Beyond Childhood · six-state comparison

Adult Autism Services by State

Compare how states organize access, providers, funding, rates, and support for autistic adults.

Currently includes six states; more are being added.

Public comparison · sources checked July 25, 2026

What we publish

Every material factual assertion on this comparison must be supported by current official evidence and rated High confidence. Missing, stale, conflicted, or insufficient evidence is withheld or shown as Not Rated—never converted to zero or an implied negative.

How to interpret the comparison · Report a possible error

Compare State Systems

Choose one evidence-defined dimension at a time. There is no overall best-state score.

Important: Scores describe official navigation infrastructure and research evidence—not service quality, eligibility, capacity, fit, or individual wait time. California and Texas provider discovery are Not Rated because the general public-directory denominator is not met.

Public source usability

How usable the official public source set is for a family trying to find the adult developmental-disability front door and the next step.

Denominator

An official, publicly accessible source set identifies the adult developmental-disability front door without requiring an account or professional intermediary.

Missing data: Use Not Rated when no official public front door can be identified or the source requires restricted access.

Freshness: Recheck direct entry and locator sources monthly; recheck supporting process sources quarterly.

0–4 anchors

  1. 0: Denominator met, but none of the four usability indicators is present.
  2. 1: One indicator is present.
  3. 2: Two indicators are present.
  4. 3: Three indicators are present.
  5. 4: All four indicators are present.

Observable indicators

  1. A direct start action is stated.
  2. A phone, locator, or local-routing method is provided.
  3. At least two distinct access stages are explained in family-facing language.
  4. The source set connects the family to eligibility, services, provider discovery, and review/status help.
Interpretation: A higher score means the official web path is easier to use. It does not mean services are easier to obtain.
Public source usability ordering; ties share a rank and Not Rated is excluded
StateResultDimension rankConfidenceWhy
New Jersey4/4#1HighThe official path is broad and family-facing.
Illinois3/4#5HighThe family must move among separate sources; the set does not operate as a connected end-to-end navigation surface.
New York4/4#1HighAll four usability indicators are present.
Florida4/4#1HighAll four usability indicators are present.
Texas3/4#5HighThe family must assemble the route across multiple tools rather than one connected family navigation surface.
California4/4#1HighAll four usability indicators are present.

New Jersey · 4/4

The official path is broad and family-facing.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: DDD supplies an application route, county Community Services Office routing, support-coordination guidance, and provider-search help.

Exact location: DDD Apply page; Provider Search quick guide; Support Coordination page

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

Illinois · 3/4

The family must move among separate sources; the set does not operate as a connected end-to-end navigation surface.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The official set gives a local ISC route, 1-888-DD-PLANS, waiver criteria, and PUNS guidance.

Exact location: Adult DD waiver page; ISC map; Understanding PUNS flyer

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

New York · 4/4

All four usability indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The Front Door supplies a direct phone route and connects families to eligibility, waiver, regional, care-coordination, and provider resources.

Exact location: OPWDD Front Door, Eligibility, HCBS Waiver, and Provider Directory pages

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

Florida · 4/4

All four usability indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The official set supplies application modes, regional routing, iBudget and support-coordination guidance, and a provider search.

Exact location: APD Apply, iBudget, Provider Search, and Planning Resources pages

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

Texas · 3/4

The family must assemble the route across multiple tools rather than one connected family navigation surface.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The official set gives county/ZIP routing, an intake contact, interest-list explanation, enrollment guidance, and a service-specific FMSA directory.

Exact location: LIDDA directory; interest-list training; HCS FMSA directory; HCS enrollment handbook

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

California · 4/4

All four usability indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: DDS supplies a regional-center locator and connected explanations of eligibility, entitlement, planning, services, and provider-directory limitations.

Exact location: DDS Regional Center Listings, Lanterman Act, IPP, Services, and Provider Directory status pages

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

Access-process transparency

How many of the major access decisions the official source set explains distinctly.

Denominator

Official sources describe both the application or intake route and the governing adult developmental-disability eligibility process.

Missing data: Use Not Rated when either the official intake route or governing eligibility process is absent.

Freshness: Recheck entry sources monthly and policy, prioritization, and appeal sources quarterly.

0–4 anchors

  1. 0: Denominator met, but none of the four transparency indicators is present.
  2. 1: One indicator is present.
  3. 2: Two indicators are present.
  4. 3: Three indicators are present.
  5. 4: All four indicators are present.

Observable indicators

  1. Application/intake action and eligibility criteria are distinguishable.
  2. Medicaid, waiver, funding, or generic-resource dependencies are distinguished from program eligibility.
  3. Prioritization, interest-list, pre-enrollment, entitlement, or service-status rules are explained.
  4. A specific official reconsideration, review, appeal, or fair-hearing route is visible in the scored source set.
Interpretation: A higher score means more decision points are visible before a family enters the system. It does not predict eligibility or time to service.
Access-process transparency ordering; ties share a rank and Not Rated is excluded
StateResultDimension rankConfidenceWhy
New Jersey3/4#2HighThe scored source set did not expose a specific appeal route strongly enough for indicator 4.
Illinois3/4#2HighNo specific appeal path was sufficiently visible in the scored source set.
New York4/4#1HighAll four access-process indicators are present.
Florida3/4#2HighNo specific appeal route was sufficiently visible in the scored source set.
Texas3/4#2HighNo specific appeal route was sufficiently visible in the scored source set.
California3/4#2HighA specific appeal route was not included strongly enough in the scored source set for indicator 4.

New Jersey · 3/4

The scored source set did not expose a specific appeal route strongly enough for indicator 4.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The sources distinguish DDD eligibility, Medicaid/waiver enrollment, and Community Care Program priority status.

Exact location: DDD Apply and Medicaid pages; FY2026 CCP Priority Waiting List update

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

Illinois · 3/4

No specific appeal path was sufficiently visible in the scored source set.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The sources distinguish ISC/PAS intake, Medicaid/waiver criteria, and PUNS prioritization.

Exact location: Adult DD waiver eligibility section; ISC map; PUNS flyer

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

New York · 4/4

All four access-process indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The sources distinguish eligibility, Medicaid/waiver enrollment, service access, and second-step, third-step, and fair-hearing review routes.

Exact location: OPWDD Front Door; Eligibility review steps; HCBS Waiver page

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

Florida · 3/4

No specific appeal route was sufficiently visible in the scored source set.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The sources distinguish APD eligibility, Medicaid/iBudget enrollment, and pre-enrollment categories and aggregates.

Exact location: APD Apply page; iBudget page; FY2025-26 Q3 pre-enrollment report

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

Texas · 3/4

No specific appeal route was sufficiently visible in the scored source set.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The sources distinguish LIDDA assessment, interest-list placement, waiver offer, Medicaid/level of care, and enrollment.

Exact location: LIDDA directory; interest-list purpose and data-entry form; HCS enrollment handbook

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

California · 3/4

A specific appeal route was not included strongly enough in the scored source set for indicator 4.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The sources distinguish intake/eligibility, regional-center entitlement, IPP decisions, and funding/generic-resource layers.

Exact location: DDS Regional Center Listings; Lanterman Act eligibility; Individual Program Planning

Caveat: Navigation evidence does not prove eligibility, service availability, quality, fit, or time to service.

Provider-discovery transparency

How directly a family can identify authorized providers from an official public source.

Denominator

An official public method names providers across general adult developmental services or at least two core adult-service categories. A list limited to one specialized program does not meet the denominator.

Missing data: Use Not Rated when the public method is unavailable to families or covers only one specialized program.

Freshness: Recheck public search, directory, list, or dataset status monthly.

0–4 anchors

  1. 0: Denominator met, but none of the four discovery indicators is present.
  2. 1: One indicator is present.
  3. 2: Two indicators are present.
  4. 3: Three indicators are present.
  5. 4: All four indicators are present.

Observable indicators

  1. Families can access it directly without an account or service-coordinator gate.
  2. Providers can be narrowed or grouped by service.
  3. Providers can be narrowed or interpreted by geography or service area.
  4. The source supplies structured provider identity/contact information and a current list, dataset, search, or vacancy signal.
Interpretation: A higher score means provider names are easier to find. A listing or vacancy signal does not prove acceptance, capacity, quality, or fit.
Provider-discovery transparency ordering; ties share a rank and Not Rated is excluded
StateResultDimension rankConfidenceWhy
New Jersey4/4#1HighThe public search satisfies all four discovery indicators.
Illinois3/4#4HighThe lists satisfy direct access, service grouping, and geographic interpretation, but do not provide a unified current search/dataset experience.
New York4/4#1HighThe general provider dataset satisfies all four indicators.
Florida4/4#1HighAll four discovery indicators are present.
TexasNot RatedExcludedHighThe general-provider denominator is not met.
CaliforniaNot RatedExcludedHighThe general-provider denominator is not met.

New Jersey · 4/4

The public search satisfies all four discovery indicators.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The official guide describes direct Provider Search use with service and geography-related filtering and provider details.

Exact location: Provider Search quick guide, search and filter instructions

Caveat: Directory or list presence does not prove current capacity, inquiry acceptance, quality, or fit.

Illinois · 3/4

The lists satisfy direct access, service grouping, and geographic interpretation, but do not provide a unified current search/dataset experience.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: Two official service-category lists are directly public and include area information.

Exact location: DHS CILA provider list and self-direction provider list

Caveat: Directory or list presence does not prove current capacity, inquiry acceptance, quality, or fit.

New York · 4/4

The general provider dataset satisfies all four indicators.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The official public dataset supplies structured provider records that can be interpreted by service and geography.

Exact location: New York Open Data OPWDD provider directory dataset; CCO profile

Caveat: Directory or list presence does not prove current capacity, inquiry acceptance, quality, or fit.

Florida · 4/4

All four discovery indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The official search is directly public and supports service and location-oriented provider discovery with structured results.

Exact location: APD Provider Search

Caveat: Directory or list presence does not prove current capacity, inquiry acceptance, quality, or fit.

Texas · Not Rated

The general-provider denominator is not met.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: None; denominator not met

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The formerly referenced general HCS Vacancy Search returned HTTP 404 on July 25, 2026. The current public HCS FMSA directory covers only the specialized financial-management function.

Exact location: Texas HHS HCS FMSA directory; live HTTP check of former HCS Vacancy Search

Caveat: Directory or list presence does not prove current capacity, inquiry acceptance, quality, or fit.

California · Not Rated

The general-provider denominator is not met.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: None; denominator not met

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: DDS states the statewide Provider Directory is not directly accessible to families. The public FMS list is limited to one specialized Self-Determination service.

Exact location: DDS Provider Directory status page; DDS FMS contact list

Caveat: Directory or list presence does not prove current capacity, inquiry acceptance, quality, or fit.

Rate-evidence maturity

How much context the official rate evidence preserves beyond a bare dollar amount.

Denominator

Official evidence states a numeric rate, service, unit, and effective date or effective status.

Missing data: Use Not Rated when any denominator element is absent; never infer a zero rate.

Freshness: Recheck the controlling rate index or schedule monthly and preserve the exact effective period.

0–4 anchors

  1. 0: Denominator met, but none of the four maturity indicators is present.
  2. 1: One indicator is present.
  3. 2: Two indicators are present.
  4. 3: Three indicators are present.
  5. 4: All four indicators are present.

Observable indicators

  1. Procedure/service code or modifier is retained.
  2. Geography, tier, ratio, level-of-need, or other material variation is retained.
  3. Provider type, staffing ratio, service intensity, or individual/group context is retained where material.
  4. Version/effective period and base, enhancement, QIP, or other rate-component treatment are explicit.
Interpretation: A higher score means the rate evidence is safer to interpret. It does not make unlike services or units comparable.
Rate-evidence maturity ordering; ties share a rank and Not Rated is excluded
StateResultDimension rankConfidenceWhy
New Jersey4/4#1HighAll four evidence-context indicators are present.
Illinois3/4#5HighProvider/staffing context is not consistently explicit across the sampled rows.
New York3/4#5HighThe sampled evidence uses a program/service label rather than a discrete procedure-code/modifier field.
Florida4/4#1HighAll four rate-evidence indicators are present.
Texas4/4#1HighAll four rate-evidence indicators are present.
California4/4#1HighAll four rate-evidence indicators are present.

New Jersey · 4/4

All four evidence-context indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: Appendix H preserves codes, 15-minute units, tiers/components, and the September 2025 manual version.

Exact location: Supports Program manual v10.0.1, Appendix H, pp. 211-212

Caveat: Do not compare dollar amounts until service, code, unit, geography, intensity/ratio, provider type, rate components, and effective period align.

Illinois · 3/4

Provider/staffing context is not consistently explicit across the sampled rows.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The table preserves service codes, statewide/Chicago Metro variation, exact units, effective date, and CMS-approval caveat.

Exact location: DHS DD reimbursement table effective January 1, 2026; rows 31U, 31C, 36U, L1

Caveat: Do not compare dollar amounts until service, code, unit, geography, intensity/ratio, provider type, rate components, and effective period align.

New York · 3/4

The sampled evidence uses a program/service label rather than a discrete procedure-code/modifier field.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The fee evidence preserves three regions, individual/group context, hourly and quarter-hour units, and effective date.

Exact location: DOH mental-hygiene rate index; Supported Employment fee page effective April 1, 2025

Caveat: Do not compare dollar amounts until service, code, unit, geography, intensity/ratio, provider type, rate components, and effective period align.

Florida · 4/4

All four rate-evidence indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The workbook retains procedure codes/modifiers, units, agency context, ratios, geographic columns, and effective date.

Exact location: Rule 59G-13.081 incorporated workbook effective March 12, 2026; rows 2, 6, 19, 28

Caveat: Do not compare dollar amounts until service, code, unit, geography, intensity/ratio, provider type, rate components, and effective period align.

Texas · 4/4

All four rate-evidence indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The schedule preserves service and modifier codes, hourly units, LOC/LON context, effective date, and separate rate-enhancement treatment.

Exact location: HHSC HCS payment sheet effective September 1, 2025, pp. 1, 7-8

Caveat: Do not compare dollar amounts until service, code, unit, geography, intensity/ratio, provider type, rate components, and effective period align.

California · 4/4

All four rate-evidence indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The workbooks preserve service code, 1:1 ratio, hourly unit, regional-center geography, and full/base/QIP components.

Exact location: DDS rates-only workbooks effective January 1, 2026; Behavior Analyst 1:1 service 612, cell range A205:G205 in four regional-center workbooks

Caveat: Do not compare dollar amounts until service, code, unit, geography, intensity/ratio, provider type, rate components, and effective period align.

Evidence freshness and confidence

How completely the research record documents current official evidence across the four core domains.

Denominator

The source set contains official evidence for front door, access/eligibility, provider discovery status, and rates, all checked on the comparison review date.

Missing data: Use Not Rated when any of the four core domains lacks official evidence checked on the comparison review date.

Freshness: A cell expires when any required monthly or quarterly review becomes overdue; expired cells become Not Rated until rechecked.

0–4 anchors

  1. 0: Denominator met, but none of the four stewardship indicators is present.
  2. 1: One indicator is present.
  3. 2: Two indicators are present.
  4. 3: Three indicators are present.
  5. 4: All four indicators are present.

Observable indicators

  1. Every core source records an official owner and URL.
  2. Every core source records status and a review cadence.
  3. Rate evidence has a current official index/schedule and an exact effective period.
  4. Every scored cell records checked date, confidence, exact location, and caveat.
Interpretation: A higher score means the research trail is easier to audit. It does not measure the underlying service system’s quality.
Evidence freshness and confidence ordering; ties share a rank and Not Rated is excluded
StateResultDimension rankConfidenceWhy
New Jersey4/4#1HighAll stewardship indicators are present.
Illinois4/4#1HighAll stewardship indicators are present.
New York4/4#1HighAll stewardship indicators are present.
Florida4/4#1HighAll stewardship indicators are present.
Texas4/4#1HighAll stewardship indicators are present after the source correction.
California4/4#1HighAll stewardship indicators are present even though provider discovery is Not Rated.

New Jersey · 4/4

All stewardship indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: Official owners, URLs, status, review cadence, checked date, locations, and current rate evidence are recorded.

Exact location: Release source register and pinned Supports Program manual

Caveat: This score measures the audit trail, not the quality or sufficiency of the state service system.

Illinois · 4/4

All stewardship indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: All four core domains use official sources with status, cadence, checked date, locations, and a 2026 rate table.

Exact location: Release source register and DHS rate table

Caveat: This score measures the audit trail, not the quality or sufficiency of the state service system.

New York · 4/4

All stewardship indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: All four core domains use official sources with status, cadence, checked date, locations, and an official current rate index.

Exact location: Release source register and current DOH rate index

Caveat: This score measures the audit trail, not the quality or sufficiency of the state service system.

Florida · 4/4

All stewardship indicators are present.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: All four core domains use official sources with status, cadence, checked date, locations, and current 2026 rate evidence.

Exact location: Release source register and pinned 2026 iBudget workbook

Caveat: This score measures the audit trail, not the quality or sufficiency of the state service system.

Texas · 4/4

All stewardship indicators are present after the source correction.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: All four core domains have official status evidence; the provider domain records the unavailable general search and surviving service-specific FMSA list rather than preserving a stale current claim.

Exact location: Release source register, live source-status check, and pinned September 1, 2025 HCS schedule

Caveat: This score measures the audit trail, not the quality or sufficiency of the state service system.

California · 4/4

All stewardship indicators are present even though provider discovery is Not Rated.

Checked: 2026-07-25 · Confidence: High · Indicators met: 1, 2, 3, 4

Why and supporting evidence

Evidence: The four core domains have official status evidence; provider-directory nonaccess is itself current official evidence, and exact regional rate workbooks are pinned.

Exact location: Release source register and four pinned 2026 regional-center rate workbooks

Caveat: This score measures the audit trail, not the quality or sufficiency of the state service system.