Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

these individuals, because they typically do not work up at SGA level for the nine-month
period required by the traditional system.
E. RELATIONS BETWEEN ENS AND SVRAS
As TTW was being developed, it was unclear what relationships would develop between
SVRAs and other ENs. The case-study ENs have not worked much with SVRAs, but we
learned of some recent initial efforts to do so. Even if collaboration has been minimal so far,
some frameworks are being established that could allow for more extensive relationships in
the future.
In the past year, AAA TakeCharge entered into an agreement with the Wisconsin SVRA
to serve their clients. Under the terms of the agreement, TakeCharge will decline Ticket
assignment for Wisconsin clients expected to consume $10,000 or more in vocational
rehabilitation services from the SVRA. These individuals will be served exclusively by the
SVRA (or jointly between it and another EN). For individuals expected to consume less than
$10,000 in SVRA services, TakeCharge will be free to accept Ticket assignment. For those
clients, when Ticket outcome payments begin and for as long as they continue, the Ticket
holder will receive $125 each month; TakeCharge will receive $45 a month for DI clients,
$30 for SSI clients; and the SVRA will receive the balance of the payment. After developing
the agreement, Wisconsin’s SVRA mailed a letter explaining the agreement to approximately
100 Social Security beneficiary clients believed to be working at SGA and above, or believed
to have the potential to work at levels higher than SGA. TakeCharge and Wisconsin officials
anticipated that at least half of the group would assign their Tickets to the EN, but only one
or two dozen did so. TakeCharge’s director has discussed a similar agreement with the New
York SVRA, but nothing had been finalized at the time of the second interview.
At the time of the initial interview, ABIL had established an agreement with the Arizona
SVRA that would allow the EN’s clients to access long-term training and high-cost
accommodations. This option has yet to be exercised, however, because ABIL still does not
accept Tickets from beneficiaries with needs that would require services from the SVRA.
IDR explored the possibility of establishing a formal relationship with the SVRAs in
Connecticut and Florida, but to date has not entered into any VR-EN agreements. Staff
indicated that at one point IDR was close to developing a formal relationship with the
Connecticut SVRA, but significant downsizing within the SVRA delayed negotiations and no
discussions are underway at this time. IDR does not believe that entering into formal
agreements with SVRAs is in its financial interest, and also indicated that negotiating these
agreements consumes significant staff time.
CCSA has a contract with the Wisconsin SVRA, but the director did not believe the
contract to be beneficial to his firm. The EN is sharing a number of Tickets with the SVRA,
but specific payment arrangements have not been finalized. The director cited several
problems, including (1) SVRA counselors and office directors do not understand the details
of TTW, and (2) many of the SVRA counselors presume it is their responsibility to “grab the
Ticket” before an EN can accept it, an attitude that alienates CCSA. The director sees one
101
V: Case Studies of Eight Experienced TTW Providers