Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

B.17
all benefits; therefore, EES did not receive the payment. The requirement that beneficiaries
receive zero benefits is considered by staff to be a major flaw in the program. The ninemonth
TWP and the level of SGA enable beneficiaries to retain benefits long after they find
employment. Although EES attempts to find full-time jobs for its clients, many are unable
to sustain full-time work, particularly those who have psychiatric disabilities or those who
have been out of the work force for a number of years. The interviewee stated that
encouraging beneficiaries to accept full-time work before they are ready will ultimately result
in failure. Another problem was the economy—some beneficiaries who had full-time jobs
were reduced to part-time and again became eligible for benefits, resulting in no payment for
EES.
The Director estimated that EES spent $80,000 administering TTW and brought in less
than $10,000 in revenue. Terminating participation in TTW was a difficult decision for EES
to make, but the EN could not cover staff costs.
Program Administration. The most significant concern with program administration
was the collection of pay stubs. The interviewee noted that other government programs,
such as WIA, allow alternative forms of documentation. Difficulties also arose when a pay
period crossed calendar months, but EES and Program Manager staff worked through these
difficulties. The interviewee stated that she had not tracked the length of time between
submission of bills and receipt of payment, but noted that even if payments had been
received promptly, the payments were too low to enable the program to continue.
Concerns and Expectations Regarding Future Success. The EES interviewee
stated that high program costs and low revenue made it impossible for EES to remain a
TTW provider, noting that payments were too low to make the program viable. Another
problem was the requirement that beneficiaries receive zero cash benefits before the EN is
eligible for payment. EES clients were not able to sustain SGA consistently enough for EES
to receive regular payments. A final problem was the requirement that beneficiaries submit
pay stubs—a procedure that EES staff considered burdensome for both beneficiaries and
the EN.
The interviewee stated that TTW should be amended to allow for an initial payment
upon completion of an IWP, to enable the EN to cover staff costs; followed by an additional
payment for job placement; and then the original performance-based payment schedule.
When asked about the milestone payments, the interviewee stated that the milestone
payments were too small to cover up-front staff costs.
In conclusion, EES staff said it would reactivate its participation in TTW if the payment
structure were modified to enable the organization to cover staffing costs. The interviewee
stated that TTW fits in well with EES’ mission and staff enjoyed working with beneficiaries.
The organization had developed a good model, with successful placements and significant
employer support. Unfortunately, the program was not viable from a financial perspective.
Appendix B: Provider-Specific Case Study Summaries