Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

B.22
problematic issues that arose in implementing the program. Glick and Glick staff noted that
they were open to working with other ENs and potential ENs to exchange best-practices
and their own experiences with TTW.
c. Status at Follow-up
Service Delivery. At follow-up interview in August 2003, Glick and Glick had
substantially reduced its involvement in TTW. The EN is now only serving beneficiaries
who reside in the state of Florida and has reduced the number of TTW case workers from
four to one. Other than the change from operating as a national EN to serving only the state
of Florida, the core activities and services Glick and Glick provides to Ticket holders have
not changed.
The decision to scale back TTW operations was based on poor financial performance.
The firm was expending a lot of resources on TTW and not recouping much of its costs.
Because the company was “shoveling money out the door” the Vice President made the
decision to restrict operations only to the state of Florida, and to unassign all other Tickets.
All Tickets of beneficiaries not residing in Florida were unassigned by the EN in late May
2003. These unassignments included a number of beneficiaries that Glick and Glick had
placed in employment.
The state of Florida was retained as a TTW service area because Glick and Glick had a
large number of Tickets from the state, and was experiencing some success with those
clients. The firm also wanted to stay minimally active in TTW with the hope that the
program might undergo changes that would make it profitable to participate again as a
national EN in the future.
Ticket Assignments and Outcomes. At follow-up interview, Glick and Glick had
only 23 Ticket assignments, down from more than 200 assignments at initial interview. Even
prior to the large number of unassignments that occurred as a result of restricting operations
to the state of Florida, the firm had begun to implement more stringent criteria for accepting
Tickets. Early on, staff used screening questions to attempt to ascertain the level of
motivation of potential clients. Now, staff members instruct callers to contact and obtain
information about other ENs before deciding to assign the Ticket to Glick and Glick. Glick
and Glick will not complete an IWP and accept assignment of a Ticket during an initial
phone contact. If a caller is interested enough in the services provided by Glick and Glick to
re-contact the EN to assign the Ticket, and/or return the calls of the Glick and Glick case
worker who contacts him or her, then the EN will proceed with the assignment process.
Interviewees noted that often, substantial time and effort was often invested in finding job
leads for clients whose eagerness and interest in the program waned considerably after the
initial contact, or who subsequently revealed the need for services that Glick and Glick did
not provide.
At follow-up interview, Glick and Glick had received EN payments totaling
approximately $13,000 based on the work activity of 18 beneficiaries. As noted previously,
the firm was losing money on its TTW operations. Interviewees were unable to provide an
Appendix B: Provider-Specific Case Study Summaries