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

outcome trends are also notable. A distinctly different rate of change in an outcome measurebetween participants and nonparticipants after Tickets were mailed could signal an effect ofthe new program.Figure IV.1 shows that Ticket recipients who were SSI beneficiaries had a lessconsistent pattern of benefit receipt during the year before Tickets were mailed than didrecipients who were DI beneficiaries. Entry of new beneficiaries onto the program rolls islikely an important reason for inconsistent benefit receipt during the pre-mailing period forboth SSI and DI. In addition, transitions between employment and dependency are likely animportant reason for SSI, because SSI program rules are conducive to such transitions. Suchtransitions also occur for DI among those in their extended period of eligibility, but are likelyless frequent. After Tickets were mailed, we expect that most transitions off assistance bymembers of the target population in either program were to employment.Because transitions between employment and dependency are likely an importantsource of inconsistency in benefit receipt both before and after Tickets were mailed for SSIrecipients, pre-post comparisons of differences in levels of outcomes between TTWparticipants and nonparticipants are an attractive way to assess the possible effects of TTWon those beneficiaries. In contrast, because we think that inconsistency in benefit receipt forDI is primarily due to new enrollments before Tickets were mailed and to exits from therolls for work after they were mailed, postmailing differences between participants andnonparticipants in outcome trends may be more useful indicators of the possible effects ofTTW on DI beneficiaries than pre-post comparisons of differences in levels betweenparticipants and nonparticipants.2. Zero BenefitsDI and SSI beneficiaries who participated in TTW were more likely thannonparticipants to receive zero benefits early in the year before Tickets were mailed (FigureIV.4). This is one more way in which participants differed from nonparticipants prior tomailing, in addition to the differences discussed in Chapter III. However, the participantnonparticipantdifference in this outcome diminished for both program groups as the mailmonth approached. It essentially disappeared by the mail month for SSI recipients. And forDI recipients, the sign of the difference switched from positive to negative, meaning thatTTW participants were less likely than nonparticipants to receive zero benefits during themail month.After Tickets were mailed, the proportion of DI and SSI beneficiaries who werereceiving zero benefits increased for both TTW participants and nonparticipants, but theincrease was greater for participants. Consequently, about midway through the follow-upperiod, a positive participant-nonparticipant gap re-emerged for beneficiaries of bothprograms. The gap continued to grow through month 15, when it was six-tenths of onepercentage point for DI recipients and 1.3 percentage points for SSI recipients. Among DIrecipients, the participant-nonparticipant difference in the rate of receipt of zero benefitswas essentially the same 15 months after Tickets were mailed as it was 12 months beforethey were mailed. In contrast, among SSI recipients, the participant-nonparticipant gap at59IV: Early Outcomes for Ticket Recipients