Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

B.20
Manager referrals had been sufficient to keep staff busy. Glick and Glick had also been
receiving calls from Ticket holders indicating they had contacted other ENs and were
referred to Glick and Glick by the ENs contacted. Glick and Glick staff did not interact with
other ENs. Staff presumed that other ENs were referring callers to them because they knew
that Glick and Glick was accepting Tickets.
Glick and Glick was initially overwhelmed by TTW calls, receiving more than 100 per
day. Because staff had not yet gained experience with TTW, it took as long as 30 minutes to
conduct an initial screening interview. During the months following the initial TTW rollout,
Glick and Glick staff became more proficient at asking key questions, the responses to
which they believed indicated whether a caller was a good candidate for their services. By the
time of initial interview, staff spent only a few minutes on the phone conducting the initial
screening. Call volume dropped since the initial roll out; at the time of the initial interview
(November 2002), staff were taking between 10 and 15 calls per day.
When Ticket holders called, if possible they were directed to the case manager
responsible for the state where the caller resided. Often, the case managers had to explain
TTW to the callers. Many beneficiaries did not understand that the program was voluntary.
Case managers also had to frequently correct a common misconception —that a Ticket
holder would automatically get a job because they had a Ticket. Many callers also expressed
concern about how participation in TTW would affect their benefits. When explaining the
effect of the Ticket on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, case managers
stressed the fact that the program was designed to help beneficiaries become self-sufficient.
Interviewees noted that the calls were sometimes time consuming, but staff wanted to make
sure that beneficiaries understood the program before assigning their Tickets to Glick and
Glick.
After case managers answered the initial questions, they tried to determine why callers
wanted to participate in TTW. Glick and Glick staff asked questions intended to gauge the
individual’s level of motivation. If an individual appeared to be motivated and likely to
benefit from Glick and Glick’s services, the case manager explained the enrollment process
and mailed the firm’s policies and the Individual Work Plan (IWP) to the Ticket holder so
that he or she could sign and return it to Glick and Glick. Candidates determined not to be a
good match were told to contact another EN or their state VR agency. Interviewees noted
that, as of November 2002, about 30 to 40 percent of the initial phone interviews had
actually resulted in a Ticket assignment. They had generated about 300 Ticket assignments
from approximately 800 phone screens.
A major administrative issue reported by interviewees related to the amount of
information the PROGRAM MANAGER provided to Ticket holders before referring them
to ENs. Glick and Glick staff members believed that they would be able to reduce the
amount of time they spent explaining TTW to clients if the Program Manager and/or SSA
devoted more efforts to better informing beneficiaries about the program early in the
process.
Outcomes and Claims for Payment. Glick and Glick had always received payments
based on its ability to place individuals in employment, and on the length of time individuals
Appendix B: Provider-Specific Case Study Summaries