Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

B.31
While she used to have a policy of returning calls within 24 hours, she now returns calls
within the week because Bridges is not currently accepting new tickets. Instead, she refers
clients to neighboring ENs. She currently handles 23 ticket assignments, most of which were
initiated in April 2002, and feels she is working very close to her capacity of 25 clients.
Bridges stays in constant communication with the beneficiaries and tries to convince them to
stay in touch because they can receive valuable services. The Bridges employee in charge of
TTW obtains check stubs from the individual in some cases, and in other cases she obtains
this information from the employer. Bridges will discontinue its participation if one person
cannot accomplish these duties.
Ticket Assignments and Outcomes. During the first year of operation, Bridges
reported receiving as many as 120 inquiry calls per month. The number has dwindled to
about 20 to 25 calls per month. Bridges staff noted that the calls are from beneficiaries who
had called previously, rechecking to determine their eligibility. However, most callers are
over the age of 21 and are not accepted. Bridges predicted they would serve a higher number
of WIA clients who were Ticket-holders, but most beneficiaries attend one or two of the
EN’s sessions before dropping out of the program. Fear of benefit loss is not the problem;
many beneficiaries lack the motivation and the desire to work.
Program Administration. The Marriott Foundation covers Bridges’ up-front costs,
but these costs significantly outweigh revenues. Up-front costs include one FTE and office
space totaling $45,000-50,000 a year. The agency has received about $10,000 from TTW.
Interviewees explained that they cannot absorb the losses much longer. Although they had
originally viewed TTW as a five-year commitment, they had anticipated higher revenues and
will not be able to continue the program unless revenues increase.
Bridges is currently receiving payments under both the milestone-outcome and
outcome-only payment systems. Citing confusion over the similar names of the payment
systems (both contain the word “outcome”), staff explained that Bridges originally signed up
for the outcome-only payment system. Some clients found jobs, then moved away and
ceased working, leaving Bridges without any payment from SSA. Bridges staff realized that
they could have received milestone payments in this situation, so they switched to the
milestone–outcome system. Bridges would like to switch back to outcome-only payments,
because they would receive regular monthly payments for the 23 individuals who are
currently working over SGA. However, due to a waiting period that limits ENs to one
change in payment system per year, Bridges cannot change at this time.
Interviewees said that obtaining pay stubs from participants is extremely cumbersome
and time consuming. Beneficiaries are asked to bring pay stubs into the office; if this is not
possible, the TTW Coordinator meets them to pick up the pay stub. Several clients are
working and have not submitted pay stubs, which means that Bridges receives no payment.
Clients forget to drop pay stubs off or lose them. In one case, a client did not want her
employer contacted because she did not want her psychiatric disability revealed. All records
are kept manually, but Bridges is considering development of a computerized tracking
system, if it continues its participation.
Appendix B: Provider-Specific Case Study Summaries