Imagine a direct support professional beginning a shift in 2035. Their schedule has been adjusted around the preferences of the person they support, their qualifications recognize several years of specialist practice, and their digital tools reduce routine documentation rather than adding to it. They have access to experienced supervision, a credible career pathway and a clear understanding of which decisions belong to the person receiving services. None of these developments is technologically extraordinary. The challenge is whether the United States will build the funding, workforce and accountability systems needed to make them ordinary.
That question sits at the center of the Impact Insights Workforce Sustainability, Retention & Wellbeing Knowledge Hub. Across Medicaid Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS), intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) services, aging supports and other community-based programs, workforce stability increasingly determines whether authorized services translate into meaningful support.
The next decade could substantially change the expectations placed on direct support professionals and their practice competence. Workers may need stronger skills in communication, behavioral support, health-related observation, supported decision-making and digital coordination. Yet expanding responsibility without adequate compensation, supervision or boundaries would create a more demanding job rather than a stronger profession.
The central opportunity is therefore not simply technological modernization. It is workforce innovation and role redesign that improves employment conditions while protecting autonomy, continuity and quality of life for people receiving support. The workforce of 2035 will be shaped by choices being made now about Medicaid payment, career development, evidence, provider governance and the value assigned to human relationships.
1. The Workforce of 2035 Will Be Defined by Its Purpose, Not Its Job Titles
Direct support has never been a single, uniform occupation. A DSP supporting an adult with IDD to maintain employment may have very different daily responsibilities from a personal care attendant assisting an older adult at home, a residential support worker providing overnight assistance, or a specialist supporting someone with complex behavioral needs. State definitions, service specifications, credentialing expectations and permissible tasks vary considerably.
By 2035, these differences may become more visible rather than disappear. Some organizations will develop specialist DSP positions, advanced practice roles and structured mentoring arrangements. Others may retain broad community support roles that combine practical assistance, relationship-building and coordination. The strongest models will distinguish responsibilities according to actual competencies and the needs of people receiving services, rather than creating impressive job titles without corresponding authority, pay or training.
For people receiving support, professional development should translate into better daily experiences: workers who understand communication preferences, respect established routines, recognize changes in wellbeing and support decisions without taking control. A workforce that becomes more technically qualified but less relationally consistent would not necessarily represent progress.
The relevant measure is not how many new workforce categories exist in 2035. It is whether those categories make community living more reliable, more individualized and more responsive to what people want from their lives.
2. Medicaid Will Remain Central, but Federal Policy Alone Cannot Create a Sustainable Workforce
Medicaid is a major source of financing for long-term community support in the United States, particularly through Section 1915(c) HCBS waivers, state plan authorities and other approved arrangements. The federal framework establishes important requirements, but states determine much of the practical architecture: covered services, provider qualifications, payment rates, service definitions and administrative processes within applicable federal limits.
Some states operate substantial Medicaid managed long-term services and supports programs, while others use fee-for-service systems or combinations of delivery arrangements. A provider's ability to improve wages, supervision and training depends partly on which of these structures governs its contracts and reimbursement.
Federal developments already point toward greater attention to payment transparency and workforce accountability. The 2024 federal Medicaid Access Rule established requirements affecting certain HCBS payment reporting and, subject to applicable implementation timelines and exceptions, minimum proportions of payments for compensation of direct care workers in specified services. However, the precise requirements applicable in 2035 will depend on the legal and regulatory framework then in force. A policy announced or finalized in one period should not be treated as an immutable forecast for the next decade.
Even when federal policy establishes stronger expectations, state rate setting determines whether provider organizations have the financial capacity to meet them. The relationship between rate-setting mechanics and the actual cost of care will remain fundamental.
Consider a state that increases training requirements but does not account for paid learning time, travel, supervision, benefits or workforce backfill in its reimbursement methodology. Providers may technically comply while reducing service flexibility, increasing unpaid managerial work or struggling to recruit. The policy objective is worthwhile, but the operating model is incomplete.
For 2035, the stronger approach is to treat workforce development as an explicit component of service financing. State Medicaid agencies and managed care organizations should be able to explain how reimbursement assumptions connect to wages, benefits, competency requirements, geographic delivery costs and provider network capacity.
3. Professionalization Must Offer Something Tangible to Workers
Professional recognition is frequently discussed as a solution to workforce instability. Yet recognition without meaningful employment improvements can become another layer of expectations. A DSP may complete advanced training, support complex needs and mentor new colleagues while receiving little additional pay or greater influence over how services are organized.
By 2035, credible DSP career ladders and advancement pathways could create progression without forcing experienced workers to abandon direct support for administrative management.
A mature career structure might distinguish foundational practice, experienced independent practice, specialist support, mentorship and advanced coordination. However, each level needs a defined purpose, assessed competence, appropriate compensation and clear limits of responsibility. It should also recognize that outstanding relational practice is itself a valuable skill, not merely an entry point to clinical or supervisory employment.
Nationally portable credentials may become more attractive, but the United States does not currently have one universal professional licensing framework for DSPs. State requirements and employer arrangements vary. Any future credentialing system would need to avoid excluding experienced workers, creating unnecessary costs or confusing DSP practice with the regulated scopes of licensed nurses and other clinicians.
The strongest workforce models will provide multiple progression routes. A worker might develop specialist knowledge in autism support, aging with disability, assistive technology, communication, community employment or positive behavioral support. Another may choose to remain a highly experienced generalist whose value lies in long-standing relationships and excellent person-centered practice.
Professionalization becomes meaningful when workers gain better pay, stronger supervision, credible qualifications, safer conditions and greater influence over practice. A new credential alone cannot deliver those outcomes.
4. Scenario: An Experienced DSP Chooses to Stay in Direct Support
Illustrative 2035 scenario. A community provider supports adults with IDD across several small residential and supported living arrangements. One DSP has worked with the organization for nine years and has extensive knowledge of alternative communication, medication routines, community participation and the early signs of distress experienced by particular individuals.
Under the provider's former structure, progression meant becoming a supervisor, taking responsibility for scheduling and compliance administration, and spending less time providing support. The worker had declined promotion twice. Their pay had increased only modestly, and they were considering employment outside the sector.
The provider introduces an advanced DSP pathway with a defined wage differential, protected mentoring time and competency assessment through observation, reflective supervision and feedback from people receiving services. The role remains focused on direct practice. A licensed nurse retains responsibility for nursing judgments and any delegation permitted under state law, while the advanced DSP contributes practical knowledge about how support plans work in daily life.
One person receiving services, who uses a communication device, participates in evaluating whether the new mentoring arrangement improves staff understanding of their preferences. The provider tracks continuity, new-worker confidence, avoidable incidents and retention, rather than treating the number of credentials awarded as proof of success.
The arrangement does not eliminate staffing shortages. It does, however, create a credible reason for experienced workers to remain. The executive team subsequently tests whether the additional cost is sustainable within existing Medicaid rates and whether contract discussions with payers should address advanced workforce capability explicitly.
The lesson is that professionalization can strengthen services when advancement is designed around both workforce value and the outcomes experienced by people receiving support.
5. Wages, Benefits and Predictable Hours Will Still Determine Retention
It would be a mistake to imagine that technology, purpose or professional identity will make compensation less important by 2035. Direct support workers will continue to compare employment with opportunities in retail, logistics, healthcare and other local labor markets. Employers offering unpredictable hours, limited benefits or extensive unpaid travel will face structural disadvantages regardless of the quality of their mission statements.
Provider sustainability depends on the relationship between reimbursement, staffing requirements and the full cost of employment. A rate that covers only scheduled face-to-face service time may inadequately reflect paid training, supervision, leave, travel, recruitment, overtime and management infrastructure. In rural areas, travel and fragmented schedules can make otherwise reasonable hourly rates operationally insufficient.
Workforce planning should therefore examine provider financial sustainability alongside employee experience. A higher hourly wage does not necessarily produce stable employment if workers cannot obtain reliable hours or are repeatedly asked to cover emergencies.
Benefits, paid time off, accessible mental health support and predictable scheduling can be as important as headline wage rates. Organizations also need to distinguish between genuine worker choice over flexible schedules and flexibility that transfers financial uncertainty from the employer to the employee.
For Medicaid agencies and MCOs, network adequacy assessments should increasingly consider whether providers can actually recruit and sustain the workforce required to deliver authorized hours. A provider listed in a directory is not necessarily a provider with available capacity.
The long-term policy challenge is to finance an employment model that people can reasonably build their lives around. Without that foundation, sophisticated workforce strategies will continue to compete against basic economic realities.
6. Competence Will Be Demonstrated in Practice, Not Just Training Records
As direct support roles develop, training systems will need to become more rigorous without becoming unnecessarily bureaucratic. Completion of an online module may demonstrate exposure to information, but it does not establish that a worker can respond appropriately to distress, communicate with someone who does not use speech, support medication routines within their authorized role or recognize a safeguarding concern.
The workforce of 2035 could benefit from stronger competency-based workforce planning that connects individual capability to actual service needs. Providers would identify which skills are required for particular assignments, assess competence through observation and supervised practice, and revisit those assessments when a person's needs or the worker's responsibilities change.
For a worker supporting someone with complex health needs, this may involve recognizing a change in baseline presentation, following an individualized escalation protocol and communicating accurately with a nurse or other clinician. For someone supporting community employment, it may involve facilitating workplace relationships without speaking for the person or unnecessarily limiting independence.
Supervision will remain critical. Effective coaching and reflective practice can help workers examine difficult decisions, receive constructive feedback and recognize when they need additional guidance. Supervisors themselves require manageable workloads and the competence to assess practice, not simply review documentation.
Provider evidence should connect training records with observed competence, incident learning, participant feedback and service outcomes. Where performance concerns recur, leaders should investigate whether the underlying problem involves unclear instructions, inadequate staffing, poor service design or ineffective supervision rather than automatically assigning more training.
The Predictive Workforce Risk Module can support a structured examination of turnover, vacancies and continuity pressures. Its usefulness depends on reliable underlying information and management interpretation; predictive indicators should prompt investigation, not determine employment decisions automatically.
7. Technology Could Remove Administrative Burden—or Create New Forms of Surveillance
By 2035, digital scheduling, mobile documentation, accessible communication systems and assistive technology may be more closely integrated into community-based services. Some providers already use electronic visit verification, digital care records, remote support and automated scheduling. Their maturity and effectiveness vary widely.
The most valuable technology will address a defined operational problem. A scheduling system that accounts for worker availability, travel time, required competencies and participant preferences could reduce last-minute changes. A well-designed documentation tool could allow workers to record meaningful information without duplicating entries across multiple systems. Assistive technology could increase independence when chosen by the person receiving support.
However, efficiency cannot be assumed simply because a process becomes digital. Electronic visit verification requirements apply to specified Medicaid-funded personal care and home health services under federal law, but implementation arrangements vary by state. A poorly configured system may generate location disputes, payroll errors or administrative work that has little relationship to the quality of support delivered.
Artificial intelligence could increasingly assist with administrative summarization, workforce demand forecasting, translation support and identifying patterns that deserve managerial attention. These are plausible developments, not a guarantee that every provider will adopt advanced AI by 2035. Systems also require safeguards against inaccurate outputs, bias, unauthorized access and inappropriate reliance on automated recommendations.
Organizations considering technology-enabled care should evaluate accessibility, consent, cybersecurity, service continuity and whether the person receiving support actually benefits. A digital system that makes workers easier to monitor but does not improve support quality may weaken trust and retention.
The Digital Transformation, AI and Cybersecurity Readiness Assessment offers a framework for examining organizational preparedness, supplier risks and implementation dependencies. It does not replace applicable privacy obligations, security assessments or professional judgment.
8. Scenario: AI-Assisted Scheduling Meets the Reality of Person-Centered Support
Illustrative future-state scenario. A provider operating Medicaid-funded community support services introduces scheduling software that predicts staffing gaps and recommends assignments. The system considers authorized service hours, worker qualifications, geography and employee availability. Early results suggest that it reduces overtime and the time supervisors spend arranging coverage.
One person receiving services has a strong preference for familiar workers because unfamiliar support can increase anxiety and disrupt established communication routines. The scheduling system repeatedly recommends technically qualified but unfamiliar staff because they live closer and have lower projected travel costs.
The provider's quality team reviews the discrepancy after the person and their advocate raise concerns. They find that the software assigns insufficient weight to relationship continuity and has no effective mechanism for recording certain individual preferences. Supervisors had assumed that the automated recommendation represented the best available assignment.
Rather than abandoning the technology, the provider changes its operating rules. Participant preferences and identified continuity needs become visible in scheduling decisions, while exceptions require documented human review. The person is involved in deciding which alternative workers they would be comfortable getting to know. The provider also examines whether the revised model creates unreasonable scheduling pressure for particular employees.
Senior leaders monitor both workforce efficiency and participant experience. They examine overtime, missed visits, assignment changes, complaints and continuity patterns rather than reporting only the number of shifts filled automatically.
This scenario illustrates the essential boundary for 2035: technology can support workforce decisions, but it should not quietly redefine what good support means. Efficiency is valuable when it serves people's lives, not when it overrides them.
9. The Future DSP Will Work Within More Connected—but Not Necessarily Simpler—Systems
Community support increasingly intersects with primary care, behavioral health, hospitals, housing, transportation and employment services. A DSP may be the person who first notices a significant change in an individual's functioning or circumstances, even when they do not hold clinical responsibility for assessing or treating that change.
By 2035, stronger integration could make communication between providers, service coordinators, clinicians and managed care organizations more timely. Yet integration must respect professional boundaries. DSPs should not be expected to make independent clinical decisions, interpret medication changes outside their role or compensate for inaccessible healthcare services.
The central workforce capability will be recognizing relevant information, responding within established protocols and ensuring that concerns reach the appropriate person. Effective health and community support coordination depends on clarity about who receives information, who decides, who acts and who confirms that action occurred.
Privacy is equally important. Information sharing may involve HIPAA-covered organizations, other providers with different legal obligations, state confidentiality requirements and, in some behavioral health or substance use settings, additional protections. Workers need practical guidance on what may be shared, with whom and for what purpose. Digital access should reflect job responsibilities rather than broad organizational convenience.
Strong providers will also plan for system failure. When an electronic record becomes unavailable or a referral is not acknowledged, workers need a workable alternative. The value of interoperability lies in safer, more coherent support, not merely in connecting software platforms.
10. Self-Direction Could Reshape Who Employs, Trains and Supervises Workers
Self-directed service arrangements are an important part of the future workforce discussion. Depending on state program rules, people receiving Medicaid-funded services may have varying degrees of authority to select, direct, schedule or manage their support workers, sometimes with assistance from representatives and financial management services.
These arrangements can increase choice and continuity. They may allow someone to recruit a worker who understands their language, cultural background, routines or preferred approach to support. They can also create different challenges involving recruitment, backup coverage, training, payroll administration and clarity about employment responsibilities.
By 2035, professional workforce development should not be designed exclusively around traditional provider agencies. People directing their own services and the workers they employ may also benefit from accessible training, portable recognition of competence, peer networks and practical support with employment administration.
The relationship between supported decision-making and individual autonomy is especially important. Greater professional status should not give a DSP greater authority over a person's ordinary choices. Workers need to understand how to provide information, facilitate communication and support informed decisions while respecting the person's rights and applicable legal arrangements.
For states, a stronger future model would assess workforce development across agency-directed and self-directed services rather than assuming one employment structure fits everyone. For providers and fiscal intermediaries, it would mean clear accountability for the functions they actually perform, without obscuring the authority retained by the person receiving services.
11. Scenario: Self-Directed Support Builds a More Stable Local Workforce
Illustrative 2035 scenario. An adult with a physical disability lives independently in a rural community and uses a state-approved self-directed Medicaid service option. They employ two regular support workers but have difficulty finding reliable backup coverage. A previous attempt to use an agency was unsuccessful because travel distances and fragmented shifts made the arrangement difficult to sustain.
The state introduces an optional workforce development initiative that allows eligible self-directed workers to access paid competency development and a shared regional backup network. The initiative is supported through the applicable program's approved funding arrangements; it is not assumed to be a nationwide Medicaid entitlement.
The individual chooses which workers to employ and determines how they prefer support to be provided. They also participate in selecting backup workers and explaining their communication preferences, daily routines and priorities. A financial management service continues to administer the relevant payroll functions, while the program defines responsibility for training and emergency coverage.
The first months reveal a limitation: the backup network has workers on its roster, but several are unavailable during early mornings. The state and participating organizations review actual coverage rather than treating enrollment numbers as evidence of capacity. They revise recruitment arrangements and offer scheduling patterns that make those shifts more attractive.
The individual experiences fewer missed visits but still occasionally needs assistance resolving scheduling conflicts. Their feedback becomes part of the program's quality review, alongside worker retention, coverage reliability and expenditure data.
This example shows how the workforce of 2035 might combine individual control with shared employment infrastructure. The critical achievement is not the creation of a regional staffing platform. It is improving the person's ability to live independently without surrendering control over who provides support.
12. Workforce Equity and Rural Access Will Shape Who Benefits from Reform
The future direct support workforce will reflect wider labor market inequalities unless policy and provider strategies deliberately address them. Workers may face barriers associated with low wages, transportation costs, limited advancement, discrimination, language access and the unequal distribution of caregiving responsibilities. Rural communities face additional challenges involving travel distances, small recruitment pools and limited access to specialist training.
These pressures affect people receiving services as well as employees. When a provider cannot recruit workers for a particular geographic area or shift pattern, authorized support may remain undelivered. Families may fill the gap through unpaid labor, reduce employment or experience greater stress. A service may appear available within a Medicaid benefit package while remaining practically inaccessible.
Future workforce models need a more precise understanding of rural and underserved community access. Travel reimbursement, regional training partnerships, accessible remote supervision and coordinated backup arrangements may help, but each requires evaluation against local conditions.
Technology can reduce some barriers while creating others. Remote learning may improve access to professional development, but workers without reliable connectivity or suitable devices may be disadvantaged. Digital recruitment systems can broaden reach, yet they should not exclude applicants who require language assistance or accessible application processes.
The workforce of 2035 should therefore be judged partly by whether reforms reach smaller providers, self-directed workers and communities with historically limited service capacity. A highly developed career structure available only in well-funded urban organizations would represent uneven progress.
13. Provider Governance Will Need to Measure Workforce Capability, Not Just Staffing Numbers
By 2035, workforce governance may become more closely connected to quality assurance, financial planning and strategic service design. Provider boards and executive teams already receive information about recruitment, vacancies and turnover, but those measures do not fully explain whether the workforce can deliver safe, consistent and person-centered support.
Two providers can report identical vacancy rates while experiencing very different operational risks. One may have experienced workers, stable relationships and effective backup arrangements. The other may rely heavily on overtime, frequently change assignments and have insufficient specialist competence for the people it supports.
Stronger workforce data and capacity planning should connect employment information to actual service delivery. Boards need to understand whether authorized support is being provided, where continuity is deteriorating, which competencies are scarce and how workforce pressures affect participant outcomes.
A mature assurance framework could bring together several complementary measures:
- Workforce stability: retention, turnover, vacancy duration, predictable hours and reliance on overtime.
- Service continuity: missed visits, changes in assigned workers, emergency coverage and unfilled authorized hours.
- Practice capability: observed competence, supervision effectiveness, specialist skills and reassessment following changing needs.
- Participant experience: choice, relationship continuity, complaints, communication quality and involvement in staffing decisions.
- Financial sustainability: compensation costs, reimbursement adequacy, training investment and the cost of workforce instability.
These indicators require interpretation. A decline in reported incidents may reflect better practice, but it could also indicate weaker reporting. Lower overtime might signal improved scheduling or a reduction in delivered support. Workforce dashboards therefore need qualitative evidence, management challenge and direct feedback from people receiving services.
The Quality Dashboard Builder can help organizations structure relevant measures and reporting arrangements. Its outputs remain dependent on data quality, appropriate definitions and the decisions made through governance processes.
Where recurring workforce instability creates missed services, unsafe practice or unacceptable restrictions on individual choice, the issue should not remain confined to human resources. It may require escalation through provider quality governance, contractual reporting, state oversight or payer network management, depending on the circumstances and applicable requirements.
14. Scenario: A Managed Care Organization Treats Workforce Instability as an Access Problem
Illustrative future-state scenario. A Medicaid managed care organization operating under a state contract receives repeated complaints from members who have difficulty obtaining authorized personal care services. Its provider directory shows sufficient contracted agencies, and routine network reports initially suggest that coverage is adequate.
A more detailed review reveals that several agencies have stopped accepting new referrals in particular neighborhoods. Others can accept cases only during limited hours. Workers report long travel times, unpredictable schedules and frequent last-minute assignment changes. The apparent network is considerably larger than the workforce actually available to deliver services.
The MCO works with its contracted providers and the state Medicaid agency to distinguish authorization problems from delivery capacity problems. It reviews referral acceptance, time to service initiation, missed visits, grievances and the distribution of available workers. Member representatives explain that repeated worker changes are affecting privacy, trust and willingness to continue with particular agencies.
The response combines more accurate capacity reporting, improved escalation when authorized services cannot be delivered and examination of contract and payment arrangements that may discourage difficult-to-staff assignments. The state retains its responsibility for oversight of the Medicaid program, while the MCO addresses its own contractual and network-management obligations.
Progress is assessed through sustained improvements in actual service delivery, not simply through an increase in contracted provider names. Where problems remain, the organizations revisit the underlying reimbursement and workforce assumptions rather than repeatedly requesting corrective action plans with no viable funding solution.
The scenario demonstrates that the direct support workforce of 2035 cannot be planned solely at the employer level. Workforce availability is also a system access issue, shaped by purchasing, payment, contracting and the practical realities of local labor markets.
15. From 2026 to 2035: What a Credible Workforce Transition Could Look Like
The next decade offers a realistic opportunity to improve the structure of direct support employment, but progress is unlikely to follow one national timetable. States will face different fiscal pressures, population needs, labor markets and political choices. Some providers will have the scale to invest in specialist development and technology, while smaller organizations may depend on regional partnerships and shared infrastructure.
Three broad stages offer a useful way to distinguish achievable improvements from longer-term possibilities.
Near-term foundations. Providers and public purchasers can improve workforce cost modeling, supervision, scheduling, competency assessment and continuity monitoring using established methods. Better workforce data and more transparent reimbursement assumptions do not require speculative technology. They require management discipline and a willingness to address uncomfortable financial and operational evidence.
Medium-term development. States, payers and provider networks could expand portable training recognition, specialist career pathways, regional backup arrangements and structured workforce incentives. These developments would require agreement about funding, accountability and the relationship between qualifications and actual practice. Their success would depend on whether workers and people receiving services experience meaningful improvements.
Longer-term possibilities. More integrated workforce intelligence, accessible assistive technology and carefully governed AI could support demand forecasting, administrative efficiency and personalized service coordination. Wider adoption remains uncertain. Technology costs, data quality, privacy expectations, interoperability and workforce acceptance will influence what becomes routine by 2035.
The Digital Twin Scenario Modeller can support examination of alternative assumptions about workforce capacity, service demand and operational stability. Such modeling is most useful when leaders test multiple plausible futures rather than treating one forecast as a prediction.
For example, an organization might compare the consequences of higher wages with unchanged reimbursement, improved retention with increased training costs, or greater use of assistive technology alongside rising demand for specialist support. The results can inform strategic discussion, but they cannot remove uncertainty or replace real-world validation.
The most important future distinction may be between organizations that invest in workforce capability as a long-term service asset and those that continue treating labor primarily as a cost to be minimized. The former approach does not eliminate financial constraints. It makes those constraints more visible and connects investment decisions to the quality and reliability of support.
Conclusion
The direct support workforce of 2035 could be more professionally recognized, better supported and more capable of combining specialist knowledge with the relationships that make community-based care effective. Workers may have clearer advancement opportunities, more reliable employment conditions, stronger practice supervision and technology that genuinely reduces administrative burden. Yet none of these developments is inevitable.
In the United States, the future workforce will emerge from decisions made across multiple levels. Federal Medicaid requirements establish part of the framework, while states shape benefits, qualifications and reimbursement. Managed care organizations and other purchasers influence provider networks, contracting and access. Provider leaders determine how available resources translate into staffing, supervision, technology and everyday practice.
For people receiving support, the most important outcome is not whether a DSP holds a more advanced title or uses more sophisticated software. It is whether support remains reliable, respects personal choices, strengthens independence and responds competently when circumstances change. For workers, progress should mean that responsibility is matched by compensation, professional respect, practical support and sustainable working conditions.
The strongest organizations will connect workforce investment with measurable service quality, financial realism and accountable governance. They will test new approaches, challenge weak evidence and listen to the people whose lives are affected by staffing decisions.
By 2035, direct support could be recognized more clearly as skilled, essential community infrastructure. Whether that happens will depend less on the language of workforce transformation than on the willingness of states, payers and providers to fund, organize and evidence a better employment and support model.