Using the SIS to better align the funding of residential services to assessed support needs.

Giné et al. (2014) looked at how Catalonia hands out money for group homes. They used the Supports Intensity Scale, or SIS, to sort adults with intellectual disability into need groups.

The team wanted to see if SIS could replace the old ICAP tool and make funding fairer.

The SIS placed adults into six clear support-need groups. The groups ranged from folks who need only a little help to those who need round-the-clock care.

The authors say this map matches real-life needs better than the current ICAP system.

Painter et al. (2018) did a similar sort in the U.K. with 1,692 users. They also found six needs-based clusters and checked them against other tools. Their work backs up the six-group pattern Climent saw.

van Timmeren et al. (2016) audited Dutch support plans. They saw the same trend: mild ID plans push independence, while profound ID plans push well-being. The Dutch data line up with the Spanish funding tiers.

Csorba et al. (2011) surveyed Hungarian homes and found more behaviour issues as IQ drops. That fits the highest-need SIS group Climent describes.

If you write ISPs or talk to funders, you can point to this six-group SIS map. Ask for money tied to the support level the scale shows, not to a flat bed rate. It gives you a number to back up why one home needs more staff hours than another.