Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

60 payment structure is not a good fit with pre-existing financial systems, services, and/or expected outcomes for their traditional clients. TTW has changed the nature of the relationships between SVRAs and ENs that were vendors to the SVRA before TTW. Prior to TTW, these vendors relied heavily on the SVRA in their state for clients and funding. However, TTW establishes a mechanism under which providers might directly obtain both SSA funding and beneficiary clients without involving the SVRA as an intermediary. Potentially they may become a competitor to an SVRA even though they might continue to be a vendor to the SVRA. ENs that are non-traditional providers or have never been vendors to an SVRA face their own challenges, which vary depending on past experience and other lines of business. Some are providing other types of services to beneficiaries (e.g., health care), and run into issues with blending funds from other sources with Ticket money. Others provide employment services, but have not served the beneficiary population in the past and see this as an opportunity to do so. Some have, or have sought, funding for start-up costs and capital from other sources. It appears to be rare for these ENs to have developed relationships with SVRAs. We will develop a more comprehensive assessment of this issue later in the evaluation when we have interviewed a much larger variety of ENs. In the remainder of this section, we describe what we have learned to date about: factors that affect provider participation as ENs, early EN experiences enrolling Ticket holders, early payment outcomes, and EN/SVRA relationships from the EN perspective. It should be noted that most of the following discussion is drawn from interviews conducted in 2002 (Livermore et al. 2003). a. Factors Affecting EN Participation Many providers enrolled as ENs because it was relatively costless to do so, but without strong intentions to accept Ticket assignments in the immediate future. The simple EN application procedure and the ability to accept Tickets on a voluntary, case-by-case basis make enrollment as an EN appear low risk to providers. Providers can slowly develop experience with the program and determine whether it has the potential to cover their expected costs and make it possible for the provider to expand the services it offers and/or the clients it serves. Although many providers have elected to enroll as ENs in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 states, and SSA has accepted almost all EN applications, relatively few ENs have accepted Tickets (Table III.4)—just 38 percent of ENs in Phase 1 states, and 30 percent in Phase 2. Even fewer are accepting large numbers of Tickets (Figure III.1). As of late July 2003, of the 131 ENs that had assignments and operated in the Phase 1 states, only 30 had more than 10 assignments, 7 had more than 50, 5 had more than 100, and 1 had over 300. 9 Of the 152 9 These assignments include some assignments from beneficiaries in Phase 2 states. III: TTW Early Implementation
Table III.4: ENs and ENs with Ticket Assignments, by Phase and State (as of August 29, 2003) ENs with Assignments State ENs Number Percent Phase I (13) Arizona 25 10 40 Colorado 18 5 28 Delaware 5 3 60 Florida 65 25 38 Illinois 63 21 33 Iowa 29 13 45 Massachusetts 46 17 37 New York 103 38 37 Oklahoma 8 1 13 Oregon 28 13 46 South Carolina 16 7 44 Vermont 2 0 0 Wisconsin 26 10 38 Total Phase I 434 163 38 Phase 2 (21) Alaska 3 1 33 Arkansas 15 4 27 Connecticut 11 3 27 District of Columbia 7 3 43 Georgia 20 4 20 Indiana 29 4 14 Kansas 17 5 21 Kentucky 18 6 33 Louisiana 14 5 36 Michigan 56 16 29 Mississippi 5 2 40 Missouri 33 13 39 Montana 8 1 13 Nevada 14 5 36 New Hampshire 4 2 50 New Jersey 26 10 38 New Mexico 10 1 10 North Dakota 5 1 20 South Dakota 3 1 33 Tennessee 16 9 56 Virginia 26 7 27 Total Phase 2 340 103 30 National ENs 10 6 60 SOURCE: The Program Manager, Summary Ticket Rollout Status Report #80, September 2, 2003. 61 III: TTW Early Implementation
Page 1 and 2:
Contract No.: 0600-03-60130 MPR Ref
Page 3 and 4:
A CKNOWLEDGMENTS This report benefi
Page 5 and 6:
C ONTENTS Chapter Page ACRONYMS ...
Page 7 and 8:
vii Chapter Page V (continued) D. C
Page 9 and 10:
A CRONYMS ABIL AIDS AWICs AOI BPAO
Page 11 and 12:
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY T he Ticket to
Page 13 and 14:
Overall, we found that SSA has impl
Page 15 and 16:
money on their TTW operations. For
Page 17 and 18:
xvii CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS SSA fa
Page 19 and 20:
C HAPTER I O VERVIEW OF THE T ICKET
Page 21 and 22:
The TTW program and other elements
Page 23 and 24:
A. EVALUATION COMPONENTS: GOALS, SC
Page 25 and 26:
7 ! How many beneficiaries particip
Page 27 and 28: 9 B. PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF TH
Page 29 and 30: C HAPTER II S TRUCTURE AND B ACKGRO
Page 31 and 32: In reality, however, the success of
Page 33 and 34: MAXIMUS to serve as the Program Man
Page 35 and 36: 17 4. Participate in the activities
Page 37 and 38: N Decision Reversed Request SSA Rev
Page 39 and 40: 21 c. Dispute Resolution In a progr
Page 41 and 42: Table II.1: Outcome-Only and Milest
Page 43 and 44: milestone payment is equal to 34 pe
Page 45 and 46: Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage da
Page 47 and 48: 29 3. Related Initiatives TTW has n
Page 49 and 50: SSA Demonstrations. SSA plans to im
Page 51 and 52: Protection and Advocacy. The SSA-fu
Page 53 and 54: C HAPTER III TTW EARLY I MPLEMENTAT
Page 55 and 56: 37 Table III.1: TTW Implementation
Page 57 and 58: Ticket-eligible beneficiaries were
Page 59 and 60: 41 TTW. In the past, SSA systems ha
Page 61 and 62: information in SSA’s records cont
Page 63 and 64: work period automation and tracking
Page 65 and 66: Systems and Infrastructure. The Pro
Page 67 and 68: 49 asked the Program Manager for a
Page 69 and 70: 51 • The first payment for each b
Page 71 and 72: currently being addressed relate to
Page 73 and 74: payment system. Only one SVRA (Okla
Page 75 and 76: SVRA personnel have consistently ex
Page 77: 59 • Are SVRAs permitted to requi
Page 81 and 82: Payment System. Many ENs do not bel
Page 83 and 84: example, reporting lags inherent in
Page 85 and 86: eceived only small amounts thus far
Page 87 and 88: SVRA services for Ticket clients; (
Page 89 and 90: C HAPTER IV E ARLY P ARTICIPATION P
Page 91 and 92: 73 Figure IV.2: Cumulative Number o
Page 93 and 94: point in the Phase 1 rollout. For P
Page 95 and 96: 77 Figure IV.7: First Assignments a
Page 97 and 98: 79 Figure IV.8: Ticket Participatio
Page 99 and 100: 81 Figure IV.10: Ticket Participati
Page 101 and 102: 83 states. This finding suggests th
Page 103 and 104: There is a strong negative relation
Page 105 and 106: C HAPTER V C ASE S TUDIES OF E IGHT
Page 107 and 108: 89 A. SERVICE MODELS AND TARGETED C
Page 109 and 110: Although the director was initially
Page 111 and 112: Clients who assign their Tickets to
Page 113 and 114: session. Those who miss their appoi
Page 115 and 116: interview. While this is time consu
Page 117 and 118: claim employer tax credits. Through
Page 119 and 120: these individuals, because they typ
Page 121 and 122: 103 F. RELATIONS WITH OTHER ORGANIZ
Page 123 and 124: eneficiaries to meet that standard.
Page 125 and 126: IDR representatives said that to da
Page 127 and 128: substantiate wages, and clients are
Page 129 and 130:
services? Unfortunately, for ENs to
Page 131 and 132:
Manager. At present, this is only p
Page 133 and 134:
stubs: the need for beneficiaries t
Page 135 and 136:
C HAPTER VI A DEQUACY OF I NCENTIVE
Page 137 and 138:
We have also begun to analyze admin
Page 139 and 140:
viewed as lacking the productive ca
Page 141 and 142:
assist in the identification of ind
Page 143 and 144:
eneficiaries. In examining results
Page 145 and 146:
127 E. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS The
Page 147 and 148:
C HAPTER VII C ONCLUSIONS AND I MPL
Page 149 and 150:
noticeably low, and, among the very
Page 151 and 152:
Act. At the same time, some ENs hav
Page 153 and 154:
Another change requiring considerat
Page 155 and 156:
C HAPTER VIII N EXT S TEPS FOR THE
Page 157 and 158:
prior to September 2003 and had not
Page 159 and 160:
R EFERENCES Adequacy of Incentives
Page 161 and 162:
A PPENDIX A D ATA T ABLES C ORRESPO
Page 163 and 164:
A-3 Table A.2 Cumulative Number of
Page 165 and 166:
A-5 Table A.4 Percentage of Tickets
Page 167 and 168:
A-7 Table A.6 Percentage of Tickets
Page 169 and 170:
A-9 TABLES SHOWING CHARACTERISTICS
Page 171 and 172:
A-11 Table A.10 Ticket Participatio
Page 173 and 174:
A-13 Table A.12 Ticket Participatio
Page 175 and 176:
A-15 Table A.14 Percentage of In-Us
Page 177 and 178:
A PPENDIX B P ROVIDER-SPECIFIC C AS
Page 179 and 180:
informed beneficiaries that state V
Page 181 and 182:
e considerably more successful if S
Page 183 and 184:
them for employment. It was during
Page 185 and 186:
working but are still receiving SSI
Page 187 and 188:
B.11 client over a four-year period
Page 189 and 190:
B.13 placing SSA beneficiaries than
Page 191 and 192:
B.15 that came in for an initial ap
Page 193 and 194:
B.17 all benefits; therefore, EES d
Page 195 and 196:
B.19 outreach program. As noted pre
Page 197 and 198:
B.21 remained employed. 3 Because o
Page 199 and 200:
B.23 estimate of the financial loss
Page 201 and 202:
B.25 Social Security benefits. IDR
Page 203 and 204:
B.27 have to submit pay stubs twice
Page 205 and 206:
B.29 Bridges still provides the 10-
Page 207 and 208:
B.31 While she used to have a polic
Page 209 and 210:
B.33 8. Oklahoma Department of Reha
Page 211 and 212:
B.35 Beneficiaries interested in as
Page 213 and 214:
B.37 permits agency budgets to be c
Page 215 and 216:
A PPENDIX C D EFINING THE F OUR A D
Page 217 and 218:
B. IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUALS WITH A N
Page 219:
“work and receive full cash benef
show all

Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?