Evaluation of the Ticket to Work Program, Implementation ...

88resolve administrative issues such as staff turnover and the need for a system to collect paystubs and submit invoices to the Program Manager.D. EN SERVICESMost EN representatives we interviewed blend TTW into their usual operations,providing Ticket holders with the same or similar services provided to their non-Ticketclients. The same was true for ENs interviewed for the two earlier reports. Most of the 20ENs that were serving, or had served, beneficiaries under TTW offered resume assistance,skills assessment, interview training, job search assistance or job placement, vocationaltraining, counseling, and follow-up or job retention services, all of which they provided toclients before TTW.Some ENs, however, modified their services to accommodate TTW clients. Forexample, one EN, whose typical clients had little work experience and limited skills, foundthat some TTW clients were better educated and more qualified. Staff had to change theirjob search tactics to seek high-level, white-collar jobs for clients with experience as, forexample, a surgeon, a nurse, and a graphic designer. A second EN typically worked withpeople with cognitive and physical disabilities, but most of its Ticket clients hadpsychological disorders. For some of these clients, EN staff needed to focus less ontraditional job placement and more on job retention. A third EN found that, compared withits usual clients, certain Ticket holders—those with depression, for example—can be moredifficult to motivate. EN staff ensure that these individuals have a support network andbegan the practice of having them call in once a week, to “pump them up.” These follow-upservices were a greater challenge than anticipated because of the size of this group of clients.Another noteworthy service trend, which did not emerge from the earlier ENinterviews, is that some ENs are not accepting Tickets themselves but are referringbeneficiaries to the SVRA (which would take the Tickets), then waiting for the SVRA torefer them back for services under a fee-for-service arrangement. ENs have taken thisapproach mainly for financial reasons: they refer clients with expensive service needs theycannot afford to cover on their own. Getting such clients (back) from the SVRA or, inother words, sharing their Tickets with the SVRA, is effectively the only way they can serveindividuals with major service needs. These ENs essentially forfeited the chance to collectmilestone or outcome payments in exchange for the opportunity to receive funds guaranteedto cover service costs.It is also noteworthy that several of the ENs are taking an almost hands-off, lowintensityapproach to Ticket clients, providing relatively little in the way of direct services.These ENs have provided a bit of initial assistance—for example, such as resumedevelopment or a list of job openings—but then expect clients to conduct a job searchindependently. The rationale for this approach is twofold. First, staff feel that this is thebest way for clients to demonstrate both their initiative and their ability to succeed in theworkplace. An EN representative explained, for example, that staff would not accompanyclients to job interviews because “employers don’t want to hire someone with a helper.”Second, these ENs are trying to keep operational costs down. “We’re providing a bare-V: EN Participation in Ticket to Work