Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

claim employer tax credits. Through one of its programs, Glick and Glick has worked with
unemployed and disadvantaged populations, including persons with disabilities. The focus of
its prior efforts, however, was to fill job vacancies on behalf of its employer clients. TTW
represents somewhat of a departure from its previous activities in that the individual is the
client, rather than the employer.
Until TTW was implemented, IDR served only individuals who were referred from
major insurance companies for rehabilitation, job placement, and other return to work
services. IDR staff noted that the services required by their long-term disability cases were
virtually identical to those needed by those considered retail cases. From a service
perspective, the employment services and supports provided to these two populations
differed very little. The differences between the two groups primarily relates to available
funding. For long-term disability clients, IDR can receive funding from both an insurance
company and SSA, but when serving retail cases, the agency must rely exclusively on
payments from SSA.
Marriott’s Bridges program also existed long before the creation of TTW, and was
performing similar work for a portion of the Ticket-eligible beneficiary population. The
program began in 1989 in Montgomery County, Maryland, and was replicated in Chicago in
1990. It focuses on youth ages 17 to 21 and the transition from school to work.
The Oklahoma DRS, as an SVRA, obviously had a strong connection with work-related
services for disability beneficiaries long before TTW. To facilitate acting as an EN under
TTW, DRS formed a “Ticket Unit” in its central office and ensured that all relevant staff
were sufficiently trained on program details.
D. CHOICE OF PAYMENT PLAN
As shown earlier in Table V.1, seven of the eight case-study ENs operate under the
milestone-outcome payment system; that is, all payments made on behalf of new clients will
be made under that plan. Here, we try to provide some insight into their choices.
AAA TakeCharge chose the outcome-only payment system because it believed that
system would be more easily understood by beneficiaries, that they would prefer getting 75
percent of a standard-sized, predictable monthly payment, more than getting 75 percent of
milestone payments that would vary in size and timing. Beneficiary understanding is
particularly important for the success of this EN, because of its do-it-yourself approach and
its need to keep administrative costs to a bare minimum.
CCSA selected the milestone-outcome payment system because it would become
eligible for milestone payments earlier than outcome payments. CCSA was also concerned
about the requirement that clients must remain employed and that CCSA must document
employment for five years to collect the full outcome payment.
Glick and Glick selected the milestone-outcome payment system because officials
wanted to gauge the employment experiences of their early TTW clients before accepting
what they believe to be a greater risk associated with the outcome-only payment system. This
99
V: Case Studies of Eight Experienced TTW Providers