ALC - Hospital, Medicaid, - Developmental Disabilities Study Subcommittee
Video
Transcript
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 5, 2026
Senator Jane English
Unverified
0:01
Good morning, and I'm calling this meeting to order, and this morning we are joined by some of our consultants that we have hired to work with us on this one-door plan, and we have Mason Bishop here, and we have Cameron Christie. First, I have a couple of words. I've been thinking about this, and a lot of what we're working on right now is trying to think about work first
so that people are heading and thinking about a job and a career. And one of the things we have going on in the state right now, which I'm really pleased with, which didn't happen for a lot of adults, but in our K-12 system, we are working hard to make sure that when students leave high school they have a plan they're either enrolled in college they're enlisted in the military or they are have a job
and and I think these things are so important and we've got in place now opportunities for young people to be able to follow career pathways understand what they are to be able to develop a plan for their future and gain certificates and an associate degree or whatever while they're still in college, most of these things were not available to our adults that we have out in the world today. So they really didn't have an opportunity to think about what my future might look like.
And so therefore, consequently, what we're ending up with is a whole bunch of people who don't have the education, the skills, or whatever to move forward to a sustainable future. So I think what we're doing at K-12, I'm hoping, is going to change the trajectory of the folks in our state to more folks who have a sustainable family and can take care of themselves and their families. So as we're now moving to adults who in some cases don't have the ability to be able to sustain themselves and their families
or are very dependent on some of our social programs, try to figure out a way to help move those people along to a work-first mentality. So Mason, would you like to start? Good morning, everybody. It's nice to see some familiar faces. I
Speaker 3
2:28
believe this is the third time I've been in front of you over the last year
Speaker 5
2:31
and a half, couple years. And we're going to ask you to speak up. Oh, sorry. Usually I speak too loud, so I wanted to make sure I didn't. Use your loud voice. I'll use my loud voice. It's good to see everybody this morning.
I see a lot of familiar faces. I believe this is the third time I've been in front of you about this issue. So we're making good progress, and that's really our goal this morning. I'd like to introduce my colleague, Cameron Christie. She used to work at the Department of Labor about a year or so ago, and I saw that she was available and I recruited her and it was one of the best things I've done. She's been an extreme help and she's really on point for managing our engagement with you on this project and so she has a lot of knowledge and is going to help me answer questions if you have any.
So we'll go ahead and move forward. So whether you call it one door, no wrong door, the governor, from our understanding, likes the
Speaker 8
3:25
no wrong door term, So that's why we've made some adjustments here. But we
Speaker 5
3:31
want to just talk about when we talk about modernizing our workforce and social services system, which is really what we're about here, is how do we provide better services, more coordinated and connected services for people so that whether you're an employer looking for workers, whether you're a job seeker or a worker looking for career mobility and upward mobility, you have that opportunity.
And so really, the goals that we've stated here that we're really working toward with recommendations for you later this fall, number one is how do we promote upward mobility and increase wages for families? Secondly, how do we provide greater
Speaker 8
4:08
access to services that promote longer-term employment and labor force attachment? In particular, labor force attachment is becoming a bigger and bigger issue, in my opinion. When we talk about getting somebody a job, we can get people jobs. We can get somebody a job.
Speaker 5
4:25
The question is, can we help them stay attached to the labor force over a long period of time? We know because of the Great Recession and other things we've dealt with over the last
Speaker 8
4:36
20 years, that when somebody becomes unemployed for a long period of time, it's very damaging to them over their lifetime, both in terms of earnings, social issues, other kinds of things. And so we really want to try to figure out how
Speaker 5
4:50
do we promote longer labor force attachment for individuals. Third, maintaining a strategic approach to helping employers access sources of talent for well-paying jobs.
And sometimes when we have these discussions, I know I find myself in this situation, we talk about workers and
Speaker 8
5:04
individuals, and we sometimes neglect to talk about the demand side of the equation, which is the employer's hiring, and how do those employers access all sources of talent. To Senator English's point, a lot of times we talk about K-12 and asking ourselves, how can we make sure high school seniors and others graduating from high schools and entering the labor market have access to education, training, jobs?
But we have a whole bunch of people, 30, in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, that maybe the education system failed them or for other reasons they find themselves unemployed
Speaker 5
5:40
or in a difficult situation. And how do we access those sources of talent for employers and make sure that employers have connections to all people and all available individuals who are looking for work? Fourth, creating efficiencies that promote effective government services, outcomes, and impact. And again, we talk about workforce reform
Speaker 8
5:58
with regard to employers and workers getting better services and getting access to each other more quickly and efficiently.
Speaker 5
6:07
but really a big part of this too is how do we do these services in a much more efficient way we're seeing a lot of news stories about fraud in some states but i would dare say that if you looked nationally i think the issue of inefficiency is even bigger than fraud i think we have and it's been documented by the government accountability office in dc and others a real set of redundancies duplication we have too many people doing some you know something that maybe
take one person we got five different managers and things like that and so there's really opportunities here to squeeze out more efficiencies and why
Speaker 8
6:45
is that important because those are the dollars that can be rolled back into services whether it be career services training education and so one of the big things we're
Speaker 5
6:55
trying to figure out is how can we create more efficiencies in the analysis that we're doing to report back to you so that you have an idea of what is sort of the cost of this duplication? What are the costs of this inefficiency that we can roll into better
services for people in Arkansas? And then finally, innovating to meet rapid changes in employment, labor markets, skills needed for jobs, and deployment of technology. While we're all kind of in this AI questioning space, we know that at least there's going to be some kind of disruption occur. When that happens, where it happens, how it happens is all up for questioning. We're all trying to figure that out. But the reality is I believe that you all need to have a system in the state of Arkansas that is going to be able to respond better to economic shocks, to AI workforce
needs, and the like. And so one of the things we really want to
Speaker 8
7:49
do is promote a system that has the innovation that can react quickly to different kinds of situations. So why now? Number one, new job growth and company attraction requires tapping into all sources of available talent, as I mentioned. The governor talks about different economic job growth. You all are concerned and care about that. But as we attract new jobs, as we attract new businesses to Arkansas, as we grow
our current businesses in Arkansas? Do we have the ability to connect people? And it's really important that that happen now. As I mentioned, with economic changes coming due to AI, quantum computing, other technologies, we will have more people left on the sidelines. And we've already seen some of the social disruption that occurs when people feel like they're left out of the economy, when they can't pay their bills. That's only going to grow if we don't have the ability to more rapidly react to these kinds of changes due to AI and others.
And so now is the time. There is also a small window of opportunity with the current administration advocating that states be entrepreneurial and utilize flexibilities, and we're
Speaker 5
9:00
going to talk about some of those today. But again, whether you like the current administration or not, the reality is they are advocating
Speaker 8
9:07
for states to ask for flexibilities and ask for the kinds of things they need to be able to implement the more efficient systems that they need to deliver workforce and educational services. So if it doesn't happen now, in my opinion,
states only have themselves to blame. I worked in DC at the Department of Labor back in the George W. Bush administration. States all the time back then and even now say, we need more flexibility, we need more flexibility. Well, now they're trying to give you that opportunity. And so I don't think states will be able to ask for more flexibility if they don't react now to the flexibility being offered. And finally, we're not really talking about this, but as a Gen Xer, I know I'm very concerned about it, which is, you know, we have a looming entitlement crisis with Social Security and
Medicare. The actuaries are saying that Social Security is in trouble as of 2032. Medicare is in trouble as well. In fact, I was looking at a Twitter debate that Mark Cuban was having with some folks last night and yesterday about Medicare and about the costs. And so we don't talk about that, but it's going to require the federal government to have to make some very difficult decisions over the next five to six years around funding. And again, Social Security and Medicare are on the non-discretionary side.
They're on the mandatory side of the federal budget. So what does that mean is the mandatory side soaks up more resources. The discretionary side, which many of these federal funds you
Speaker 5
10:34
receive, is going to get more and more pressure to be reduced, I believe. So there's a real concern there. And that's why we really also need to get more efficient, because if discretionary spending and the dollars you get are
Speaker 8
10:45
less and less and less for these programs, it's going to provide more challenges. So what is the problem? First of all, the federally funded public workforce system is broken, and public assistance programs often create barriers to work.
In fact, I always argue that we really don't have a workforce system. We essentially have a set of programs that kind of come down to you from different federal agencies through different state agencies, and they all sit side by side next to each other. And so people apply for programs. They don't apply for services. I don't think it's an issue of funding because I don't believe the level of appropriations overcome inefficient and poorly designed governance and service delivery architecture. Again, if you were a private business and you were trying to make a profit
it to be able to afford the employees you have, the cost you have, and then make some money on top of it, you would never do what we do in the public and social services system with the design. I'm going to talk a little bit more about this in a couple of slides. State education, workforce, and social services agencies receive billions in appropriations. This is nationally received billions in appropriations for dozens of programs from a multitude of federal agencies. On the workforce side right now, the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act is currently the statute that states operate under. But again, I've written about this publicly through the
American Enterprise Institute that I've published papers on this. But it really is a culmination of continued decades of failed attempts. So we had CEDA in the 70s, and that didn't work. So we tried JTPA in the 80s. That didn't work. So we went to Workforce Investment Act in 1998. That had some problems. So we have the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, and that continues to be mired by challenges. And then public assistance programs, I was very involved in 1996 in the state of Utah with implementing welfare reform. And it's always interesting to me that we've gone from reform in
1996 to back here 30 years later, dealing with benefit cliffs in 2026 and trying to figure out how do we help make work pay and help people transition to work from public assistance. So what is the challenge for states? Each program has its own federal authorizing statute and appropriations that creates different bureaucracy and burden. Each program has its own rules, stakeholder and interest groups. That often creates a barrier to reform an organizational and program culture. Frankly, typically, for instance, you'll see the way that Department of Human Services type organizations' employees
employees see their job as much different than people on the workforce side at a state agency or a local agency. On the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, the Title I funds, which are called Adult Dislocated Worker and Youth, they must be delivered through local workforce development boards. So again, most of the programs we're talking about are provided by state employees already, but we have this small little piece of money that goes down to these local boards, and then we ask the local boards to try to organize everything, and they don't have any power or any authority to
because everything else is operationalized by the state. Almost all other workforce and social services programs are delivered through those state systems and they run parallel to the local Title I system, the local boards. And even where coordination referrals occur, and I've seen this over decades, people talk about better coordination, better referrals. But employers and workers continue to go through administrative hoops to access the services they need. I'm here to tell you, if you hear about we're doing a better job of coordinating or we're
doing a better job of referrals, that is often an excuse for not doing the hard, heavy lifting of how do we actually integrate and consolidate into a single, more efficient organizational cultures and more efficient service delivery. So what is the price of inaction? I just asked you some rhetorical questions here. We saw what happened with COVID-19. We did not react very well. We did not get people back to work when we needed to get people back to work, and we really struggled with how do we address massive unemployment.
So what happens if we have another economic shock, and how do we respond if AI and technology causes a mass employment disruption? And so I think it's really important that we really think about that. Are we at a point where we are able to adequately deal with those situations? So why modernization through integration? Again, real quickly, there's a lot of the demand side of the equation being addressed through job attraction, job growth, and building new jobs, and yet, on the supply side, we
still have issues around labor force participation, around getting people efficiently connected to these jobs, and actually accessing all sources of talent. And here's the main reason why, because there's multiple doors and program silos. Oops, sorry, shoot, I just want to make sure my phone's off. I thought I turned it off, but I heard a beep here a second ago, sorry about that. So we have multiple doors and program silos. To get help today, a single job seeker must navigate multiple programs.
So here in Arkansas, you have your workforce offices, and again, some of these are currently local offices, called the quote unquote one stops. And then we also have public assistance offices. Now, the interesting thing about the public assistance offices is they are the only offices that are located in every county in the state of Arkansas. Thank you. Sorry about that. And so what is the message we send to a lot of people in our most vulnerable communities? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause you any.
Look at this. I had a good flow going, and I tried to do the right thing and totally messed it up. Thank you. that's very nice that's very kind of you thank you so here's the message we send to a lot of your residents that are low-income poor and otherwise challenged economically is what is their one solution go apply for public assistance so that's the one footprint we have throughout the state of Arkansas it isn't the workforce offices it isn't the community colleges it's the public
assistance offices but we also have community colleges and we have vocational rehabilitation offices and others and so what we have right now are multiple locations multiple virtual portals multiple physical places to go and when you go to those it depends on which one you go to depends on what services you get and one of the things we learned through the prior report we did for you was that if I walk into a workforce office and I may need supports to help me get to work,
like child care and other things, I never get over to the public assistance side and vice versa. So not only do you not have access to stuff, but often you're trapped through one of these doors. And so this is what we're trying to help you figure out, what do we do moving forward to address this issue? I equate it to, let's say, McDonald's. What we're basically asking people to do, both employers and job seekers, is this. Can you imagine if to get a McDonald's meal, you had to go through one physical location to get your hamburger,
had to go across town to get your French fries, had to go somewhere else to get your Diet Coke, and then, oh, if you want a McFlurry, you had to go to a fourth location. That's what we're asking people to do. And again, I would ask rhetorically, would we ever put up with this in the private sector? We never would. We wouldn't entertain the idea of even going through these hoops, but this is what we ask people to do who are trying to get back to work, and this is what we ask employers to do if they want to just find somebody they can hire. In fact, one of the comments we heard yesterday from a business person was that the businesses that he works with don't even engage the public system because they know it's going to be mired in a bureaucracy of how do I get from one place to another.
And so basically what we're trying to help you address is how do we take this scenario here and turn it into a true franchise-type model? And this is how I think the public workforce and social services system should work. It should work as a franchise, where no matter where I go in Arkansas, I have a top-of-mind expectation and understanding of the type of service I'm going to get. Again, whether you like McDonald's or not, when you walk through the door, you know what you're going to get if you order a Big Mac and a large fry, right? You're going to get a lot of calories. You're going to have to do exercise later that night, but you know flavor-wise and food-wise what you're getting.
And yet, I use this example all the time. I'm from the state of Maine originally. During the summer right now, if I go to a McDonald's, yes, I can get the Big Mac, the fries that taste the same as the one here in Little Rock, but I also can get a lobster roll, too, during the summertime. So there's some regional variation. I was just in American Samoa for a project that I have back in April, and they had a McDonald's there, one of them on the whole island. And you go through the drive-thru, again, the same Big Mac, fries, Diet Coke that you would get here in the continental United States is available, but on their menu board and the drive-thru, they also had a rice bowl, and they had a couple of regional variations to the menu.
So that's what we're trying to say we need to implement here. How do you get the core services that you need through one system while also, again, locally you all represent different districts around the state, and your towns and your counties are slightly different, rural, urban, suburban, et cetera. How do you allow for a consistent expectation of services that you can get with the regional variation needed depending on maybe the type of industry where your jobs are, require different type of skills and connection to the community colleges or other training partners.
So that's what we're trying to help
Speaker 5
20:32
you build here, is a franchise model that provides high-quality, efficient services throughout the state while allowing for the important regional variation that might be needed. So what is the missing link? Well, Governor Sanders has aligned the pieces, and you'll see here that in the governor's workforce strategy
Speaker 8
20:53
document, they address everything really except for we don't have a workforce system.
A lot's happening around economic development consolidation and integration, around education and training and making sure there's the availability of high-level, high-quality skills upgrades and opportunities to connect to industry. There's the regional centers and
Speaker 5
21:15
kind of looking at regionalism. But in my opinion, what's missing in terms of the strategy, while you'll see at the bottom of the slide, they talk about coordination, they talk about having
Speaker 8
21:27
access points, et cetera, but we really don't have that in Arkansas.
We still have a lot of splintered silo approaches that are
Speaker 5
21:38
going on. Arkansas launch is something that you probably have all heard about. It's talked about a lot, and it's a really important piece of the puzzle, but it's not a service delivery infrastructure. Launch is essentially an ability to have what's called a talent marketplace where you're able to bring together employers, job seekers, community organizations, and others to sort of help manage a customer through to services and getting connected to good jobs.
But it's not the service delivery, the backbone behind
Speaker 8
22:10
the virtual platform. Launch is a tool. It's not a system. That's the easiest way to think about it.
Speaker 5
22:18
It's a tool, not a system. It's an important tool, but it's not enough. We believe continued integration is the answer. And some of this is
Speaker 8
22:28
happening now administratively, but we believe there's probably other steps we can recommend to you that move in this direction. First of all is having locations where people can go
and actually access all of the services available to them, whether that's a physical
Speaker 5
22:44
location or a virtual portal. Having a single point of access and not having I walk through a door or I go to a particular website, and if I need help, I get handed off to five or six different people. And again, even with some of the referral work with launch and other things, part of the question is do I still need to get handed off to so many different people, even though I have a point that might get me to some of those doors.
Again, another example that was used yesterday in the meeting we had was DoorDash, where an individual said, I kind of think of what we need as DoorDash, where
Speaker 8
23:20
if I have five different things, DoorDash gets me the food I want. And I said, well, but the question becomes, do we need five different places, or is it only three that we need to be able to efficiently deliver you the food that you want? So, again, it's that kind of idea. One team becomes
Speaker 5
23:39
really important. Part of the struggle that we have is that so many different people work for different agencies, different systems, et cetera, that they're not part of the same team.
And sometimes they don't even know each other. Again, the human services workforce is a good example. We have heard
Speaker 8
23:55
on the ground that those people are not connected to each other. The workers are the staff. They don't know who to send somebody to over at Human Services and vice versa. That connection has
Speaker 5
24:07
been lost. And so part of what we want to try to do is how do we really truly build a single team of people that work across these different programs and this different funding? One plan. How are we all working off the same sheet of music?
And again, how do we get closer to one system? There are really, and I've mentioned this to you all before, but just something to think about as we ask questions and talk about this. There really are three components, major components to this puzzle. One is sort of integrated governance. What does that look like? And again, it might look different in Arkansas than in another state, but how do we organize ourselves? What
Speaker 8
24:47
state agencies and what sub-cabinet-level agencies are working on this, and what does that look like?
How many do we need? How do people better work together? Do they become part of the same agency, or
Speaker 5
24:59
they stay separate, but how do they get connected? Number two is the integrated service delivery, which is why I talked about this as sort of the McDonald's example. It's like how do we go from four different places you have to go to and a myriad of complexity, and how do we simplify that down to kind of a single franchise model? And then number three is financial integration, which is how do we actually, and this gets in the weeds a little bit,
but how do we cost allocate properly with federal rules and regulations without having all of these bureaucratic processes of negotiating memoranda of understanding and infrastructure funding agreements, which is what's going on now? I can tell you simply speaking that we have people in the state of Arkansas that are spending more time trying to figure out how to work together to pay for stuff than they actually are serving people. We spend a lot of time trying to figure out this financial integration, But we actually have a potential solution for you.
Speaker 8
25:56
So how do we move beyond just the Workforce and Innovation Act? There's some very important things going that we've actually helped provide some
Speaker 5
26:04
technical assistance on. The state has applied for a set of waivers that will really help. And I think you might have heard about this on Monday. We've been very engaged in this and actually kind of set the roadmap for how this could work for states. And Arkansas took advantage of our roadmap. How do we create a set of workforce waivers and planning that allow us to start to integrate governance within the workforce system itself?
So those are very important. That package that's gone into DOL, we're having conversations separately with the Department of Labor advocating for states on this. That would be very important. Then I want to talk to you a little bit about the cost allocation model as well as some other safety net waivers and a potential pilot that the state of Arkansas could undertake. on the workforce waivers I won't go through these real quickly because you you've already heard about this but just suffice it to say as I've mentioned that they're really important because they're going to move toward a more seamless governance structure yes the waivers
are intended to remove the layer of local workforce boards and that's very important and I can talk to you more about that if folks have questions but again the thing to remember is the only thing the local boards have any control over is a portion of the WIOA Title I money. That is it. All of these other programs are already being operated locally by state employees. So all the WIOA Title I money going to local boards does is it creates a layer for one particular program
that creates service delivery dysfunction across the array of programs that we're talking about. Also, funding flexibility, and there are some other things that the waiver package did that was submitted to DOL. Cost allocation, we are working with, the short story here is we have a unique opportunity because we are working with the Federal
Speaker 8
27:56
Office of Management and Budget, OMB, who have invited us to work with states to submit cost allocation plans,
Frankly, similar to the one we did in Utah
Speaker 5
28:08
in the 1990s, which is really part of the secret sauce behind what Utah was able to do to integrate and create more efficient service delivery. This is a very unique opportunity that probably has not presented itself since we did it in Utah 30 years ago. We are working with the
Speaker 8
28:24
state of Louisiana right now about submitting a cost allocation plan, and we're having communications with Arkansas about whether they would be interested in submitting a similar cost allocation. we've been invited to work with states to submit these cost allocation plans this could create a
whole wave in the state of arkansas again of applying for services versus applying for programs right now and i always tell people one of the unique differences between utah and the other states
Speaker 5
28:51
is when i walk through the door in utah i'm applying for a service it might be i'm talking to somebody about career services or applying for a job it might be about how do i get financial assistance because I'm a single parent with children and I need help, but we talk about it in the context of work.
It might be another type of service that's available through the array of these programs, but I'm not talking to a WIOA worker. I'm not talking to a Wagner-Pizer worker. I'm not talking to a TANF worker in Utah. I'm talking to, and the reason is because these funds are blended behind the scenes. So people don't even know which of the funding streams is paying for their salary, because of the cost allocation, if that makes sense. Whereas in Arkansas and other states, I know that, oh, WIOA pays for me, so therefore I identify with that program.
I know that TANF pays for me, so I identify with that program. So that's why the cost allocation becomes very
Speaker 8
29:49
important. It really helps you sort of blend and braid funds so that you can move to a much more integrated model. And
Speaker 5
29:57
again, we have a unique opportunity for Arkansas to apply to the current OMB for this cost allocation. There are opportunities, and I will confess I'm not the biggest expert on these right now because I focus more on the workforce side. If you remember Rachel and Les from our team who were here
before, they're really the expert. Les is the expert
Speaker 8
30:17
on this, and so if there are additional questions you have that I can't answer today, we can get back to you on those questions. I can have Les and Rachel get a hold of
Speaker 5
30:29
folks. But there are opportunities. I believe some of these might already be taking place in Arkansas. We learned yesterday, but there might be other opportunities. And then more importantly, Les Ford, who, again, you all met with
Speaker 8
30:40
the last time we were here, she's actually heading up and designing a potential pilot. And we would welcome the opportunity for Arkansas
Speaker 5
30:48
to work with us on creating a benefits cliff pilot,
where, again, it doesn't require more dollars. But what Les is really working on is creating a model where the funds that are available to people, that we create easier transitions for people to move from benefits to work. Again, the specific details, Les knows much better than I do, and so I'm probably not the best prepared to kind of get into the weeds on this pilot. But did want to present to you that these are the array of things we as consultants, so to speak, are trying to work on. And I think the unique thing we're trying to bring to you all, to the legislature and to the state, is that we are not only helping you kind of locally, like through the meetings and the planning we're doing and through the report we're going to provide you, but we're also liaisoning with the federal government too right now and trying to create opportunities for you and options for you to try to work with the federal partner to create a more integrated, more efficient workforce and social service.
services delivery system so with that we do have a timeline where we're working
Speaker 8
31:55
very aggressively and this is where Cameron comes in Cameron's really doing a lot of work with folks trying to get data trying to analyze data I know there were a lot of questions about costs and what cost efficiencies and so we're trying to gather data that will help us do that analysis for all of you with the goal toward providing you a report and recommendations this fall for potential
action the 2027 general session so with that we're
Speaker 5
32:25
prepared to hopefully answer your questions and have a conversation and again either Cameron or myself can hopefully answer your questions adequately thank you all right so I'm gonna start with a couple of questions first I want to I
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
32:37
think sometimes it's good to step back a minute and see why why would we want to do this and I think I've told this committee a number of times that when we go to Alec, we hear how the state of Utah has been on the top of rich states, poor states for 19 years now because of the things that they've implemented.
Utah has the highest workforce participation rate, while Arkansas has one of the lowest workforce participation rates and very poor outcomes for the youth in our state. So I think we can look at this and say, we want people to get to work here, and what can we do to make our workforce system better, to actually have a workforce system, put it that way. and also utah has the lowest number of constituents per capita on medicaid and on snap so they're obviously doing something right things that we want to improve here in our state and get people out of poverty and that's really been one of my focuses to make sure our constituents are getting out of poverty so looking back and i know that you're not an expert on um on snap and
those things but do you think that tanf is something that we could possibly use um as we look at our dhs offices in every county we have a dh office in every county and a number of those can my district not one of them has unemployment office or place for people to go and find out what in the world's available for me to get training and to get uh some education that's available to get me to a a good job not just a job that's you know barely getting me by but wonder where i can get off of public assistance and thrive so do you think it's tanaf is something we could use to maybe cross-train our dhs workers to be able to provide that education to the people
that come through that door to make our you know those offices really a work office in every county and not just a place where they hear about
Speaker 8
34:11
what benefits are available. Yeah, absolutely. So just to give you a little history here, so I actually
Speaker 5
34:17
in the 1990s was working on the public assistance side at the time we reformed these programs. I was at the Office of Family Support. And when Governor Leavitt, at the time Governor Leavitt in 1995 announced he, in his state of the state, he wanted to reform the workforce programs. And again, this was a result of a 1992 legislative audit that was done.
And a really important thing to point out is if you were to read, and I can make available if the committee wants, the 1992 legislative audit. If you were to
Speaker 8
34:46
read the description of the situation in Utah in 1992, you will see Arkansas
Speaker 5
34:52
2026 in that description. It was exactly what we're dealing with now, multiple boards, multiple stuff. And so the legislature does an audit. Governor Leavitt reacts to that audit and says, I want to reform these programs.
Then there was a group of us in the human services side. It was a small group of a half a dozen of us that said, you know what? If Governor Levitt is going to do workforce reform, the
Speaker 8
35:20
public assistance program should be part of that discussion. Because, again, and then TANF was created in 1996 with Federal Welfare Reform Passage, Personal Responsibility Act in 1996, which really said that TANF is a workforce program. at its heart TANF is meant to be a workforce program and the philosophy we
Speaker 5
35:39
had in Utah at the time and it still exists today was a couple things about TANF number one we had when we use this terminology this was our philosophy how do we make work pay that was one of the goals we had making work pay and the other big goal we had around TANF and our public assistance programs is increasing family income
Speaker 8
36:00
it wasn't about reducing the caseload it wasn't about those kinds of things because you can reduce the caseload by making eligibility changes overnight that does not an end a performance metric that
tells you you're accomplishing anything the performance metric we used is can we increase family income because our philosophy was there were really two if you're a single parent with children on TANF there are two ways to increase that family income. One is through work and the second is through increased child support collections. So that was the focus of our quote-unquote welfare programming in Utah and why the TANF program, and I'll always maintain this, is a critical program to be part of your workforce system integration. Again what
What Utah did was we didn't philosophically see TANF and SNAP and these programs as welfare programs, we saw them as work programs. And that's the important distinction. And right now in Arkansas and other states, they're back to being seen as welfare programs. They're not seen as workforce programs. And even now with federal work requirements, there's still kind of, I think, an attitude not only in Arkansas but in other states of, well, this is just a compliance thing we've got to figure out
versus this is a systemic change we can make to start to re-engage these programs in more of a workforce mentality. So the longer answer I'm giving, Representative Bentley, is absolutely it is a critical component of whatever reforms you undertake to figure out how do we turn TANF from kind of what's turned into a little bit more of an entitlement program back, you know, here we are 30 years later, into one that is seen as an important
Speaker 5
37:49
workforce program that is connected to the employers, that is connected to the other services,
that is connected to education and skills upgrading and all the other kinds of things we're talking about. I think the last thing you want in Arkansas and other states is for people on the TANF caseload or the SNAP caseload or the Medicaid caseload to be siloed over here as some kind of population that we just got to deal with and make sure that we pay their benefits on time, et cetera, and that we're not engaging as a talent pool, so to speak, into the services that will help people be upwardly mobile. Could you, I
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
38:23
know that you did a follow-up audit on Utah, I believe, that you would tell me about.
So tell us about the follow-up audit that was
Speaker 8
38:31
done after the 1992. Yes, absolutely. And I will, again, can provide these to you if the committee members are interested. So in 2000, so we implemented, in 1996, there was legislation to create the Utah Department of Workforce Services effective July 1 of 1997, and in that 1996 bill, it set forward a whole planning year. So there were committee meetings, it allowed for an executive director to be hired, and Bob Gross was hired in May of 96, out of the private sector, actually, and so we had all of these kind of discussions.
And in 1997, there were two pieces of legislation which sort of implemented the Department of Workforce Services and also moved the Office of Family Support from Human Services over to the new Department of Workforce Services and also implemented welfare reform in Utah. That all became effective July 1 of 1997. Three years later, in 2000,
Speaker 5
39:29
the legislature does another audit and found significant, Just within three years, significant improvements in customer service, in customer satisfaction, in the work that was being done.
And so it was just within three years, there was a stark contrast between the 1992 audit and the 2000 audit in terms of how programs were being delivered, how much more efficiently they were being delivered and more importantly how customers employer and job seeker customers felt about the services they were getting out of the from the state that there were much more aligned to what they needed to get on their feet and to be employable etc please provide that to committee that absolutely well yes so
Senator Jane English
Unverified
40:13
representative excuse me ladyman we're thank you
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
40:18
madam chair well you know thanks for this presentation is very interesting to me I have a friend that works in Utah and the government the office and so I'm familiar with their program and I know how well it works and as Mary said when you go to LA can talk to the people Utah is the shining light and so we do need to follow what they're doing. But on, I think the third slide, um, you talked about the federal government providing
more flexibility to the state. And I know they're trying to do that, but exactly how are they trying to do that? Because one of, you know, we talked about workforce services here, but also, uh, you know, human services to me is tied together. Uh, because in my district, I have the largest dhs county office in the state and we're the fifth biggest county but other counties are split up so we serve a lot of people and uh you know the waivers that dhs and workforce services
has to go through just to do what we want to do it's not an easy process and and every time you turn around i don't know how many waivers we're working on right now in arkansas so what is the federal government doing to eliminate the the requirement for those waivers how can we do that and i noticed you talked about the in one of your slides you talked about the governor being able to do that can you talk about that a little more
Speaker 8
41:51
yes so right now what we're doing with the waivers frankly is the plan b because plan a was and this is something i worked on a couple years ago for a
year we got this close and this is a this is important for arkansas to understand because if the opportunity avails itself you want to be in the front of the line we got this close we worked through workforce innovation opportunity act reauthorization it was in hr 6655 a stronger workforce for america act was the name of it as well was the acronym um we had in there built in that had bipartisan support from both the house and the senate they had negotiated and agreed to
this to have pilot and demonstration authority for what would have been available to eight states including Arkansas with states that had a population under 5 million and had a work for labor force participation rate of under 60 percent those are the states that would have been eligible for a four to five state pilot out of eight states that would have been eligible that pilot I was the architect
Speaker 5
42:54
of it modeled it after section 1115 waiver authority which is what states used to get welfare reform and create the
Speaker 8
43:01
welfare reform movement of the 1990s.
Because if you remember, for those that were around during that time, the reason we had federal welfare reform in 1996 is because starting in actually the George Herbert Walker Bush administration and then continued in the President Clinton administration, were the allowance of these large Section 1115 waivers that allowed states to experiment with doing public assistance programs better. And in Utah, 1991 is when our waiver program started, but Wisconsin was doing, a number of states had these waiver authorities under Section 1115, and the groundswell became so big, and states demanded that we're doing it better than the federal law.
That's why we had the 1996 reform. That's when President Clinton Gingrich said, well, okay, we got to get together on this because the states, the groundswell's becoming too loud. So our theory of change was let's create the same kind of waiver authority on the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act side. And it was in the omnibus appropriations bill in December of 2024 that I like to say five years of work, Elon Musk blew up in five hours, not because of the ASWA work, but because of the spending that was in that bill with congressional pay raise and other things.
Elon sends the tweet out, and that's when then Republicans in Congress, frankly, had to pull the bill because it wasn't going to get passed. So we literally came this close to having that kind of pilot and demonstration authority. So because that didn't pass and because, frankly, we all know the situation with the federal government and Congress now, we can't get much done at all right now, there's really not any floor time or hope that, you know, we can get that passed during the current Congress. So the plan B has been to use this waiver authority.
Now, I believe the reason the waiver authority becomes really important is because it's like anything else with the federal government. if states take advantage of that waiver authority and those waivers are granted and you get well underway. And again, this is why the window is short. And what we're doing here and talking about is really important because if you get the waivers and can get implemented a more integrated model moving forward, it doesn't matter what administration comes next. It becomes very hard
to, you're going to tell Arkansas and other states, oh, guess what? You're having this success. we're going to now take it away from you and so that's why I think the waivers have become really important yes it's a much more burdensome way than it would have been had the pilot and demonstration authority passed but it's really critically
Speaker 5
45:31
important from a timing standpoint because you want to get your reforms underway you want to get some time behind you a year or two and
Speaker 8
45:38
then again regardless of who the next president is it becomes very difficult for them to pull these waivers
Speaker 5
45:44
because Arkansas and other states can argue. And, again, the good news about a lot of this work is it's bipartisan. I see it at the state level. I see it at the federal level. A lot of it is
Speaker 8
45:56
bipartisan. So I really feel like if Arkansas has a bipartisan solution to what you want to do regarding workforce and social services reform, it becomes very difficult for Congress and or an administration to take that away from you. Well,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
46:08
I thought it was the federal government's job to take away our successful program. This is what it seems like.
I'm joking there, but, yeah, if there was a way that, you know, maybe with DHS or with workforce services that you could do one large waiver for the state and review it federally, I think that's what you just said. I think that would be great. And you talk about this. I got another question. That's okay. So DHS and workforce services are separate departments. You know, in my town, you know, DHS is on one side of town and Workforce Services on the other side of town.
It takes you 30 minutes to drive from one to the other, and the people don't talk to each other. I mean, they're totally separate groups. And in my experience, the people that are in this, that are not working, are typically in DHS programs. So, you know, the Workforce Services, if they talk to DHS, they would know who these people are that we need to get a job and maybe what some of their issues are with getting a job. So how did Utah combine these?
I mean, do they have them physically in the same place or do they just electronically connect or do they have regular meetings? So how's the best way to combine those two? So there's
Speaker 8
47:30
different levels to that question, depending on how much of a reform appetite you want to have in Arkansas. In Utah, they're part of the same agency. So as I mentioned, the one team approach, they're all part of the same agency. And again, and this is where the cost allocation kind of bridges both of your questions, Representative,
because the cost allocation approval for Arkansas, that's done by the Office of Management and Budget. And again, that's a nonpartisan kind of thing. And so, again, if you have a cost allocation plan that blends all of these workforce and human services funds, it's going to give you a lot more flexibility to figure out how do we organize ourselves at the state level so that our services that these dollars are paying for are better organized. So there's a couple of different layers to your second question. Number one, if you went the way Utah did, you would basically take those agencies or those programs and the employees that are part of current Department of Human Services and you would merge them together with the workforce services employees at the state level.
That's one layer. That's what Utah did. Louisiana just passed legislation to do a similar thing as well. So the TANF program by 2027 is getting moved into Louisiana Works in Louisiana. So Louisiana is merging all of that staffing. If there's not an appetite to
Speaker 5
48:52
move employees around, then probably part of our, and these are some of the options we're now exploring and we'll be discussing both on the executive branch side and the legislative side, frankly, over the next two to three months during this
timeline I mentioned. The other option would be,
Speaker 8
49:08
I think, at a minimum, you could do things like, I hate to use the word mandate, but I'll use that word, you could mandate that all of the human services offices have the workforce people in them. And I think that's one of the things we're going to look at, and we're going to be doing a physical locate, one of the data requests we have are looking at all the physical locations that these services, different services are being delivered out of and look at what are those various footprints and are there opportunities
for more efficiencies and other kinds of things. So maybe you need two buildings in the town you mentioned, but maybe you only need one where everybody actually is in that building or maybe you need two where everybody are in both of those buildings. And so those are all the kind of options we're going to look at. But at a minimum, I would say continuing a physical footprint where you have only DHS and public assistance offices, again, in every county in the state, is something a 100% thing needs to be
looked at, and there needs to be some level of
Speaker 5
50:10
solution to that in terms of either co-location, integration, whatever the appetite might be for that. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. We're all very interested in what the governor's doing with her 1033
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
50:20
plan and Restore Hope and the Hope Hub. So can you tell us how this might align with what the governor's trying to do to bring the communities together and to bring the faith-based folks into what we're trying to do here? Yeah, that's a really important question.
Speaker 8
50:38
So the governor is really working to say, how do we have a community approach to these issues? And again, I was at the Department of Labor when George W. Bush created faith and community-based offices, and Department of Labor was one of those. And I worked very closely with our liaison, and we funded some different initiatives around similar to what the governor wants to do. So I understand 100% what the goal is, which is how do you engage community faith-based organization as essentially access points for these kinds of services?
And that's really important. I mean, one of the problems we have right now, we mentioned buildings, is I have one or two locations in a community where people can go to physically. And yet when you look at the footprints of community and faith-based organizations, their footprint, if you connect to that footprint, you have much more access points and entryways for individuals who are seeking assistance to get that assistance. But the caveat is, and why this discussion becomes important, because if I align all these community and faith-based organizations to provide services or at least provide referrals, and I still have a dysfunctional, kind of not integrated workforce system where a community-based or faith-based organization has to go to seven or eight different agencies to support people, that's a problem.
So the goal is these work hand in glove together. As you're expanding access through engaging faith and community-based organizations, I'm more efficiently on the public sector side providing connections to that access. So that foundation on the public sector side becomes much more integrated and efficient so that I can then respond to those community faith-based organizations and partner with them much better and much more easily. Thank you.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
52:37
Representative Woodridge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hi. I wanted to go back to something you were talking about a while ago. So WIOA is the part that's being administered, you said, by the local board, and the rest of these services are already being done out of the central office? Well, by state employees. By state employees. Who's overseeing those state employees currently? Well, the state agencies, the different state agencies. Can I have a follow-up, Madam Chair? Yeah. So I guess I don't understand all of this is to realign the WIOA portion of it into the state agency, so they oversee that as well?
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
53:27
tell you where I'm going with this. Maybe that changes the way you answer your question. And so my point to that kind of is if we're talking about what we're doing is not working, but the state agency is doing 95% of the work already that's not working, how does realigning this small portion under the state agency solve anything? Okay, good question.
Speaker 8
53:53
two things. It provides funding for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs. That's one thing it does. And again, 85% of the adult, 85% of the youth, and 60% of the dislocated worker flow from the state down to the local boards to administer. But the other probably more important thing we owe a Title I did, for better or for worse, is instead of Congress having a separate sort of authorizing legislation that creates a one-stop system, they buried it in Title I.
So what they did in Title
Speaker 5
54:34
I is they said, hey, we're going to send one of these three funding streams down to local boards, and then also
Speaker 8
54:41
local boards, you're now going to be responsible for taking 16 partner programs and negotiating a deal where you're going to provide one-stop services locally. and none of those 16 programs they have any control over any authorized authorization over and the like
Speaker 5
55:00
so they spend all their time trying to negotiate um cost arrangements and service
delivery arrangements in 14 different areas or 10 different areas depending on how many local boards there are in the state or 24 or 25 each looks differently again it would be like having a franchise model where you have you send a little bit of the money down to your local franchise and say okay you
Speaker 8
55:22
come up with where the wrappers come from and the burgers come from and the fries come from and you would never design a private sector model that way but that's how we've designed the public sector model so the reality is and we visited some of your local one stops is that
Speaker 5
55:40
you have you know in one case you had um people who are administering basically they're trying to keep what happens in title one is it's because they can't make the cost arrangements with everybody else essentially the one stops are being funded only with title one and a little bit of wagner peiser money and they they can't they can't train it there's no money to train anybody because they're spending all the money on just paying the employees and keeping the lights
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
56:07
on. Okay. So when you're saying one-stop, you're talking about like having partners from
the community that come in and rent office space inside
Speaker 5
56:16
of these workforce centers? No, I'm talking about the public sector funds, TANF, Wagner-Pizer, WIOA, SNAP, Medicaid, all of these programs are available through the one-stop. Again, in Utah, how it works
Speaker 8
56:29
real quick is Utah is what's called the single state area. We have no local boards. They don't have local boards as mandated by the federal government. So what happens is, again, those cost arrangements are done through
the cost allocation plan I mentioned, the statewide cost allocation plan. And so when you go to a one-stop in Utah, you
Speaker 5
56:55
walk through the door, you get access to all those services by state employees who provide those services. Now, what I like to say, and I'll use this example because I was in Pine Bluff last year because we were doing data collection for the report we gave you in January, and I had this conversation in this room with Pine Bluff folks.
So I had the local employees on the left side of the table, I
Speaker 8
57:22
had the planning district director, and I had the Wagner-Pizer state-funded. This is the irony of this whole situation. The federal government mandates that the Wagner-Peyser employment services be provided by state merit staff. They provide the exact same services that the WIOA Title I people who are mandated to be local provide. So that's how dysfunctional this whole thing has operated over the decades, is we have two programs where one of them has to be provided by state, one of them is provided by local,
and they're the exact same services we're providing. So this
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
57:54
waiver then would allow that to go away? You take the local portion out of it and just allow the state portion to be
Speaker 3
58:01
provided? Well, the local portion is still provided, but it's provided by state. And this
Speaker 8
58:04
is the story I wanted to tell. So real quickly, they were asking me about we want to be part of the same team. And I asked them, I said rhetorically back, if it meant that you were a state employee, would you take that deal? And at
Speaker 5
58:17
first they were like, and I said, let's talk about it. And we spent 10 or 15 minutes talking about it. And finally, the question came up of, well, I'm worried we'd lose the local flavor.
Speaker 8
58:26
And I pointed to the Wagner-Pizer regional manager, who is a state employee, and I said, do you think he's a local person, or is he a state person? They looked at me and said, do you see him as somebody in your local community providing services? And my point was, I don't care who signs your paycheck. The question is, do you have an integrated service delivery structure where a person who lives and works and sees their local neighbors and local people, regardless of who signs their paycheck,
delivering integrated services and all the services available to their neighbors. That's the question we're trying to get to. And right now
Speaker 5
59:03
with the local board structure, that does not happen. I walk in and I either get served by a local person or maybe I get served by a state Wagner-Pizer person, and then if I need public assistance, I don't even get a referral and vice versa. That's what's happening in most of your communities right now.
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
59:20
So what would be wrong with the state stepping back and handing what they do to the local board and the local folks that are overseeing that?
Could you not accomplish the same thing? And I'm assuming that there's plenty for the state to do, so if they were to realign their task or focus towards something else and allow this local people that are doing the exact same thing to do that, wouldn't that create the same solution? So the question
Speaker 5
59:43
is, do you take 95% of how it operates now and shift 5% to make it 100, or do you take 95% and shift it all down? So do you make all of these how many thousands of state employees local employees? That's what it would require.
Here's the thing to remember. A lot of people say, oh, well, workforce is local, workforce is local, and yet, yes, it operates regionally and locally, but that doesn't mean that you have to take a small sliver of the funds and make them county
Speaker 8
1:00:13
employees or city employees or whatever they are. You can build into, and we did in Utah. We had local boards in Utah, but they were all creatures of state law. And guess what else was interesting about that? It's all of a sudden now I'm a local board that not just oversees WIOA Title I,
Speaker 5
1:00:31
but I'm a local board who's coordinating all of these funds that are now in the Department of Workforce Services. So now I have some understanding of what's going on in TANF as a local board. I have an understanding of what's going on. We call them regional boards.
Speaker 8
1:00:44
regional advice they've become more of a true advisory board and that's another issue frankly if you start looking at the local boards most of the people
Speaker 5
1:00:52
on those local boards really have no understanding what operationally is even going on in their areas because frankly a lot of times they only get whatever the staff gives i'm not saying necessarily here in our i just see in
general that a lot of the the idea sounds good in theory but in practice it's basically the Employer involvement is not really there, and it's basically just sort of a check-the-box kind of function. Whereas you can build, and we can make recommendations around this, a true sort of regional oversight structure in state law. And don't make the feds mandate how you do it. You do it the way you want to do it, and you have the kind of regional input and the regional oversight that you want to see here as a legislature through state law. That's what I would advocate to try to address some of your concerns.
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:01:35
Okay. I appreciate the update. Thank you. Just real quick. So I don't know if Representative Wilders or not heard the audit that you did before. So maybe talk about the audit that we did on the amount of money that was coming into WIO and what was actually being spent on training Arkansans to get a job. And that might be helpful
Speaker 5
1:01:56
for him to understand why we're trying to do a better job of actually training Arkansans. Yeah, so there was about $14 million coming through Title I. And of that, in the year we looked at it, it was 1,273 people were trained.
And again, in the example we used, we saw, I hate to pick on
Speaker 8
1:02:12
Pine Bluff, but I think it was all in the report. I think they had 14 staff, and they were only training about six people per month, and it was all CDL. So essentially what was happening is I think the private CDL providers
Speaker 5
1:02:30
are sending their people there to get the tuition covered. and so again the the idea is how do we create an efficient oversight structure
and efficient delivery structure that allows more of these dollars to be poured into the kind of skills training services and such and there's
Speaker 8
1:02:46
there's quite a few data points that we could provide to you or that we did provide in the audit but that was one of the kind of the overarching data points again unfortunately what's happened over time and again this is just an Arkansas
Speaker 5
1:03:00
thing this is everywhere is the title one appropriation keeps getting lower and lower and lower and I know of another state right now that are having similar conversations you're having in Arkansas they have seven local areas and I was
Speaker 8
1:03:12
told just the other day that with the the new apportionment that starts July 1 because that's how the DOL funding tip it's on a program here from July 1 through June 30 every year that two of their boards have already said we can't continue to
Speaker 5
1:03:26
operate with the money that we're going to get this coming year so So it's forcing these conversations anyway because of the federal
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:03:33
appropriation situation. Thank you. And just real quick, you know, we have, what, 200,000 Arkansans that are not working, able-bodied working age adults that are not working, and 68,000 open jobs. So somehow there's a disconnect there.
We're not getting people trained for the jobs that are open. So I think this will be a great segue into making some things happen
Speaker 8
1:03:53
for those folks. Would you not agree on that? I would agree. And I would just say again, you all are probably looking at the whole AI issue. I know I'm spending a lot of time thinking and listening to a lot of people and reading about it. And I'm 100% convinced that this whole discussion is going to be critically important for AI because not only do people need, I'll use the term, technical skills training, but I absolutely 100% believe that the solution to AI is going to be how do we integrate,
I'm going to use the term, durable skills intentionally into all the technical skills training and all the exposure we give to individuals because at the end of the day, if you're using AI, I've started really digging in, trying
Speaker 5
1:04:30
to use it a lot more in the last two to three months in particular because after I read a couple of the things a few months ago that scared everybody, but the one recommendation was you just got to dig in and start using it and learning it. I have a vision for, I feel like now, how AI is going to work for people.
Speaker 8
1:04:49
And I really believe it's going to be those adaptable analysis skills. Those are the kind of things people are going to have to develop and have to be able to function in an AI kind of environment. And so we're going to have to have opportunities for people to get exposure to those kind of skills in combination with technical skills and education that they're going to need
Speaker 5
1:05:09
to learn. So I think it's going to be even more important that we get the efficiencies out of these programs so that we can give more people exposure to that kind of skills from both durable and technical skills
and education over time. I think that's really going to be a big part of the
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:05:26
solution probably. And I think the really most important thing
is how do we get all these folks who, as we've said, there's 68,000 jobs out here. I'm not sure we know exactly what those jobs are, but the reality is that there's plenty of work out there for people to do, but if they don't have the skills to be able to take those jobs, then it really doesn't make any difference. So we're trying to figure out how we help people get those skills to be able to get those jobs.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
1:05:53
So, um, representative Ryan. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, sir, let me ask
you this, you know, you're talking about DHS and representative Jack was giving you a shot of how Jonesboro was operating. Let me ask you this. There's going to be a certain amount of folks that are disabled now. How will that be set up in a way that someone can split that situation into who would be disabled and you wouldn't have any
operation with them but the folks that actually come in that may you know be able to do something and be trained who makes that determine that's a
Speaker 8
1:06:39
that's a great question so again let me let me point to an interesting data point coming out of utah so back in 96 and 97 vocational rehabilitation was supposed to be part of the original DWS, but at the last minute in 97, we decided to keep it at the State Department of Education at the time because of some, you know,
different interest groups and politics and such. In 2016, the legislature actually moved it back into, they actually moved it to the Department of Workforce Services, and the primary reason was because they, again, they did a quick audit, and they found that 70% of the people accessing vocational rehabilitation were also accessing Department of Workforce Services services. So they said, wait a minute, 7 out of 10 people are the same people? Yeah, this belongs at the Department of Workforce Services.
So what happens in kind of this more integrated, and the good news is in Arkansas, rehabilitation services already is part of the workforce department. So you don't have the same situation there. You already have it all together, at least in that. So that's the really good news. But what happens is what you do now is, again, if you have the kind of upfront assessments, career-connected sort of ability to work with people, you make those determinations within the situation.
If somebody has the potential to be employable, then you have an employment plan and you work with them and provide the services they need. Maybe it's equipment or accommodations or other kinds of things. if somebody is truly like permanently disabled and they're on let's say Medicaid or something then you'd case manage them differently they may not have a plan that gets them to work but who makes those determinations are the case managers or whatever you want
Speaker 5
1:08:28
to call them so that's how that
happens essentially simplistically how that happens we have any
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:08:34
other questions Mary you have more I think one other thing I was just thinking about
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
1:08:42
as case managers I think it's so important that we as we move forward as our next month we won't meet in July but this committee will meet again in August I think it's very crucial that we look at what what is a case manager are we case managing programs are we case managing people so things if key that we keep people at the forefront what's needed for our Kansas to get those jobs so anyway I'm looking forward to our
meeting come up in August and we need to make that one of our topics when we come back in August is what's what's happening with our case managers and how we
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:09:13
case manage people and not programs we have a lot to do and we were busy so thank you very much for everybody being here this morning Thank You Mason Thank You Cameron the meeting is adjourned
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Presentation on Strategies Moving Forward in Subcommittee Study of One-Door Model [Exhibit B] ̶ Mason Bishop, Principal, WorkED Consulting
C. Discussion of Recommendations by Subcommittee
D. Other Business
E. Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 5
Speaker 8
Representative Mary Bentley
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 52
Speaker 20
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified