Occupational code for DSPs

Summary#

This bill asks the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to consider creating a separate Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) code for direct support professionals (DSPs). DSPs are workers who help people with intellectual and developmental disabilities with daily living, community access, and employment supports. The bill’s main goal is to improve how federal statistics count and describe this workforce.

• Main change: OMB must consider, during its next SOC revision after the bill becomes law, adding a distinct SOC code for direct support professionals as a health care support occupation.
• Reporting requirement: If OMB decides not to add the code, the Director must report that decision to two Congressional committees within 30 days after the SOC revision.
• No new appropriations: The bill says no extra funds are authorized to carry out the law.

What it means for you#

• Direct support professionals (DSPs): If the SOC code is added, DSPs would be counted under their own occupational label in federal employment and wage data. This could make their job easier to track in national statistics. The bill does not change pay, benefits, licensing, or job duties.
• People receiving services: Better data could eventually lead to policies aimed at addressing DSP shortages. The bill itself does not change services.
• Employers and service providers: State and private providers could see clearer labor-market data about hiring, turnover, and wages for DSPs. The bill does not require employers to change hiring or pay practices.
• State and local governments: They could use clearer federal data to plan recruiting, training, and budgeting for home- and community-based services.
• Federal statistical agencies, researchers, and policymakers: A new SOC code would change how surveys and reports classify these workers. That could improve research and policy planning about workforce size, turnover, and pay.

Expenses#

The bill says no additional funds are authorized to carry out its requirements.

• The bill does not include a fiscal estimate or budget number.
• This could mean OMB and other statistical agencies would handle any work within their existing budgets. There is no official estimate of administrative or data-collection costs.
• Establishing a new SOC code may lead to small additional costs for updating surveys, data systems, and training staff, but no estimate is provided in the bill.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to make federal data more accurate for DSPs by giving them a discrete occupational category.
• A possible argument for the bill is that a separate code would help measure the size of the workforce, turnover, and shortages.
• The bill could be seen as recognizing DSPs’ distinct job tasks compared with other care jobs like home health aides or personal care aides.
• Better data could support state and federal planning to address workforce problems in home- and community-based services.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill only requires OMB to consider a change, not to create the code. OMB could decide not to add it.
• The bill does not provide funding. It is unclear how much work to change classification and data systems will cost or who will pay.
• The bill does not change pay, training, licensing, staffing rules, or other conditions that affect DSP recruitment and retention. It addresses only statistical classification.
• It is unclear how quickly any new code would appear, since it applies to the next scheduled SOC revision and the timing of that revision is not specified.