Narrative: b. 1. B.

Key Findings for Individuals with Disabilities Who Are Minorities:

A review of environmental scan data over the past decade shows slight shifts for the state’s racial and ethnic demographics where a growth rate of the population of people identified as White was 2%, while the growth rate of the population of people identified as belonging to another racial category was 10%. Although the overall percentage of Arkansans identifying with another racial category increased by just 1% between 2010 and 2019, the overall percentage of Arkansans identifying as Hispanic/Latino increased by 1.4% (from 6.4% to 7.8%). Similarly, increases in proportions of Hispanic/Latino-identifying Arkansans living in rural counties occurred between 2010-2019. Along with increases in rural counties, Hispanic/Latino-identifying Arkansans grew in urban areas and the highlands, with urban areas growing the most of any region during the decade. Additionally, most of the Marshallese population in the U.S. now reside in the Midwest with a significant number residing in Arkansas. Particular attention should be given to access barriers to ARS services found within these growing and potentially underserved populations.

Recommendations:

• There have been noted increased efforts at providing translation services for non-English speakers or English as Second-Language speakers. There were multiple considerations that arose from the various methodologies related to language barriers. The following may serve to address these issues: hiring more bilingual employees that offer translation services or that primarily serve Spanish-speaking populations, providing other interpretation/translation services (e.g., technology investments), having multi-lingual resources that span administrative silos, or providing resources that assist clients with issues related to documentation.
• A narrower recommendation related to recruitment is the need to employ a workforce representative of the population it serves that may help bolster confidence/trust in the process of service delivery and better represent minority interests related to performance outcomes and fairness of service delivery.

Key Findings for Individuals with Disabilities Who Have Been Underserved or Unserved:

Arkansas is a largely rural state, even with the recent population declines for the state’s rural areas. There was almost uniform consensus across constituency groups that a potentially underserved area/population for the state were rural areas with primary agreement on the need to address the underserved Mississippi Delta Region. Reviewing the county unemployment data, responses from staff perceptions about underserved geographic regions, and other confounding factors related to rurality (e.g., transportation, technology access, limited resources, and employment options) of this region of the state it becomes evident that there is a need for concerted effort to target services to this area. Additionally, the environmental scan data revealed mental disorders represented a large portion of the disabled beneficiaries in the state. Internal and external respondents noted the need to provide services to those with developmental disabilities, cognitive impairments, and other mental health/‘invisible’ disabilities. Additionally, respondents noted additional potentially underserved Arkansas client populations could include those individuals requiring long-term support and extended services to maintain employment – primarily those within adult populations.

Recommendations:

• Given that issues related to rurality and geographical regions of the state were the largest areas of consensus there are multiple potential areas to consider for recommendations including addressing: issues related to transportation, providing access to technology to bridge employment and locality service gaps, and expanding business and service provider networks to improve better access to ARS services and bridge existing gaps.
• Given that there were some expressed concerns related to specific disability diagnostic groups, there are several potential considerations which are proposed including:

1. Improving connections with hospitals, social work departments, and acute care organizations to better reach adults and those with acquired disabilities.
2. Cross-training and procedural coordination with ARS service partners to make sure that both primary and secondary disabilities are being adequately addressed and not lost between multiple agencies.
3. Partnering with academic entities and health sciences (e.g., University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences) for continuing education courses to better understand treatment options and specific disability types/issues.
4. Partnering with graduate programs in counseling/rehabilitation to provide continuing education around rural services as well as adding this focus to graduate training course content.

Key Findings Regarding Centers for Independent Living

While nearly two-thirds of ARS staff understand what the Centers for Independent Living (CILs) in Arkansas do, a third are unsure or unaware of their scope of services offered. Since the Centers for Independent Living in Arkansas operate autonomously and in coordination with ARS this is not surprising from an external evaluation perspective. Similarly, only a third of staff respondents partnered with CILs in Arkansas for their work. Of those ARS staff, the response was that CILs: (1) provide valuable services to citizens with disabilities; (2) offer benefits counseling that is both readily available and accessible; and (3) holistically do a good job of meeting the needs of Arkansas citizens with disabilities. The core services which were deemed to be most effective included information and referral and independent living skills advocacy training.