Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

96
candidates were referred to the Illinois SVRA, which, EES staff said, typically accepted the
Tickets.
Glick and Glick’s intake experience was similar in some ways to the above-described
programs. Like EES, it got so many calls initially—over 100 per day at first—based on the
information provided by the Program Manager that it did not need to do any outreach or
marketing. This had fallen to 10 or 15 per day by the time of the first interview. With
experience and increased program knowledge, staff was able to reduce screening phone calls
from half an hour to a few minutes. Staff sought to gauge motivation and interest, and
candidates who were determined not to be a good match were told to contact another EN
or their SVRAs. Staff noted that, as of November 2002, about 30 to 40 percent of the initial
phone interviews resulted in a Ticket assignment; they had generated about 300 Ticket
assignments from approximately 800 phone screens. Now, however, Glick and Glick staff
are more rigorously screening Ticket holders. Its operations have been scaled back
dramatically and it has only one-tenth as many assignments as a year earlier. At first, Glick
and Glick unassigned Tickets only when clients clearly were not actively participating in the
activities specified in their IWP, for example, missing multiple appointments, or in rare cases
when they were verbally abusive toward a staff member. Later, however, Glick and Glick
purposefully unassigned most of its Tickets, a decision we describe in detail later.
IDR devotes considerable resources to TTW. Staffing levels have increased in the past
year as TTW has been implemented in additional states. A formal marketing plan was
developed to encourage Ticket assignments from among IDR’s existing clientele. In
addition, IDR works with its national network of vendors to encourage them to refer
individuals on their caseloads to IDR’s TTW program. IDR has engaged in very limited
marketing directed toward its retail clients. These beneficiaries become aware of IDR
through information provided by the Program Manager or from others who have contacted
the agency. Despite this lack of marketing, IDR continues to receive an overwhelming
number of calls from Ticket holders, requiring them to assign a full-time staff member to
answer these calls, provide detailed information on the Ticket program, and conduct initial
screening activities.
IDR mails interested beneficiaries a questionnaire to determine if they can be
appropriately served by the agency. The questionnaire addresses a beneficiary’s medical
history, prior employment and educational experiences, and interest in work. The
questionnaire specifically asks whether the beneficiary is interested in working at a level that
will result in the individual losing his or her cash benefit. If the questionnaire reveals that the
Ticket holder is interested in using the Ticket to work part-time but does not want to go off
benefits, IDR is extremely reluctant to accept Ticket assignment.
IDR no longer accepts Tickets from SSI beneficiaries because they view them as too
costly to serve given their limited employment histories and need for ongoing support.
Screening procedures for SSDI beneficiaries now attempt to identify Ticket holders viewed
as “job ready.” IDR staff members believe that their TTW program is so costly to operate
that it cannot provide vocational training or other costly upfront services. Based on the
results of the screening questionnaire, IDR asks beneficiaries to participate in an individual
V: Case Studies of Eight Experienced TTW Providers