Please Note: This is not the official Advice Report to the Commissioner 

of the Social Security Administration on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for the Ticket to Work and Self Sufficiency Program. This is 

a duplicate version that is similar to the original, but may have small 

differences. In instances where differences are found, the original, 

hard-copy of the document should be used. 
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel 

Advice Report to the Commissioner Of Social Security Administration 

on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Ticket to Work and Self 

Sufficiency Program 

July 26, 2001 

 2 
Message from the Panel 

It is the Panel’s distinct honor to transmit to the Commissioner of Social Security 

its Advice Report on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), published in

the Federal Register on December 28, 2000, for the Ticket to Work and SelfSufficiency Program. The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act 

of 1999 (Public Law 106-170) authorizes the Ticket program to expand the

universe of service providers available to beneficiaries with disabilities. Social 

Security beneficiaries who are seeking employment services, vocational 

rehabilitation services, and other support services to assist them in obtaining,

regaining, and maintaining gainful employment can use a ticket and other work 

incentives to secure work. 

The recommendations in this report represent the Panel’s informed deliberations 

after publication of a Preliminary Advice Report on February 21, 2001, public 

meetings and regional meetings, expert input from the field, briefings from

Agency officials, and further research and analysis by the Panel. The Panel 

wishes to thank the Agency staff for their cooperation and support of the Panel’s 

efforts and to acknowledge the Agency for its progress on implementation. 

It is the Panel’s duty to advise and assist the Commissioner in the successful 

implementation of the Ticket program so that individuals with disabilities 

nationwide can secure self-supporting employment. The Panel believes this 

report is an important step toward successful implementation. 

 3 
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents 3

 

Executive Summary and Recommendations 4 

 

NPRM Issues, Public Input, Discussion and Recommendations 10 

 Introduction 

 NPRM Issue Areas 

Ticket to Work and Beneficiary Use 

Employment Network Requirements and Qualifications

Dispute Resolution and Mediation 

Employment Network Payment 

Related Program Issues

Appendices 36

A. Schedule of Panel Meetings and Other Activities 

B. List of Commenters 

C. Letter to Commissioner Halter concerning Agency plans for 

implementation and first year roll-out 

D. Response from the Office of the Actuary on Cost Implications of Proposals 

E. Two EN Milestone Payment Models for SSI 

F. Summary of Critical Issues Raised in Public Comments 

G. Information in Response to Panel’s Questions on Plan for and Impact of 

Ticket Rollout 

H. How to Contact the Panel 

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel 

 4 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This Advice Report represents the further thinking, public input, deliberations, 

analysis and recommendations of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 

Advisory Panel (the Panel). The Advice Report builds on the advice and 

deliberations included in the Preliminary Advice Report (PAR) sent to the 

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on the proposed rules for the 

Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program on February 21, 2001. The 

proposed rules appeared in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published 

in the Federal Register on December 28, 2000. The Panel collected additional 

information, did further analysis, solicited additional public comment and further 

deliberated in order to develop and submit this Advice Report on the NPRM to 

the Commissioner. 

Public Law 106-170, The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act 

of 1999, established programs that are designed to provide SSA beneficiaries 

with disabilities with a broader array of providers and improved access to 

employment services and supports, vocational rehabilitation services and other 

support services. The Law also established the Ticket to Work and Work 

Incentives Advisory Panel, whose duty is to advise the Commissioner of Social

Security and the President and Congress on issues related to work incentive 

programs, planning and assistance for individuals with disabilities and the Ticket 

to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program established under the Act.

The Panel is composed of twelve individuals, four of whom were appointed by 

the President, four by the Senate and four by the House of Representatives. The 

appointees represent a cross-section of individuals with experience and expert 

knowledge as beneficiaries, consumer advocates, providers, researchers, legal

advocates, employers and individuals in the fields of employment services, 

vocational rehabilitation and other related support services. The majority of the 

members are individuals with disabilities or their representatives. There are 

current or former disability beneficiaries of Social Security on the Panel as well. 

A summary of the Panel’s twenty-four final recommendations to the 

Commissioner of SSA on the proposed rules precedes the full report. They are 

separated into four categories. The numbering and sequence of the 

recommendations do not reflect the order of importance. 

 5 
SUMMARY OF PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED RULES 

TICKET TO WORK AND BENEFICIARY USE

Recommendation 1: All SSI and SSDI adult disability beneficiaries, including 

those with a Medical Improvement Expected (MIE) designation, should be 

eligible to participate in the Ticket program.

Recommendation 2: Sixteen (16) and seventeen (17) year-old beneficiaries, 

including those with an MIE designation, should be eligible to participate in the 

Ticket program. 

Recommendation 3: Eighteen (18) year-old beneficiaries who participate in 

the Ticket program should receive the same protection from redeterminations as 

other ticket users receive against CDR’s. 

Recommendation 4: SSA should conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the 

feasibility of a beneficiary receiving more than one ticket within a period of 

disability and/or a period of eligibility. The Agency should assess the potential 

cost impact of beneficiaries using more than one ticket in the Agency’s overall 

evaluation report due to Congress. 

EMPLOYMENT NETWORK REQUIREMENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Recommendation 5: An employment network (EN) should be required to

retain staff that are otherwise qualified based on education or direct services 

experience, such as employees with a college degree in a related field, including 

but not limited to vocational counseling, education, human resources, human

relations, social work, teaching, or psychology or employees with equivalent

experience. SSA should not require licensure and/or certification that would 

exclude employers or other types of providers qualified to work with people with 

disabilities such as those who offer non-traditional supports that result in 

employment. The key criterion should be whether the entity is capable of 

successfully providing the service agreed to by the EN and the beneficiary. SSA 

should delete Section 411.315(c). The State agency certification process should 

not be used to limit who can participate as an EN in the Ticket program. 

Recommendation 6: Delete Section 411.325(g) and Section 411.325(h) from 

the list of EN reporting and collection requirements. Section 411.325(g) 

currently requires “...among other things, submitting to the Program Manager, on 

an annual basis, a financial report that shows the percentage of the employment 

network’s budget that was spent on serving beneficiaries with tickets...”

 6 
Recommendation 7: The Panel recommends that timely progress be defined 

by the terms and conditions of the IWP, as agreed to by the beneficiary and the 

EN. The reporting mechanism should be the annual report in Section 

411.325(e). 

Recommendation 8: SSA should permit other individualized service delivery 

plans to be used as substitutes to the IWP provided they meet the minimum 

requirements detailed in the statute. 

Recommendation 9: SSA should re-write Section 411.385 to clarify that

an SSA beneficiary, whether a youth or adult, with a ticket who applies 

for or is receiving State Vocational Rehabilitation services has a choice 

in deciding whether to assign his/her ticket to the State VR agency, to 

assign it to another EN, or not to assign it at all. An 18-year old who is 

already receiving VR services and who then receives a ticket from SSA, 

should not be required to deposit the ticket with the State VR system.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

Recommendation 10: All beneficiaries should have access to Protection and 

Advocacy (P&A) services. 

Recommendation 11: Mediation should be available as an avenue for

resolving disputes but it should not be mandatory. It should be an option 

available to the parties to the dispute, after the Program Manager has considered 

the matter for resolution. 

• All parties must agree to enter into mediation. 

• Mediation should be external to the Social Security Administration and should 

not be provided or paid for by Protection and Advocacy agencies. 

Participation in the mediation process should not bar a party’s access to 

further appeals. 

• Because mediation is a more efficient and cost-effective way to resolve 

disputes, the Social Security Administration should set aside additional funds 

to support the use of mediation for all parties. 

• The Social Security Administration should look at other successful mediation 

program models such as those established at the Equal Opportunity 

Employment Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice. 

Recommendation 12: All decisions by the Social Security Administration 

involving disputes between or among all parties should, at the option of the 

parties, be subject to external review by either the Social Security 

Administration's administrative review process and/or judicial review. 

 7 
Recommendation 13: Information about protection and advocacy services and 

how to access them should be available at any time to all beneficiaries seeking or 

using SSA or other work incentive programs, including the ticket. Specifically, a 

beneficiary should receive a formal notice of the availability of protection and 

advocacy services when he or she is issued a ticket and at the following 

junctures in the process: 

• When he or she applies to the employment network for services; 

• At the signing of his or her Individual Work Plan; 

• In the event his or her services are decreased, suspended or terminated; or, 

• When he or she files a complaint against the employment network. 

Recommendation 14: The beneficiary’s filing of a complaint with the Program 

Manager (PM) against an EN should, with the beneficiary’s consent, trigger a 

notice to the Protection and Advocacy agency regarding the dispute to allow for

an inquiry by the Protection and Advocacy agency as to the beneficiary’s wish for 

protection and advocacy assistance. 

Recommendation 15: Notices from the EN and the Protection and Advocacy 

agency, the beneficiary’s IWP and any other documents should be in accessible 

format and, where practicable, in the beneficiary’s primary means or language of 

communication. 

Recommendations 16: Timelines for dispute resolution should be as follows: 

• Employment networks should have fifteen (15) working days to resolve a 

complaint filed by a beneficiary. If not resolved satisfactorily, the beneficiary

should be permitted to request a review by the Program Manager. 

• The request for review, with the submission of all supporting documentation 

by both parties, should be submitted within ten (10) working days after the

beneficiary receives the employment network’s decision. 

• The Program Manager should complete its review and render a decision 

within fifteen (15) working days, unless the parties agree to mediation. 

• If the parties agree to mediation, mediation should commence within ten (10) 

working days after the Program Manager receives the parties’ request for 

mediation and should be completed within twenty (20) working days after it 

is scheduled. 

• The Social Security Administration should have no more than twenty (20) 

working days to resolve individual appeals. 

• All disputes involving employment networks, State Vocational Rehabilitation 

agencies, and the Program Manager must be resolved within sixty (60) 

working days, including Social Security Administration review and issuance of 

a decision. 

Recommendation 17: During the appeals process, services and supports to 

the beneficiary should be continued at the same level; that is, services and 

 8 
supports should not be reduced or suspended by the employment network 

without the beneficiary’s consent. 

Recommendation 18: All parties in a dispute should have access to all 

information that is being considered and used to render a decision in the dispute. 

EMPLOYMENT NETWORK PAYMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 19: SSA should adopt a payment structure that pays at least 

four milestone payments: 1) at the signing of the IWP; 2) at 3 months of SGA; 

3) at 7 months of SGA; and 4) at 12 months of SGA. 

Specifically the system would: 

Pay a minimal milestone when a beneficiary and employment network signs an 

IWP; 

 

Pay an additional milestone payment equal to the first two proposed (i.e., 3 and 

7 months of SGA) at the end of 12 months of SGA; 

Amortize the milestone payments over the entire 60-month outcome-only 

payment period rather than the 12 months proposed; 

Pay a significantly greater overall percentage of the outcome-only payment 

option under the milestone/outcome payment option than the proposed 85% 

and should consider at least 95%; and, 

Equalize the monthly outcome payments under the milestone/outcome payment 

period rather than the graduated method proposed in the NPRM. 

Recommendation 20: In the Adequacy of Incentives Report due to Congress 

in December 2002, SSA should address the efficacy of individualized milestones. 

The Panel recommends that SSA also consider the immediate implementation of 

a second tier of the milestone system. Such a system would provide 

individualized milestones for individuals with a need for on-going support 

services, individuals who need high-cost accommodations, individuals who earn a

sub-minimum wage, and individuals who work and receive partial cash benefits 

along the lines of systems already in use in Massachusetts, Oklahoma and other 

states. (These systems use the individualized planning process to determine if 

and when a different set of milestones is necessary, and establish a plan for 

payments and accountability for the payments.) 

 9 
Recommendation 21: The Panel recommends SSA interpret “benefits not 

payable” as a reduction in benefits rather than zero cash benefits. 

Recommendation 22: Because the Title II and Title XVI programs are 

distinctly different from each other with differing processes and timelines, SSA 

should develop two milestone/outcome payment systems, one for SSI recipients 

and another for SSDI beneficiaries, that take into account the differences 

between the two programs and that factor into consideration, issues of 

concurrent beneficiaries. 

Recommendation 23: SSA should commission a full-cost benefit study to 

evaluate the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Programs. Such a study should 

begin with a more complete view of the direct savings to the SSA Trust Fund, but 

should also consider savings to the Federal Treasury and increased productivity 

to the nation as a whole. Such a study would, at a minimum consider the impact 

of increased Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) contributions by working 

beneficiaries, reduced use of Medicare, cash savings to the general fund by SSI 

recipients who work but who only receive partial cash benefits and estimated 

general fund savings beyond 60 months. The study should also consider

reduced use of all other government transfers and increased taxes paid. It 

should consider the addition to Gross National Product from increased work. It 

should evaluate costs and benefits from SSA’s point of view, from the view of the 

Federal government, and from the view of the beneficiary and from society as a 

whole. 

Recommendation 24: SSA should resolve the conflict between Sections 

411.510 and 411.390 regarding VR’s choice of payment systems for beneficiaries 

who are already clients of VR.

 10 
NPRM ISSUES, PUBLIC INPUT, 

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION 

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel’s (the Panel’s) duty is to

advise the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, the President, and 

the Congress on the implementation and operation of the Ticket to Work and 

Self-Sufficiency Program and on issues related to work incentives programs and 

planning and assistance for individuals with disabilities. One of the Panel’s first 

tasks outlined in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act 

(TWWIIA) is to advise the Commissioner on the regulations for the Ticket 

program. The Panel, since its initial meeting in July 2000, has focused much

attention on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal 

Register on December 28, 2000. 

In addition to the issues that are directly addressed in the NPRM, the Panel and 

the Agency have received numerous comments that relate to other work

incentive and return-to-work program issues and, as such, could have significant 

impact on the success or failure of the programs in the Ticket to Work and Work 

Incentives Improvement Act. Hence, the Panel feels it important to raise these 

broader issues as well in this report in an effort to call attention to them and 

begin working on them with the Agency. These issues appear in the section 

following the Panel’s recommendations on the NPRM.

NPRM ISSUE AREAS

In September, the Panel created four workgroups to focus on the four broad

topic areas covered in the NPRM: Ticket to Work and Beneficiary Use of Ticket; 

Employment Network Requirements and Qualifications; Dispute Resolution; and, 

Provider Payment. This final Advice Report reflects the work of these 

workgroups, expert advice from invited guests of the workgroups, public input

and Panel deliberations. 

Panel Efforts to Solicit Input 

The Panel felt it was very important to reach out to a variety of constituents, 

beneficiaries and advocates to solicit comments and opinions about the NPRM 

and the Agency's plans for ticket implementation. To achieve this, during the 

regular quarterly meetings of the Panel, a specific period was set aside for public

comments. The Panel also conducted five other public meetings in Washington, 

DC, and Phoenix, Arizona and five public regional meetings - in Utah, Minnesota, 

Arizona, Georgia and New York. The Panel also held eight public conference 

 11 
calls and two West Coast regional conference calls. The total hours of public

comments from the public and regional meetings and conference calls are 

approximately 22. Lists of the relevant Panel meetings, conference calls, and 

commenters appear in Appendices A & B. 

At each meeting, citizens with disabilities, their advocates, providers of services, 

and other stakeholders, were provided ample opportunity to comment. 

Additionally, individual Panel members attended numerous local, state and 

national level meetings and have been asked to speak to a variety of groups and 

organizations about the Panel and the issues in the ticket’s implementation. The 

Panel also solicited and received correspondence from the public regarding the 

Agency's ticket implementation plans and the NPRM. 

In sum, the Panel has made a concerted effort to solicit input from a broad 

cross-section of program constituents by holding meetings in Washington, D.C., 

as well as regional meetings and teleconferences across the country. The hours 

of public comments and the numerous letters and e-mails received by the Panel

reflect this effort. The Panel also reviewed the public comments sent to SSA in 

response to the NPRM and the catalogue of these comments prepared by the 

Agency. A review of the public comments sent to SSA on the NPRM for the 

Ticket program shows that an overwhelming majority focused on five key issue 

areas: (1) who should be eligible for a ticket; (2) the adequacy of the payment 

structure; (3) the number of tickets a beneficiary may receive; (4) how to 

determine “timely progress”; and (5) qualifications and evaluations of 

employment networks. Several commenters raised issues regarding the 

participation of Vocational Rehabilitation agencies and concerns about

overpayment issues and how they might affect ticket users and ENs. 

During this first year of Panel activity, specific issues and concerns regarding 

implementation and rollout of the Ticket program and the proposed regulations 

have surfaced repeatedly in public comments and in Panel deliberations. After 

extensive discussion in the January and February meetings, the Panel concluded 

a letter outlining key implementation issues and concerns should be sent to the 

Acting Commissioner of SSA, prior to close of the NPRM public comment period 

(See Appendix C for copy of letter). The Panel is encouraged the letter dated 

February 21, 2001 sent to Acting Commissioner Halter resulted in the Agency’s 

decision to delay issuing the Request for Proposals (RFP) for employment

networks for 45 days in order to make many changes recommended by the 

Panel. In addition, the Agency decided to delay issuing tickets until the 

Regulations are issued after the publication of the RFP for employment networks. 

SSA has provided the Panel regular briefings and updates on the NPRM and 

administrative implementation activities such as evaluation plans, the 

responsibilities and activities of the Program Manager (Maximus, Inc.),

 12 
contracting, grant-making, and other critical administrative rollout activities. The 

Panel recognizes the implementation and rollout of the new Ticket program pose 

tight timeframes and may demand major changes in the culture and business 

practices of the Agency. The Panel commends the Agency for its diligence in 

carefully listening to and studying all of the public comments and for giving 

thoughtful consideration to the advice of the Panel. The Panel believes if 

implemented carefully, with input from the Panel and constituents, the Ticket to 

Work and Self-Sufficiency Program has the potential to improve greatly the 

quality and availability of rehabilitation services, employment services and 

supports, and related health services for our nation’s citizens with disabilities. 

TICKET TO WORK AND BENEFICIARY USE 

Issue: Should disability beneficiaries classified with a “Medical 

Improvement Expected (MIE)” diary be eligible to participate in the 

Ticket program? 

Summary of Input: Public comment supported the inclusion of beneficiaries 

with the MIE designation in the Ticket program. Members of the public 

commented that the policy should be that services should be available to all 

disability beneficiaries sooner, rather than later, because recent research 

supports findings the longer someone receives cash benefits, the harder it is for 

them to become self-supporting. The public also stated that most people with 

an MIE designation do not know they have been given that designation. Further, 

testimony to the Panel indicated in their practical experience, people with MIE 

designations undergo delayed initial Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) often 

years after the date on which they were supposed to occur. Concern was 

expressed by national leaders from the mental health advocacy community and 

national organizations representing people who are developmentally disabled, 

that people with long-term mental illness (such as bipolar disorder) and cognitive 

impairments receive this designation disproportionately, and often with no real 

indication improvement is likely. In addition, members of the public were of the 

opinion if the designation of the MIE diary category for CDRs was used to limit a 

person’s access to a benefit, it must be subject to due process review or appeal. 

In addition, Agency officials stated it is not known how many beneficiaries have 

their benefits terminated due to a CDR based on the MIE designation, reapply 

based on a decline in their condition, and then are awarded benefits a second 

time. 

Discussion: The Panel agreed limiting a person’s access to a Federal benefit

(i.e. the ticket) without providing for a due process review is questionable 

practice and policy. If this exclusion remains in the final rule, it should outline a 

procedure for timely review and appeal. This would increase the administrative 

burden to SSA, the cost of which may outweigh the possible savings to the

 13 
programs created by such exclusion. One likely consequence may be the length 

of time required to process all appeals, not just MIE cases, will be negatively 

impacted, that is, all appeal cases would take longer given the additional

caseload. 

If the rule becomes final with its effect to limit a person’s access to the benefits 

of the Ticket program, SSA should commit to policy and procedures ensuring 

that beneficiaries with the MIE designation receive their initial CDR on schedule. 

The exclusion of beneficiaries with the MIE designation from participation in the 

Ticket program does not appear to be justified. The SSA program and policy

officials were not able to provide the Panel with a sound statistical analysis to 

justify this exclusion. The Panel was not provided with data on how long it takes 

for a person with the MIE designation to have the initial CDR completed. There 

was also no information that indicated a significant number of people with the 

MIE designation would be terminated after the completion of their initial CDR. 

There was no evidence to counter the argument that people with a MIE

designation would be more successful in staying off the rolls through being 

allowed early participation in the Ticket program, even if their initial CDR resulted 

in a termination of benefits. 

The proposed regulation states that a person who is awarded benefits with an 

MIE diary for the scheduling of their first Continuing Disability Review (CDR) is 

not eligible for the Ticket program until after the completion of their first CDR. A

beneficiary with this designation is scheduled to have his or her case reviewed 

within 6 to 18 months after receiving benefits. This MIE category was created 

for the sole purpose of determining when the first CDR for a beneficiary should 

be completed. 

In 1999, there were 60,766 DI and SSI adult beneficiaries who were classified 

first time MIEs on the rolls. Data from the Disability Determination Services 

decision files indicate that in 1999, 9,663 beneficiaries with a MIE designation 

were ceased for medical improvement. According to SSA’s Office of Disability, on 

the average, about 16% of initial Titles II and XVI MIE allowances which come

up for first-time CDRs are ceased because of medical improvement, usually 18-

24 months after allowance. The Panel asked for and received cost estimates 

from the SSA Office of the Actuary (OACT) concerning the cost implications of

including beneficiaries with an MIE designation in the population receiving 

tickets. OACT estimates the cost at $747 million for OASDI benefit payments 

and $75 million for Federal SSI benefit payments for a net subtotal of $822 

million over the period of 2001-2010. (See Appendix D) 

Recommendation 1: All SSI and SSDI adult disability beneficiaries, including 

those with a Medical Improvement Expected (MIE) designation, should be 

eligible to participate in the Ticket program.

 14 
Issue: Should transition-aged youth (16-18) be eligible to receive and 

use a ticket in the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program? 

Summary of Input: The Panel and the Agency received many comments from 

the public on this issue, the majority of which supported providing tickets to at 

least 16 and 17 year olds. There was consensus from the public that the longer 

people receive cash benefits the less likely they are to be able to achieve 

independence and become self-supporting. The public also agreed that the 

expectations created for a young person with a disability might be the most

important factor in whether they work or rely on benefits and allowing them to 

participate in the Ticket program makes another tool available to encourage 

positive expectations. Experts told the Panel that schools themselves could 

potentially be employment networks for youth. 

The majority of comments received by the Panel were that making transitionaged youth ineligible for the Ticket program would send the wrong message to 

youth and could have the effect of encouraging lifelong dependency upon

benefits. There may or may not be a determinable increase in cost to the 

program in the short-term. However, the long-term benefits to the program and 

the youth beneficiaries could far outweigh those expenditures. Many youth may 

not choose to participate in the program until after they are 18, but those who 

wish to participate should be allowed to do so. Programs and policy in the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Workforce Investment 

Act promote seamless programming from school to work for students and young

adults with and without disabilities. 

On the other hand, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) 

commented it was their understanding that SSA is currently evaluating the 

process used by State Disability Determination Services for conducting the 

required redeterminations at age 18. According to CCD, the project is being 

carried out with the American Association of University Affiliated Programs, and it 

is CCD’s view that until SSA has had the opportunity to assess the outcome of 

the project, it may be premature to lower the eligibility age for tickets. 

Discussion: The proposed regulations limit participation in the Ticket program 

to disability beneficiaries between the ages of 18 and 64. The Panel engaged in

extended debate over whether to provide access to the Ticket program to 16 and 

17 year olds. Panel members raised a number of concerns regarding the issuing 

of tickets to this age group. They included the following concerns: 

 (1) Providing a ticket to 16- or 17-year-old youths might be construed as 

pressuring them into early employment instead of emphasizing educational 

goals; 

 15 
 (2) The Ticket is an adult program and that it was not in the taxpayer’s best 

interest to use different criteria to give young people a ticket in a program for 

which they might not actually qualify as adults; 

 (3) Providing this age group with a ticket may have the unintended 

consequence of allowing States to supplant their mandatory obligations to serve 

these students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), thus 

precluding these students from any other options; fears that ENs would not want 

to serve 16-18 year olds because the mechanism that triggers EN payments is

beneficiary exit from the program, a doubtful outcome for someone in that age 

group, especially because they are unlikely to work fulltime; 

 (4) The reasonable expectation that the VR system and other resources serve 

16-18 year olds, along with still unanswered questions regarding the impact on 

student choice of the assignment of tickets to VR; and 

 (5) Uncertainties regarding the potential impact of the unresolved question of

whether a beneficiary will be allowed more than one ticket. 

Finally, although cost was not the primary reason for objecting to tickets being 

given to this age group, the issue of costs was raised. Some Panel members 

expressed concerns over projected costs provided by the Office of the Actuary 

that estimated participation by 16-18 year olds would cost $284 million over the 

period 2001-2010, leading to questions about such expenditure of scarce 

resources. A different financial concern was brought up in the context of 

whether EN’s who take tickets from youth and are successful in meeting the 

program’s employment goals, will then be eligible for payments if the youth do 

not meet the adult medical standards. 

Despite the concerns raised above by some Panel members, the majority felt 

very strongly that many young people with disabilities would be positively

impacted by the opportunities the ticket could provide. Some Panel members 

expressed their belief that the Ticket program could especially benefit poor and 

minority students. The majority specifically noted that: only 25 percent of all

Americans get a four year college degree; a much smaller percentage of youth 

with disabilities go on to higher education; 38 percent drop out of high school

before graduation or before receiving their General Equivalency Diploma (GED); 

and a significant minority get into trouble and wind up in the juvenile justice 

system. The majority also felt part of the reason for creating the Ticket program 

in the first place was to increase consumer choices, a goal that would be totally 

ignored if the only option youth with disabilities had was the VR system And,

finally, it was pointed out that cost estimates from the Office of the Actuary 

showed only the costs at the front end of having 16-18 year olds in the program, 

and did not project any savings at the other end, even after 10 years, precluding 

 16 
consideration of the possibility that the general funds would actually save money 

by the inclusion of young people in the Ticket program. 

Recommendation 2: Sixteen (16) and seventeen (17) year-old beneficiaries, 

including those with an MIE designation, should be eligible to participate in the 

Ticket program.

Issue: Should young people with disabilities on SSI benefits be 

protected against a medical redetermination at age 18 if they are

participating in the Ticket program? 

Summary of Input: Regarding the issue of protection against a 

redetermination at age 18, the Panel received Congressional questions and input 

from the Office of the Actuary (OACT) regarding the current requirement that 

disabled young SSI beneficiaries must undergo a medical review 

(redetermination) at age 18 using different, more stringent adult disability 

standards. As a result of this process, in the year 2000, some 44.2% of 18-year 

old SSI beneficiaries initially had their benefits ceased. Further data from the

Office of Disability showed of those 44.2 % whose benefits were initially ceased, 

many successfully appealed and had their benefits continued. Hence, after all 

appeals, the actual 18-year old redetermination cessation rate dropped to

32.7%. The Panel asked the Office of the Actuary to supply cost estimates on 

the increased expenditures could accrue if youth with disabilities who activate

their ticket prior to notification of an age 18 redetermination were given benefit 

protection similar to the CDR deferral provisions. The Office of the Actuary 

estimates the cost of deferring redeterminations for 18-year olds would be $256 

million over the period 2001-2010. In summary, if 16-18 year olds were included 

in the Ticket program and had their medical redeterminations deferred, the 

OACT estimates the net cost to be $540 million (i.e., $284 + $256 million) over 

the period 2001-2010. (See OACT estimates in Appendix D.) 

Discussion: Under current rules, all 18 year-old SSI recipients must undergo a 

medical redetermination in order to be determined disabled under the adult 

standards. Under section 301 of the 1980 disability amendments (PL 96-265, 

section 301), if these youth, prior to turning age 18, are participating in a VR 

program that is expected to result in employment, their benefits are protected. 

Specifically, they still have a medical review, but if SSA makes a medical 

cessation decision, their benefits are nevertheless continued -- this is sometimes 

referred to as section 301 protection. The proposed rules would continue the

redetermination requirement before 18-year old beneficiaries would be able to

receive a ticket. 

The Panel discussed the ramifications of providing protection from medical

redeterminations for 18-year olds who participate in the Ticket program. The 

 17 
idea would be to provide protections similar to those already afforded to ticket 

participants from CDR’s. Simply providing the protection currently given 18-year 

olds who, prior to turning 18, are in VR programs will not produce the desired 

effect. Although youth in VR programs have their benefits protected, they still 

have a medical review. However, such a review for an 18-year old ticket user 

would mean that if the youth were found ineligible to meet the adult medical 

standards, an EN would not be paid for the young person’s successful work 

outcomes. The Panel is greatly concerned therefore no EN will serve these youth 

if they must first have a medical redetermination. For that reason, the Panel is 

recommending CDR-type protection be given to 18-year olds who participate in 

the Ticket program so EN’s would be eligible for payments for successful 

outcomes. 

Panelists who dissented felt: (1) granting such protection would extend eligibility 

to those who would not otherwise be eligible for benefits as adults; (2) a 

redetermination needed to be done before an 18-year old is given a ticket to

ensure the person still meets the definition of disability under SSI; (3) including 

these youths who would not otherwise be eligible on to the adult SSI rolls, will 

eventually lead SSA to exercise more scrutiny with respect to the contracts 

between consumers and providers. 

However, the majority of the Panel felt that 18-year olds who choose to 

participate in the Ticket program should be entitled to the same protections 

against a medical review as anyone else who is a ticket user. The arguments 

made in support of extending protection include: 

(1) Unless the protection is offered, no provider is going to serve youth with 

disabilities; 

(2) The rationale for not serving them is simply a perceived potential saving to 

the program; 

(3) The choice of age 18 as a determinant of adult functioning for these youth 

with disabilities is arbitrary and capricious. For example, most young 

students are still eligible for coverage under their parents’ health insurance 

until age 22 or 23; 

(4) Despite contention by some that there are other options available for 

transition-age youth with disabilities, the reality is that the services are not 

readily available. Instead, there is a waiting lists in most States and the 

numbers on it are in the thousands and in some States, in the tens of 

thousands; 

(5) Research has repeatedly demonstrated the sooner people are engaged in 

preparation for going to work, the greater the probability of long-term 

employment. Therefore any program, such as the ticket, that encourages 

heading towards employment early was good policy; 

 18 
(6) Protection should be extended to these youths because otherwise, under the 

final program regulations, some people who participated in the program 

would be treated differently based on certain characteristics, and would not 

be entitled to all the protections accorded to other participants in the 

program.

Recommendation 3: Eighteen (18) year-old beneficiaries who participate in 

the Ticket program should receive the same protection from redeterminations as 

other ticket users receive against CDR’s. 

Issue: Should a person be entitled to more than one ticket within a 

period of disability?

Summary of Input: Concern was expressed by the public that beneficiaries 

would not be able to find ENs to provide services to them if they have a partially 

used ticket. Current research (See Schur, Lisa; Contingent and Part-time 

Employment Among Workers with Disabilities: Barriers and Opportunities; School

of Management and Labor Relations; Rutgers University; 2000;) finds people 

with disabilities are twice as likely as non-disabled people to work in part time

and temporary work. Concern was raised that the program would not work for a 

large segment of beneficiaries particularly those with disabilities episodic in 

nature. 

Discussion: Many beneficiaries using the Ticket program are likely to go in and 

out of work, and not transition at first attempt from receipt of cash benefits to 60 

months of continuous employment. A beneficiary whose ticket is partially used

and needs other continuing support services may have a difficult time finding an 

EN willing to work with them. For example, a beneficiary returns to cash 

benefits after a work stoppage in the expedited reinstatement provision of 

TWWIIA. The person wants to return to work again and decides he/she needs 

support services. This consumer will be at a distinct disadvantage if interested in 

continuing to work. There is nothing in the Statute that prevents a beneficiary 

from receiving a second ticket and there may well be unassessed cash savings to 

SSA programs in allowing two or more tickets to a beneficiary, as warranted or 

appropriate.

In Section 411.125(b), the proposed rule states a person can have only one 

ticket during a period of entitlement for which a beneficiary is eligible to receive 

disability benefits. Regardless, if a beneficiary returned to work and her or his

employment network received 35 out of 60 outcome payments, and the 

beneficiary then became unable to work, his or her ticket would only have 25

outcome payments left to pay out. That is what is being described as a partially

used ticket. A related issue is whether an EN, new or old, would be willing to

 19 
provide a full array of services to a beneficiary with a partially used ticket and a 

significantly reduced number of payments. 

Recommendation 4: SSA should conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the 

feasibility of a beneficiary receiving more than one ticket within a period of 

disability and/or a period of eligibility. The Agency should assess the potential 

cost impact of beneficiaries using more than one ticket in the Agency’s overall 

evaluation report due to Congress. 

EMPLOYMENT NETWORK REQUIREMENTS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Issue: Who should be in an employment network (EN) providing 

services to beneficiaries who are ticket holders? 

Summary of Input: Many of the commenters said State licensure laws dictate 

requirements for certain professions and providers so SSA should defer to those 

State rules. Some commenters expressed concern that the quality of services 

may be compromised if provided by less than trained personnel. However, they 

recognized the benefits of allowing support and other services by non-traditional

providers if rendered under the auspices of an EN who is ultimately accountable 

for the services provided. 

Discussion: Many people with disabilities have a “circle of support,” that is, 

people whom they trust to provide additional support services. Most often, these 

individuals are non-traditional support providers. In some instances, they are 

family members, neighbors, or friends who provide needed supports. The final

rule regarding EN qualifications should be broad enough to accommodate nontraditional providers while accomplishing the stated purpose of the Ticket 

program, to “expand the universe of service providers available to individuals 

who are entitled to Social Security benefits based on disability...” § 411.105 of 

the NPRM. 

According to the proposed rule, an employment network is any qualified entity 

which has entered into an agreement with SSA to function as an EN, and 

assumes responsibility for the coordination and delivery of employment services, 

vocational rehabilitation services, or other support services to beneficiaries who 

have assigned their ticket to that EN. The proposed rule would require an 

eligible entity assure that it is licensed, certified, accredited, or registered if so 

required by State law to provide these services either directly or through 

arrangements with other entities. SSA should avoid the requirement for all 

employees or contractors of ENs have to be licensed or credentialed. It would 

also be reasonable to accept any business licensing or regulatory requirements 

ordinarily imposed on an entity seeking to become an EN. For example, proper 

 20 
guidelines regarding proof of the business as a taxpaying, registered entity under 

federal and state law would also be appropriate. 

Recommendation 5: An employment network (EN) should be required to

retain staff that are otherwise qualified based on education or direct services 

experience, such as employees with a college degree in a related field, including 

but not limited to vocational counseling, education, human resources, human

relations, social work, teaching, or psychology or employees with equivalent

experience. SSA should not require licensure and/or certification that would 

exclude employers or other types of providers qualified to work with people with 

disabilities such as those who offer non-traditional supports resulting in 

employment. The key criterion should be whether the entity is capable of 

successfully providing the service agreed to by the EN and the beneficiary. SSA 

should delete Section 411.315(c). The State agency certification process should 

not be used to limit who can participate as an EN in the Ticket program. 

Issue: What financial reporting is needed by the Program Manager or 

SSA from the employment network? 

Summary of Input: Many commenters recommended the Agency try to “keep 

it simple” and not require unnecessary reporting. Some were concerned that a 

few of the reporting requirements may place an undue administrative burden on 

ENs and discourage the participation of potential providers. Still others in the 

public and on the Panel were of the opinion that it is inappropriate, invasive and 

unreasonable for SSA to require these kinds of reports in an outcome-based 

program.

Discussion: While there is a substantive evaluation component in the Ticket 

program, the Panel thinks using the financial reporting and collection

requirements in Section 411.325 (g) and 411.325(h) is not the way to collect 

data for it. The requirement will prohibit providers and employers from

participating who have no intention of adding to the financial disclosures they

already make to the Federal government. Instead, the Panel believes such 

information could be gathered through voluntary participation by ENs in a study 

to determine the adequacy of payments. In addition, the PM’s could be asked to 

report problems with payment levels in its annual report to SSA, especially if 

providers go out of business or decide not to participate again because of 

inadequate payment levels.

Section 411.325 of the NPRM outlines the proposed reporting requirements of an 

EN. One of those requirements is for the EN to submit to the Program Manager, 

annually, a financial report showing the percentage of the employment network’s 

budget spent on serving beneficiaries with tickets. 

 21 
Recommendation 6: Delete Section 411.325(g) and Section 411.325(h) from 

the list of EN reporting and collection requirements. Section 411.325(g) 

currently requires “...among other things, submitting to the Program Manager, on 

an annual basis, a financial report that shows the percentage of the employment 

network’s budget that was spent on serving beneficiaries with tickets...” 

Issue: Should “timely progress” toward an employment goal be 

measured by minimum standards for all beneficiaries, or, should the 

terms and conditions agreed to in each IWP determine timely 

progress?

Summary of Input: The Panel received public comment on this issue, engaged

in extensive discussion and deliberation and came to a consensus on a 

recommendation. 

Discussion: Beginning with a 24-month review after a ticket is assigned to an 

EN, the proposed regulations require the Program Manager to assess whether a 

beneficiary is making “timely progress towards self-supporting employment” 

which will then keep Continuing Disability Review (CDR) suspensions in place. 

There are no “timely progress” requirements in the Statute. “Timely progress” 

requirements in the proposed rule are directly related to the suspension of CDRs 

for Ticket program users. A ticket holder must meet the “timely progress” 

requirements to maintain the CDR suspension. One option would be to have the 

same net outcome as the proposed rule for the first three years. It would 

require the same minimum work standards for all ticket participants in years 

three, four and five of an EN-ticket contract with a beneficiary. The second 

option, and the option the Panel is recommending, would individualize “timely 

progress” and place the responsibility of proof and reporting on the EN with 

oversight by the Program Manager. 

Another question raised during Panel deliberations was whether or not there 

should there be set minimum requirements for employment in years four and 

five of ticket use in order to keep CDR suspensions in place. The Statute and the 

proposed rule in Section 411.325 (e), require annual progress reports from the 

EN to the Program Manager using progress tracked in the Individual Work Plan. 

Recommendation 7: The Panel recommends that timely progress be defined 

by the terms and conditions of the IWP, as agreed to by the beneficiary and the 

EN. The reporting mechanism should be the annual report in Section 

411.325(e). 

Issue: Should the State VR agency be allowed to use the Individual 

Plan for Employment (IPE) as a substitute for the Individual Work Plan 

(IWP)? If so, should other individualized service delivery plans be 

 22 
acceptable alternatives, provided they meet the minimum standards

outlined in the Statute for an IWP? 

Summary of Input: The few commenters who discussed this issue stated that 

the IPE or any other work plan meeting the minimum IWP standards described in 

the Statute should be an acceptable alternative to the IWP. They stressed the 

need to reduce duplication with the same person, eliminate unnecessary 

paperwork, and reduce administrative burden. 

Discussion: If a document already exists that meets the statutory requirements 

of an IWP, there should not be a requirement for a duplicate document. The 

proposed regulations recognize this and permit State VR agencies to use the IPE 

as a substitute for the IWP. Other programs should be permitted to do the 

same. 

Recommendation 8: SSA should permit other individualized service delivery 

plans to be used as substitutes to the IWP provided they meet the minimum 

requirements detailed in the statute. 

Issue: When a SSA beneficiary with a ticket applies to the State VR 

agency for services, should the beneficiary have the option of retaining 

his/her ticket for use with other ENs? 

Summary of Input: The commenters to the Panel were concerned about 

choice, both here and in the related context of the rule allowing only one ticket

per eligible beneficiary per period of entitlement for benefits. The proposed rule 

should not presume an applicant for VR services who is a SSA beneficiary would 

assign his or her ticket to VR. 

Panel members received widespread comments that VR receives special 

treatment in many respects throughout the rule. In this context, there were 

comments that Section 411.385 needs clarification or change in the context of 

other special arrangements in the rule for the State VR agency. 

NPRM Section 411.385 states: 

“What does a State VR agency do if a beneficiary who is applying for 

services has a ticket that is available for assignment?” (a) Once the State 

VR agency determines that a beneficiary who is applying for services has 

a ticket that is available for assignment (see Section 411.140) and the 

State VR agency and the beneficiary have agreed to and signed the 

individualized plan for employment (IPE) required under Section 102(b) of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the beneficiary’s ticket is 

considered to be assigned. 

 23 
Discussion: People with disabilities are eligible for a number of public programs 

offering counseling, rehabilitation, training, job placement, other employment 

services and support services from a wide variety of State and Federal systems 

and delivered at Federal, State and local levels. These systems include Federal 

housing programs, State developmental disabilities services, State mental health 

services, transportation services, one-stop training and employment services, 

independent living services, transition and special education, health care and 

related supports, and assistive technology, just to name a few. The intent of the 

Ticket program was to expand services and supports, not to limit them. A ticket 

should be seen as yet another tool the SSA beneficiary can choose to use to 

supplement what is already available to the individual under current public 

programs. Use of the ticket should improve that individual’s chance of success in 

employment. 

The Panel is also concerned that certain current provisions regarding young 

disability beneficiaries may unduly favor VR and severely limit client choice. 

Under current provisions, disabled young SSI beneficiaries who are receiving 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) services under an Individual Plan for Employment 

(IPE) are protected from benefit termination until the plan is completed. 

Furthermore, many VR agencies begin working with disabled youth at age 16. 

The Panel is highly supportive of the importance of encouraging employmentrelated services in the transition years. However, the Panel is greatly concerned 

that as a result of the multiple effects of these provisions, young disability 

beneficiaries will be forced to assign their ticket to VR and therefore will be 

precluded from the possibility of receiving services from other ENs. The Panel 

believes that it is especially important for young people with disabilities to have 

many career options and to play an active part in the planning process. 

Informed choice is a key concern of the Panel. The Agency’s outreach on the 

Ticket program should inform beneficiaries of the choice issues raised when they 

decide to apply for VR services. Eligibility for VR services and VR client status 

should not dictate when a beneficiary can use his or her ticket or where a 

beneficiary can deposit his or her ticket. 

Recommendation 9: SSA should re-write Section 411.385 to clarify that an 

SSA beneficiary, whether a youth or adult, with a ticket who applies for or is

receiving State Vocational Rehabilitation services has a choice in deciding 

whether to assign his/her ticket to the State VR agency, to assign it to another 

EN, or not to assign it at all. An 18-year old who is already receiving VR services 

and who then receives a ticket from SSA, should not be required to deposit the 

ticket with the State VR system. 

 24 
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MEDIATION

Issue: Should protection and advocacy services be available to all 

beneficiaries of the Social Security Administration regardless of 

whether or not they are ticket users or living in a ticket roll out state? 

Discussion: Section 1150(a)(b) (1) and (2) of the legislation provides that SSA 

beneficiaries are eligible to obtain information and advice about vocational 

rehabilitation and employment services and advocacy or other services a person 

with a disability may need to secure or regain gainful employment. There is no 

requirement in the legislation that a beneficiary be a ticket holder or currently 

living in a roll-out state in order to be eligible for protection and advocacy 

services. 

Summary of Input: There was substantial public input in support of protection 

and advocacy services being provided to all SSA beneficiaries. Additionally, the 

Panel received substantial public comment regarding the fact that beneficiaries 

face many barriers to obtaining needed services and supports to enable them to 

go to work. Commenters stated repeatedly that P&A services should be available 

to assist all SSA beneficiaries, regardless of their status as a ticket holder or 

residence in a ticket roll-out state.

Recommendation 10: All beneficiaries should have access to Protection and 

Advocacy (P&A) services. 

Issue: Should mediation be a part of the dispute resolution process? 

Summary of Input: Commenters agree voluntary mediation should be 

available to all parties involved in a dispute under the Ticket to Work Program 

and mediation services should be paid for by the Agency. 

Discussion: Subpart 1 of the proposed regulations on dispute resolution 

(Section 411.600 et seq.) does not address the use of mediation as a means of 

resolving disputes. Mediation is an informal, cost-effective means of resolving 

disputes and should be available on a voluntary basis. Neither Section 411.600 

et seq., nor Section 411.435 addresses the use of mediation as a means of 

resolving disputes. Sections 411.660 and 411.630 of the proposed regulations 

state that the Social Security Administration makes the final decision in all 

disputes. There is no mention of an opportunity for an external review process. 

Recommendation 11: Mediation should be available as an avenue for

resolving disputes but it should not be mandatory. It should be an option 

available to the parties to the dispute, after the Program Manager has considered 

the matter for resolution. 

 25 
• All parties must agree to enter into mediation. 

• Mediation should be external to the Social Security Administration and should 

not be provided or paid for by Protection and Advocacy agencies. 

Participation in the mediation process should not bar a party’s access to 

further appeals. 

• Because mediation is a more efficient and cost-effective way to resolve 

disputes, the Social Security Administration should set aside additional funds 

to support the use of mediation for all parties. 

• The Social Security Administration should look at other successful mediation 

program models such as those established at the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice. 

Issue: Should there be an external appeals process for all parties? 

Should there be an opportunity for all parties to a dispute to have 

access to a review of SSA’s decision, either through a SSA review 

process or an external judicial review process? 

Summary of Input: Commenters were unanimous in their recommendations 

that all parties to disputes should have the opportunity to access an external 

appeal process beyond what is currently offered in the regulation. This more fully 

ensures fairness and impartiality are observed throughout the dispute resolution 

process. 

Discussion: The Panel was in complete agreement on the need for an external 

review of SSA decisions but is cognizant such a review could pose additional 

problems under the current system. Specifically, the Administrative Law Judge 

system is already overburdened, resulting in long delays of typically more than

one year before claimants have their cases heard. The Panel is concerned such 

waiting times could irreparably harm the goals of the Ticket program as well as 

disadvantage both beneficiaries and ENs alike. Resorting to the federal court 

system to resolve such disputes may prove equally problematic. The Panel 

discussed the possibility of SSA setting up an independent panel made up of SSA 

and consumer representatives. The Panel believes SSA should take the initiative 

for providing an external review process that is accessible and fair. 

Recommendation 12: All decisions by the Social Security Administration 

involving disputes between or among all parties should, at the option of the 

parties, be subject to external review by either the Social Security 

Administration's administrative review process and/or judicial review. 

Issue: At what point or points should a beneficiary receive information 

about the availability of protection and advocacy services and in what 

format should such information and other materials be provided? 

 26 
Summary of Input: The Panel heard widespread comments that beneficiaries 

should be provided with notice of their right to advocacy and representation 

several times throughout their ticket experience. Beneficiaries will be 

overwhelmed with information about this new program and they should be 

reminded several times at key points throughout their experience of their right to 

legal advocacy and representation, especially, at the time of ticket issuance. All 

notices of this right as well as other materials must be available in the 

beneficiary’s primary language or accessible means of communication. 

Discussion: Section 411.465 (regarding requirements for an IWP) and Sections 

411.605 and 411.610 require notice regarding the availability of protection and 

advocacy assistance in resolving disputes only to beneficiaries who become ticket 

users. There is no reference in the regulations to the need or requirement for all 

beneficiaries receive information regarding protection and advocacy assistance in 

areas other than dispute resolution or to beneficiaries who have not exercised 

their option to use their ticket. 

Recommendation 13: Information about protection and advocacy services and 

how to access them should be available at any time to all beneficiaries seeking or 

using SSA or other work incentive programs, including the ticket. Specifically, a 

beneficiary should receive a formal notice of the availability of protection and 

advocacy services when he or she is issued a ticket and at the following 

junctures in the process: 

• When he or she applies to the employment network for services; 

• At the signing of his or her individual work plan; 

• In the event his or her services are decreased, suspended or terminated; or 

• When he or she files a complaint against the employment network. 

Recommendation 14: The beneficiary’s filing of a complaint with the Program 

Manager (PM) against an EN should, with the beneficiary’s consent, trigger a 

notice to the Protection and Advocacy agency regarding the dispute to allow for 

an inquiry by the Protection and Advocacy agency as to the beneficiary’s wish for 

protection and advocacy assistance. 

Recommendation 15: Notices from the EN and the Protection and Advocacy 

agency, the beneficiary’s IWP and any other documents should be in accessible 

format and, where practicable, in the beneficiary’s primary means or language of 

communication. 

Issue: Should there be time limits and other requirements imposed on 

all parties involved in the dispute resolution process?

 27 
Summary of Input: Commenters were concerned about the impact on a 

beneficiary once a dispute arises. One aspect of concern is the length of time it 

will take to resolve a complaint and what happens to the beneficiary’s training 

and employment status during the complaint review process. It was suggested 

there should be strict timelines to minimize the adverse impact on all parties 

when a complaint is filed. 

Discussion: The Panel hosted lengthy public discussion on this topic and was in 

agreement that timelines need to be spelled out in the final regulations. The 

proposed regulations either do not reflect timelines for dispute resolution or, 

where they do, they are inadequate. For example, there are no timelines for the 

employment network’s internal grievance process or the Social Security 

Administration’s review process. (See Sections 411.435, 411.615, 411.625, and 

411.630.) 

Recommendations 16: Timelines for dispute resolution should be as follows: 

• Employment networks should have fifteen (15) working days to resolve a 

complaint filed by a beneficiary. If not resolved satisfactorily, the beneficiary

should be permitted to request a review by the Program Manager. 

• The request for review, with the submission of all supporting documentation 

by both parties, should be submitted within ten (10) working days after the

beneficiary receives the employment network’s decision. 

• The Program Manager should complete its review and render a decision 

within fifteen (15) working days, unless the parties agree to mediation. 

• If the parties agree to mediation, mediation should commence within ten (10) 

working days after the Program Manager receives the parties’ request for 

mediation and should be completed within twenty (20) working days after it 

is scheduled. 

• The Social Security Administration should have no more than twenty (20) 

working days to resolve individual appeals. 

• All disputes involving employment networks, State Vocational Rehabilitation 

agencies, and the Program Manager must be resolved within sixty (60) 

working days, including Social Security Administration review and issuance of 

a decision. 

Recommendation 17: During the appeals process, services and supports to 

the beneficiary should be continued at the same level; that is, services and 

supports should not be reduced or suspended by the employment network 

without the beneficiary’s consent. 

Recommendation 18: All parties in a dispute should have access to all 

information that is being considered and used to render a decision in the dispute. 

 28 
EMPLOYMENT NETWORK PAYMENT 

Issue: How can the milestone payment system be structured to 

encourage providers to serve all eligible individuals, including those 

who are harder to serve?

Summary of Input: As proposed, the milestone payment system allows two 

milestone payments to be made before the first outcome payment. These 

milestones recognize those currently on either SSDI or SSI benefits who are 

provided job-related services and return to work do not immediately reach a

level of employment that makes them ineligible for cash benefits and their

employment network eligible for outcome payments. 

For the most part, there was consensus among commenters and the experts 

consulted that the milestone payment method proposed in the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is not feasible and, if not significantly improved, 

will jeopardize the success of the Ticket program. They encouraged the Panel to 

recommend to the Commissioner a payment design that addresses provider

choice and capitalization. As proposed, the milestone payment structure is not 

attractive to potential employment networks since it yields a smaller total

payment than the outcome payment system. It places the majority of burden

and risk on the EN, and requires an unrealistic up-front investment by the EN. 

Alternative proposals were presented that add additional milestones, spread the 

milestone payments over 5 years, and reduce the 15% penalty incurred by ENs 

who choose milestone payments to 5%. 

Discussion: A milestone payment system having more payments earlier on in 

the employment process will attract more providers to the program and thus

afford consumers more choice in service provision. A system paying a greater 

overall percentage of the outcome-only payment option would be more 

appealing to ENs than the one that has been proposed. In addition, a system 

providing for individualized milestones could increase the likelihood that 

individuals with significant disabilities would be served by ENs. Also, allowing for 

individualized milestones for individuals who are more difficult to serve better 

matches the current work and payment rules and would provide incentives and 

supports necessary for ENs to serve these individuals. 

Recommendation 19: SSA should adopt a payment structure that pays at least 

four milestone payments: 1) at the signing of the IWP; 2) at 3 months of SGA; 

3) at 7 months of SGA; and, 4) at 12 months of SGA.

 29 
Specifically the system would:

a) Pay a minimal milestone when a beneficiary and employment network signs 

an IWP; 

b) Pay an additional milestone payment equal to the first two proposed (i.e., 3 

and 7 months of SGA) at the end of 12 months of SGA; 

c) Amortize the milestone payments over the entire 60-month outcome-only

payment period rather than the 12 months proposed; 

d) Pay a significantly greater overall percentage of the outcome-only payment 

option under the milestone/outcome payment option than the proposed 85% 

and should consider at least 95%; and, 

e) Equalize the monthly outcome payments under the milestone/outcome 

payment period rather than the graduated method proposed in the NPRM. 

Recommendation 20: In the Adequacy of Incentives Report due to Congress 

in December 2002, SSA should address the efficacy of individualized milestones. 

The Panel recommends that SSA also consider the immediate implementation of 

a second tier of the milestone system. Such a system would provide 

individualized milestones for individuals with a need for on-going support 

services, individuals who need high-cost accommodations, individuals who earn a

sub-minimum wage, and individuals who work and receive partial cash benefits 

along the lines of systems already in use in Massachusetts, Oklahoma and other 

states. (These systems use the individualized planning process to determine if 

and when a different set of milestones is necessary, and establish a plan for 

payments and accountability for the payments.) 

Issue: How can the financial incentives to serve various groups of 

beneficiaries be structured to be more equitable?

Summary of Input: Among the various suggestions to restructure the 

milestone system, the Panel received comments on specific models that would 

allow distinctly different payment systems for SSI beneficiaries and SSDI 

beneficiaries (See EN Payment Models in Appendix E as possible examples of

how such a system might be structured). 

Discussion: Under the NPRM proposed system, most of the risk is with the 

provider and requires a person not be receiving any cash benefits before an 

outcome payment is made. The Panel recognizes it is SSA’s responsibility to 

interpret sections of the Act that require further clarification for operational 

purposes. Furthermore, the Panel understands the rationale of the Agency’s 

 30 
interpretation of “benefits not payable” to mean zero benefits. However, the 

Panel and the Agency have received extensive comments that the Agency 

interpretation will distinctly disadvantage certain groups of beneficiaries, when

compared to non-blind beneficiaries on DI benefits, from being served by EN’s. 

The disadvantage is financial to the EN’s, but may ultimately adversely affect the 

beneficiaries in these particular groups because they may not be served. The 

reason for the disadvantaged position stems from the fact that under the 

interpretation of zero cash benefits, some groups of beneficiaries would have to

earn considerably more before they would reach the point of zero cash benefits 

and thereby trigger payments to providers – thus creating little or no incentives 

for providers to serve them. 

Specifically, under current rules, non-blind DI beneficiaries would reach zero cash 

benefit status with earnings above $740. In comparison, SSI recipients are 

disadvantaged because of the current $1-for-$2 cash offset in SSI work 

incentives. This would require SSI recipients to earn more than $1,145 (their

current individual Federal Benefit Rate) before an outcome payment is paid to an 

EN. As a result, ENs could be less inclined to serve the SSI population, many of

whom may have lower education levels and a weaker work history than do most 

SSDI beneficiaries. This would leave SSI recipients, large numbers of whom 

have mental illness, mental retardation, cognitive or lifelong disabilities, at a

distinct disadvantage in the Ticket program.

Blind DI beneficiaries are also likely to be disadvantaged as potential clients of

EN’s because under current rules, they would have to earn more than $1,240 

before reaching zero cash benefit status. Finally, concurrent beneficiaries may 

also be adversely affected by the requirements to attain zero benefit status. 

Those on concurrent benefits would have their DI benefits ceased with earnings 

above $740, but as long as their earnings were under $1,145, their SSI payment 

would continue indefinitely. Again, EN’s may be reluctant to serve such clients 

because they would not get any outcome payments until the beneficiary’s 

earnings were over $1145. 

The Panel understands the rationale for the Agency’s interpretation that an

outcome payment can be made only when a beneficiary is totally off of cash 

payments. However, the majority of the Panel is greatly concerned these 

differing levels at which benefits reach zero, originally intended to encourage 

work attempts by expanding the earnings potential of various categories of

beneficiaries while still protecting their benefit status, will now create an 

unintended bias against their being served by EN’s or participating in the Ticket 

program. It is for this reason the Panel urges the Agency to interpret “benefits 

not payable” differently in the case of certain groups of beneficiaries who would 

otherwise be disadvantaged as ticket users. 

 31 
Furthermore, the Panel acknowledges and appreciates the frequent references in 

the preamble of the legislation to “reducing dependency on the cash benefits

program” and therefore, believes all beneficiary employment outcomes in the 

Ticket program are valued and that any savings to the Trust Fund or the general 

funds should be viewed as a positive outcome. The Panel urges the Agency to 

explore alternative payment options to create adequate incentives for providers 

to serve these other groups. A dissenting view on the Panel held the Agency 

interpretation in the Regulations was consistent with Congressional intent for 

zero cash benefits.

Recommendation 21: The Panel recommends SSA interpret “benefits not 

payable” as a reduction in benefits rather than zero cash benefits. 

Issue: How can SSA restructure the milestone and outcome payment 

system for SSI beneficiaries in order to account for existing work 

incentives? 

Summary of Input: The Panel received briefings and documents from senior 

SSA officials on various return-to-work programs and studies undertaken by the 

Agency, e.g., the Gallup poll of potential employment networks. The results 

indicated there is real interest in the program from potential providers but certain 

beneficiaries, by virtue of their group affiliation (e.g., blind DI beneficiary)—may 

not be served as readily as others. One reason is the length of time from the 

beginning of service provision to the point when payments to the EN can start is 

distinctly longer for some groups. The Panel received extensive public comment 

on this issue, most of which advocated for a common earnings level threshold for 

outcome payments for all beneficiaries. Also, commenters encouraged the Panel 

to recommend a payment system with financial incentives to serve individuals 

who are harder to serve (i.e., individuals with a need for ongoing support and 

services, individuals who need high-cost accommodations, individuals who earn a

sub minimum wage, and individuals who work and receive partial cash benefits.) 

Further, the Panel heard it would be prudent of SSA to develop a payment 

system that includes all beneficiaries with disabilities to heighten the likelihood of 

savings to the programs. 

Discussion: Of particular concern to the majority of the Panel are the inequities 

in the financial incentives structure related to certain beneficiaries, e.g., SSI 

beneficiaries and the harder-to-serve population. As proposed, the payment

systems discourage ENs from serving SSI beneficiaries because the EN would 

receive a smaller return for similar effort and it could take considerably longer for 

SSI beneficiaries to reach the point in employment when ENs can be paid. This 

situation occurs, because in contrast to the DI program that has definite 

timelines, SSI benefits continue indefinitely as long as the beneficiary is working 

under their individual Federal Benefit Rate. 

 32 
The Panel is also interested in the development of an effective 

milestone/outcome payment structure to address the barriers to service provision 

for individuals who are harder to serve. A consistent outcome-payment 

threshold for all ticket users could level the playing field, making all ticket users 

equally attractive to ENs in the context of when a payment can be made. A 

dissenting Panel view was that Congress was aware of the differences in the two 

disability programs and it was premature to recommend changes in the payment 

system when the issue will be part of the Adequacy of Incentives report 

mandated by the legislation. 

Recommendation 22: Because the Title II and Title XVI programs are 

distinctly different from each other with differing processes and timelines, SSA 

should develop two milestone outcome payment systems, one for SSI recipients 

and another for SSDI beneficiaries, that take into account the differences 

between the two programs and that factor into consideration, issues of 

concurrent beneficiaries. 

Recommendation 23: SSA should commission a full-cost benefit study to 

evaluate the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Programs. Such a study should 

begin with a more complete view of the direct savings to the SSA Trust Fund, but 

should also consider savings to the Federal Treasury and increased productivity 

to the nation as a whole. Such a study would, at a minimum, consider the 

impact of increased Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) contributions by 

working beneficiaries, reduced use of Medicare, cash savings to the general fund

by SSI recipients who work but who only receive partial cash benefits and 

estimated general fund savings beyond 60 months. The study should also

consider reduced use of all other government transfers and increased taxes paid. 

It should consider the addition to Gross National Product from increased work. It 

should evaluate costs and benefits from SSA’s point of view, from the view of the 

Federal government, from the view of the beneficiary and from society as a 

whole. 

Issue: There is an internal conflict in the NPRM between the language 

in Section 411.510(c) and the language in Section 411.390 regarding 

the State Vocational Rehabilitation agency’s (VR) choice of payment 

methods for beneficiaries who are already clients of VR. 

Summary of Input: There was no public input on this issue.

Discussion: Section 411.390 of the proposed regulations says the State VR 

agency may only seek payment under the cost reimbursement payment system 

for beneficiaries already receiving services under an IPE. This rule is in direct 

conflict with Section 411.510(C) which states that the State VR agency will notify 

 33 
the Program Manager of the payment system election for each such beneficiary. 

The Panel had no opinion about either of the rules but felt that the regulatory

provisions should be consistent. 

Recommendation 24: SSA should resolve the conflict between Sections 

411.510 and 411.390 regarding VR’s choice of payment systems for beneficiaries 

who are already clients of VR.

Related Program Issues: 

Overpayments 

The Panel heard from several advocates concerning resolution of SSA’s current 

problems concerning timely cessation of benefits and accurate record-keeping 

and reporting is critical to the success or failure of the Ticket program. The issue 

of accurate and timely record-keeping will impact both on ticket users who work,

but continue to be sent benefit checks (overpayments), as well as on EN’s who 

help them to go to work but will not be able to receive outcome payments as 

long as the checks continue. Many advocates believe the issue of overpayments 

threatens to derail one of the underlying premises of the Ticket program i.e., to 

reward EN's in a timely manner for their successful efforts in helping 

beneficiaries leave the rolls for work. The Panel is greatly concerned that slow or 

inaccurate record-keeping by SSA will undermine the goals of the Ticket program 

by provoking negative reactions from providers and beneficiaries alike, as well as 

increasing the frequency of disputes and appeals. Though not part of the

Proposed Regulations, the Panel recommends that the Agency develop better, 

more timely and accurate mechanisms for record-keeping and reporting so that 

current overpayment problems are addressed before irreparable harm results to

the Ticket program and other employment support programs.

Disabled Adult Children (DACs), Disabled Widows and Widowers 

Although the Statute indicates Congress intended for these groups of 

beneficiaries with disabilities to be eligible to participate in the Ticket program,

the NPRM did not directly mention them. The Panel heard from advocates that 

under the current law, members of these groups who choose to participate in the 

Ticket program, go to work and then for whatever reason fail at the work 

attempt, could be irreparably financially disadvantaged. This would occur

because, under current law, a Disabled Adult Child (DAC) who, after exhausting 

the Extended Period of Eligibility (EPE) and then works above SGA, loses his or 

her DAC status. If he or she subsequently loses the job, his or her dependency 

status based on the parent’s earnings record is lost and new entitlement must be 

established as a disabled beneficiary. That change in status could well result in a

 34 
significantly lower level of benefit because the new entitlement would be based 

on the beneficiary’s little or no earnings record, whereas the previous DAC 

benefits were based on the parent’s earnings record. 

The issue also pertains to disabled widows and widowers and disabled surviving 

divorced spouses who stop receiving SSDI benefits due to work activity above 

the SGA level. The Panel commends the Agency for their quick response to this 

issue through providing new operating instructions to field components to assure 

Expedited Reinstatement prior to the actual publications of new Regulations. 

This temporarily ensures individuals from the above-mentioned groups will be 

able to participate in the Ticket program under the same protections as all other 

beneficiaries in the program without fear of loss of their status should their 

employment not continue. However, the Panel recommends SSA include 

clarification in the Ticket regulations and in the Expedited Reinstatement 

regulations to help ensure this policy is permanently adopted and understood by 

the public. The Panel further urges SSA to publish a repeal of, or a clarification 

of, any other regulations which could be interpreted to result in the loss of these 

dependent or survivor benefits. 

Unintended Disincentives: Interaction between Existing Work 

Incentives and the Ticket Program: 

The Panel believes there are a variety of issues which must be studied and 

addressed, related to the interaction between current work incentive and SGAwork related rules and the Ticket program, that may work to deter Ticket 

Program participation. Some of these issues are discussed in the input and 

discussion sections prior to Recommendations 20, 21 and 22. Specifically, 

existing program incentives are meant to recognize some individuals with severe 

disabilities have high or ongoing costs associated with their disability. If these 

individuals work, the expenditures for such costs are deducted from countable 

income in determining whether or not they are working above SGA. For 

example, Impairment-Related Work Expenses (IRWEs) can be used to exclude 

earned income if the costs of the item or services are related to the disability and 

are needed to work (such as attendant care services to help prepare the person 

for work everyday). Blind Work Expenses (BWEs) allow exclusion of earned 

income that is used to meet a variety of the expenses of working, whether or not 

they are related to the blindness (for example, childcare expenses).

The Panel has heard public comment and has discussed some of these issues. 

The Panel is very concerned that under the rules of the Ticket program, current 

work incentives to work may become disincentives to ENs to provide services to 

people with these needs, because they must earn considerably more than their 

counterparts who do not have those expenses in order to achieve zero benefit 

status and trigger EN payment. For example, someone who works and uses the 

 35 
costs of their medication for schizophrenia as an IRWE, may be at a 

disadvantage as to whether the EN would take his or her ticket. 

Another issue related to existing rules concerns how SSA interprets the value to 

be placed on an individual’s work effort with regard to whether it exceeds SGA 

for people in supported employment. The Panel received comments from 

supported employment advocates that this issue continues to be the subject of 

confusion and concern in the field. The Panel believes that further guidance 

from the Agency or perhaps regulations may be needed to address these 

concerns. 

The Panel is very concerned that, unless the work incentive issues are 

addressed, beneficiaries may be dissuaded from using a ticket to further enhance 

their work effort. Therefore, the Panel believes SSA must act to address these 

issues of complexity, conformity and inconsistency immediately. The two sets of

program rules, the Ticket Program and current work incentive provisions, should 

act in concert and be clearly working toward the same goal to maximize

employment effort and earnings for the program participants. 

 36 
APPENDIX A 

Schedule of Panel Meetings and Other Activities 

 37 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentive 

Advisory Panel 

Public comment Periods during Panel Meetings and Other Activities 

 Panel Meeting Public Comment Period 

 

1. July 24-25, 2000 2 Day Meeting 1 hr. 

2. September 11, 2000 Teleconference 45 min 

3. September 26-27, 2000 2 Day Meeting Briefing 

4. November 8, 2000 Teleconference 1 hr. 

5. November 13-15, 2000 3 Day Meeting 1 hr. 

6. November 27, 2000 Teleconference 1 hr. 

7. December 12, 2000 Teleconference 1 hr. 

8. December 19, 2000 Teleconference 1 hr. 

9. January 3, 2001 Teleconference 1 hr. 

10. January 9-10, 2001 2 Day Meeting 2 hrs. 

11. January 23, 2001 Teleconference 1 hr. 

12. February 6-8, 2001 3 Day Meeting 3 hrs. 

13. March 26-28, 2001 3 Day Meeting 2.5 hours 

14. May 8-10, 2001 3 Day Meeting 1 hr. 

15. June 22, 2001 Teleconference 2.5 hours 

REGIONAL MEETINGS
40

Panel Meeting Public Comment Period 

1. January 22, 2001 Salt Lake City, Utah 3 hrs. 

2. January 24, 2001 Minneapolis, Minnesota 3 hrs. 

3. January 25, 2001 West Coast Teleconference 2 hrs. 

4. January 26, 2001 Phoenix, Arizona 4 hrs. 

5. January 29, 2001 Atlanta, Georgia 4 hrs. 

6. February 15, 2001 West Coast Teleconference 2 hrs. 

7. February 21, 2001 New York, New York 4 hrs. 

 40 
41

APPENDIX B 

List of Commenters 

 41 
42

Social Security Administration 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel 

Teleconference 

September 11, 2000 

List of Commenters 

Ron Calhoun

Office of Vocational and Educational 

Services for Individuals with Disabilities 

New York Department of Education 

Jenny Kaufmann 

National Senior Citizens Law Center 

Washington, DC 

Social Security Administration 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel 

Teleconference 

International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 

November 8, 2000 

List of Commenters 

Marty Ford 

Director of Government Affairs 

ARC of the United States 

Washington, DC 

Cheryl Bates Harris 

NAPAS 

Washington, DC 

Linda Landry

Disability Law Center 

Boston, MA 

Ann Maclaine 

Director of the Louisiana Protection 

and Advocacy Agency 

New Orleans, LA 

Murray Manus 

Equip for Equality 

Chicago, IL 

 42 
43

Aleisa McKinlay 

Public Policy Analyst 

Advocacy Service 

Lincoln, NE 

Gary Richter 

Indiana Protection and Advocacy 

Indianapolis, IN 

Edward Wollman 

Disability Community Small Business 

Development Center 

Ann Arbor, MI 

Dave Ziskind

Director of the Division of Program 

Administration, RSA, Vocational 

Rehabilitation Program 

Washington, DC 

Dave Zehner

Protection and Advocacy for People 

with Disabilities 

Charleston, SC 

Social Security Administration 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel 

Quarterly Meeting 

Embassy Suites at Chevy Chase Pavilion 

Washington, DC 

November 13-15, 2000 

List of Commenters 

Sue Augustus

SSI Coalition 

Chicago, IL 

Alan Bergman 

President and CEO 

Brain Injury Association 

Alexandria, VA 

Kara Freeburg 

American Network of Community 

Options and Resources (ANCOR) 

Annandale, VA 

Marty Ford 

Director of Government Affairs 

 43 
44

ARC of the United States 

Washington, DC 

Charles Harles 

Executive Director 

International Association of Business, 

Industry and Rehabilitation (INABIR) 

Washington, DC 

Mitch Jessirich 

World Institute on Disability 

Oakland, CA 

Jenny Kaufmann 

National Senior Citizens Law Center 

Washington, DC 

Mary Kelly 

National Association of 

Developmental Disabilities Council 

Washington, DC 

Dan O’Brien 

Oklahoma Department of 

Rehabilitation Services 

Oklahoma City, OK 

Mike O’Brien 

Oklahoma Department of 

Rehabilitation Services 

Oklahoma City, OK 

Katherine Mario 

New York Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) 

Albany, NY 

Celane McWhorter 

Association for Persons in Supported Employment 

Alexandria, VA 

Susan Prokop

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) 

Washington, DC 

Andrew Sperling 

Director of Public Policy 

National Association for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) 

Arlington, VA

Michael Van Essen 

AIDS Assistance Organization 

Palm Springs, CA 

 44 
45

Social Security Administration 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel 

 Meeting 

Holiday Inn Capitol 

Washington, DC 

January 9-10, 2001 

List of Commenters 

Dennis Born 

Program Manager 

Supported Employment Consultation 

and Training Center 

Anderson, IN 

Paul Seifert 

IAPSRS 

Columbia, MD

Charles Harles 

Executive Director of INABIR 

Washington, DC 

Damon Hicks 

Supported Employment Consultation and Training Center 

Anderson, IN 

Mike O’Brien 

DRS 

Oklahoma City, OK 

 45 
46

APPENDIX C 

Letter to Commissioner Halter 

Concerning agency plans 

For implementation 

And first year roll out

 46 
47

 

October 23, 2001 

6401 Security Blvd. 

Room 960 Altmeyer Building 

Baltimore , MD 21235 

Dear Commissioner Halter: 

I am writing on behalf of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel (the Panel) to express the 

Panel's concerns regarding certain provisions in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), as well as the Social

Security Administration's (SSA) plans for implementation and first year roll-out of the Ticket program in thirteen states. 

As you know, the Panel has received regular briefings and updates from the Associate Commissioner for

Employment Support Programs, Kenneth McGill, on NPRM implementation activities such as contracting and grantmaking, and other critical administrative rollout activities. We have also received updates and information on program

evaluation activities from the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Policy, Paul Van de Water. Both have been helpful in

briefing the Panel on SSA’s activities and in responding to requests for information. We are very appreciative of their 

cooperation. 

The Panel recognizes that the implementation and rollout of the new TWWIIA programs pose enormous 

challenges to SSA and to the field of rehabilitation as a whole. We believe, however, if implemented cautiously, and

with serious consideration given to input from the Panel and constituents, these programs have the potential to improve 

the overall quality and availability of rehabilitation services, employment services and supports, and related health

services for our nation's citizens with disabilities. In keeping with this belief and with our commitment to the success of 

TWWIIA in increasing employment rates for people with disabilities, the Advisory Panel members take very seriously 

their responsibility to advise and assist the Commissioner of SSA. 

After the Panel's initial meeting in July 2000, and its subsequent briefings on both TWWIIA and the NPRM, 

Panel members felt it was essential to reach out to a variety of constituent groups and advocates to solicit comments and

opinions about the NPRM and the plans for Ticket implementation. To achieve this the Panel has conducted eleven

days public meetings and seven public conference calls since July 2000. We have hosted over twenty (20) hours of

public comment at those meetings. Additionally, public meetings in Phoenix, Minneapolis, Salt Lake, and Atlanta as 

well as teleconferences in California have been devoted solely to public comment on the NPRM. We have also solicited

and received correspondence from the public regarding SSA’s Ticket implementation plans and the NPRM. Not only 

have individual Panel members attended numerous meetings in their home states, but many also have been asked to

speak to groups and organizations about the Panel and TWWIIA implementation.

During the past six months of Panel activity, specific issues relating to implementation and rollout and the 

proposed regulations in the NPRM, have surfaced repeatedly in public comment and in Panel deliberations. After 

extensive discussion in our January and February meetings, the Panel concluded that a letter outlining key 

implementation issues and concerns should be sent immediately, prior to close of the NPRM public comment period.

Issue one involves the NPRM’s exclusion of certain beneficiaries from the Ticket program, specifically those 

who have a Medical Improvement Expected (MIE) diary and transition age youth 16-18 years old. We are aware that 

SSA officials did consider including both of these populations early in the development of the NPRM. We have

requested an analysis of the cost implications for including these populations from the Office of the Actuary. 

With regard to the exclusion of beneficiaries with an MIE diary, the Panel has four specific concerns. They are: 

(1) reports indicate that the MIE designation has a disproportionate impact on consumers who are diagnosed with

mental illness; (2) placing someone in the MIE category appears to be based solely on diagnosis; (3) the NPRM does 

not address appeal and due process issues raised when denying a benefit (i.e., a Ticket) to a beneficiary based on a 

designation that most beneficiaries do not even know they carry; and, (4) denying access to the Ticket program to over 

approximately beneficiaries a year when only a small subgroup of approximately 9,600 (i.e. actual ticket users) are 

ceased by a Continuing Disability Review (CDR), is questionable public policy. 

 47 
48

More specifically, in 1999, there were 60,766 DI and SSI adult beneficiaries on the rolls who were classified 

first time MIEs. The decision files of disability determination services indicate that in 1999, that same year, 9,663 

beneficiaries with an MIE diary were ceased because of medical improvement. No one knows how many of those who 

were ceased would be likely to use a ticket. But, overall estimates of ticket use are very low. To exclude tens of 

thousands from the program for the savings realized by such a small number seems questionable. The Panel

recommends that this entire population be included in the Ticket program in the final rule. Until a final rule is 

published, SSA’s communications and information should be silent on this proposed exclusion. 

With regard to the exclusion of transition aged youth, the Panel strongly recommends that SSA include this 

population in the Ticket program in the final rule. Other Federal agencies, such as the Office of Special Education 

Programs, the National Council on Disability and the President's Task Force on Employment of Adults with

Disabilities, also support their inclusion in the Ticket program. The President's Task Force has recommended and

promoted the inclusion of transition aged youth in all Federal employment policies and programs in their annual report 

to the President issued in December 2000. A well researched finding with this population is that success in employment

is directly related to early intervention. Panel members believe that working with young people early on is sound public 

policy and makes good common sense. We do not believe that the potential savings outweigh the benefits of reaching

these young people to prevent a lifetime of poverty and dependence. 

The second major issue is the inadequacy of the proposed milestones payment system in the NPRM. After 

extensive public comments, testimony by experts and hours of deliberation, the Panel has concluded that the proposed

milestone payment amounts and payment frequency outlined in the NPRM are grossly inadequate for the vast majority

of private entities that are looking to become employment networks (ENs). There are thousands of small and mediumsized private non-profit and private for-profit rehabilitation and employment service providers in local communities all

over the country that have expressed interest in this program. The Panel has received extensive public comments from

individuals and organizations representing these providers and all have indicated that the proposed milestone payment

system is inadequate. 

The inadequacy of the payment system as proposed in the NPRM would also restrict the use of Tickets by

those who are harder to serve. If Ticket implementation moves forward without the payment system issue resolved, it is 

likely that many individuals who are harder to serve will be unable to find an EN willing to take their Ticket. 

Many commenters stated that if the milestone payment process issues are not resolved before SSA tries to enroll ENs, 

SSA will find that few, if any, ENs will sign up to provide services. Testimony from a number of State Vocational 

Rehabilitation Agencies (State VRs) further indicated that if no ENs sign up, all beneficiaries who want to use their 

Ticket will be forced to come to State VRs for services. This will create havoc in the VR Agency’s system since State 

VR's are not prepared to deal with the onslaught of applicants. This will defeat the core purpose of the Ticket program -- 

to expand the number of providers working with SSA beneficiaries. It will also undermine the goal of providing a real 

choice of providers for all beneficiaries. 

The third major issue relates to the protections to be accorded beneficiaries and the provision of timely dispute 

resolution services. In the NPRM, the burden to know of, and seek out, assistance and dispute resolution services is on 

the beneficiary. This is unrealistic and can lead to the denial of critical advocacy services for beneficiaries in need. We 

received extensive public comment on this issue from a number of advocates in the current State Protection and 

Advocacy Systems for people with developmental disabilities, people with mental illness and other disabilities, as well 

as clients of the State Vocational Rehabilitation system. Their experience, specifically with the Client Assistance 

Program for individuals served by the State Vocational Rehabilitation Agency, is that consumers must receive up-front

and regular notice of 

the availability of advocacy services in order for the service to be effective in protecting beneficiaries and preventing 

disputes. People with disabilities should be notified of the availability of advocacy services when they receive their 

Ticket and at critical junctures 

throughout the process. It is not sufficient to provide information about the availability of protection and advocacy 

services only at the beginning of the process. Beneficiaries need to be 

reminded often that the service is available to them at any time. The Panel recommends that early and frequent notice be

instituted immediately, beginning with public education brochures and distributed with the initial mailing of Tickets to

beneficiaries in the rollout states. 

 48 
49

A fourth issue reflects the Panel's concern regarding to two reporting requirements. They are the reporting

requirements for beneficiary earnings and the requirement that ENs submit an annual financial report showing the 

percentage of the EN's budget spent on serving beneficiaries. 

To require ENs to provide monthly beneficiary earnings reports is unrealistic, costly, burdensome and unworkable for

most ENs. Panel members believe that ENs will not be able to collect this information on a monthly basis and perhaps 

will find even quarterly difficult. The beneficiary has almost no incentive to provide earnings information after he/she is 

no longer receiving cash benefits. In addition, the requirement of an annual financial report is confusing at best, and can 

be burdensome and intrusive at worst. It appears unnecessary in the overall evaluation of effectiveness of the program. 

We believe it will discourage potential providers because it is unnecessarily intrusive and there is no indication what the 

government will do with the information once it collects it. What would an EN report? How would the information be 

used? Could it be used to propose a decrease in the payment and/or profit of ENs?

In addition to these major issues, the Panel in a recent meeting discussed two non-NPRM concerns with regard 

to the actual rollout of the program during its January. After a briefing on the terms and conditions of the draft Request

for Proposals (RFP) for employment networks, and after receipt of public comments from State VR representatives at

the meeting, the Panel discussed the planned schedule for roll-out of the RFP and the Ticket. All of the members present 

agreed that the terms and conditions in the RFP appeared to unnecessarily limit the types of providers the program

would enroll and that many of the terms were confusing. Some members were also very concerned that beneficiaries 

would receive a Ticket and there would be no ENs signed up to provide services. 

After receiving further information from Mr. McGill that appeared to address some of the Panel's concerns and 

thorough discussion and deliberation during its February meeting, the Panel passed a motion by a 4/3 vote to

recommend that SSA not release the RFP for the ENs or Tickets to beneficiaries until the regulations are final. The final 

poll of the entire Panel after the meeting indicated that five (5) of the Panel members were in favor of the motion and 

six (6) were opposed. Further motions, one to delay the distribution of Tickets until the final rules are issued, and one to

delay publishing the RFP for at least two months after the NPRM comment period closes, were supported by the 

majority of Panel members with 10/1 and 9/2 in favor respectively. 

The Panel is very appreciative of SSA efforts to move forward with the Ticket program and we are aware of

the tight timeframes in the statute. Given the significance of the issues raised and concerns expressed, however, we

recommend that SSA proceed with caution and with due regard for the input of the Panel and the public. 

Finally, the Panel recommends that all public information and public education materials, as well as 

communications to the field and to the public, include plain and clear language 

acknowledging that the above NPRM issues are not resolved and that current implementation activities should not be

confused with final decision-making on the regulatory issues in question. Any such communication should indicate that

SSA plans to work with advocates, providers, constituents, the new Administration and Congress to resolve the NPRM

issues in a balanced and reasonable way. 

We further urge SSA to be very careful in public education materials and in all communication with

beneficiaries to state clearly that to date, no one is excluded from the Ticket program. It takes only one rumor, 

regardless of its veracity, to have the effect of exclusion for large numbers of people whose history and experience is

full of exclusions. 

The Panel shares your enthusiasm and commitment to this very important program, and we look forward to 

working with SSA to ensure that its promise becomes a reality for people with disabilities. To that end, we would

appreciate receiving a written response to this letter. If you have questions, please contact Marie Strahan, Executive 

Director for the Advisory Panel, or me. 

Thank you for your cooperation and support. I look forward to hearing from you.

 Sincerely, 

 49 
50

 /S/ 

Sarah Wiggins Mitchell, Chair 

cc: Marie Strahan 

 Glenna Donnelly

 Ken McGill 

Paul Van De Water 

 50 
51

APPENDIX D 

Response from the 

Office of the Actuary 

On cost implications 

Of Proposals 

 51 
52

SOCIAL SECURITY 

MEMORANDUM 

Date: March 26, 2001 Refer To: TCB

To: Richard V. Burkhauser

Ticket to Work Advisory Panel 

From: Bert Kestenbaum

Mary E. McKay 

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Subject: Estimates of the Short-Range Effects on OASDI Benefits and Federal SSI Payments of Modifications to the 

Implementation of the Ticket to Work Program Specified in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)—

INFORMATION

Under the provisions of P.L. 106–170 establishing the Ticket to Work (TTW) program, the Commissioner of Social 

Security has the authority to specify the details of certain aspects of the program's implementation. Three key

aspects of this delegation of authority are (1) the timing of the program's startup in various States across the nation,

(2) the determination of which disabled beneficiaries will be eligible to participate in the TTW program, and (3) the 

timing and amount of the milestone and outcome payments to employment networks (ENs) providing services under 

the program. 

We previously prepared estimates of the impact of the TTW program consistent with the proposed implementation

as published in the NPRM. The key aspects incorporated into these estimates are described below. 

• The TTW program is assumed to be made available to 30, 60, and 100 percent of the eligible population

in the first, second, and third years, respectively, with implementation starting in some States early in calendar 

year 2001. Please note that, in actuality, the issuing of tickets will be delayed until the publication of the final 

regulation, resulting in a somewhat later startup in some States than has been assumed. 

• The eligible population, as specified in the NPRM, will consist of disabled adults aged 18 to 64 who (1) have a 

permanent impairment; (2) have an impairment classified as medical improvement possible; or (3) have

undergone at least one continuing disability review (CDR) for an impairment classified as medical improvement

expected (MIE). SSI disabled children will be eligible to receive a ticket after attaining age 18 and undergoing

a medical redetermination to assure that they meet the adult disability standard. 

• P.L 106–170 authorizes two payment systems under which ENs can be paid. The NPRM sets the monthly

outcome payment under the outcome-only payment system at 40 percent of the payment calculation base. 

Outcome payments are made for each month for which OASDI or SSI disability benefits are not payable to the

individual because of work, up to a maximum of 60 months. 

Under the outcome-milestone payment system, the NPRM provides for up to two milestone payments. The first 

milestone, set at 68 percent of the payment calculation base, is payable after the disabled beneficiary has 

worked for 3 months within a 12-month period and has earnings at or above the SGA amount for each of these

3 months. The second milestone, set at 136 percent of the payment calculation base, is payable after the 

disabled beneficiary has worked for 7 months within a 12-month period and has earnings at or above the SGA 

amount for each of these 7 months. Outcome payments increase from 30 percent of the payment calculation 

base for the first 12 outcome payments to 38 percent of the payment calculation base for the 49th to 60th

outcome payments. The first 12 outcome payments are reduced by the amount of any milestone payments

made.

The TTW Advisory Panel has requested that we provide estimates for two options to expand the group of

disabled beneficiaries who are eligible to receive tickets. The first option would extend eligibility to disabled adults 

 52 
53

who are classified as MIEs and have not yet undergone a CDR. The second option would further extend eligibility to

SSI disabled child recipients aged 16 to 18. This second option could have different costs depending on whether a child

recipient who was using a ticket would still have to undergo a medical redetermination upon attainment of age 18. If 

the timing of the medical redetermination were not affected, a child recipient whose redetermination resulted in a 

decision to cease benefits would only be protected under the provisions of the Social Security Act which provide for 

benefit continuation while participating in a vocational rehabilitation program. However, if age 18 redeterminations

were to be treated as CDRs and deferred until the child recipient were no longer participating in the TTW program,

benefit cessation would be delayed still further, resulting in additional SSI program outlays. For purposes of 

completeness, the Office of Employment Support Programs (OESP) has requested that we provide estimates for each of 

these alternative treatments of age 18 redeterminations, although OESP indicated that if tickets were to be given to

disabled children their preferred option would be to treat age 18 redeterminations as CDRs. 

The net effect of the proposed options to expand the group of disabled beneficiaries is rather complicated due to the 

interaction between the TTW program and the separate legislative mandates to conduct CDRs of disabled adults and 

medical redeterminations of SSI disabled children attaining age 18. The attached table lays out the detailed aspects 

of these program outlay effects. The first tier of the table presents the estimated effects of TTW as specified in the

NPRM. The succeeding tiers present the estimated effects of the proposed expansion options, including estimated 

additional costs attributable to providing disabled children subject to age 18 redeterminations the same benefit 

protection as adults due a CDR. As noted previously, the actual program startup depends on the timing of the 

publication of the final regulation and will be delayed somewhat from the assumed startup timing incorporated into 

our estimates. 

/S/ 

Bert Kestenbaum., A.S.A.

Actuary

/S/ 

Mary E. McKay, F.S.A. 

Actuary

Attachment 

 53 

Estimated increases(+) or decreases(-) in program expenditures under the Ticket to Work program due to providing additional services 

or protection to certain newly disabled individuals and certain disabled children, fiscal years 2001-10 

(In millions) 

Fiscal year 

Option 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total, 

2001-10

Ticket to Work program effects based on 

implementation as specified in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – $2 $2 $3 -$10 -$20 -$29 -$41 -$64 -$101 -$258 

Federal SSI payments.................................... -$1 -4 -12 -19 -21 -18 -18 -27 -48 -67 -235 

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. -1 -2 -10 -16 -31 -38 -47 -68 -112 -168 -493 

Revisions to estimated program effects due to 

the inclusion of newly disabled persons 

classified as Medical Improvement 

Expected(MIE) in the population receiving 

tickets: 

Ticket to Work program: 

OASDI benefit payments................... – 1 1 2 -1 -11 -18 -25 -35 -49 -135 

Federal SSI payments ........................ (1/) -3 -6 -9 -9 -10 -15 -22 -32 -42 -148 

Continuing Disability Reviews: 

OASDI benefit payments................... – 2 11 32 72 108 135 153 173 195 882 

Federal SSI payments ........................ (1/) 1 4 11 24 32 33 37 39 41 222 

Net effect of MIE inclusion: 

OASDI benefit payments................... – 3 12 34 71 97 117 128 138 146 747 

Federal SSI payments ........................ (1/) -2 -2 3 15 22 18 15 7 -1 75 

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .................. (1/) 1 10 37 86 119 135 143 145 145 822 

Revisions to Federal SSI payments due to the 

inclusion of SSI disabled children aged 16 

and older in the population receiving tickets 

2/: 

Ticket to Work program: 

Federal SSI payments ........................ -1 -7 -19 -32 -40 -41 -47 -64 -86 -110 -446 

Continuing Disability Reviews: 

Federal SSI payments ........................ (1/) 4 22 53 86 97 100 117 123 127 730 

Net effect of inclusion of children 

without deferral of age 18 

redeterminations: 

Federal SSI payments ........................ -1 -3 3 21 46 57 53 53 36 18 284 

Revisions to Federal SSI payments due to 

deferral of age 18 redeterminations in 

accordance with CDR deferral provisions: 

Continuing Disability Reviews: 

Federal SSI payments ........................ (1/) (1/) (1/) 1 9 28 47 56 58 57 256 

Ticket to Work program effects if newly 

disabled MIEs and certain disabled children 

are included and age 18 redeterminations are 

treated as CDRs: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – 5 14 37 61 77 88 87 74 45 489 

Federal SSI payments.................................... -2 -9 -10 6 49 88 100 98 53 8 380 

Total, OASDI and SSI................................... -2 -4 4 43 110 165 188 185 127 53 869 

1/ Net change in OASDI benefit payments or Federal SSI payments of less than $500,000. 

2/ Assumes disabled children who activate their ticket prior to notification of an age 18 redetermination would be given benefit protection under the 

provisions of the Act which provide for benefit continuation while participating in a vocational rehabilitation program. The cost of according those 

children the same benefit protection as adults due a CDR is presented in the next tier of this table. 

Notes: 1. Above estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2000 OASDI Trustees Report and the 2000 SSI Annual Report. 

 2. Totals may not equal sum of rounded components. 

Social Security Administration 

Office of the Chief Actuary 

March 26, 2001 
56

 56 
57

SOCIAL SECURITY 

MEMORANDUM

Date: April 11, 2001 Refer To: TCB

To: Richard V. Burkhauser

Ticket to Work Advisory Panel 

From: Bert Kestenbaum

Mary E. McKay 

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Subject: Estimates of the Short-Range Effects on OASDI Benefits and Federal SSI Payments of Alternatives to the Ticket to

Work Outcome-Milestone Payment System Specified in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)—

INFORMATION

Under the provisions of P.L. 106–170 establishing the Ticket to Work (TTW) program, the Commissioner of Social 

Security has the authority to specify the details of certain aspects of the program's implementation. Three key

aspects of this delegation of authority are (1) the timing of the program's startup in various States across the nation,

(2) the determination of which disabled beneficiaries will be eligible to participate in the TTW program, and (3) the 

timing and amount of the milestone and outcome payments to employment networks (ENs) providing services under 

the program. 

We previously prepared estimates of the impact of the TTW program consistent with the proposed implementation

as published in the NPRM. The key aspects incorporated into these estimates are described below. 

• The TTW program is assumed to be made available to 30, 60, and 100 percent of the eligible population in the 

first, second, and third years, respectively, with implementation starting in some States early in calendar year 

2001. Please note that, in actuality, the issuing of tickets will be delayed until the publication of the final 

regulation, resulting in a somewhat later startup in some States than has been assumed. 

• The eligible population, as specified in the NPRM, will consist of disabled adults aged 18 to 64 who (1) have a 

permanent impairment; (2) have an impairment classified as medical improvement possible; or (3) have undergone 

at least one continuing disability review for an impairment classified as medical improvement expected. SSI 

disabled children will be eligible to receive a ticket after attaining age 18 and undergoing a medical redetermination 

to assure that they meet the adult disability standard. 

• P.L. 106–170 authorizes two payment systems under which ENs can be paid. The NPRM sets the monthly

outcome payment under the outcome-only payment system at 40 percent of the payment calculation base. Outcome 

payments are made for each month for which OASDI or SSI disability benefits are not payable to the individual 

because of work, up to a maximum of 60 months. 

Under the outcome-milestone payment system, the NPRM provides for up to two milestone payments which

were designed to equal in total 10 percent of the total outcome payments available under the outcomemilestone payment system. The first milestone, set at 68 percent of the payment calculation base, is payable 

after the disabled beneficiary has worked for 3 months within a 12-month period and has earnings at or above 

the SGA amount for each of these 3 months. The second milestone, set at 136 percent of the payment 

calculation base, is payable after the disabled beneficiary has worked for 7 months within a 12-month period 

and has earnings at or above the SGA amount for each of these 7 months. Outcome payments increase from 30 

percent of the payment calculation base for the first 12 outcome payments to 38 percent of the payment

calculation base for the 49th to 60th outcome payments. The first 12 outcome payments are further reduced by

the amount of any milestone payments made. 

 57 
58

At the request of the TTW Advisory Panel we prepared estimates for two options to expand the group of

disabled beneficiaries who are eligible to receive tickets. These estimates were presented in our memorandum dated 

March 26, 2001. 

The TTW Advisory Panel has also requested that we provide estimates for several alternatives to the TTW 

outcome-milestone payment system specified in the NPRM. These alternatives are described below. 

• Alternative 1—Increase the total potential milestone payments to 20 percent of the total outcome payments 

available under the outcome-milestone payment system by establishing a third milestone payment equal to the 

sum of the first two milestone payments. This third milestone would be payable after the disabled beneficiary

completes 12 months of SGA. In addition, increase from 12 to 24 the number of outcome payments from

which the milestone payments will be recovered. 

• Alternative 2—Same as alternative 1 except increase from 12 to 60 the number of outcome payments from

which the milestone payments will be recovered. 

• Alternative 3—Same as alternative 2 except set all outcome payments under the outcome-milestone payment

system to 38 percent of the payment calculation base. Since the total potential milestone payments are 

assumed to equal 20 percent of the total potential outcome payments, the milestone payments are 

proportionately higher than those in alternative 2. 

• Alternative 4—The Advisory Panel also requested estimates for several options which provide for establishing

milestones much earlier in the process than does the NPRM. Rather than prepare separate estimates for each of 

these options for which it may be difficult to differentiate costs, we have developed one alternative to show the 

order of magnitude of program costs that might be expected under such an alternative. For this alternative we 

increase the potential milestone payments to 40 percent of the total potential outcome payments under the 

outcome-milestone payment system with about 60 percent of these milestone payments payable much earlier in

the process than under the payment system specified in the NPRM. Outcome payments average 34 percent of 

the payment calculation base similar to the NPRM. The recovery of milestone payments is spread over all 60

outcome payments. 

The attached table 1 presents the estimated impact on program outlays of these proposed alternatives to the 

outcome-milestone payment system. The differences between the estimated program expenditures for these 

alternatives and the estimated program expenditures for the TTW program based on the proposed implementation as 

specified in the NPRM are presented in table 2. These estimates are based on the intermediate assumptions of the 

2000 OASDI Trustees Report and the assumptions underlying the 2000 SSI Annual Report. As noted previously, 

the actual program startup depends on the timing of the publication of the final regulation and will be delayed

somewhat from the assumed startup timing incorporated into our estimates. It should also be noted that these 

estimates should be considered quite rough and providing order of magnitude estimates only since there is little 

experience upon which to base them. 

/S/ 

Bert Kestenbaum, A.S.A. 

Actuary

/S/ 

Mary E. McKay, F.S.A. 

Actuary

Attachments: 2 

 58 
Table 1—Estimated increases(+) or decreases(-) in OASDI benefits and Federal SSI payments under the Ticket to Work program for 

selected alternatives to the outcome-milestone payment system, fiscal years 2001-10 

(In millions) 

Fiscal year 

Option 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total, 

2001-10

Ticket to Work program effects based on 

implementation as specified in the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – $2 $2 $3 -$10 -$20 -$29 -$41 -$64 -$101 -$258 

Federal SSI payments .................................... -$1 -4 -12 -19 -21 -18 -18 -27 -48 -67 -235 

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. -1 -2 -10 -16 -31 -38 -47 -68 -112 -168 -493 

Alternative 1—establish a 3rd milestone and 

extend recovery of milestone payments to 

24 months: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – 2 7 16 12 -1 -14 -25 -47 -85 -133 

Federal SSI payments .................................... -1 -4 -10 -17 -19 -16 -16 -24 -41 -58 -205 

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. -1 -2 -3 -1 -7 -17 -30 -49 -88 -143 -338 

Alternative 2—establish a 3rd milestone and 

extend recovery of milestone payments to 

60 months: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – 2 8 19 21 13 2 -13 -39 -80 -66 

Federal SSI payments .................................... (1/) -4 -9 -14 -15 -12 -11 -18 -32 -45 -160 

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. (1/) -2 -1 5 6 1 -9 -31 -71 -125 -226 

Alternative 3—establish a 3rd milestone, 

extend recovery of milestone payments to 

60 months, and increase outcome 

payments: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – 4 16 35 47 39 29 14 -12 -53 119 

Federal SSI payments .................................... (1/) -2 -6 -8 -8 -4 -2 -4 -9 -16 -58 

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. (1/) 2 10 27 39 35 27 10 -21 -69 61 

Alternative 4—establish additional 

milestones earlier in the process and 

extend recovery of milestone payments to 

60 months: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... 60 154 300 341 358 371 382 375 357 329 3,028 

Federal SSI payments .................................... 4 21 35 52 46 57 93 135 159 165 768 

Total, OASDI and SSI ................................... 64 175 335 393 404 428 475 510 516 494 3,796 

1/ Net change in OASDI benefit payments or Federal SSI payments of less than $500,000. 

Notes: 1. Above estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2000 OASDI Trustees Report and the 2000 SSI Annual Report. 

 2. Totals may not equal sum of rounded components. 

Social Security Administration 

Office of the Chief Actuary 

April 11, 2001 
60

Table 2—Estimated OASDI benefits and Federal SSI payments in excess of those estimated for the Ticket to Work program based on

implementation as specified in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), due to selected alternatives to the outcome-milestone 

payment system, fiscal years 2001-10 

(In millions) 

Fiscal year

Option 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total,

2001-10

Ticket to Work program based on 

implementation as specified in the NPRM 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – – – – – – – – – – –

Federal SSI payments.................................... – – – – – – – – – – –

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. – – – – – – – – – – –

Alternative 1—establish a 3rd milestone and 

extend recovery of milestone payments to

24 months: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – (1/) $5 $13 $22 $19 $15 $16 $17 $16 $125

Federal SSI payments.................................... – (1/) 1 2 3 2 2 3 7 9 30

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. – (1/) 6 15 25 21 17 19 24 25 155

Alternative 2—establish a 3rd milestone and 

extend recovery of milestone payments to

60 months: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – (1/) 6 16 31 33 31 28 25 21 192

Federal SSI payments.................................... – $1 3 5 6 6 7 9 16 22 74

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. – 1 9 21 37 39 38 37 41 43 266

Alternative 3—establish a 3rd milestone,

extend recovery of milestone payments to

60 months, and increase outcome 

payments: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... – 2 14 32 57 59 58 55 52 48 377

Federal SSI payments.................................... – 2 6 11 14 14 16 23 39 51 177

Subtotal, OASDI and SSI .............................. – 4 20 43 71 73 74 78 91 99 554

Alternative 4—establish additional 

milestones earlier in the process and

extend recovery of milestone payments to

60 months: 

OASDI benefit payments............................... $60 152 298 338 368 391 411 416 421 430 3,286

Federal SSI payments.................................... 5 25 47 71 68 75 111 162 207 233 1,002

Total, OASDI and SSI................................... 65 177 345 409 436 466 522 578 628 663 4,288

1/ Net change in OASDI benefit payments or Federal SSI payments of less than $500,000. 

Notes: 1. Above estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2000 OASDI Trustees Report and the 2000 SSI Annual Report.

2. Totals may not equal sum of rounded components.

Social Security Administration

Office of the Chief Actuary 

April 11, 2001 

 60 
61

APPENDIX E 

Two EN Milestone Payment 

Models for SSI 

 61 
62

 

Model Presented by Paul J. Seifert 

International Association of Pscho-Social Rehabilitation 

Services 

This proposal restructures the milestone-outcome system for beneficiaries in order to 

account for the existing work incentives. It would allow outcome payments when the 

amount of earnings of a SSI recipient partially reduces their SSI check because of 

earnings or income. The amount paid would still be based on the maximum of 40% 

of the benefit not paid. Such a proposal might pay a $500 milestone the first month a 

SSI recipient worked and earned over $125 in gross income. A second milestone 

would be paid in the next month the SSI recipient earned over $325 in gross income. 

In any month after the second milestone was paid that the SSI recipient’s income 

was between $326 and $550, SSA would pay an outcome payment of $53. In any 

month after the milestone was paid in which the recipient’s income was between 

$551 and $750, SSA would pay an outcome payment of $93. In any month where 

earnings were between $751 and $1002, SSA would pay $138. This is calculated 

using average Federal SSA payment as determined by in calculating the payment 

calculation base for SSI. The amount of the outcome payment would be paid 

according to the 40% maximum allowed under the law.

 62 
Prepared by: Paul J. Seifert, Int'l Assoc. of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services -- February 7, 2001 

SSA's PROPOSED SSI MILESTONE-OUTCOME PAYMENT SYSTEM 

Monthly Countable Amount of SSI Cash Milestone Monthly Outcome SSA 

Earnings Income Benefit Offset Payment Payment Payment Amt Breakeven 

$1 to $85 $0 $0 $459 $0 

$100 $15 $7.50 $451.50 $0 

$125 $40 $20 $439 $0 Under this 

$150 $65 $32.50 $426.50 $0 scenario, SSA 

$175 $90 $45 $414 $0 breaks even at 

$200 $115 $57.50 $401.50 $0 dollar one 

$225 $140 $70 $389 $0 

$250 $165 $82.50 $376.50 $0 SSA shares no 

$275 $190 $95 $364 $0 risk under this 

$300 $215 $107.50 $351.50 $0 scenario 

$325 $240 $120 $339 $0 

$350 $265 $132.50 $326.50 $0 

$375 $290 $145 $314 $0 

$400 $315 $157.50 $301.50 $0 

$425 $340 $170 $289 $0 

$450 $365 $182.50 $276.50 $0 

$475 $390 $195 $264 $0 

$500 $415 $207.50 $251.50 $0 

$525 $440 $220 $239 $0 

$550 $465 $232.50 $226.50 $0 

$575 $490 $245 $214 $0 

$600 $515 $257.50 $201.50 $0 

$625 $540 $270 $189 $0 

$650 $565 $282.50 $176.50 $0 

$675 $590 $295 $164 $0 

$700 $615 $307.50 $151.50 $0 

$725 $640 $320 $139 $0 

$740 $655 327.50 $131.50 $300/3 months

 $600/7 months

$750 $665 $332.50 $126.50 $0

$775 $690 $345 $114 $0 

$800 $715 $357.50 $101.50 $0 

$825 $740 $370 $89 $0 

$850 $765 $382.50 $76.50 $0 

$875 $790 $395 $64 $0 

$900 $815 $407.5 $51.50 $0 

$925 $840 $420 $39 $0 

$950 $865 $432.50 $26.50 $0 

$975 $890 $445 $14 $0 

$1000 $915 $457.50 $1.50 $0 

$1003 $918 $459 $0.00 Year 1 2 3 4 5 

 $57, $141, $150, $158, $167 
64

Prepared by: Paul J. Seifert, Int'l Assoc. of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services -- February 7, 2001 

ALTERNATIVE SSI MILESTONE-OUTCOME SYSTEM

Monthly Countable Amount of SSI Cash Milestone Monthly Outcome SSA 

Earnings Income Benefit Offset Payment Payment Payment Amt Breakeven 

$1 to $85 $0 $0 $459 $0 

$100 $15 $7.50 $451.50 $0

$125 $40 $20 $439 $500 $0 25 months

$150 $65 $32.50 $426.50 $0

$175 $90 $45 $414 $0 

$200 $115 $57.50 $401.50 $0

$225 $140 $70 $389 $0 

$250 $165 $82.50 $376.50 $0

$275 $190 $95 $364 $0 

$300 $215 $107.50 $351.50 $0 

$325 $240 $120 $339 $1000 $0 13 months

$350 $265 $132.50 $326.50 $53 11 months

$375 $290 $145 $314 $53 

$400 $315 $157.50 $301.50 $53 Total Payment 

$425 $340 $170 $289 $53 $4,680 

$450 $365 $182.50 $276.50 $53 milestone $1,500 

$475 $390 $195 $264 $53 outcome $3,180 

$500 $415 $207.50 $251.50 $53 

$525 $440 $220 $239 $53 6 months 

$550 $465 $232.50 $226.50 $93 10 months

$575 $490 $245 $214 $93 

$600 $515 $257.50 $201.50 $93 Total payment 

$625 $540 $270 $189 $93 $7,080 

$650 $565 $282.50 $176.50 $93 milestone $1,500 

$675 $590 $295 $164 $93 outcome $5,580 

$700 $615 $307.50 $151.50 $93 

$725 $640 $320 $139 $93 

$750 $665 $332.50 $126.50 $93 6 months

$775 $690 $345 $114 $138 7 months 

$800 $715 $357.50 $101.50 $138 

$825 $740 $370 $89 $138 

$850 $765 $382.50 $76.50 $138 Total payment 

$875 $790 $395 $64 $138 $9,780 

$900 $815 $407.5 $51.50 $138 milestone $1,500 

$925 $840 $420 $39 $138 outcome $8,280 

$950 $865 $432.50 $26.50 $138 

$975 $890 $445 $14 $138 

$1000 $915 $457.50 $1.50 $138 5 months 

$1003 $918 $459 $0.00 $150 5 months 

 milestone outcome Total payment

$1,500 + $9,000 = $10,500 

 64 
65

Example of a Ticket Scenario that Addresses a Number of the Equity of 

Access Issues 

Prepared by Dan O’Brien, OK Department of Rehabilitation Services 

Potential Breakeven Scenario for SSI Recipients 

If the intent of the ticket is to create a breakeven scenario for the SSA, then SSI must be considered separately from SSDI as the 

baseline assumptions are different. Specifically, savings accrue, i.e., some benefits are not payable, from any SSI work activity 

that exceeds $85 per month whereas for SSDI no savings accrue below SGA. This allows a breakeven scenario for SSI based on 

payment of milestone and outcome payments using 35% of the benefits not payable due to work activity. 

Milestone Payment

Criteria 

Payment 

Threshold 

Payment Cumulative

Savings to SSA 

Total 

+ or – 

Job 

Placement 

Minimum 1 

month 

work 

Earnings of 

at least 

$200 

$1,000 `$58 -942

Job 

Training 

Complete 

Minimum 3 

months

work 

Avg. 

earnings in 

the last 2 

months of at 

least $530 

(trial work 

period 

amount) 

$1,000 $445+58=$503 -1497

Integration 

into 

Worksite 

Minimum 6 

months of 

work 

Avg. 

earnings in 

the last 3 

months of at 

least 

$600/month 

$1,000 $772+503=$1275 -1725

Attainment

of SGA 

Minimum of 

9 months 

work 

Avg. 

earnings in 

last 3 

months at 

least SGA 

($700) 

$1,000 $938+1275=$221

3 

-1787 

Quarterly 

Job 

Retention 

Outcome 

Payment 

3 months 

of job 

retention 

Monthly 

earnings at 

$53

0+/mo 

$70

0+/mo 

$10

00+/mo 

Quarterly 

$234 

$323 

$480 

35% of 

benefits not 

paid 

Breakeven point 

beyond 9 mo. 

Milestone 

13 months

 9 months

 6 months

 65 
66

APPENDIX F 

Summary of Critical Issues 

Raised in Public Comments 

Summary of Critical Issues from Public Comments 

Public comments on the NPRM for the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program were garnered from five 

sources: U.S. mail, e-mail, Panel public meetings, Panel regional meetings, and from SSA. The public 

comments sent to SSA were catalogued by subject by the agency. The catalogue of comments can be 

accessed at www.ssa.gov/work. The comments overwhelmingly addressed five issues: 

Provider Payment 

Ticket Eligibility 

Employment Network Qualifications 

Number of Tickets per Beneficiary 

Determining “Timely Progress” 

Also, of major concern to those who made public comments were the participation of Vocational 

Rehabilitation Agencies in the Ticket program and evaluation of Employment Networks. Specifically, 

respondents addressed over 20 issues related to the NPRM and several issues that are indirectly related, 

e.g., overpayments. What follows are excerpts, by topic, of comments that typify those received. 

PROVIDER PAYMENT 

“The proposed regulations set the payment rate for ENs that select the outcome-milestone payment system 

at 85% of the total payments made under the outcome-only payment system. The law only specifies that

the total payment to an EN opting to take the milestone/outcome payment system must be lower than the 

total paid to an EN under the outcome-only system (Section 101 (h) (3)(C). Setting the percentage so low 

will discourage many providers from participating in the Ticket program. Milestone payments were included 

in the law to allow providers who can not afford to wait months if not years until a beneficiary is completely 

off benefits before receiving any type of payment to participate in the program. Setting the percentage this 

low will likely create a disincentive that keeps those providers from participating, thus, undermining the goal

of increasing consumer choice.” 

“Given that a $1 difference in payment would meet the letter of the law, the rate should be set to create an 

incentive for as many providers as possible to participate in the program. SSA should consider raising the 

percentage closer to 100 percent in order to accomplish that goal.” 

“The milestone payments proposed in this section are inadequate to encourage any new entities to 

participate in the program. Small and medium size service providers will be unable to offer Ticket holders 

the tailored services required to allow them to succeed in their search for work if they receive no payment 

until after a person has worked for three months. The rationale for including milestone payments in the law 

was to provide an incentive for providers to participate in the Ticket program and encourage as many 

different entities as possible to do so. The system proposed in the NPRM will not accomplish this objective. 

In fact, the proposed milestone payment system may actually create a disincentive for many providers. 

 66 
67

In addition, the proposed design of the milestones will likely have a negative impact on beneficiaries 

considered “hard to serve.” Agencies that do decide to participate in the program will have no reason to

work with Ticket holders whose service needs are costly, more intensive, and/or longer in duration. 

Obviously, the longer it takes a beneficiary to become employed, the longer it will be before the EN receives 

a payment. Milestones should be designed in a more flexible way so that the payments create an incentive 

for ENs to serve a broader range of beneficiaries, regardless of the level of services needed. Authorizing a 

milestone payment for the completion of a distinct, measurable goal in the IWP is one way to encourage 

agencies to become ENs (e.g., with some type of limit on the number and amount of any pre-employment 

milestones). For example, the completion of a training course by a ticket holder could entitle the EN to a 

milestone payment. This milestone could be in addition to the milestones in the proposed regulations or as 

a substitute for one of them. This type of milestone would also encourage ENs to serve people with more 

significant disabilities who require more time and/or more intensive services to acquire the skills necessary 

to transition permanently off benefits. 

While this pre-employment milestone could be viewed as contrary to the ideal of paying only for an

employment outcome, this is not the case. Completing a goal in the IWP is itself a measurable outcome 

that, in the view of the EN, will lead to employment. The PM could be required to agree with the EN on 

which particular objective in an IWP would warrant the payment of a milestone. While paying only for the 

outcome of employment is a worthy goal, it must be balanced with the ability to recruit and retain ENs. If 

limiting all payment to post employment causes very few (or no) agencies to participate as ENs, there will 

be no outcomes for which to pay as no beneficiaries will be leaving the rolls and there will be no 

corresponding savings to the trust funds.

The payment system has a built-in bias toward higher functioning beneficiaries who have short-term, 

low-cost needs. It will discourage employment networks from working with the very beneficiaries the 

program is supposed to be aimed at - persons with longer-term, higher-cost needs. This will leave out, for 

example, persons with severe mental illnesses, traumatic brain injury, pronounced or multiple 

developmental disabilities, or anyone whose vocational training requires a greater investment in time and 

assistive technology. 

The payment system is biased against beneficiaries who must reach a higher level of earnings (for example, 

blind beneficiaries with higher substantial gainful activity levels) before the employment network is paid. 

The payment system also has a built-in bias toward established providers pursuing traditional methods to

become employment networks. New providers with innovative approaches are not likely to have the capital

resources and cash flow to operate under the payment systems, especially the milestone payments. 

TICKET ELIGIBILITY 

Transition-aged youth (ages 16 & 17) should be allowed to participate in the Ticket to Work program. 

Youth with disabilities have tremendous potential to achieve independence from benefits and enter the 

world of work. Every possible support and service should be made available to young SSI beneficiaries to 

ensure that they do not begin a life-long dependency on public benefits. Substantial evidence indicates that 

the longer a person remains on benefits, the less likely they are to be able to successfully enter the

workforce. Given all these facts, it is not sound public policy to exclude them from this program. While it

may be difficult to coordinate participation by those under 18 with existing statute (e.g. the CDR protection 

for beneficiaries using a ticket with the required 18 year old redetermination), administrative difficulty does 

 67 
68

not justify the categorical exclusion of a class of people that are likely to benefit substantially from inclusion 

in the program. 

Disability beneficiaries with the designation MIE should be eligible to participate in the Ticket program prior 

to the completion of the first CDR. People in this category probably have a recent work history and are 

highly likely to succeed in their work attempt if appropriate services and supports are available. With only 

16% of beneficiaries with the MIE designation having their benefits ceased when their first CDR is 

completed, the other 84% of this population who remain eligible for benefits would be unjustly prevented 

from participating in the program by the proposed regulations. While the first CDR is scheduled to be 

conducted at sometime between 3 and 18 months after the award of benefits, it often takes several years 

for these reviews to be completed. Once again, the longer a person remains on benefits, the less likely that

person is to be able to become independent again. Hence, beneficiaries with the MIE designation are one 

of the most likely groups to be able to benefit from this program and should be included. 

The apparent rationale for the exclusion of this category of beneficiaries is the cost of outcome payments 

for someone whose benefits would have been ceased at the first CDR - presumably resulting in increased

expenditures rather than savings to the Trust Fund. This viewpoint appears to be shortsighted. Without 

thorough tracking of the MIE beneficiaries who are ceased at the initial CDR, it is impossible to know the 

true impact of their inclusion in the Ticket program on overall expenditures. For instance, it would be 

important to know exactly how many of the 16% whose benefits are ceased are likely to reapply for and 

receive benefits in the future. It would also be useful to know how many actually go to work rather then 

simply applying for and receiving other public benefits. 

It is difficult to justify the exclusion of this population without first obtaining this type of data. If this 

exclusion remains in place, SSA is strongly encouraged to change the administrative procedure that governs

the award of the MIE designation. Many, probably most, beneficiaries that are currently categorized as MIE 

do not even know it. This has not mattered in the past because the only consequence of being labeled MIE 

was to have a diary for a CDR sooner than other beneficiaries. If the proposed regulations are implemented 

with this provision intact, beneficiaries must be made explicitly aware of the fact that they have been placed 

in this category. In addition, since this designation will limit access to a benefit, the decision must be 

appealable. Currently SSA has no process in place to appeal the decision to place a beneficiary in this 

group. 

EMPLOYMENT NETWORK QUALIFICATIONS 

Employment network qualifications set out in the law are fairly general. Those of us who helped to develop 

the legislation were determined not to impose any arbitrary barriers to entities wishing to serve an individual

who wants to go to work. We remind SSA that a major objective of the Ticket to Work program was to get 

away from the heavy reliance on state vocational rehabilitation agencies and traditional rehabilitation

models which, in fact, did not work for many people. It was particularly important that ENs would not be 

limited by licensing or certification criteria unrelated to their mission. 

Section 411.315, which sets out EN minimum qualifications, has a number of troubling aspects as currently 

constituted. The language seems to imply that employment networks must provide health and medical 

services and includes stipulations that an EN must have “applicable certificates, licenses or other credentials 

 68 
69

if such documentation is required by state law...." Where a profession requires licensing or credentialing 

under state law, such a requirement is certainly reasonable. However, SSA should avoid giving the

impression that all employees or contractors of ENs have to be licensed or credentialed. Also reasonable 

would be any business licensing or regulatory requirements ordinarily imposed on an entity that seeks to 

become an EN. For example, proper guidelines regarding proof of the business as a taxpaying, registered 

entity under federal and state law would obviously be appropriate. SSA must make it clear that standards 

must be met only where required for licensed professionals and that any services such as those outlined in 

subsection [C] would only be those provided in the normal course of business. 

SSA should clarify the regulations to avoid the interpretation that only state certification or licensing will 

qualify an entity as an EN. Instead, SSA should make it clear that there are any number of avenues by 

which a provider can qualify as an EN: certification or licensing under applicable state law; credentialing 

under other nationally recognized standards; or education or experience in successful employment of people 

with disabilities. What must remain the key criteria is whether the entity is capable of successfully providing 

the service agreed to by the EN and the beneficiary. Questions have arisen in various discussions about ENs 

whether families or personal support networks could serve as an EN. If the family or group of friends can 

meet the requirements of an EN, then they should be able to serve as an EN. However, we suspect that a 

beneficiary's family or friends would be in a better position to associate themselves with or subcontract with 

an EN to provide services to an individual, particularly if the extent of their services are limited to that 

individual. However, we urge SSA to make it clear that such arrangements are allowed through individual 

arrangements with an EN. 

 

NUMBER OF TICKETS PER BENEFICIARY 

There should be no limit on the number of Tickets a person can receive over the course of a lifetime, as 

long as a person is not using more than one ticket at a time. People eligible for the program have very 

severe disabilities that may not allow them to work consistently or for long periods of time the first time 

they attempt to work. Limiting the number of tickets would ignore the reality that disability can be a

sporadic, episodic, lifelong event or that other factors such as job loss may trigger the need for additional 

assistance in the future. 

DETERMINING TIMELY PROGRESS 

The proposed rules regarding "timely progress" discriminate against persons with disabling conditions that

are episodic and intermittent in nature (e.g., some persons with chronic mental illness). While some people 

may not be able to work right away, others might be able to work sooner, but may experience difficulties 

later. It is not fair to those who can work earlier to penalize them because their work effort did not fall 

precisely within the stringent timeframe as currently prescribed in the proposed regulations. Further, the 

proposed rule virtually ignores that many people may work at gradually increasing levels of income or 

hours, but never reach the SGA earnings threshold. 

Beneficiaries should be able to “bank” work months in the first two years to count towards the work 

requirements in later years. In year 5 and beyond, work in excess of the six-month requirement should 

count toward the next year’s requirement. Further, increasing amounts of work or earnings, even if below 

SGA, should be evaluated as meeting the definition of “progressively higher levels of employment” in order 

for a person to keep their CDR protection.

 69 
70

APPENDIX G 

Information in Response 

To Panel’s Questions on Plan for Impact 

Of Ticket Rollout 

 70 
71

February 7, 2001 

NOTE TO SARAH WIGGINS MITCHELL FOR THE TWIIA ADVISORY PANEL

As requested, I am sending the following information regarding our planning dates and numbers for distribution of Tickets. The 

number of individual Tickets that we expect to send out in the first year is about 2.3 million, including both beneficiaries currently 

on the rolls and new beneficiaries added during the year. This estimate is based on the most recent sounts provided by our 

systems administrators. The break down is based on a systems selection of people by terminal digit of the Social Security number, 

as follows: 

Mar 2001 (terminal digit 1) 236,000 

Apr 2001 (term. digits 2,3) 452,000 

May 2001 (term digiits 4,5,6) 669,000 

Jun 2001 (term. Digits 7,8,9,0) 885,000 

 Jul 2001 and ongoing 20,000 

Note that each month after March includes new accretions with the terminal digits up to and including the terminal digits released 

for that month. For example, in May 2001, we will release terminal digits 4,5 and 6 selected in March plus all new accretions 

ending in digits 1-6—new accretions ending in 7-0 will be released in June. 

I will be attending the Panel sessions on February 8 and will be glad to answer any questions you might have. 

 71 
72

APPENDIX H 

How to contact the Panel 

 72 
73

Contact Information 

Anyone requiring materials in alternative formats, information regarding this document or the 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel should contact the Panel staff. Records are

kept of all Panel proceedings and are available for public inspection under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act by appointment at the Panel office. 

Anyone requiring information may contact the Panel staff. 

Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel 

Social Security Administration 

400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC, 20004. 

Phone at (202) 358-6430 

Fax at (202) 358-6440 

Email to TWIIAPanel@ssa.gov

Advisory Panel Staff 

Marie Parker Strahan, Executive Director 

Kristin Breland 

Lisa Ekman 

Mildred Owens 

Gordon Richmond 

Ilene Zeitzer 

Tamara Allen, Consultant 

Theda Zawaiza, Ph. D., Consultant 

 73 
74

(The official copy of this document contains a printout of the Panel Website. To view the site, please visit 

http://www.ssa.gov/work/panel

 74 
75

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel 

Establishment of the Panel 

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, Public Law 106-170, established the Ticket to Work and Work 

Incentives Advisory Panel (the Panel) within the Social Security Administration on December 17, 1999. Members were appointed 

by the President, the House of Representatives and the Senate during May and June of 2000. The Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration, Kenneth S. Apfel, swore in the Panel on July 24, 2000. 

Panel duties include advising the Commissioner of Social Security and reporting to the President and Congress on issues related to

work incentives programs, planning, and assistance for individuals with disabilities and the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 

Program established under the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act (TWWIIA). 

The Panel is composed of 12 members. The President, the Senate and the House of Representatives each appointed four. 

Appointments are for four-year terms. Of the members first appointed, one-half are appointed for a term of two years and the 

remaining are appointed for four years. 

The Chair of the Panel is appointed by the President for a 4-year term. 

Members of the Panel 

Sarah Wiggins Mitchell, R.N., M.S.W., J. D., Chair 

Sarah Wiggins Mitchell is the President and Executive Director of the New Jersey Protection and Advocacy, Inc., the designated 

protection and advocacy system for the State. She was appointed by President Clinton to chair the Panel for a four-year term. 

She is a member of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Bars and has a background in nursing and social work. 

Richard V. Burkhauser, Ph.D. 

Dr. Richard V. Burkhauser serves as the Professor of Policy Analysis and Chair, Department of Policy Analysis and Management at

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. He is also active as a consultant, writer and researcher, focusing on various economic and social 

issues relating to persons with disabilities. 

Thomas P. Golden 

Mr. Golden is a faculty member of Cornell University’s Program on Employment and Disability in the School of Industrial and Labor 

Relations in Ithaca, NY. He is currently project director for numerous efforts focusing on training and activities relating to work 

incentives for people with disabilities. 

Kristin E. Flaten, M. Div. 

Ms. Flaten is an Employment Consultant for Lifetrack Resources, Inc., St. Paul, MN. She started her own small business, 

INITIATIVES, dedicated to enhancing the lives of persons with mental illnesses by providing educational and support services, 

advocacy, benefits analysis, and work incentive plans. 

Frances Gracechild 

Frances Gracechild is the Executive Director, Resources for Independent Living, Inc., Sacramento, CA and instructor at California 

State University at Sacramento. She is president of Health Access America and serves as a commissioner for the California 

Attorney General’s Commission on Disability. 

Christine M. Griffin, J.D. 

Christine M. Griffin is the Executive Director, Disability Law Center, Boston, MA. She is a Trustee for the Paralyzed Veterans of 

America Spinal Cord Research Foundation and is a member of the Massachusetts and the Washington, DC Bar. 

 75 
76

Larry D. Henderson

Mr. Henderson is the Executive Director of Independent Resources, Inc., Wilmington, DE and chair of the Developmental 

Disabilities Planning Council of Delaware. Prior to his current position he was associated with the Salvation Army’s Family Service 

Department. 

Jerome Kleckley 

Jerome Kleckley, MSW, CSW, is the Director of Hospital Services for the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association in Jackson 

Heights, NY and an advocate for veterans with disabilities. He is a veteran of the U.S. Navy and has been actively involved in

veteran's issues. 

Stephanie Smith Lee 

Stephanie Smith Lee is the Governmental Affairs Representative of the National Down Syndrome Society and resides in Oakton, 

VA. She has played a key role in the passage of Federal disability legislation and has led successful grass roots advocacy efforts 

at the local, State and Federal levels. 

Bryon R. MacDonald 

Mr. MacDonald is employed as a Public Policy Advocate with the World Institute on Disability, Oakland, CA. He is a Board member

at large of the National Council on Independent Living and chair of that organization’s Social Security Subcommittee. For many 

years, he has developed employment support and benefits counseling programs and served as a consultant to several advisory 

committees on employment support for persons with disabilities. 

Stephen L. Start 

Stephen L. Start is the founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of S.L. Start & Associates, Spokane, WA, a company that 

provides professional management, rehabilitation, and residential services for people with disabilities, seniors and economically 

disadvantaged individuals. He is a member of numerous national and regional residential and rehabilitation boards. 

Susan Webb 

Susan Webb is the President, Webb Transitions, Inc. of Phoenix, AZ. A former Social Security Disability Insurance beneficiary, she 

used work incentives and vocational rehabilitation services to return to work. She has served on the Board of Directors of the 

National Council on Independent Living for three consecutive years, serving as its Social Security Subcommittee chair. 

Advisory Panel Staff 

Marie Parker Strahan, Executive Director

Kristen Breland 

Lisa Ekman 

Mildred Owens 

Gordon Richmond 

Ilene Zeitzer 

Tamara Allen, Consultant 

Theda Zawaiza, Ph.D., Consultant

 76