Summary#
S.10682 would amend New York’s Social Services Law by adding a new title on multidisciplinary personnel teams. Its stated goal is to support prompt, coordinated, confidential sharing of information to identify homeless people and connect them with housing and supportive services. The bill has been introduced and is not law; if enacted, it would take effect immediately.
- A county outside a city with a population of one million or more, or a city with at least one million people, may establish or approve a team. The bill does not require them to do so.
- A team must have at least two trained professionals. It may include health care providers, law enforcement or probation representatives, legal counsel, social services workers, case managers or coordinators, veterans services providers, domestic violence service organizations, school personnel, housing or homeless services representatives, and data analysts.
- Team members may share confidential information with one another for identifying, assessing, and linking homeless people and families to housing and supportive services, despite other laws. Health care providers’ use and disclosure for these purposes would be treated as part of treatment activities under applicable law.
- Each team must write protocols limiting shared data to what is reasonably necessary and covering access, secure exchange, safeguards, retention and disposal, confidentiality agreements, and ongoing privacy and security training.
- Shared information and records of team communications must be treated as strictly confidential and cannot be used as evidence in judicial, administrative, or other legal proceedings. Violations remain subject to available legal remedies, including civil penalties and court orders to stop the conduct.
What it means for you#
- Local governments: Establishing or approving a team is optional. If a county has one, it must allow appropriate personnel from a city in that county to join if the city asks, unless their participation would materially hinder the team’s objectives.
- Homeless people and families: The bill authorizes information sharing to help identify needs and link people to services. It does not create a right to housing or services, or set an application or referral process.
- Professionals and service organizations: If they join a team, they may share confidential information for the bill’s purposes. The team must provide written confidentiality agreements and ongoing security and privacy training.
- The public: The bill does not require every locality to create a team or require anyone to give information to one. It does not set rules for consent in the text.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The bill requires each team that is created to develop protocols and provide ongoing training, but gives no cost estimate or dedicated funding.
- It does not specify how many staff or what resources a locality would need.
What is unclear#
- The supplied materials do not include the current Social Services Law, so I could not verify how this authority would change or overlap with existing rules and programs.
- The bill does not set out how a team is formed, who leads it, how people are referred to it, or how decisions are made.
- It does not define who qualifies as a “homeless” person in the new title; it refers to a definition elsewhere in state law.
- It does not say whether people must be told their information is shared or how they can challenge or correct information.
- Teams need not obtain prior state-agency approval for their protocols. The bill says protocols must be made available to “the department,” but the added text does not identify which department.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to address delays or gaps in identifying homeless people’s needs and connecting them with housing and support.
- A team could bring together professionals who may each hold relevant information, including health, housing, school, social service, and veterans’ service staff.
- The protocols must limit information to what is reasonably necessary and require safeguards, retention rules, written confidentiality agreements, and ongoing training.
- Allowing local governments to decide whether to form teams leaves the choice with the localities named in the bill.
Case against#
- The bill permits sharing despite other laws and names a broad range of possible team members, including law enforcement and school personnel. This could expose sensitive information to more people.
- The bill does not establish a consent process or explain how people can find out what information was shared about them.
- Each team sets its own protocols, with no prior state approval required. The bill does not specify independent oversight or a required review schedule.
- The rule barring shared information and records of team communications from being evidence in legal proceedings could limit their use in those proceedings, but the bill does not explain the scope of that effect.