13.04.2014 Views

Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program Initial Evaluation Report

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

66<br />

Several ENs noted beneficiary characteristics that <strong>the</strong>y look for in deciding whe<strong>the</strong>r or<br />

not <strong>to</strong> accept a <strong>Ticket</strong>. Such characteristics include: a desire for full-time employment, <strong>the</strong><br />

ability <strong>to</strong> earn above $8 per hour, <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>to</strong> be quickly placed in employment (few<br />

significant barriers <strong>to</strong> entering employment), and needs consistent with <strong>the</strong> services <strong>of</strong>fered<br />

by <strong>the</strong> EN.<br />

Some EN interviewees described approaches <strong>the</strong>y had developed <strong>to</strong> minimize <strong>the</strong><br />

burden <strong>of</strong> educating beneficiaries about TTW and identifying appropriate candidates. These<br />

approaches include <strong>the</strong> following:<br />

• Developing key screening questions and criteria, which are applied prior <strong>to</strong><br />

spending time educating beneficiaries about <strong>the</strong> program. For example,<br />

ascertaining whe<strong>the</strong>r beneficiaries are willing <strong>to</strong> work full time, are immediately<br />

available for job interviews, and <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> job interviews <strong>the</strong>y are willing <strong>to</strong><br />

do per week. Responses consistent with a strong desire <strong>to</strong> work are indica<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>of</strong><br />

appropriate candidates.<br />

• Holding group orientation sessions for those meeting initial screening criteria <strong>to</strong><br />

describe <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> program and <strong>to</strong> emphasize how <strong>the</strong> EN will be paid,<br />

or not paid, based on beneficiary work outcomes.<br />

• Developing specific criteria for unassigning <strong>Ticket</strong>s and incorporating those<br />

requirements in<strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual work plan agreement with <strong>the</strong> beneficiary.<br />

Examples <strong>of</strong> criteria used by ENs <strong>to</strong> unassign <strong>Ticket</strong>s include missed<br />

appointments or job interviews, being a no-show for a job, and losing contact<br />

with <strong>the</strong> counselor.<br />

<strong>Ticket</strong> Assignments. Early in TTW implementation, a few ENs were accepting a<br />

substantial number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ticket</strong>s and appeared <strong>to</strong> be experiencing some success. These ENs<br />

had several traits in common: <strong>the</strong>y had established processes for selecting motivated and<br />

seemingly employment-ready <strong>Ticket</strong> holders; <strong>the</strong>y were very selective about whose <strong>Ticket</strong>s <strong>to</strong><br />

accept, indicating that only 10 <strong>to</strong> 30 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ticket</strong> holders screened resulted in an<br />

assignment; <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>fered very limited services and focused on interview skills, resume<br />

writing, and job placement; and <strong>the</strong>y adhered <strong>to</strong> policies for unassigning <strong>the</strong> <strong>Ticket</strong>s <strong>of</strong><br />

beneficiaries who did not appear <strong>to</strong> be actively engaged in <strong>the</strong> program.<br />

d. Early EN Experiences with Employment and Payment Outcomes<br />

At <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> initial site visits (2002), few ENs had placed beneficiaries in<br />

employment or had received payments. As <strong>of</strong> early August 2003, a <strong>to</strong>tal <strong>of</strong> 673 outcome or<br />

miles<strong>to</strong>ne payments had been made <strong>to</strong> 70 ENs in both Phase 1 and 2 states, on behalf <strong>of</strong><br />

240 <strong>Ticket</strong> holders. Most ENs serving <strong>Ticket</strong> holders working at levels that make <strong>the</strong> ENs<br />

eligible for payments have only a small number <strong>of</strong> such clients, and just a few have a<br />

substantial number <strong>of</strong> clients that make <strong>the</strong>m eligible for payments (Figure III.2). Of <strong>the</strong> 67<br />

ENs that received a payment, 35 had received payment for only one <strong>Ticket</strong> holder and 60<br />

had received payments for five or fewer <strong>Ticket</strong> holders. One had over 30 <strong>Ticket</strong> holders<br />

working at levels that generated EN payments. In summary, most ENs with payments have<br />

III: TTW Early Implementation

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!