Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

112
describe one of its core elements as “other.” The Program Manager, she said, should expand
the list of services from which ENs can choose.
The director of ABIL complained about an overall dearth of marketing by SSA. She said
a national campaign, featuring extensive television and radio advertising, is desperately
needed to market the program to Ticket-eligible beneficiaries.
During the initial interview, representatives of Glick and Glick mentioned a desire for
SSA and/or the Program Manager to provide beneficiaries with more and better information
about the TTW program early in the process, presumably as part of initial mailings. They felt
they had to spend too much time explaining the program to beneficiaries who contacted
them about using their Tickets. Bridges officials made a similar comment. Common
misunderstandings include a belief that program participation is mandatory and that the
Ticket automatically guarantees them a job, possibly with the EN itself. Potential clients also
sometimes have concerns about how TTW will affect their SSA and health care program
benefits.
Oklahoma DRS officials made similar comments about the problem of beneficiary
confusion during the recent interview; the Program Manager provides only basic contact
information, so ENs end up having to inform Ticket recipients about the program. They had
different ideas from their non-SVRA peers, however, on what kind of marketing approach
should be implemented. They pointed out that beneficiaries are often fearful of any
communication from SSA, lessening the potential impact of any SSA-led marketing efforts.
Similarly, they felt that the Program Manager did not need to be heavily involved in
beneficiary outreach and education, partly because of inevitable delays in getting information
to interested beneficiaries. Rather than a centrally operated, national level campaign, they
supported a more local approach. They support having SSA provide funding to interested
SVRAs and other ENs for state and local level outreach efforts, and had ideas about how
such a program could be modeled after Oklahoma’s State Partnership Initiative.
Oklahoma DRS staff also made another unique statement relating to program
promotion. They expressed a desire for the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to
play a more active role in promoting TTW and assisting SVRAs to address ongoing policy
problems. They quoted an RSA official as saying, “The Ticket is not our program,” an
attitude they feel is antithetical to successful implementation by SVRAs.
2. Information About Beneficiaries
Glick and Glick staff expressed frustration over the fact that some beneficiaries do not
even know under which program(s) they are receiving cash benefits—SSI, DI or both.
Knowing about a beneficiary’s program participation is important, they explained, because
under different programs, different pay documentation is needed, different earnings
thresholds must be met to qualify for payment, and payment amounts differ. Thus, not
knowing a beneficiary’s program status makes it difficult for an EN to develop expectations
regarding the likelihood that a claim for payment will be accepted. Glick and Glick staff
advocated for being able to get the needed beneficiary information from the Program
V: Case Studies of Eight Experienced TTW Providers