developmental disabilities — by IQ score, and not by action or behavior.”

In 2023, a bill was passed that, among other provisions, required CTSC to author a report evaluating the “experience of people with IDD or ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) who are in the criminal justice system.” CTSC was asked to compare the incarceration rates of people with IDDs and autism to those of the overall population, determine the possible costs of pre-sentencing behavioral assessment for this population, and compile the best practices of other states. Included with the study would be recommendations for “related sentencing considerations.” 

Since 2023, Osten said the Sentencing Commission has “been doing a lot of work” to imagine what a diversion program for IDD defendants might look like. In her view, a diversion program is needed for the population because many people with disabilities are entering jails ill-equipped to meet their needs, when in the past, they would have been funneled to places that could.

“There are people that would have been in a training school for intellectual and developmental disabilities, but we closed them down,” Osten said, “There are people that would have been in state hospitals, but we closed them down, and so now they end up incarcerated because there isn’t the supportive housing necessary to support them.”

Such a program would not only benefit those with IDD, argued Osten, but also correctional staff, who she believes are being asked to do more than they’re trained to do.

“The people that work in corrections are expected to be multi-versed in a number of different areas; not only those that belong in the criminal justice system, but those that are chronically mentally ill, and we have no supportive housing for them, and those that are intellectually and developmentally disabled that should be receiving support that would help them be more successful,” said Osten. 

Osten stressed that she is “not somebody who says that someone should never be incarcerated,” and that there are people who “should be” in jail, regardless of their disability status. A diversion program, in her view, would only be for those who lack the mental capacity to understand the criminality of their behavior and don’t pose a significant danger to the public outside of prison.

“If somebody knows what they did was wrong, then they have to bear the consequences of what happened,” said Osten. “That’s just the way it is.”

“Hopefully they don’t come back”

Under current state statutes, disabled defendants found guilty of a crime are either funneled into diversionary programs meant for other groups or incarcerated in prisons. In either case, advocates say disabled individuals’ needs are not being met. 

Rachel Mirsky, supervising attorney at Disability Rights Connecticut (DRC), which drafted the report, said the best outcome for IDD inmates is that “the prison sort of leaves you alone,” and the worst outcome, if the inmate winds up being disruptive, is that they are placed in isolation or restrictive housing.

“The downside to being left alone is you’re also not getting the support and services that you need to be successful outside of the system,” said Mirsky. “You’re either quiet and they don’t worry about you, but they also don’t give you the support that you need, or, if you’re creating a problem, they’re going to subdue that problem, and in subduing that problem, it creates a problem for that person.”

The report’s authors claim a litany of disadvantages faced by defendants with IDDs, or who are suspected of having IDDs. Defense attorneys who had worked with disabled clients noted their frequent inability to afford clinical evaluations and diagnoses, and a lack of diversionary programming that would most fit their needs or that would allow them to receive a court-ordered competency evaluation. Additionally, lawyers reported feeling ethical dilemmas when advising IDD defendants to accept pleas, knowing that the state’s prisons could not adequately meet their disabilities’ needs.

Defense attorneys’ jobs are also made harder when counseling IDD defendants by the fact that they are, “likely to waive their Miranda rights unknowingly; give incriminating statements without understanding the consequences of giving such statements; provide false confessions; receive inaccurate or inappropriate competency evaluations; and be forced into institutions to evaluate their competency to stand trial, environments which do not meet their individualized needs,” reads the report.

The report notes that individuals with IDD are “likely to exhibit a limited understanding of the risks he/she may face in a given situation,” which can cause them to be “easily led by others to engage in criminal activity.” 

“The person may give into impulse and lack the ability to use logical reasoning,” reads the report. “The individual may struggle to understand why a decision he/she made – whether pressured or not – is a mistake. Individuals with I/DD are likely to engage in criminal behavior not because they want or intend to break the law, but rather, they do not understand that their actions violate the law and/or they are more vulnerable to the suggestions of others compared to individuals without I/DD.”

Essentially, defense attorneys find themselves dealing with clients who are likely unaware of what they did wrong, who are more likely to have incriminated themselves as a result of not knowing their rights, who are likely to have never been diagnosed, and who don’t have the benefit of a diversionary program suited for their individual needs.

Mirsky, a defense attorney herself, said she’s seen defense attorneys try and “do the best they can” for their clients by getting them diverted to programs such as Accelerated Rehabilitation or the Supervised Diversionary Program (SDP), but neither is equipped to connect them to supportive housing services, job training, or counseling.

“The problem then becomes; well, hopefully they don’t come back, and if they do, what do we have available to us?” said Mirsky. “Well, we have ill-fitting programs.”

The Judicial Branch defines SDP as the state’s program for “defendants who have psychiatric disabilities or who are veterans with a mental health condition that is amenable to treatment.” When considering eligibility for SDP, judges will send a defendant to the Judicial Branch’s Court Support Services Division (CSSD) for an assessment to determine what treatment, supervision, and services the defendant may need. If CSSD finds the defendant eligible, they devise a treatment plan for the defendant and give it to the court to decide upon.

While, at a glance, this may seem fitting for IDD defendants, Mirsky gave several reasons why SDP as it currently stands is not suited for them. 

“The current supervised diversionary program is really only designed for people who have psychiatric disabilities,” said Mirsky. “They do have an assessment point, they do have a treatment evaluation at a time, but what they’re really doing is just treating this diagnosis of psychiatric disabilities; they’re not considering what other related needs in the person’s life impact their ability to be successful, given that they have disability.”

Mirsky and Osten both said that those with disabilities are often lumped into the same category as those with psychiatric illnesses, but that the needs of the two groups are different. While the symptoms and behaviors of psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, can often be alleviated via medication and counseling, the issues associated with disabilities require more intensive and permanent support systems. Even for those disabled people who also suffer from psychiatric illness, Mirsky said that researchers agree that treating a person’s disability should be the priority.

“Those individuals who are well respected in their community and have been studying this for decades, will say, ‘If you have someone who has an IDD and also a mental illness, that if you treat the other diagnosis that’s not an IDD, then you’re really not helping the person succeed,’” said Mirsky. “The reason is because person with an IDD oftentimes has multifaceted needs.”

Examples of these “multifaceted needs,” she says, include housing, education, occupational, and life skills training. While the issues associated with IDD are lifelong, SDP does not connect disabled individuals to what Mirsky called “aftercare programming,” which are long-term services to support the individual after completing SDP. She said that CSSD often contracts out with the Midwestern Connecticut Council of Alcoholism (MCCA), which specializes in substance abuse and mental health services, to supervise SDP recipients.

“These are contractors that help deal with the underlying mental health issue, make sure the person is stabilized, monitored, but it’s just the monitoring of that condition, and that’s it,” said Mirsky. “They do it for a period of time, and that’s it. Then you bring back reports, and the judge says, ‘Okay, you’re compliant, you can be dismissed.’ It’s just that IDD is so much more complex, right?”

The report also explores competency determinations for IDD defendants. Competency, in the legal context, is when a defendant is of sound enough mind to understand court proceedings and consult with their lawyer. When there’s a question of whether a defendant is mentally fit to stand trial, they often must undergo a competency determination, and, if deemed incompetent but restorable, be sent for restoration. While the option exists for IDD defendants to be sent to outpatient DDS facilities for restoration, they are often sent to Whiting Forensic Hospital, the state’s maximum-security psychiatric hospital. Just like the other possible landing spots for IDD defendants, Mirsky said Whiting is ill-equipped to handle them.

“We acknowledge that professionals there [at Whiting] can tell the difference, but just because they can tell the difference, doesn’t mean that they have been provided by the state with adequate resources,” said Mirsky. 

What would an IDD Diversion Program look like?

CTSC first reached out to Disability Rights Connecticut for assistance in drafting their report in May 2024. Mirsky presented the report to the Commission on April 10, and the Commission voted to recognize the findings.

The 58-page report is the culmination of 20 interviews with IDD professionals, social workers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probate attorneys and judges, IDD family members and caretakers, and IDD individuals themselves, some of whom have experienced incarceration. DRC also evaluated state reports and statistics, studies and scholarly research, and assessed the 21 IDD diversion programs currently operating in 16 other U.S. states to identify what the best practices for Connecticut’s program might be. 

It concluded that, ultimately, the state could base an IDD diversion program off SDP, so long as “clear distinctions in staff training and evaluation processes are made.”

“An I/DD diversionary program cannot be treated identically to the SDP program; however, the majority of state programs have executed programs for both psychiatric disabilities and I/DD,” reads the report. “Like other state programs, Connecticut should rely upon the expertise of psychologists and psychiatrists with I/DD expertise.” 

The report laid out two diagnosis-dependent pathways for potentially eligible defendants. Defendants who have been previously diagnosed and have the paperwork or records to prove it would be immediately evaluated by a psychiatrist and psychologist to develop a support plan. Those who haven’t been diagnosed but who are suspected of IDD would take a low-cost screening examination and then get their diagnosis verified by a mental health professional, before a support plan is either created, or ruled out. 

For defendants who have comorbidities, such as multiple IDDs or an IDD and psychiatric illness, the report notes that screening them might “incur considerable time and cost.” Depending on whether they have prior diagnoses, their screening process would mirror that of either of the above groups. 

“The experience for individuals across these categories will be different,” reads the report. “The creation of an I/DD diversionary program must allow for these differences.”

Once a defendant is screened and diagnosed, the report recommends using the Supports Intensity Scale – Adult (SISA), an evaluation tool that analyzes the types and levels of supports needed for disabled people. These supports might include supervision, therapy and medication management, life skills training, housing assistance, benefits assistance, education and vocational training, and behavioral training. Similar to how SDP works in Connecticut, all other IDD programs reviewed by DRC require that support plans be brought before the court for review and approval.

DRC found that different states had different timeframes for IDD diversion, and some had none at all. Of those that did, the timeframes typically averaged between 12 and 15 months. Some states’ timelines were determined by “factors such as the level of support that an individual needs and severity of crime,” the report found. The report ultimately concluded that program length limits are “ill-advised,” but that it “may be beneficial to set such limits on an individualized, case-by-case basis, with periodic progress reports and court monitoring.”

“Data on these programs show that courts generally recognize that the integration of individualized support plans and subsequent success in executing the plans takes time and requires patience to meet each person’s needs,” reads the report. “In some instances, state programs incorporate a step-down style program with decreased monitoring over time if the individual is improving in the program.”

When evaluating how other states’ programs measured their success, the report asserted that program success should “not be based on one factor (recidivism), but rather, through review of an individual’s progress in the program.” DRC argued that because IDDs are lifelong, multi-faceted conditions, success should be measured less by recidivism and more by the individual’s completion of goals laid forth in their support plans. 

“Because I/DD diagnoses are lifelong conditions in need of ongoing support, the likelihood of re-offense is possible because of the individual’s disability, especially if supports and services are inadequate,” reads the report. “The re-offense is often not because the individual intends to engage in criminal activity or understands the consequences of his or her actions.”

In that same vein, the report’s authors also assert that the IDD program should not preclude eligibility based on prior participation. While the severity of crime should be considered when determining defendant eligibility, no crime should be automatically exclusive, and the nature of the crime should only be considered after a support plan is drawn up, per the report.

“Whether an individual has an I/DD diagnosis based on assessments completed must be the primary factor in determining program eligibility,” reads the report. “Clinical recommendations should assess whether the individual’s behaviors which led to crime(s) charged can or cannot be addressed through an individualized support plan. These recommendations should include risks the individual poses to society and any recidivism concerns. Final eligibility should be determined once an I/DD diagnosis is verified, as should whether concrete supports and services can be provided to implement the treatment plan.”

Once implemented, the report recommends that an oversight board be created to measure the program’s successes or pitfalls and adjust its parameters. The board would be composed of various agency and legal officials, as well as IDD experts.

“Education is hugely important”

While Mirsky told Inside Investigator that DRC’s interviews with IDD individuals are proprietary information, as they were conducted under the condition of anonymity, the report painted the broad strokes of IDD people’s experiences in relation to the criminal justice system. 

The report noted that many of these individuals were charged with crimes “stemming from behavior associated with” their disabilities, but never received evaluations after the fact. Many IDD individuals said they were initially misdiagnosed, only discovering they had a disability after being charged with or convicted of crimes. For IDD individuals who were diagnosed before their interactions with the justice system, some reported “being told that judges do not believe” them, or that their diagnoses were “not severe enough to be a mitigating factor.” Mirsky said this indicates a need for proper education of criminal justice workers.

“Education is hugely important,” said Mirsky. “You have to understand the differences between severe IDD versus a mild form, for example, and how that impacts a person. It’s not just about understanding IDD versus developmental disability — It’s about understanding the degrees and using concrete examples in a careful manner.”

Mirsky said there are “different kinds of conferences” that lawyers and judges often attend, which could serve as avenues of education. Mirsky believed it was “a good idea” to use case studies developed from anonymized, real-life examples of IDD individuals’ prior experiences interacting with the criminal justice system.

For state employees in criminal justice agencies, such as the Judicial Branch, Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), the Office of the Chief Public Defender (OCPD), and the state’s various police departments, the report recommended using online training modules. 

“Education is not wildly expensive,” said Mirsky. “There are people and experts who are willing to provide the education if asked. The cost that might be incurred is worth it, because it has a trickle-down effect, and the more people that are educated, the greater the understanding is.”

The report also recommends that the state’s criminal justice system use either the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire (LSDQ) or the Hayes Ability Screening Index (HASI) to screen IDD. Both were touted as being easy to administer, quick to take, fairly accurate, and relatively cheap. It costs $120 for 100 LSDQ quizzes and $150 for 25 HASI quizzes, but the report notes that both could be cheaper to buy in bulk. To screen potentially autistic defendants, the report recommended using the Comprehensive Autistic Traits Inventory, a 42-question, self-administered quiz found online for free. If such evaluations were to be implemented, the diagnoses would have to be confirmed by a qualified mental health professional. 

The report notably found a lack of data collection and data sharing between state agencies regarding the state’s IDD population, a lack of research on what crimes the state’s IDD population is most likely to commit, and reliance on the federal definition of a “developmental disability.”

The report’s authors suggest that Connecticut instead use the US Administration for Community Living (ACL) definition. The ACL uses a broader definition of developmental disability that suggests Connecticut could have between 30,000 and 56,000 people with developmental disabilities. The ACL’s estimate is significantly higher than the number of people receiving DDS services; as of September 2025, 17,636 people were receiving DDS services. The report notes that, because of Connecticut’s strict IQ cutoff for DDS eligibility, its service numbers can not be taken as an exhaustive inventory of the state’s IDD population. DSS, which administers services related to autism, currently serves 262 people with autism, and has 846 adults on its waitlist.

“Based on the data analyzed, there are concerns regarding the inaccuracy of the prevalence data available on individuals with I/DD in Connecticut,” reads the report. “There is consensus among I/DD experts interviewed for this Report that the data collected in Connecticut fails to adequately reflect all individuals who have one or more I/DD diagnoses.” 

The report also notes that there is a lack of research as to what crimes people with IDD are most likely to commit. When presenting the report to CTSC, Mirsky said it’s “really important” that the state’s criminal justice system “really consider” researching those trends. 

Jennifer Zito, a criminal defense lawyer who heads the Commission’s Mental Health Subcommittee, presented a set of recommendations for the program based on the report at CTSC’s April meeting. The subcommittee recommended that criminal justice agencies and police departments improve their data collection on the state’s IDD population “as resources allow,” and that agencies should share that data amongst themselves as law permits. 

“The proposals here go far beyond”

Several CTSC members raised concerns, questions, and doubts regarding some of the aspects of the future program proposed by Mirsky and Zito. Patrick Griffin, the Chief State’s Attorney, said that while he supported the idea of an IDD diversion program, he believed some of the findings and recommendations far exceeded the initial scope of the proposal.

“Let me just begin by saying, DCJ [Department of Criminal Justice] is in support of the concept of developing a program for IDD individuals,” said Griffin. “But I would note what has already been noted, that the proposals here go far beyond what SDP currently does.”

Concerns were levied at the recommendation that past crimes should not preclude program eligibility. The State’s Victim Advocate, Natasha Pierre, was concerned that the program might serve as “an indefinite diversionary program for people with IDD.” Zito said that other state diversionary programs, such as SDP or the state’s drug-related diversion programs, can be used more than once. That’s why the IDD program must connect people with long-term services that exceed the program’s duration, to “help them understand and refrain” from criminal conduct, said Zito.

Ideally, Zito said, the program would allow courts to weigh “the seriousness of the crime in the context of the disability, before deciding whether or not a program would be appropriate.” 

Griffin asked whether even violent crimes, such as murder or kidnapping, should not automatically exclude defendants from eligibility. Zito said that people with IDD are “very vulnerable” to being made accessories to serious crimes, even murder. She gave the hypothetical example of a person with a disability who is asked to come along for a ride, and the driver ends up robbing a convenience store and killing the clerk.

“They don’t necessarily understand what’s going to transpire, and they’re blindsided by, ‘Oh, come with me,’” said Zito. “’You know, we’re going to go take a ride. You just sit here and we’ll go in the store. We’ll be right out.’ And they have no concept of what’s occurring.”

Zito clarified that she doesn’t believe that any murder that implicates an IDD individual should be eligible for diversion. 

“I’m saying and suggesting, based on the study and based on this population, is that there are instances where people are persuaded, due to their vulnerabilities, due to their disabilities, to do things that they don’t understand,” said Zito. 

Another major point of contention was the fiscal impact of such a program. Judge David Gold, CTSC’s chairman, worried that if the diversion program is brought under the umbrella of SDP, it might end up detracting from SDP’s resources. 

“If they simply say, well, from now on, intellectual disability and autism will be covered under the SDP, it could double, it could triple the population, I don’t know,” said Gold. “But if we don’t have money attached to that expansion, then it will not only fail to provide good services for the new members or the newly eligible, but also for those that are currently eligible.” 

Zito said that SDP would have to be “broadened” statutorily, and that she believed the population already served by SDP is larger than whatever population might be diverted via an IDD program. She also clarified that just because it would be based on SDP, it would not replace SDP, as the two programs would still exist separately with different criteria.

“We understand that there’s a fiscal impact, but I think that the population is small enough,” said Zito. “The services available currently are not services that will address this population effectively. I think if the Connecticut legislature looks to those other states and looks to the fiscal resources required and the services available in other states, we could come up with a program that would be appropriate for this population.”

Former State Representative Bill Dyson shared fiscal concerns as well, saying he was “kind of perplexed” that the report’s authors were unable to hammer down the potential fiscal impact of the program, and what that might mean for any recommendations they provide the legislature.

“I think fiscal analysis is going to have a difficult time trying to place a cost on this, and that’s not going to enhance the bill being able to move forward,” said Dyson.

Mirsky said that the fiscal impact of the program, outside of potential fee structures for defendants, was outside of the scope of the report. The inability to project costs is also a downstream effect of the state’s inability to accurately assess the true size of its IDD population, said Mirsky. She thinks the Commission is split over whether they should move forward without all the necessary information and adjust things as needed or continue holding off until more data is collected. 

“They’ll have a push and pull of: do we want the program to be perfect enough?” said Mirsky. “Meet all the financial requirements, meet all the needs of the people? Know every single piece of information and then wait? Or do we start something and then have information that’s a little gray because we just don’t know? And I think that’s that is the core of why there’s a lot of back and forth.”

The Future of the Program

As Judge Gold said at the end of CTSC’s April meeting, “To whatever extent we were attempting to get this matter completed in time for this legislative session, that’s not happening.”

The Commission voted to recognize the report but decided to table a vote on the recommendations. The recommendations were tabled again at a May 4 meeting. While what the program might look like, or when it might be finalized and written into a proposed bill, is still up in the air, stakeholders like Mirsky and Osten are committed to seeing it through.

Two separate bills have already been proposed in recent years that would have directly mandated the creation of such a program. In 2024, HB 5055 initially included language to allow for the expansion of SDP to autistic and IDD individuals, but was stripped out before its passage. The pattern repeated with HB 7259 the next year. DRC submitted testimony in support of the 2024 bill, as did the CTSC, but it faced opposition from both the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and DDS officials, who testified that the proposal needed more work. 

“I don’t know if I’m successful at raising the problem, but I think it is a problem, and I do think it has to be identified, and I’m glad that other people are starting to pay attention,” said Osten. “If we are going to continue to incarcerate those who are chronically mentally ill, or those who have intellectual and developmental disabilities, then we have to provide the resources for the staff and for that particular individual to deal with whatever they may need to be successful.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.