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

73worked or acquired work skills or training, so they never had the opportunity todevelop realistic expectations about job content or availability. To serve theseindividuals, ENs would have to offer a plethora of long-term services for whichthey would probably never be paid.Because of problems such as these, nine of the 10 former EN representatives said theyhad no firm plans to reassess their decision to leave TTW; only one planned to reconsiderthe program relatively soon. Some saw termination as permanent, but others were moreopen to rejoining the program under certain circumstances—for example, if the paymentsystem were changed substantially (providing up-front payments or payments forbeneficiaries who go to work part time), or if they could identify other funding sources thatwould enable them to provide up-front services to TTW beneficiaries.2. Financing TTW ServicesENs’ participation and success in TTW depends heavily on their ability to finance theservices necessary to return TTW beneficiaries to work. How to pay for services—when itcould be a long time before those costs are recouped through Ticket payments if they arerecouped at all—has been a significant issue for ENs since the beginning of the program andwas discussed in both the initial evaluation report and the preliminary process evaluationreport. Recent interviews with 29 EN representatives suggest that ENs dealt with thefinancing of TTW services in two ways. First, most of them took a cautious approach toservice provision, reducing risk by keeping costs down and selecting clients with the mostpotential for success. Second, they paid for the up-front services to TTW clients withgeneral agency funds or other existing funds such as profits from fee-for-service contracts orgrants from developmental disabilities, mental health, and vocational rehabilitationprograms. None of the ENs we contacted had obtained new funding sources specifically tofinance up-front TTW costs.Only one of the EN officials we spoke with said her agency had sought formal approvalfrom its government funding sources to use their funds to serve Ticket holders. Althoughneither funding source objected, this official expressed concern that if the EN began tobring in significant revenue from TTW, the funding agencies might begin to object, seeingthe EN as “double-dipping”—that is, getting funds from two sources for the same servicesto the same clients. She worried that if this perception took hold, the more stablegovernment funding sources might withdraw their support.One EN representative from a private for-profit staffing agency serving multiple statesdescribed a financing approach that apparently none of the others had taken. The agencydevotes one-quarter of a full-time equivalent (FTE) position, funded through existingrevenues, to certain upfront services such as client screening, but uses part-time contractorson a commission basis to provide job placement and follow-up services to beneficiaries.These contractors provide generally similar services for a variety of other agencies andworked for this EN to earn extra cash. They receive no base pay but are paid $100 for eachindividual work plan (IWP) they develop as well as an additional amount for each milestoneor outcome payment a beneficiary eventually generates. Thus far, however, the agency hasV: EN Participation in Ticket to Work