Congress asks for better data on a workforce crisis—but takes no action

What it does

This bill asks the Office of Management and Budget to create a separate job classification code for direct support professionals—workers who help people with intellectual and developmental disabilities with daily living, community participation, and independence. If OMB declines, it must explain why to Congress. The bill costs nothing and makes no new law; it is a request for statistical reclassification to better track a workforce experiencing 39% annual turnover.

Why we flagged it

The bill's sole operative mechanism is a directive to OMB to consider revising the Standard Occupational Classification system. It creates no new law, appropriates no funds, and imposes no restrictions or mandates—only a request for study and reporting. This is a procedural, data-focused bill.

What the text implies

• Better occupational coding may eventually support legislative arguments for higher wages, training subsidies, or retention incentives for direct support professionals—but only if Congress chooses to act on the data.
• Separate classification could improve labor-market visibility for a workforce that currently may be undercounted or misclassified, potentially strengthening future advocacy for policy change.
• The bill's framing emphasizes DSPs' distinct role versus home health aides, which may signal intent to differentiate compensation or regulatory treatment in future legislation.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill itself creates no direct benefit or cost to ordinary people—it is a statistical reclassification request. However, better occupational data on a chronically understaffed workforce may eventually inform policy decisions (wages, training, retention incentives) that could improve care for people with disabilities and working conditions for DSPs. The mechanism is purely informational; the civic value depends entirely on whether Congress acts on the data.

Named in the bill

Office of Management and Budget, Standard Occupational Classification system, direct support professionals, individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, home- and community-based services providers, National Core Indicators, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, House Committee on Education and Workforce

Where it stands

10 cosponsors: 7 Democrats, 2 Republicans, 1 Independents.

• Nov 19, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Nov 19, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs”
• Aug 6, 2026 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

3 lobbying clients named this bill on 6 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $235,642 in lobbying spend. A filing names 6 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 61% of bills with at least one filing.

Maggie Hassan, the sponsor, reported $608,285 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• College of American Pathologists — $154,425 on 1 filing
• American Network of Community Options and Resources — $66,032 on 2 filings
• Easterseals, Inc. — $15,185 on 3 filings

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.