Direct Support Professional SOC Code

Full Title:
Recognizing the Role of Direct Support Professionals Act

Summary#

This bill asks the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to consider creating a separate occupational code for direct support professionals (DSPs) in the federal Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system. The SOC system groups jobs for statistical uses, and the bill says DSP work is different from home health aides or personal care aides. The goal is to improve how the workforce is counted and understood so states and the federal government can better track shortages and turnover.

  • Main change: OMB must, as part of the next SOC revision after the bill becomes law, consider adding a separate SOC code for direct support professionals as a healthcare support occupation.
  • If OMB decides not to add the code, it must report that decision to two Congressional committees within 30 days after that SOC revision.
  • The bill states no new money is authorized to carry out these requirements.
  • The bill describes DSP duties (help with daily living, community inclusion, coaching, support at home/work/school) and cites high turnover in the field.
  • The measure is limited to statistical classification; it does not change pay, benefits, licensing, or program rules.

What it means for you#

  • Direct support professionals (DSPs): This could mean DSPs are counted in federal statistics under a distinct code if OMB acts. That would make it easier to see DSP-specific job counts, wages, and turnover in labor surveys. The bill itself does not change pay, benefits, or job rules for DSPs.
  • People who receive services (people with intellectual or developmental disabilities): Better data could eventually inform policy or funding aimed at staffing stability, but any concrete changes would depend on later policy decisions that use those data.
  • Home- and community-based service providers: If a separate code is created, providers may be able to show workforce needs more clearly in reports or grant applications. The bill does not require providers to change hiring or reporting practices.
  • State and local governments / researchers / policymakers: A separate SOC code would likely make it easier to measure DSP shortages and turnover at state and local levels. Whether and when that happens depends on OMB’s decision during the next SOC update.
  • Federal statistical agencies: They would consider changing how they classify DSPs in labor and employment data; the bill does not require other federal rule changes.

Timing: The action is tied to the “first revision” of the SOC system after the bill becomes law. The bill does not set a calendar date for that revision.

Expenses#

No additional funds are authorized by the bill. There is no published cost estimate included with the available material.

  • The bill text explicitly says no new funds are authorized to carry out the act.
  • No publicly available information on estimated administrative costs, savings, or other fiscal effects was provided in the supplied material.

This does not mean there would be zero cost; it means no cost estimate or appropriation is included in the bill text or the supplied materials.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to make DSP work visible in federal job statistics by creating a distinct occupational code.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that a separate code would help measure and describe the DSP labor market, including shortages and high turnover, which supporters see as barriers to stable care.
  • This could be seen as improving data used by states and the federal government to design workforce and support policies for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
  • The bill frames DSP duties as distinct from other caregiving jobs, so separate classification could better match related classification systems and inform targeted policy responses.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill only requires OMB to consider a change, not to make it. It does not guarantee a separate code will be created.
  • The bill does not provide funding for the work of reviewing and implementing a new code, which could limit the scale or speed of any change.
  • It is unclear how quickly the change could happen because the action is tied to the next SOC revision; the bill does not set a timeline.
  • Creating a new code could cause short-term data breaks or comparability issues in time series that combine old and new classifications; the bill does not explain how to handle those technical issues.
  • The bill does not define in detail who counts as a “direct support professional” for classification purposes, leaving potential ambiguity about which workers would be included.