Requires the office for people with developmental disabilities to issue a residential request list and placement report to the governor, the senate and the assembly.
This bill requires the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) to produce a detailed residential waitlist and placement report beginning January 1, 2027, and every six months thereafter. The report must be submitted to the Senate and Assembly and must include statewide and regional counts of individuals awaiting residential placement, broken down by age, caregiver age, expected placement type, and whether the person is medically frail. It also requires information on placements made in the prior six months, including placements of people not on the waitlist, and the reasons for those placements.
The bill further requires OPWDD to report on individuals already in residential programs whose current living situation no longer meets their needs, children expected to age out of residential placements within a year, placement failures or requests for alternative placements, and the costs and funding sources used for placements. It also mandates projected funding needs for people still on the waitlist, five-year projections for residential and in-home support needs, and a plan for meeting future out-of-home placement needs. The commissioner may include any additional information deemed necessary.
The bill amends the Mental Hygiene Law by adding a new reporting requirement for OPWDD, but it does not directly change eligibility standards, service entitlements, or placement rules. Its legal effect is to impose a recurring disclosure and planning obligation on the agency, increasing legislative oversight of residential services for people with developmental disabilities and requiring more granular data on waitlists, placements, costs, and funding sources. The bill would affect OPWDD, the Legislature, individuals awaiting residential placement, families and caregivers, and providers involved in certified, non-certified, and at-home waiver-funded services.
The available context suggests generally favorable sentiment, as the bill is framed as an oversight and transparency measure rather than a controversial policy shift. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or amendment debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s emphasis on reporting, planning, and tracking unmet need indicates support for better visibility into developmental disability residential services.
The main potential points of contention are administrative burden, data collection complexity, and whether the reporting requirements are sufficiently detailed or too expansive. Stakeholders concerned about agency workload or reporting costs may question the frequency and breadth of the required reports, while advocates for people with developmental disabilities are likely to support the bill because it highlights waitlists, placement failures, aging out, and unmet residential needs. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s focus on transparency without creating new service capacity or guaranteed placements.