Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

83
states. This finding suggests that language is a barrier to participation for some,
although it could also be related to the relatively low participation rate for all
eligible beneficiaries in Florida.
• Concurrent beneficiaries participate at a rate that is higher than the rates for
either SSI-only or DI-only beneficiaries. This finding could be related to the
different incentives that beneficiaries and providers face but might also reflect
variation in other characteristics across these groups, especially age. 4
• Male and female beneficiaries have nearly identical participation rates.
3. Variation in Provider and Payment Type
For beneficiaries using Tickets in the Phase 1 states, both provider type and payment
type vary substantially by state and by age. We did not find notable relationships between
these variables and other characteristics. 5
The percentage of in-use Tickets assigned to SVRAs varies from virtually 100 percent in
Vermont to 55 percent in Arizona, with only three states exhibiting values less than 80
percent (Figure IV.13). The percentage of Tickets assigned under the traditional VR
payment system follows a similar pattern, but there are a few exceptions because some
SVRAs made more use of the new payment systems than others. Notably, while Vermont,
Oklahoma, and Delaware rank first, second, and third in terms of percent of Tickets
assigned to the SVRA, they also rank fourth, first, and seventh, respectively, for the percent
assigned to one of the new payment systems. Only seven states have a substantial share of
Tickets assigned under outcome-only payments; Vermont has the largest share, 27 percent,
with only one other state having more than 10 percent (Oregon at 15 percent). We suspect
that the variation is related to the same complex mix of factors that determine cross-state
variation in participation rates, particularly the actions taken by SVRAs.
4 Ticket payments are higher for both DI-only and concurrent beneficiaries than for SSIonly
beneficiaries, and the value of payments relative to benefits is higher for concurrent
beneficiaries than for DI-only beneficiaries. At an earlier stage of the rollout, an analysis of
participation by title showed that, after controlling for age and other characteristics,
concurrent and DI-only beneficiaries participate at the same rate, and both participate at a
higher rate than SSI-only beneficiaries (Livermore et al. 2003; Appendix E).
5 In assessing whether a relationship was noteworthy, we considered both the extent of
variation in the two variables and the number of in-use Tickets in the relevant groups. The
latter is small in many instances. For instance, we found that 20 percent of beneficiaries with
digestive disorders used ENs compared with just 9 percent overall. Though this percentage
is very high relative to values for other groups, those with digestive disorders represent only
0.7 percent of all beneficiaries with Tickets in use.
IV: Early Participation Patterns