Connecticut bill targets DDS IQ eligibility rules.

Connecticut lawmakers are evaluating a Connecticut General Assembly bill that would expand access to state services for adults with intellectual disabilities by widening eligibility criteria that advocates describe as overly restrictive. The proposal would shift Connecticut’s definition and eligibility approach away from rigid IQ thresholds and toward a DSM-based model that emphasizes functional, clinical assessment. Supporters argue the current “bright line” can exclude people with clear, lifelong support needs, while state leadership has raised concerns about demand and planning if eligibility expands.

Eligibility shift from IQ gatekeeping to DSM-based assessment

Under the policy described in the reporting, Connecticut eligibility currently requires both an IQ below 70 and documented deficits in adaptive behavior beginning in childhood. As a result, a single test score above the threshold can disqualify an applicant. The bill would redefine “intellectual disability” consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders approach. That approach emphasizes clinical assessment of functioning rather than strict reliance on IQ.

Advocates argue the current method is not scientifically justifiable and can have “life-altering” consequences for people who do not meet the IQ cutoff but still have significant functional limitations.

What access is at stake for clients and families

The reporting frames the practical stakes as access to housing supports, case workers, and other DDS-linked benefits. Those supports are currently unavailable to some people who present clear functional needs but do not meet the IQ “bright line.” For clients and families, the proposal signals potential relief from an “edge case” problem: people who functionally need lifelong supports but do not neatly fit a single psychometric threshold.

Case example and implementation concerns

The story ties legislative momentum to the case of Cathrine Mayo, whose claim for DDS services was denied because her IQ tested just above 70 despite significant daily living limitations. The related lawsuit is described as having been settled and as catalyzing broader policy debate. DDS leadership has also signaled a common implementation tension. DDS warns expanded eligibility could substantially increase demand and waitlists and would require intentional planning and a multiyear approach.

The proposal is identifiable in public legislative materials as a Connecticut General Assembly bill focused on “definitions and eligibility criteria” and on removing IQ scores as an eligibility component for state-funded services. The reporting notes a countervailing risk: expanded eligibility without commensurate investment may translate into longer waits or narrower service authorizations.