13.04.2014 Views

Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

C HAPTER V<br />

C ASE S TUDIES OF E IGHT E XPERIENCED<br />

TTW PROVIDERS<br />

Previous chapters have shown that numerous organizations signed contracts with SSA<br />

<strong>to</strong> serve as ENs and many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se entities have begun providing services in Phase 1<br />

and 2 TTW states. During summer and fall <strong>of</strong> 2002, Livermore et al. (2003)<br />

conducted case studies <strong>of</strong> 43 providers—<strong>the</strong> SVRA in each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 13 Phase 1 states, 27 ENs<br />

across <strong>the</strong>se states, and 3 national ENs—<strong>to</strong> describe <strong>the</strong> variability in <strong>the</strong>ir service<br />

approaches and <strong>the</strong> early implementation issues <strong>the</strong>se providers faced. This chapter revisits<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>to</strong>pic <strong>of</strong> EN operations one year later <strong>to</strong> see how <strong>the</strong>ir experiences under TTW are<br />

evolving. In August and September 2003, <strong>the</strong> evaluation team conducted follow-up<br />

telephone interviews with eight providers previously studied: AAA TakeCharge<br />

(TakeCharge), Arizona Bridge <strong>to</strong> Independent Living (ABIL), Career Consulting Services <strong>of</strong><br />

America (CCSA), Employment and Employer Services, Inc. (EES), Glick and Glick,<br />

Integrated Disability Resources (IDR), Marriott Foundation Bridges from School <strong>to</strong> <strong>Work</strong><br />

(Bridges), and <strong>the</strong> Oklahoma Department <strong>of</strong> Rehabilitation Services (DRS). We selected<br />

<strong>the</strong>se ENs because <strong>the</strong>y:<br />

• Are relatively mature or experienced, having served <strong>Ticket</strong> holders since early in<br />

Phase 1<br />

• Are among <strong>the</strong> ENs that have <strong>the</strong> highest number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ticket</strong> assignments and<br />

<strong>the</strong>y have received <strong>the</strong> highest <strong>to</strong>tal TTW payments 1<br />

• Represent a range <strong>of</strong> service models and business types (i.e., ENs and SVRAs<br />

acting as an EN, national and local, public and private, non-pr<strong>of</strong>it and for-pr<strong>of</strong>it)<br />

Detailed write-ups <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> experiences <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> eight ENs are presented in Appendix B.<br />

The write-ups describe <strong>the</strong> ENs’ implementation and service delivery approaches, early<br />

implementation experiences, and implementation status at time <strong>of</strong> follow-up, blending<br />

information collected at both time points. Table V.1 presents selected characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

1 As <strong>of</strong> early August 2003, <strong>the</strong>se eight ENs collectively accounted for 52 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

<strong>to</strong>tal payments (approximately $220,000) SSA made <strong>to</strong> all ENs for <strong>Ticket</strong> beneficiaries.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!