Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

94
illness, the focus on benefits planning and experience with a milestone payment structure has
likely made agency staff more open to a performance-based service model and enabled DRS
to implement this model more smoothly.
B. OUTREACH, SCREENING, AND TICKET ASSIGNMENTS
The Ticket assignment data presented in Table V.1 is, in some respects, only the
proverbial “tip of the iceberg” in terms of the ENs’ efforts to elicit business and respond to
Ticket assignment requests. In some cases, the ENs have dealt, in one way or another, with
far more beneficiaries than the number of Ticket assignments might suggest. Finding
beneficiaries who can be served appropriately under TTW can be a challenge. Additionally,
the ENs’ Ticket caseloads have changed over time in ways that may not be fully captured by
the two Ticket assignment statistics listed in Table V.1. Below we summarize the case-study
ENs’ experiences in recruiting and screening potential clients that led to Ticket assignments
as well as unassignments.
At one end of the continuum is AAA TakeCharge, which conducts no marketing or
outreach. Potential clients learn about TakeCharge from the Program Managers’ website or
mailings, as well as through word of mouth, and essentially refer themselves to the EN. The
website clearly explains TakeCharge’s service model and the type of beneficiaries who are
(and are not) ideally suited for this EN. Those who would be inappropriate are encouraged
to seek services from a different provider. The director does answer e-mail inquiries, but
TakeCharge does not screen applicants; those who send in an application form are accepted,
assuming they meet basic Ticket program eligibility rules.
Between the first and second interviews, TakeCharge’s assigned Ticket caseload grew
tenfold.
AAA TakeCharge has not developed procedures for unassigning Tickets because this
would add another level of administrative burden that the EN does not have the resources
to support. Thus, at present, a client may take steps to unassign his or her Ticket, but the
EN will initiate no such steps regardless of a client’s activity level. This probably explains, in
part, why the number of beneficiaries for which the EN has received payments is low
relative to the number of Ticket assignments; many Tickets may be assigned to TakeCharge
even though the clients are not active in the program in any real sense.
ABIL provides an example of an EN that has increased its outreach efforts over time
and has also been involved in extensive screening of individual beneficiaries. At the time of
the initial interview, ABIL had not done any active marketing of its program to Ticket
holders. Nonetheless, due to various referrals, it was receiving 10 to 15 telephone inquiries a
day. The EN had received a total of about 900 inquiries, but screening efforts had resulted in
their accepting only about 100 Tickets.
Potential clients first undergo a 15-minute screening on the phone, during which they
must show enthusiasm for work. About 15 to 25 percent of those who complete the initial
phone screening are sufficiently interested to pursue the next step, an in-person, small-group
orientation session. Potential clients are given two opportunities to attend the orientation
V: Case Studies of Eight Experienced TTW Providers