Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

B.38
but should hold them until the agency receives earnings documentation from its own
sources.
Concerns and Expectations Regarding Future Success. DRS will continue
accepting Tickets and actively participating in TTW. Staff suggested several enhancements to
TTW:
DRS expressed the desire that RSA play a more active role in promoting the Ticket
Program and assisting VR agencies to address ongoing policy problems. Staff noted that an
RSA official had stated that, “The Ticket is not our program.” This attitude is antithetical to
successful implementation by VR agencies.
DRS staff also noted that private agencies would have a difficult time implementing
TTW, due to the lack of up-front funds to capitalize the program and the three- to fourmonth
waiting period for payments. ENs will likely provide services to individuals who need
few services, leaving the VR agencies to serve those with more complex service needs. This
is not necessarily a problem, because of the high demand for rehabilitation services.
DRS staff commented that TTW requires that beneficiaries assume responsibility for
participation. Beneficiaries must sift through significant amounts of information and must
go through several steps to assign their Tickets and receive services. This multi-step process
causes some beneficiaries to lose their motivation. Beneficiaries sometimes become confused
about what a Ticket provides, believing possession of a Ticket entitles them to a job.
Responsibility for educating the beneficiary falls largely on the ENs, with the Program
Manager providing only very basic contact information. Beneficiaries are often fearful of any
communication from SSA, so additional marketing efforts to explain TTW would be
extremely beneficial. They suggested that SSA provide VR agencies and other ENs funding
to explain TTW at one-on-one outreach activities. Barriers to participation could be more
effectively overcome by locally-focused outreach projects.
Staff expressed the opinion that a centralized Program Manager could be dropped out
of the beneficiary education and outreach process. They suggested establishing a hotline in
each state to provide introductory information to beneficiaries. The delay that occurs when
beneficiaries must wait a week to obtain a list of ENs from the Program Manager curbs
beneficiaries’ enthusiasm for the program. Instead, DRS staff advocated modeling TTW on
the Oklahoma State Partnership Initiative project: ENs would be invited to the consumer
orientation meeting and asked to make a marketing presentation about their services.
Beneficiaries could ask questions on the spot, and see who is available in their local
community to help them get a job.
Appendix B: Provider-Specific Case Study Summaries