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

February 2002 in only 13 states, it is unlikely that TTW alone could have had such a dramaticeffect on the number of claims submitted by SVRAs and approved by SSA.Both SSA and RSA officials have stated that the recent economic recession has affectedpayments made under the traditional payment system in two ways (Stafford 2004). First, therecession constricted the job market in many states, making it difficult for SVRAs to findjobs for SSA beneficiaries. Second, the recession put a heavy strain on state budgets and, byextension, reduced state funding to SVRAs. Faced with fewer resources, SVRAs could notoffer services (or enough services) to everyone on their caseload, including disabilitybeneficiaries. In fact, as of December 2004, 61 percent of SVRAs were rationing services toeligible people with disabilities (that is, they were operating on “order of selection”). Theresulting decline in the number of disability beneficiaries who secured a job reduced SSApayments to SVRAs.While it seems likely that the economy affected SSA payments to SVRAs, its effect ondisability beneficiaries appears to differ from its effect on other SVRA clients. For example,RSA data on the rate at which SVRA clients are placed in competitive employment suggestthat, while the rate fell for SSA beneficiaries, it did not fall for other SVRA clients (FigureVI.4). This difference may be an artifact of changes in how RSA data are collected. 4Alternatively, it could reflect the fact that disability beneficiaries have a steady source ofincome from SSA or that state fiscal pressures are leading SVRAs--either knowingly orunknowingly--to limit the amount of services provided to beneficiary clients. In our nextreport, we will examine this possibility by using RSA data that have been matched to SSAdata.Beneficiary participation in TTW through SVRAs will continue to be an important issuein future reports. The following discussion addresses various aspects of SVRA operationsunder TTW, revisiting some of the major issues documented in past reports.99B. TICKET ASSIGNMENT PRACTICESSVRAs appear to be approaching Ticket assignment in a way that differs from theirapproach when TTW was first rolled out in February 2002. At that time, Phase 1 SVRAsprepared for what they expected to be an onslaught of new applicants by developing callcenters and assigning new staff to handle such cases. When the response from new Ticketrecipients was weaker than anticipated, SVRAs turned their attention to obtaining Ticketassignments from beneficiaries already on their caseloads, in large part to prevent them from4 Before FY2002, SVRAs were required to report only if clients received SSA benefits at any point duringtheir receipt of RSA services. From FY2002 forward, they were required to report receipt separately at bothclient application for SVRA services and closure. Hence, our method for identification of SSA beneficiaryclients in FY2002 and FY2003 (any client who is reported to receive benefits at application or closure) differsfrom our method for earlier years (any client reported to have received benefits at any time during the servicedelivery period). Note that the divergence in competitive employment trends for beneficiary andnonbeneficiary clients begins in FY2002, which would be consistent with the possibility that a change inreporting is the cause. It is not apparent, however, why the particular change would have the observed effect.VI: State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Participation in Ticket to Work