Establishes a credentialing pilot program for direct support professionals to assist and enhance the field of direct care support.
This bill amends the mental hygiene law to create a direct support professional credentialing pilot program within the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (the “office”). The pilot is intended to strengthen the direct care workforce by promoting direct support work as a career, building advanced skills and competencies, and improving recruitment and retention. Participants would be selected by the commissioner, in consultation with regional workforce entities, and would include employees of state-operated facilities and not-for-profit providers licensed or certified by the office, with geographic distribution across regions of greatest need.
The bill directs the office to develop credentialing and education initiatives using best practices, including New York’s direct support professional competencies, higher education certification programs, and comparable programs from other states. It also authorizes a broader training program that may include online training, mentorship, and support groups, and it creates an advisory council to oversee and assist with implementation. The council would include state officials, provider representatives, workforce transformation representatives, direct support professionals, and a self-advocate or advocacy representative. The office must also prepare a report by November 15, 2028, evaluating the pilot and making recommendations on whether to expand or continue it statewide.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to the mental hygiene law and formally establish a state-run pilot program focused on credentialing direct support professionals serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It would affect OPWDD, state-operated facilities, not-for-profit service providers, managed care organizations, and workforce training partners. The bill also contemplates possible integration with the state’s 1115 Medicaid demonstration waiver and managed care contracts for long-term services and supports, which could influence how credentialing is recognized and supported in publicly funded service systems.
The available context suggests generally positive sentiment toward the bill, with the measure framed as a workforce-development and service-quality initiative rather than a controversial policy change. There are no recorded votes or committee transcripts in the provided materials, so there is no evidence of formal opposition or amendment debate. The bill’s structure—pilot program, advisory council, and reporting requirement—suggests an incremental approach designed to test outcomes before any statewide expansion.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be implementation and cost: the bill authorizes the pilot only “within the amounts appropriated,” so funding levels could limit scope, and stakeholders may differ on whether credentialing should be voluntary, how it should affect wages, and whether it should become tied to Medicaid or managed care reimbursement. Another possible issue is governance, since the advisory council includes multiple appointing authorities and a broad mix of providers, workforce representatives, and advocates, which may raise questions about representation and control. The bill also asks the office to consider privacy and confidentiality when reporting results, indicating that data collection and evaluation could be sensitive.