Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

Manager. At present, this is only permitted if the EN obtains a signed release from the
beneficiary allowing the EN to obtain such information. The release must also be on file
with the Program Manager. A similar procedure must be followed for an EN to obtain
beneficiary information from SSA. CCSA noted that under the Alternate Participant
program, it had direct access to SSA files. Under TTW, SSA will not provide ENs with basic
information such as the nature of an individual’s disability. ENs must obtain information
directly from the client or obtain the client’s permission to contact the local SSA field office.
Similarly, interviewees from Marriott’s Bridges program stated a desire for SSA to
provide ENs with more information on the work history and benefit status of Ticket
users—for example, whether they were in a trial work period. They reported success in
overcoming this problem, however, by working with a local Employment Services
Representative. EES staff also reported difficulty obtaining information about clients’ trial
work periods from SSA field offices.
Oklahoma’s DRS had problems verifying earnings and cross-referencing individuals
currently receiving VR services with those receiving a Ticket. DRS staff noted that about 20
percent of the addresses in the Program Manager database were incorrect, and roughly 40
percent of the addresses in DRS files are incorrect. Furthermore, DRS staff found that some
individuals who have been issued a Ticket (and who have presented it to DRS for services)
are not included on the CD-ROM. For these reasons, Social Security numbers are essential
for cross-referencing. The CD-ROM provided by the Program Manager for this purpose did
not contain the needed Social Security numbers
3. Communications with the Program Manager
Officials from Oklahoma’s DRS complained that the Program Manager is sometimes
slow in confirming Ticket assignments; rather than wait, DRS has sometimes begun serving
beneficiaries before receiving confirmations. They also said that the Program Manager
sometimes informs them that a Ticket is unassignable, without providing a reason. Since that
information is critical for determining whether to commence with services, DRS would
appreciate getting full information, consistently. The director of TakeCharge said that, early
on, when she was unclear about rules for unassigning Tickets, placing Tickets in inactive
status, and the 24-month review process, the Program Manager was either unable or
unwilling to give relevant advice. Glick and Glick representatives told of the considerable
time and effort it took to get all the information they needed in order to fully understand a
number of program details; they complained about getting incomplete, piecemeal
information. Finally, IDR is concerned that the Program Manager has not maintained an
updated list of active ENs and as a result beneficiaries are referred to ENs that are no longer
accepting Tickets. Beneficiaries who contact IDR frequently indicate that they have
contacted five to ten ENs prior to contacting IDR. Dealing with frustrated participants is
challenging and takes considerable staff resources that could be used for other purposes.
113
V: Case Studies of Eight Experienced TTW Providers