Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

103
F. RELATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
Some interviewees mentioned having worked, even if briefly, with two other key players
in the TTW and vocational rehabilitation system: Benefits Planning and Outreach Assistance
(BPAO) programs and SSA field offices. Their experiences with these organizations were
mixed, as summarized below.
BPAO Programs. Most of the ENs we spoke with had positive things to say about
their local BPAO and said that the benefits planning program was one of the most beneficial
components of TTW. Several ENs refer clients to the BPAO as part of their service
packages. As noted previously, ABIL is also the BPAO grantee in Arizona and refers all its
TTW clients to BPAO-sponsored orientations on work incentives. EES staff described
referring beneficiaries to the local BPAO when they start to work. Glick and Glick staff
originally referred to BPAOs Ticket holders who needed information about how
employment would affect their benefits. After a bad experience with one BPAO, however,
Glick and Glick decided to rely on its own staff or make referrals to SSA rather than a
BPAO. CCSA refers clients to the BPAO if they have questions about how employment will
affect their benefits. Oklahoma DRS counselors refer individuals with complicated cases
(estimated at 5 to 10 percent of all cases), including all concurrent beneficiaries, to a BPAO
for individualized benefits planning. DRS staff received training in work incentives from
staff of the BPAO program (and also from the local SSA Employment Support
Representative). IDR had expected that the BPAO would be in contact with SSA and have
all of the necessary information for beneficiaries. In reality, IDR has found that the BPAO
does not always have the information clients need, and that people end up having to contact
SSA for assistance.
SSA Field Offices. The ENs reported a mix of low-level interaction with SSA field
offices. ABIL’s director said her EN had established a strong working relationship with the
SSA field office, despite her view that the field office had not been as involved in increasing
awareness about TTW as she would have liked. Requests to use field office space for
meetings with clients have been denied. EES staff reported difficulty in obtaining
information about trial work periods from field offices. At first interview, Bridges staff
stated the same complaint, but said they eventually resolved these issues by working with the
Employment Support Representative working in the Chicago area. This EN also had a
strange experience related to marketing. Field office staff had announced that EN marketing
materials had to be approved, but when Bridges sent in copies of fliers and brochures about
its services, they never heard back from the field office. Another time, when Bridges asked
the field office for work history information on one client, the field office charged the EN
$1 per page. Regardless of these incidents, however, Bridges staff told us they later were able
to develop a better relationship with the SSA field office. Finally, Oklahoma’s DRS reported
having close working relationships with local field offices.
V: Case Studies of Eight Experienced TTW Providers