Given the current Ticket to Work regulations, what changes would you make to the payment policies, partnership plus, ticket eligibility, and timely progress review?
National Disability Forum: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 - Ticket to Work
National Disability Forum:
Wednesday, April 5, 2017 - Ticket to Work
National Education Association Washington, D.C. 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
A Forum for All Interested Disability Stakeholders
SSA designed the National Disability Forum meetings to give all interested stakeholders an opportunity to share their unique insights on topics of particular interest to SSA early in the process and directly with policy makers. Further, it provides an opportunity for stakeholders to hear from one another. Open to anyone interested, the National Disability Forum is not intended to be a means for reaching agreement on an issue, and SSA’s participation is only for the purpose of gaining insight through listening.
We are soliciting public input on whether and how we might revise the current Ticket to Work program rules. The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 established the Ticket to Work program to allow individuals with disabilities to seek services to obtain and retain employment in order to reduce dependency on cash benefit programs. In creating the program, Congress found that eliminating barriers to work and providing individuals with real choice in obtaining services and technology to find, enter, and maintain employment can greatly improve the short and long-term financial independence and personal well-being of our beneficiaries.
We want to explore improving our Ticket to Work program as part of our ongoing effort to help our beneficiaries find and maintain employment that leads to increased independence and enhanced productivity. If we propose specific revisions to our regulations, we will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register.
Please review all sixteen (16) questions below:
IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS for commenting
You can submit a comment/idea by pressing the “Submit New Idea” button in the right column of the page. If you are a “New User” you may be asked to register. Click HERE for directions on how to engage.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement:
“Paperwork Reduction Act Statement – This information collection meets the requirements of 44 U.S.C. §3507, as amended by section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. You do not need to answer these questions (OR participate in this focus group OR complete this telephone survey) unless we display a valid Office of Management and Budget control number. We estimate that it will take about 2 minutes to read the instructions, gather the facts, and answer the questions. You may send comments on our time estimate above to: SSA, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. Send only comments relating to our time estimate to this address, not the completed form.”
OMB NUMBER: 0960-0788
What incentives could we offer to help ensure ENs are financially and organizationally viable?
Would offering beneficiaries financial education and planning services be appropriate for the program? If so, how could we accomplish this through changes to the program regulations?
How could we structure and present information to increase participation in and effectiveness of the program?
What employment support models are likely to be most effective in achieving the intent and goals of the program?
What incentives could we offer ENs for collaborating effectively with employers, VR agencies, public work force systems, WIPAs and other entities assisting our disability beneficiaries?
Fund more benefit planners with Workforce experience that have a mandated partnership at local SSA offices to assist with employment / wage reporting and any disputes. Creating a more direct line of communication, Workforce can assist with getting the correct information out there.
What service barriers or administrative complexities do ENs face that inhibit their ability to serve our beneficiaries?
How might we encourage more organizations that can provide appropriate services to our beneficiaries to participate as ENs?
Should we adjust our payment systems to increase EN payments when a beneficiary earns more than the SGA level for sustained periods? If so, what adjustments could we make without increasing overall program costs?
Should we adjust our payment systems to provide even more EN payments than we currently do for helping a beneficiary secure and maintain part-time employment below the SGA level? If so, how might such a payment differ from the EN payments for a beneficiary earning at or above the SGA level?
What are some barriers that ENs face? How might we adjust our rules to help ENs succeed at providing the services and support beneficiaries need to find and maintain employment?