In approving a state budget Saturday, the General Assembly agreed to the new funding to move some clients off a waiting list for residential placements, Joan Barnish, the DDS spokeswoman, said. The legislature also added $600,000 to DDS’ budget for 2014-15 for more grants to provide support to families whose children or grandchildren have intellectual or developmental disabilities, she said.

Each person’s individual needs will be assessed, so some could receive services soon while others might wait six months or more into the new fiscal year that begins in July 1, she said.

The additional funding came as a relief to members of Our Families Can’t Wait, an advocacy group formed in the fall by parents and caregivers of DDS clients.

“I’m grateful for the almost $5 million that has been restored to the budget,’’ said Carl Noll of Fairfield, whose son Eric, 47, has been on a waiting list for a residential placement for about five years.

While the funding will help families like his, Noll said it will not make up for a previous cut to DDS’ budget.

“I thank the legislators for [the new funding,] however, the $30 million never should have been taken away two years ago,” Noll said. “We can’t be satisfied until basically all of the people who need residential care have it.”

Noll joined several other parents and caregivers in testifying in March at the state Capitol in favor of a bill that would have dramatically increased funding by $150 million over three fiscal years for group homes and other residential placements. The group said that 3,552 DDS clients were on a waiting list for residential placements as of Nov. 30, including 75 seeking emergency placements and 1,460 ranked as “priority one” by DDS.

After they lobbied at the Capitol with organizational support of a key union, New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, the legislature’s Appropriations Committee added $4.4 million to DDS’ budget. The amount to address the waiting list problem was dropped to $4 million in the budget approved Saturday, said Lawrence Cook, the press aide for State Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford.

The more sweeping bill, which would have forced DDS to come up with a plan to serve all clients who need services, died in the legislature without a vote Wednesday, Jennifer Schneider, a spokeswoman for 1199, said.

“The funding provided in the budget for emergency residential placement is a very good start in addressing the problems facing the community affected with developmental and intellectual disabilities. We are committed to fight for those still in need and have continued progress on this important issue,” Schneider said.

In March, Noll and other caregivers gave emotional testimony about the need to find residential placements for their children. Noll, 70, said he and his 67-year-old wife, Noreen, worry about what Eric, who has autism, will face when they can no longer care for him.

“I fear his happy days are going to end,’’ Noll said. “I hope I’m wrong.”

Barnish said DDS will evaluate its clients in residential placements now to determine if they are in the least restrictive, most appropriate setting. As early as July, DDS may also move some people on the waiting list to residential settings as it develop more choices for clients, including supportive housing, she said.

With the new funding, some people will move to group homes or their own apartments with support services, and some will stay with their families but receive more support, Barnish said.

DDS officials are waiting to see the final budget to determine how many clients can be moved or helped, she said, as well as how to distribute the new funding. A priority will be helping those in emergency situations, she said.

“DDS is always working towards resolving those especially urgent situations that have an emergency priority,” she said.

The $600,000 for family grants will help those families caring for children or grandchildren with developmental disabilities in their homes, Barnish said. The grants vary in amount but average about $1,700, she said. The largest number of grants provides respite care or other temporary personal care for clients in their family’s home, but DDS also funds ramps for houses or provides specialized supplies to families, she said.

The state Senate voted 24 to 11 to approve the bill, which also empowers a Nursing Home Financial Advisory Committee to examine quality of care, staffing levels and the financial solvency of nursing homes. The bill passed the House last week.

The legislation requires nursing homes to disclose the financial status of any “related party” businesses that contract with the homes – such as associated companies that own the facility properties, or spinoff businesses that provide rehabilitation or management services.

The original proposal required that the nursing homes report profits and losses for any related businesses that receive more than $10,000 a year, but that dollar amount was upped to $50,000 in the final proposal.

The union representing nursing home workers, New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, had pushed the bill as a way to increase transparency in an industry marked by bankruptcies, takeovers and several high-profile scandals in recent years.

Union officials cited recent actions by the HealthBridge chain, which claimed employee costs forced them into financial crisis. District 1199 said the bill would provide a way to identify nursing homes in true financial distress, versus those that claim money woes, but actually have profitable affiliated businesses.

Officials of the Connecticut Association of Health Care Facilities, which represents nursing homes, called the bill intrusive, saying it serves only to help labor unions “exploit” financial information about nursing homes, to gain leverage in contract negotiations.

At issue is a proposed bill that would require nursing homes to disclose the financial status of any “related party” businesses that contract with the homes – such as associated companies that own the facility properties, or spinoff businesses that provide rehabilitation or management services. The bill would require that the nursing homes report profits and losses for any side businesses that receive more than $10,000 a year from them.

The Malloy administration – backed by the union representing nursing home workers, New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199 – has pushed the bill through legislative committees, touting it as a way to increase transparency in an industry marked by bankruptcies, takeovers and several high-profile scandals in recent years. Chief among the arguments is that the added reporting will help the state to identify nursing homes in true financial distress, versus those that claim money woes, but actually have profitable affiliated businesses.

“We have an interest, as a state that’s providing so much funding to these nursing homes, to be able to assess the real financial condition of all the interrelated businesses,” Deborah Chernoff, public policy director for District 1199, said in testimony to the legislature.

She cited bankruptcy filings by nursing homes owned by two chains — Haven Healthcare, in 2007, and HealthBridge Management, in 2013 – as cases that highlight the need for financial transparency.

But the associations representing Connecticut nursing homes are pushing back, saying they already report on related businesses in detailed cost reports filed with the Department of Social Services, and that the new measure is simply a bone being offered to the union, in an election year.

They note that no other state-funded health care entities are forced to disclose profits and losses from side businesses – and that the DSS commissioner, Roderick Bremby, had opposed similar bills in the last two legislative sessions. In 2012 and 2013, Bremby had called the reporting requirement “excessive” and not “meaningful” in gauging a nursing home’s financial health.

“It was conceded at the [recent] public hearing that the information has no value in terms of DSS meeting its public duties and responsibilities in the setting of rates, performing audits, or evaluating the financial condition of nursing facilities,” said Matt Barrett, executive vice president of the Connecticut Association of Health Care Facilities.

“What did become clear . . . is that the measure, if adopted, will put into the hands of nursing home competitors sensitive and private business records, and that there is no other example of this anywhere in Connecticut state government.”

Instead of helping DSS, Barrett argued, the bill seems geared to helping labor unions “exploit” financial information about nursing homes to gain leverage in contract negotiations.

Under questioning by lawmakers, state budget chief Ben Barnes acknowledged that the additional information could be useful to employees negotiating for wages and benefits. But he and Bremby maintained that the profit-and-loss reports would provide DSS with a more complete picture of a home’s financial standing, when it reviews requests for state rate increases.

“If you’re paying yourself rent as a way to have your profits appear in (one) part of your business, as opposed to another, in order to receive more favorable rate treatment from the state, that’s something we need to know about,” Barnes said.

Nursing home owners noted that homes already are required to disclose payments to related entities – defined as companies connected through family association, common ownership or business association with the owners — on detailed cost reports filed with DSS. But they are not required to provide profit-and-loss statements for those entities.

Asked by lawmakers why he changed his mind about the proposal, Bremby cited a few differences in the language of the new bill, compared to the previous versions, including a liability clause that he said shields DSS from having to act on the information it receives.

In 2012, Bremby had spoken against the proposed reporting requirement, saying it was “not necessary for the Department to have all of this information on file for every year for every provider,” and instead could request such information, if needed. He also had said that he opposed the exclusion of non-profit homes in the 2012 proposal.

The administration’s original proposal this year covered non-profit as well as for-profit nursing homes – which Barnes called “absolutely appropriate,” given that non-profits “also use related companies as a way to manage their business.” But the bill since has been amended to apply only to for-profit homes.

The push for “transparency” comes as the number of nursing homes in the state dwindles because of financial pressures and a shift towards home-based care.

The Haven Healthcare chain filed for bankruptcy after a series in the Hartford Courant detailed a history of poor care and dubious financial transactions, including the owner’s diversion of funds to his Nashville music company. In that case, the new reporting requirement would not have helped DSS uncover the transactions, because the music company was not doing business with any of the Haven homes. The current proposal does not ask nursing home owners to disclose their unrelated business ventures.

More recently, five HealthBridge homes embroiled in a labor dispute with District 1199 filed for bankruptcy, claiming employee costs forced them into financial crisis. A sixth home was closed down in 2012. Union officials have questioned HealthBridge’s claims of financial trouble, in the absence of information about whether its larger management company or affiliated businesses were making a profit.

While not directly related, union officials said, the recent indictment of former Gov. John Rowland has underscored the need for more transparency. The indictment charges that nursing home owner Brian Foley funneled $35,000 to Rowland, through entities related to his Apple Rehab chain, under a sham consulting contract intended to disguise Rowland’s political work on the campaign of Foley’s wife, Lisa Wilson-Foley. Both Foleys have pleaded guilty; Rowland has pleaded not guilty.

The proposed bill, which passed the judiciary committee by a vote of 26-14, will be taken up by the legislature in the remaining weeks of the session.