0 social security administration (ssa) ticket to work (ttw) beneficiary access and support services...

1

Social Security Administration (SSA)Ticket to Work (TTW) Beneficiary Access and SupportServices (BASS)

All-EN Call Briefing on the 2014 Ticket to Work Employment Network Beneficiary Satisfaction Survey Final Report

October 21, 2015

This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and information of the client to whom it is addressed.

2

Agenda

Background and Survey Objectives

Survey Methodology

Survey Sample

Data Collection

Changes to the 2014 Survey

Instrument

Highlights of 2014 Survey Results

Demographics of Survey Respondents

Executive Summary Results: Assigned Beneficiary

Attributes of ENs Rated

Employment Status

Comparative Analyses

“Voice of the Beneficiary”

Summary of Results: Unassigned Beneficiary

3

Background and Survey Objectives

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 requires

that:

The Commissioner

• Review the services that ENs provide by conducting periodic surveys of beneficiaries whom these ENs served

The Surveys

• Measure customer service satisfaction

The Results

• Provide beneficiaries who are prospective recipients of EN services information as they choose ENs

4

Background and Survey Objectives, cont’d

The objectives of the 2014 survey were to:

• The number of ENs with individual reportable scoresIncrease

• The results useful and actionableMake

• More insight into beneficiaries’ experiencesCapture

• Timely feedbackObtain

5

The survey measured the beneficiary’s satisfaction with the EN...and more

Overall Satisfaction with EN

Satisfaction with EN Services and Information

Satisfaction with EN Staff

Ticket assignment status and reasons for

unassigning Ticket

Considerations before Ticket assignment

Services that were needed, received and

expected to be received in the future

EN attributes liked, as well as those that

needed improvement

Beneficiary’s employment status

ENs’ role in attaining beneficiaries’ current

job

6

Beneficiaries who assigned or unassigned their Ticket were invited to participate in the 2014 survey

27,000 (random sample)

• Assigned beneficiaries• whose Ticket was “currently”

assigned to an EN for 3 months or more as of December 31st, 2014

6,000 (random sample)

• Unassigned beneficiaries• whose Ticket was unassigned

from an EN within the past year (December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014)

Assigned beneficiaries from all ENs

sizes

Large ENs (101+

beneficiaries)

Medium ENs (26 – 100

beneficiaries)Small ENs (25 beneficiaries

or less)

Those beneficiaries invited to participate in the survey*, included:

* Excluded from the survey were beneficiaries with no assignment status data.

The 2014 and 2013 surveys used the same sampling approach, which ensured that:• A final data set was representative of

both Social Security beneficiaries and ENs of differing sizes.

• The current survey sample had the same make-up as the samples in previous surveys.

7

Multiple attempts to reach out to beneficiaries were undertaken to maximize response rates

The survey was fielded between June 18, 2015, through August 25, 2015. The sequential outreach strategy that proved effective in 2013 was used to engage

prospective survey respondents and to maximize response rates.

This approach included:

– Inviting participants via a pre-survey notification postcard that contained a link to the online survey.

– Mailing a first wave of the paper version of the survey to beneficiaries who did not respond to the postcard.

– Mailing second and third waves of the paper survey to beneficiaries who did not respond to the previous solicitations.

– Conducting telephone outreach to beneficiaries from reportable ENs (those with 25 or more respondents) who failed to respond to outreach attempts.

– Providing survey materials in English or Spanish according to the beneficiary's preferred language on record with Social Security and staffing telephone operators who are fluent in Spanish.

8

65% of respondents with a Ticket assigned submitted their survey by mail

6,971 surveys were received* by beneficiaries with assigned Tickets, which covered 513 ENs and equated to a 28.4% response rate. Last year’s response rate was 31.6%.

*Surveys with at least 50% of the essential questions completed were considered received.

65%

33%

3%

Channel Used to Submit Survey

MailOnlineTelephone

*Total percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

9

Changes to the 2014 Survey Instrument

Based on the results of 2013 Ticket to Work EN Beneficiary Satisfaction Survey, new areas of inquiry were identified:– Obtain feedback from beneficiaries who decided to unassign their Ticket from their EN.– Obtain more comprehensive information regarding beneficiaries' type of employment,

specifically part-time employment.

The 2014 survey included a new population: Beneficiaries who decided to unassign their Ticket from their EN.

The following changes were incorporated in the 2014 survey instrument:– Increased the total number of questions on the survey from 22 to 23.– Included question on Ticket assignment status and reasons for unassigning Ticket.– Expanded questions and the level of reporting related to type of employment (part-time vs

full-time), and reasons for part-time employment.

Proposed changes underwent cognitive testing to validate understanding of the survey questions by prospective respondents (both assigned and unassigned beneficiaries).

10

Highlights of 2014 Survey Results: Assigned Beneficiaries

2014 Ticket to Work beneficiaries were generally satisfied with their ENs. Over half (55%) of the respondents reported being either “Completely Satisfied” (37%) or “Somewhat Satisfied” (18%).

Nearly three-quarters (72%) of assigned beneficiaries reported satisfaction with the respectfulness of EN staff.

– This was the highest rated service area.

Fewer than half of assigned beneficiaries (47%) expressed satisfaction with the information their EN provided regarding agencies in their community that could help them reach individual employment goals.

– This was the lowest rated service area across all satisfaction questions.

Almost half (47%) of beneficiaries reported help finding a job as a services that they agreed with EN as needed. However, only one-third (34%) of beneficiaries reported receiving help finding a job.

The most frequently cited as “favorable” EN attributes were their respectfulness of staff members, hours of operation and location. Most in need of improvement were information provided about local jobs, amount of time waiting for follow-up services and help provided during the job search.

11

Highlights of 2014 Survey Results: Assigned Beneficiaries, cont’d

Less than half (45%) of survey respondents report that they are currently employed. This is a higher percentage of beneficiaries than what was reported in the 2013 survey (35%).

Two-fifths (40%) of the employed respondents reported that their EN did provide services that helped them to get their current job. This is consistent with the 2013 survey (40%).

Employed beneficiaries (45%) were more likely to express satisfaction with their EN than those who are not employed.

Just under three quarters (71%) of respondents work part-time, with 93% earning an annual income of less than $20,000.

The most frequently cited reasons for part-time employment were health or disability considerations (63%), SSI and/or SSDI benefits loss considerations (21%), Medicaid or Medicare benefits loss considerations (24%).

Beneficiaries who work full-time report a higher annual income. Though roughly four in ten (39%) respondents earned a salary comparable to respondents who work part-time, a significant percentage of beneficiaries (61%) report annual earnings of $20,000 or more.

12

Highlights of 2014 Survey Results: Comparisons

Beneficiaries from smaller ENs (in terms of the number of beneficiaries served) reported higher rates of satisfaction, across all measures of satisfaction, compared to larger ENs.

Beneficiaries from One-State or Multi-State ENs report higher levels of satisfaction than beneficiaries from National ENs.

ENs with an Employer business model had the highest satisfaction score (mean score=3.71).

Some comparisons between the 2014, 2013 and 2012 survey results were made.

In 2014, a beneficiary’s overall satisfaction (mean score = 3.42) with their EN decreased slightly from the previous year (mean score = 3.45). However, the 2014 satisfaction scores are still higher than in 2012, across all the satisfaction measures.

The 2014 survey results revealed a slight decrease of beneficiaries who claimed they needed help finding a job (47%) compared to 2013 results (49%), and to 2012 results (53%).

A comparison of the areas beneficiaries liked over the past two years (2013 and 2014) shows minimal differences in likeability of the key EN attributes, which may indicate that ENs maintained service quality of the same level.

In 2013 and 2014 the beneficiaries reported all core EN services as needed and received at almost the same rate. From 2012 to 2014, the gap in needed and received services has been reducing in size across the top three services.

13

Highlights of 2014 Survey Results: Unassigned Beneficiaries

Unassigned beneficiaries are less likely to express overall satisfaction with their EN (45%), compared to assigned beneficiaries (55%).

Unassigned beneficiaries have lower satisfaction rates across all satisfaction measures compared to assigned beneficiaries, but their results follow the same pattern. Both groups of beneficiaries reported greater satisfaction with the perception of their EN staff, compared to EN services and information.

Three-fifths of unassigned beneficiaries (62%) reported being either satisfied with the respectfulness of the staff at their EN. This was the highest rated service area across all seven satisfaction questions.

Over one-third of unassigned beneficiaries (36%) expressed satisfaction with the information their EN provided regarding agencies in their community that could help them reach individual employment goals. This was the lowest rated service area across all satisfaction questions.

The most frequently cited reasons for Ticket unassignment were an inability to work because of health or disability considerations (31%), dissatisfaction with EN (22%) and termination of services by EN (15%).

14

Executive Summary of Results: Assigned Beneficiaries

15

Respondents tended to be aged 41-60 (60%) and female (52%), which is similar in distribution to last year

18 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61 - 64 65 +0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

3%6%

14%

22%

38%

12%

4%

Age of Respondents

48%52%

Gender of Respondents

MaleFemale

*Information about gender is not available for some respondents.

16

Most respondents (74%) receive only SSDI, and 48% have a mental disorder

74%

13%

13%

Disability Programs

SSDI-onlySSI-onlyConcurrent SSDI-SSI

48%

21%

31%

Type of Disability

Mental DisordersMusculoskeletal DisordersOther

17

Small, one-state ENs are predominant

49.3% of Employment Networks serve 25 or less beneficiaries. 77.2% of ENs are in a single state.

18

Overall Satisfaction:

My overall satisfaction with my EN.

Satisfaction with EN services/information:

The usefulness of the services from my EN in helping me meet

my employment goals.

The information my EN gave me about other agencies in my

community that could help me reach my employment goal.

The ability of my EN to help me understand the types of jobs available in my community.

Satisfaction with EN Staff:

The respectfulness the staff at my EN.

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my EN.

The ability of staff members at my EN to support me

Respondents were asked about their level of satisfaction related to seven key measures

Measurement scale:Respondents were asked to

rate their level of satisfaction on a five-point scale that ranged from “Completely Dissatisfied”

to “Completely Satisfied.” Responses of “Completely

Dissatisfied” were assigned a rating of “1”, while responses of

“Completely Satisfied” were assigned a rating of “5.”

19

Overall, beneficiaries are relatively satisfied with their ENs

%10%20%30%40%

20%11% 14%

18%

37%

My overall satisfaction with my EN (n=6,923)

55% of beneficiaries are either “Completely Satisfied” or “Somewhat Satisfied” with their ENs, while 31% are either “Completely Dissatisfied” or “Somewhat Dissatisfied.”

20

Executive Summary of Results: Satisfaction with EN Staff

Satisfaction with Completely Dissatisfied

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Completely Satisfied

The respectfulness of the staff at my EN (n=6,918) 10% 5% 13% 16% 56%

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my EN

(n=6,919)15% 9% 16% 19% 41%

The ability of staff members at my EN to support me (n=6,923) 17% 11% 14% 19% 39%


21

Executive Summary of Results: Satisfaction with EN Services and Information




Somewhat Satisfied


The ability of my EN to help me understand the types of jobs

available in my community (n=6,919)19% 11% 19% 17% 34%

The usefulness of the services provided by my EN in helping me

meet my employment goals (n=6,915)

22% 11% 17% 17% 34%

The information my EN gave me about other agencies in my

community that could help me reach my employment goal (n=6,901)

21% 10% 21% 17% 30%


22

In comparison to overall satisfaction, beneficiaries were statistically more satisfied with EN staff, but less satisfied with EN services and information

* A five-point satisfaction scale with “Completely Dissatisfied” rated as “1” and “Completely Satisfied” rated as “5.”* Items in green indicate that the mean satisfaction score for that particular question is statistically higher than the overall satisfaction score.*Items in red indicate that the mean satisfaction score for that particular question is statistically lower than the overall satisfaction score.

Satisfaction 2014 Mean score

Overall Satisfaction

My satisfaction with my Employment Network overall 3.42


The respectfulness of the staff at my Employment Network 4.04

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my Employment Network 3.62

The ability of staff members at my Employment Network to support me 3.52

Satisfaction with Services and Information

The usefulness of the services provided by my Employment Network in helping me meet my employment goals

3.31

The ability of my Employment Network to help me understand the types of jobs available in my community

3.37

The information my Employment Network gave me about other agencies in my community that could help me reach my employment goal

3.24

23

Assigned Beneficiary Overall Satisfaction by Survey Edition

My satisfaction with my Employment Network overall

3.32 3.34 3.36 3.38 3.4 3.42 3.44 3.46

3.42

3.45

3.37


2012 2013 2014*The 2012 survey included only ENs with 25 respondents or more, unlike the 2013 and 2014 surveys that included all EN sizes.

**A 5-point satisfaction scale with “Completely Dissatisfied” rated as “1” and “Completely Satisfied” rated as “5.”

Mean overall satisfaction score dipped slightly in 2014, compared to 2013, but is still higher than in 2012.

24

Compared to last year, beneficiaries are less satisfied with EN services and information




3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

3.31

3.37

3.24

3.35

3.43

3.27

3.25

3.31

3.15


2012 2013 2014

The biggest decrease in satisfaction related to the ENs ability to help their beneficiaries understand the types of jobs available in their communities.

*The 2012 survey included only ENs with 25 respondents or more, unlike the 2013 and 2014 surveys that included all EN sizes.**A 5-point satisfaction scale with “Completely Dissatisfied” rated as “1” and “Completely Satisfied” rated as “5.”

25

Compared to 2012, beneficiaries are more satisfied with EN Staff, but are less satisfied in two of three domains compared to 2013

The respectfulness of the staff at my Employment Network

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my Employment Network

The ability of staff members at my Employment Network to support me

3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1

4.04

3.62

3.52

4.14

3.69

3.43

4

3.57

3.48


2012 2013 2014Mean satisfaction with the ability of EN staff to support the beneficiary rose in 2014, but fell

in the other two domains

*The 2012 survey included only ENs with 25 respondents or more, unlike the 2013 and 2014 surveys that included all EN sizes.**A 5-point satisfaction scale with “Completely Dissatisfied” rated as “1” and “Completely Satisfied” rated as “5.”

26

Core Services Needed, Received or Expected

As in the preceding survey, the 2014 Ticket to Work Beneficiary Satisfaction Survey provided respondents with a list of six core EN services and asked beneficiaries to select the following:

– Those services that they and their EN agreed were needed.

– Services they actually received from their EN.

– Services they expected to receive in the future.

For each of these categories, respondents were given a list of the following six services:

Career planning Help finding a job

Job coaching/ training Ongoing support to keep a job

27

The largest gaps between what beneficiaries reported that they needed and received were help finding a job (13%) and career planning (11%)

*Total percentages may not add up to 100% because this question allows respondents to provide multiple responses.

Help obtaining services from other organizations

Benefits counseling or referral to benefits counseling

Job coaching/ training

Ongoing support to keep a job

Career planning

Help finding a job

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

26%

27%

24%

29%

24%

29%

15%

22%

24%

24%

23%

34%

25%

27%

31%

31%

34%

47%

Core EN Beneficiary Services Needed, Received and Expected (n=6,971)

NeededReceivedExpected

28

From 2012 to 2014, the gap in the reported services as needed and received services has been reducing across the top three services

*The 2014 TTW survey: N=6,971.*The 2013 TTW survey: N=7,862. *The 2012 TTW survey: N=7,105.


Career planning

Help finding a job


Career planning

Help finding a job


Career planning

Help finding a job

20

14

20

13

20

12

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

24%

23%

34%

24%

20%

33%

26%

24%

25%

31%

34%

47%

32%

34%

49%

39%

40%

53%

Services Needed and Received by Survey Edition

Needed Received

29

EN Attributes: Beneficiaries most liked the respectfulness of staff members, hours of operation and location of their EN

*Total percentages may not add up to 100% because this question allows respondents to provide multiple responses.

Information provided about local jobs

Amount of time waiting for follow-up services

Help provided during job search

Information in accessible formats (e.g., Braille, online, print, another language)

Quality of services

Support received from staff

Responsiveness of staff in returning phone calls and emails

Location

Hours of operation

Respectfulness of staff members

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

40%

37%

38%

20%

33%

30%

29%

21%

16%

15%

41%

41%

44%

44%

52%

55%

58%

61%

62%

73%

Areas Beneficiaries Liked About Their EN and Areas Beneficiaries Think Need to Improve (n=6,971)

LikedNeeds to Improve

However, they mentioned that areas that need improvement include the help provided during the job search, the amount of time waiting for follow-up services and the information provided about local jobs.

30

A comparison of the areas beneficiaries liked over the past two years (2013 and 2014) shows minimal differences in likeability of the key EN attributes, which are all higher than reported in 2012.

*Question new to 2013 survey edition. Data not available for 2012 survey edition.*The 2014 TTW survey: N=6,971.*The 2013 TTW survey: N=7,862. *The 2012 TTW survey: N=7,105.

Information provided about local jobs*


Help provided during job search*


Quality of services

Support received from staff*


Location

Hours of operation

Respectfulness of staff members*

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

41%

40%

44%

44%

52%

55%

58%

62%

61%

72%

41%

41%

44%

44%

52%

55%

58%

61%

62%

73%

37%

40%

47%

48%

51%

56%

Areas Beneficiaries Liked About Their EN by Year

201420132012

31

A comparison of the areas beneficiaries thought ENs needed improvement in 2013 and 2014 reveals only small differences

Respectfulness of staff members*

Hours of operation


Location


Support received from staff*

Quality of services


Help provided during job search*

Information provided about local jobs*

% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

15%

17%

20%

20%

28%

30%

33%

38%

37%

39%

15%

16%

20%

21%

29%

30%

33%

37%

38%

40%

19%

19%

23%

28%

35%

36%

Areas Beneficiaries Felt Their EN Needed to Improve by Year

201420132012

*Question new to 2013 survey edition. Data not available for 2012 survey edition.*The 2014 TTW survey: N=6,971.*The 2013 TTW survey: N=7,862. *The 2012 TTW survey: N=7,105.

32

More than half of beneficiaries (55%) report being unemployed

55%

45%

Employment Status (n=6,844)

Not Currently Employed Employed Part-Time or Full-Time

40% of employed respondents said their EN provided services which helped them obtain their current job.

33

Most employed beneficiaries work part-time (71%)

29%

71%

Type of Employment (n=3,057)

Full-Time Part-Time

34

The most frequently cited reasons for part-time employment were health or disability considerations, concerns over SSI and/or SSDI benefits loss and loss of Medicaid or Medicare benefits

Other

Intended as initial entry/ re-entry to work force

Personal choice

Only available form of employment

Do not want to lose my Medicaid or Medicare benefits

Do not want to lose my SSI and/or SSDI benefits

Health or disability considerations

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

12%

13%

20%

21%

24%

31%

62%

Reasons for Part-Time Employment Status (n=2,291)

*The total percentage does not add up to 100% because this question allows respondents to provide multiple responses.

35

Among beneficiaries who reported working part-time, over one in ten (13%) reported having previously worked full-time after their ticket was assigned

13%

87%

Have You Ever Worked Full-Time Since You Assigned Your Ticket? (n=2,169)

Yes No

36

Health or disability considerations drove change from full-time to part-time employment

Working multiple part-time jobs

Left for personal reasons

Workplace issues

Did not want to lose my SSI and/or SSDI benefits

Health or disability considerations

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

3%

5%

10%

11%

13%

13%

15%

15%

45%

Reasons for No Longer Working Full-Time (n=388)

*The total percentage does not add up to 100% because this question allows respondents to provide multiple responses.

37

Comparative Analysis: Satisfaction by EN Geographic Coverage

SatisfactionOVERALL

(n=513 ENs)One State

(n=396 ENs)Multi State(n=79 ENs)

National(n=38 ENs)

Overall satisfaction

My satisfaction with my EN overall 3.42 3.44 3.42 3.37


The respectfulness of the staff at my EN 4.04 4.06 4.04 4.00

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my EN 3.62 3.65 3.58 3.58

The ability of staff members at my EN to support me 3.52 3.54 3.50 3.46


The usefulness of the services provided by my EN in helping me meet my employment goals

3.31 3.34 3.30 3.23

The ability of my EN to help me understand the types of jobs available in my community

3.37 3.42 3.35 3.24

The information my EN gave me about other agencies in my community that could help me reach my employment goal

3.24 3.29 3.20 3.09

* Items in green denote that a mean rating is statistically significantly higher compared to overall based on t-testing at.05 level.*Items in red denote that a mean rating is statistically significantly lower decrease compared to overall based on t-testing at.05 level.

38

Comparative Analysis: Satisfaction by EN Size

SatisfactionSmall

(25 beneficiaries or less)

Medium(25 – 100

beneficiaries)

Large(101 +

beneficiaries)


My satisfaction with my EN overall 3.67 3.41* 3.38(NS)


The respectfulness of the staff at my EN 4.21 4.07* 3.99**

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my EN 3.83 3.63* 3.57(NS)

The ability of staff members at my EN to support me 3.74 3.54* 3.45**



3.55 3.32* 3.25(NS)


3.64 3.41* 3.29**


3.46 3.29* 3.16**

* Statistically significant difference between Small- and Medium- size ENs based on t-testing at.05 level.** Statistically significant difference between Medium and Large ENs based on t-testing at 0.05 level.NS – The difference between Medium and Large ENs is not statistically significant based on t-testing at 0.05 level.

39

Comparative Analysis: Satisfaction by Business Model

* Items in green denote a statistically significant increase based on t-testing at .05 level.* Items in red denote a statistically significant decrease based on t-testing at.05 level.

ENs with an Employer business model had the highest satisfaction score (mean score = 3.71).

Satisfaction Administrative Employer Traditional CDS


My satisfaction with my EN overall 3.45 3.71 3.44 3.33


The respectfulness of the staff at my EN 3.89 4.19 4.08 3.89

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my EN 3.60 3.83 3.65 3.44

The ability of staff members at my EN to support me 3.59 3.70 3.54 3.40



3.43 3.68 3.33 3.15


3.43 3.49 3.42 3.06


3.38 3.58 3.26 2.99

40

Disability Benefits vs Employment Considerations

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Diasagree

Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree%

10%

20%

30%27%

10%

27%

12%

24%

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "It is my goal to substitute or reduce my need for disability cash benefits with earnings from

work." (n=6,630)

41

Most beneficiaries choose to work with the first EN they contacted

0 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 or more-10%

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

39%

28%25%

5% 4%

Number of ENs Beneficiary Contacted Prior to Assigning Ticket (n=6,849)

Among those beneficiaries that did compare, 53% contacted up to three ENs.

42

63% of beneficiaries provided open-ended comments about how to improve the Ticket to Work program, which fall into four themes

Job placement and employee assistance services with more help from EN staff in keeping jobs and a wider range of job training and educational opportunities

Communication between beneficiaries and EN staff and EN staff responsiveness

Job knowledge, motivation and soft skills of EN staff

“Voice of the Beneficiary” Areas of Improvement

43

Voice of the Beneficiary: Most Frequently Cited Areas for Improvement

Just under two-fifths (39%) of respondents identified a need for improvement of job placement and employment assistance services:– Reported a need for more assistance and support from their EN with finding a job and more involvement

from their EN in providing specific information about different opportunities for employment;– Requested improvement in the job leads fit to the beneficiaries past experience, education, location,

interests, and disability or health conditions.– Expressed interest in receiving more training through the Ticket to Work program or their EN

The second group (14%) of concerns were related to communication between Ticket to Work beneficiaries and their EN staff:– Beneficiaries reported delayed follow-up from ENs and issues with ENs responsiveness to beneficiaries

trying to reach out or contact them. Preferences for modalities of contact can be more efficient and convenient for beneficiaries.

Dissatisfaction with EN staff job knowledge, motivation and soft skills was another reoccurring theme (14%):– Beneficiaries were dissatisfied with EN staff’s lack of motivation in assisting them;– Many believed their EN staff needed relevant training for working with individuals with disabilities.

A smaller, yet notable, proportion (8%) of beneficiaries that requested improvements related to the program policies and a range of benefits provided by the Ticket to Work program, reported: – Concerns over their loss of eligibility for benefits due to their participation in the program;– The amount of paperwork was burdensome, and confusing.

44

Summary of Results: Unassigned Beneficiaries

45

65% of respondents with an unassigned Ticket submitted their survey by mail

1,251 surveys were received* by beneficiaries with unassigned Tickets, equating to a 23.2% response rate.

*Surveys with at least 50% of the essential questions completed were considered received.

65%

35%

Channel Used to Submit Survey

MailOnline

46

Unassigned respondents tended to be aged 41-60 (56%) and female (56%)

18 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 61 - 64 65 +0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

3% 5%

14%

23%

33%

12% 10%

Age of Unassigned Respondents

44%56%

Gender of Unassigned Re-spondents

Male Female*Total percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding

47

Most unassigned respondents (75%) receive only SSDI, and 48% have a mental disorder

75%

13%

12%

Disability Programs of Unassigned Respondents

SSDI-only SSI-onlyConcurrent SSDI-SSI

48%

21%

30%

Disability Type of Unassigned Respondents

Mental Impairments Musculoskeletal DisordersOther

48

The main reason beneficiaries unassigned their Tickets was due to their inability to work because of health or disability issues (31%)

Do not want or need employment

Do not want to lose my Medicaid or Medicare benefits

Do not want to lose my SSI and/or SSDI benefits

Employment Network terminated their services or unassigned my Ticket

Dissatisfied with my Employment Network

Other

Unable to work because of health or disability reasons

% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

5%

10%

12%

15%

22%

24%

31%

Reasons for Beneficiary Ticket Unassignment (n=510)

49

Overall, beneficiaries with unassigned Tickets are more likely to be dissatisfied with their ENs

%10%20%30%40%

28%

13% 14% 17%27%

My overall satisfaction with my EN (n=1,244)

Under half (42%) report being dissatisfied, with under one third (29%) “Completely Dissatisfied” with an additional 13% reporting that they are “Somewhat Dissatisfied”.

50

Unassigned Beneficiaries’ Satisfaction with EN Staff





Somewhat Satisfied


The respectfulness of the staff at my EN

(n=1,241)15% 6% 17% 16% 46%

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my EN

(n=1,240)20% 12% 18% 19% 31%

The ability of staff members at my EN to support me

(n=1,243)25% 14% 16% 18% 27%

51

Unassigned Beneficiaries’ Satisfaction with EN’s Services and Information




Somewhat Satisfied


The ability of my EN to help me understand the types of jobs available in

my community (n=1,243)

25% 14% 19% 16% 26%

The usefulness of the services provided by my EN in helping me meet my

employment goals (n=1,246)

30% 13% 17% 15% 25%

The information my EN gave me about other agencies in my community that could help me reach my employment

goal (n=1,243)

30% 12% 22% 14% 22%


52

Overall Satisfaction by Ticket Assignment Status

My satisfaction with my Employment Network overall*

2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

3.42

3.01


Unassigned Beneficiary Assigned Beneficiary* Statistically significant based on the t-testing at .05 level.

53

Satisfaction with EN Staff by Ticket Assignment Status

The respectfulness of the staff at my Employment Network*

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my Employment Network*

The ability of staff members at my Employment Network to support me*

3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2

4.04

3.62

3.52

3.73

3.27

3.08


Unassigned Beneficiary Assigned Beneficiary

The largest gap between unassigned and assigned beneficiaries is in regards to how they felttheir EN’s staff were able to support them.

* Statistically significant based on the t-testing at .05 level.

54

Satisfaction with EN Services and Information byTicket Assignment Status

The usefulness of the services provided by my Employment Network in helping me meet my employment goals*

The ability of my Employment Network to help me understand the types of jobs available in my community*

The information my Employment Network gave me about other agencies in my community that could help me reach my employment goal*

2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

3.31

3.37

3.24

2.91

3.03

2.86


Unassigned Beneficiary Assigned Beneficiary* Statistically significant based on the t-testing at .05 level.

The largest gap between unassigned and assigned beneficiaries is in regards to the information received about other agencies in the community that could help the beneficiary meet his or her employment goals.

55

ENs with Reportable Scores

For an EN’s satisfaction scores to be reported, a minimum of 25 of its clients must have responded to the Beneficiary Satisfaction Survey. This threshold was set to ensure that the scores were robust and statistically valid and could be compared to other ENs and the national average.

An "index score" was used to show how the ENs’ average scores for the survey questions compare to the national average score.

For example, if an EN's average score was equal to the national average then its index score was 100. If an EN's average score was 5 percent greater than the national average its index score was 105. If an EN's average score was 15 percent less than the national average its index score was 85. Based on the National Average Index Sore of 100:

If the EN’s Index Score was The EN’s Score was Labeled

Greater than or equal to 110 “Excellent”

Greater than 90 and less than 110 “Good”

Less than or equal to 90 “Fair”

56

Comparative Analysis: ENs with Reportable Scores

Satisfaction Excellent Good Fair


My satisfaction with my Employment Network overall 28% 44% 27%


The respectfulness of the staff at my Employment Network 14% 72% 15%

The knowledge of staff members I interacted with at my Employment Network 25% 52% 23%

The ability of staff members at my Employment Network to support me 28% 46% 26%

Satisfaction with Services and Information


28% 46% 26%


26% 44% 30%


26% 46% 28%

0 social security administration (ssa) ticket to work (ttw) beneficiary access and support services...

Documents

beneficiaries medium

beneficiaries small

ens slide

beneficiaries experiences

current survey sample

en satisfaction

prospective survey respondents

social security beneficiaries