2 versions

RefinementWhat changed in REPORTED TO SENATEcompared with INTRODUCED IN SENATE (Nov 19, 2025)

A minor technical adjustment. v2 changes the reporting deadline for the Office of Management and Budget from '30 days' to '1 month' in Section 4, providing a slightly different phrasing for the same timeframe. No other substantive policy changes were made between the two versions.

S. 3211119th CongressIntroduced Nov 19, 2025

Recognizing the Role of Direct Support Professionals Act

Reported To SenateLabor and EmploymentSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH]
Committees: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
Last action: Sep 14, 2026

Bottom line

The bill mandates OMB to evaluate creating a specific occupational classification for direct support professionals, aiming to improve data collection and recognition for this critical workforce.

What it actually does

This bill directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to consider revising the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system during its next scheduled revision to establish a separate occupational code for direct support professionals (DSPs) as a healthcare support occupation. If OMB decides against creating this separate code, the Director is required to submit a report to specific Congressional committees explaining the decision.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that a separate SOC code for DSPs is crucial for accurately recognizing their distinct and vital role in supporting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This improved classification would enable better data collection on workforce shortages and high turnover rates, which in turn would inform more effective policy decisions and resource allocation to stabilize and strengthen this essential workforce.

Opponents contend

No direct opposition is explicitly stated in the bill or commonly associated with this type of administrative classification change. Potential, though unlikely, opposition might arise from concerns about the administrative burden on OMB or arguments that existing occupational categories are sufficient to capture the work of DSPs. However, the bill only requires 'consideration,' not a direct mandate to create the code, which mitigates strong opposition.

The bill is very short and uses clear, accessible language, making it highly accessible for readers to evaluate its contents quickly and thoroughly.

Section 3

Consideration of Revising the Standard Occupational Classification System

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to evaluate whether to establish a new, separate occupational code for direct support professionals (DSPs) within the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. This consideration must occur during the first scheduled revision of the SOC system after the bill becomes law, and the new code, if established, would classify DSPs as a healthcare support occupation.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupDirect Support Professionals (DSPs)ImpactIncreased recognition and potential for better data collection on their workforce, which could lead to improved policy and funding.MechanismCreation of a distinct occupational code within the SOC system.ScaleNational

GroupIndividuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD)ImpactIndirect benefit through potential improvements in DSP workforce stability and quality of care, as better data could inform supportive policies.MechanismBetter data on DSP workforce challenges could inform policies to support the IDD community.ScaleNational

GroupFederal and State statistical agenciesImpactImproved ability to collect, analyze, and disseminate data specifically on the DSP workforce.MechanismA new, distinct SOC code.ScaleNational

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that a dedicated SOC code is essential for accurately reflecting the unique and critical work performed by DSPs, distinguishing them from other care providers like home health aides. This improved classification would allow for better data on workforce shortages and turnover, enabling more effective policy interventions to stabilize and strengthen the DSP workforce, ultimately benefiting individuals with IDD.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it only mandates *consideration* by OMB, not a direct creation of the code. Potential, though minor, concerns might include the administrative burden on OMB for evaluating and potentially implementing a new code, or arguments that existing classifications are sufficient.

Tradeoffs

The primary tension is between the administrative effort required to revise a national classification system and the recognized need for more granular data on a specific, critical workforce. While OMB is required to *consider* it, the decision ultimately rests with them, balancing the specific needs of the DSP community against the broader principles and practicalities of maintaining the SOC system.

Section 4

Report to Congress on Decision

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This section requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit a report to specific Congressional committees if OMB decides *not* to establish a separate code for direct support professionals after their consideration. The report must be submitted within one month after the first SOC system revision following the bill's enactment and must explain OMB's reasoning for its decision.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.