|
Social Security Administration
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel Teleconference
January 23, 2002
Debra Morrison called the meeting to order at approximately 3:10 p.m. and turned the meeting over to Sarah Wiggins Mitchell.
Panel Members Present
Jerome Kleckley
Stephanie Lee
Frances Gracechild
Bryon MacDonald
Steve Start
Kris Flaten
Thomas Golden
Susan Webb
Rich Burkhauser
Sarah Wiggins Mitchell, Chairperson
Panel Staff Present
Marie Strahan
Bernie Wixon
Lisa Ekman
Tamara Allen
Discussion of Annual Report Content
Ms. Strahan referred to the panel duty outlined in the TWWIIA statute to report to Congress on the Ticket Program. The Panel has a duty to furnish progress reports on this particular program to the SSA Commissioner and both Houses of Congress. The statute also requires the panel to submit interim reports annually and a final report eight years after the panel was established. The Interim reports go to Congress and the President. Staff felt it advantageous to deal with both the interim and the progress requirements in one report. To meet these requirements, staff recommends that the first part of the report deal with the Ticket Program and regulations and the second part deal with other panel concerns. A transmittal letter will make clear that the report addresses both documents.
Ms. Strahan referred the panel to an outline for discussion mailed in the packet. Staff hopes to have a final draft of the report for the February meeting. Mr. MacDonald suggested that the term "creaming" be deleted and other descriptors used on page five in the Executive Summary. Ms. Webb felt that the concept of creaming should be elaborated but the word dropped. She also felt that the reference to "higher functioning beneficiaries" be dropped in that paragraph. Ms. Gracechild suggested that "harder to serve" should be used because it is in the statute. Ms. Strahan will clarify this language with staff. Ms. Lee asked if the panel could defer the Adequacy of Incentives portion of the report until tomorrow and expressed her concern about the content of this section.
Ms. Mitchell suggested that the report be divided into concerns about the regulations and concerns about implementation. She stated that the panel has specific concerns about the regulations it would like to communicate to Congress. Mr. MacDonald suggested that rollout and implementation is a concern, specifically collaboration between the various federal agencies involved in TWWIIA. Ms. Flaten wanted the report to be placed in the context of the paradigm shift from income support to employment support. This should be addressed in the introduction to the report. Ms. Webb suggested that the issues related to the regulations, including the MIE 16-18 year old eligibility and the zero cash benefits issue, be included in the executive summary as bullets. Ms. Gracechild suggested that adequacy of provider payments also be addressed.
Mr. Start expressed concern about how DD and other state programs will interface with the VR program. He expressed concern that if people go through the VR system, the agency can increase its federal match. This is antithetical to consumer choice and this problem should be included in the report. The issue of individual choice should be included as part of the paradigm shift Ms. Flaten mentioned above. Mr. MacDonald suggested that coordination between federal agencies be addressed in the introduction, after the paradigm statement.
Several members felt that a major public relations campaign should be initiated to educate people that Social Security is not just an early retirement program. The expectation needs to be changed from "all "able bodied people should work," to "everyone who can should be expected to work." This is an addition to SSA's mission-to be an employment support program. Bryon reiterated his concern about coordination across federal agencies. Several agencies that could serve as potential federal partners were suggested, including OSERS, one-stop centers, CILs, DD and mental health departments. There remain four overarching issues in the second section of the report suggested by staff and supported by the panel. Ms. Lee suggested the DAC issue related to widows and widowers be included. The panel had no other additions but members are free to suggest additional items by email. A draft of the report will be presented at the February meeting and the final report is targeted for the end of March.
Discussion of the Adequacy of Incentives Report
Ms. Mitchell stated that this report would be considered at the teleconference call on Thursday January 24.
Strategy for Responding to Final Regulations
Ms. Mitchell turned to a discussion of the final regulations. Ms. Mitchell stated that the February meeting would be devoted to looking at the regulations and developing a mechanism to provide feedback and analysis. She suggested that the panel divide into their three groups, including Ticket payments, dispute resolutions, and eligibility. She suggested that time be set aside for committee meetings during the February meeting. Ms. Flaten felt that this should be handled by the entire panel, since the regulations are already final. Ms. Strahan pointed out that the panel had a duty to report on progress related to the Ticket program and that the progress report could be used as a vehicle for comments. Ms. Mitchell clarified that the purpose would be to clarify the panel's positions to Congress and the Administration. Mr. Start suggested several strategies, including dialogue with SSA, changes in the law, demonstration projects or alternative implementation strategies that could result from panel review of the regulations. The members decided to set aside time at the February meeting to review the regulations as a whole panel. Staff will collect panel concerns about the regulations before the meeting.
Scheduling of Legal Roundtable
The roundtable is not being scheduled for the February meeting. It will be scheduled later in the spring.
Grants Funding Issues
Ms. Strahan stated that a letter had been sent to the Commissioner regarding the P&A and the BPA&O funding decrease. P&A funding has been reduced this year and the BPA&O funding level is still unknown, even though this is the second quarter of the Federal Fiscal Year. Ms. Flaten expressed concern that panel members or staff had not received information about the funding cut from SSA. She suggested that this be raised with the Commissioner at the February meeting. Ms. Webb stated her wish to raise the issue in the context of a supportive relationship between the panel and OESP staff.
February Meeting Agenda
Ms. Strahan stated that the Commissioner was tentatively scheduled to address the panel meeting on Tuesday morning, February 12. Additionally, OESP staff will be present. Representatives of federal governmental agencies will join the panel, the Commissioner and other SSA staff for an informal lunch, and a federal partners panel will present after lunch. This will be followed by an update from CCMS and committee meetings. Wednesday morning will be the quarterly business meeting, an administrative update, old and new business and a discussion of response to the final regulations. The afternoon will consist of a presentation by Jennifer Sheehy of the White House, public comment, and additional discussion. Thursday morning will contain public comments, and potentially panel discussion and deliberations for the rest of the day. The annual ethics briefing will take place from 3:00 to 3:30, followed by orientation to new lap top computers. Ms. Lee asked for a briefing on FACA and Ms. Mitchell said she would follow up, but probably not for the February meeting. Ms. Strahan said she would send the panel the revised FACA regulations. Deliberations at the February meeting will include final approval of the AOI report and discussion of the final regulations.
Panel Role in March California Conference
Mr. MacDonald explained that WID and VCU are coordinating a national conference called the 2002 National Workforce Inclusion Conference. Panel members will participate in two presentations: legal issues in implementation of the regulations, and ENs and the Ticket program. Panel members who are going to attend the conference will handle these presentations. Ms. Lee stated that she was co-chairing a conference sponsored by the National Academy of Social Insurance and SSA on SSI/Children on that day and could not attend the California conference. Ms. Webb and Mr. Start will be conducting a workshop on EN issues. Ms. Flaten and Ms. Mitchell expressed interest in attending the conference. Ms. Webb and Mr. Start will represent their own ENs as well as the panel, being careful to designate when they are representing each entity. The legal issues panel will consist of Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Gracechild and Ms. Flaten. All panel members will be on the podium and will be recognized.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Top of Page
January 24, 2002
Debra Morrison called the meeting to order at approximately 3:10 p.m. and turned the meeting over to Sarah Wiggins Mitchell.
Panel Members Present
Jerome Kleckley
Christine Griffin
Stephanie Smith Lee
Frances Gracechild
Bryon MacDonald
Steve Start
Kris Flaten
Thomas Golden
Susan Webb
Rich Burkhauser
Sarah Wiggins Mitchell, Chairperson
Staff and Consultants Present
Marie Strahan
Bernie Wixon
Kristen Breland
David Mank, Ph.D.
Discussion of AOI Report
Mr. Golden, Chair of the Design and Evaluation Committee, chaired this discussion. The panel reviewed the report page by page. The report contains three pieces: the executive summary, a message from the panel, and a summary of the working paper on the evaluation study and the expert roundtable with the panel and roundtable recommendations.
Page 2-Table of Contents: No change.
Page 3-Executive Summary: In the last paragraph, Ms. Mitchell asked if the recommendations referred to those made by the roundtable or the panel. Mr. Golden said this referred to all of the recommendations in the report and the language will be clarified accordingly.
Page 9-Message from the Panel: Panel members suggested that language be inserted in the first paragraph to explain that people with certain disabilities could not work a full 40 hour week because of their disability, resulting in partial cash benefits. The panel will mark this issue for later review.
Page 11-Summary of the SSA Working Paper: No change.
Page 13-Summary of Expert Roundtable: Mr. MacDonald suggested that the date of the roundtable be added to the title of this section.
Page 14-Summary of Public Comments: No change.
Page 15-Summary of Issues: Ms. Gracechild suggested that under item 3, the words, "may not be able to," should be substituted for, "may not work," so the sentence would read, "It is likely that individuals in these four groups will require a greater degree of effort and long-term support for successful employment and may not be able to work enough hours nor earn enough money to eliminate Social Security benefits."
The panel agreed that the opening sentence should begin, "The following paragraphs represent a synthesis of the points derived from a literature review, the experts roundtable, dialogues of the Design and Evaluation Committee and public testimony received, and provides a conceptual underpinning for the panel and ER recommendations contained in this report."
Page 16-No change.
Page 17-Discussion of Questions and Recommendations: The title was changed to, "Panel Questions and Recommendations." Mr. Start moved and Ms. Griffin seconded a motion to include an additional Recommendation, called Recommendation One, to read, "Recommendation One is our overarching design principal. Recommendation One: Attention to the participation of these four groups and to the modification of incentives in the interest of these four groups is critically important, and an ongoing structure must be established for review of emerging information, analysis of trends and for creating recommendations regarding modifications of incentives, making use of multiple evaluation methods." The motion was adopted unanimously. (All recommendation numbers in these minutes refer to the original recommendations in the draft report.)
Recommendation 1: Ms. Gracechild moved and Ms. Lee seconded a motion that the second sentence for Panel Recommendation One would read, "This group should consist of diverse individuals who have . . ."
Based upon the addition of the first recommendation, this will now be recommendation Two. The motion was adopted unanimously.
Recommendation 2: Mr. Start wondered if services to minority groups were addressed in the report. Ms. Lee stated that this point was made in Roundtable Recommendation 12 and supporting discussion, and supported making 12 a panel recommendation. Other panel members supported her point and the discussion was deferred for later in the meeting. Ms. Griffin moved and Mr. Start seconded a motion to adopt Recommendation Two. The motion was unanimously adopted.
Recommendation 3: The panel members moved, seconded, and adopted the following recommendation, "As the Ticket to Work and Self-sufficiency Program is implemented, the SSA should provide to the Panel, Congress and the President ongoing interim reporting on the participation of members of the four targeted groups in the Ticket to Work Program." The rest of the original recommendation was dropped.
Recommendation 4: Ms. Mitchell felt this recommendation was inappropriate. The recommendation should be made directly from the panel to Congress. The panel moved, seconded, and adopted the following recommendation: "The Panel recommends that Congress approve a technical amendment to require the Social Security Administration to provide to the Panel, Congress and the President ongoing interim reporting on the participation of members of the four targeted groups in the Ticket to Work Program."
Recommendation 5: Mr. Golden suggested that Recommendation Five be included in the annual report and this issue will be considered in a later discussion. Dr. Burkhauser recommended that two panel members be included on the technical advisory committee for the AOI study, that this recommendation be moved into the new Recommendation Two and that Recommendation Five be deleted. Ms. Lee said that the populations covered under the AOI study should also receive priority in other SSA Ticket evaluations. The panel moved, seconded, and passed the following recommendation, "Ongoing data collected and outcomes determined from the AOI study should be included in SSA's overall Ticket evaluation research."
Recommendation 6: The panel adopted this recommendation with minor edits in the last sentence as follows, "The panel recommends that Congress approve an amendment to adjust the timeline."
Page 19-The panel decided to delete the phrase, "This is not surprising."
Recommendation 7: Various panel members felt that this recommendation should be simplified. Mr. Golden felt that SSA should use other information in addition to diagnostic data for the study. Dr. Burkhauser felt that there was not sufficient evidence to show that the four categories mentioned in the report were the most needy. Ms. Lee felt that these categories should be mentioned in the recommendation. There was discussion about the diagnostic categories SSA used in data collection. Mr. Rupp from SSA stated that SSA currently uses about 165 impairment codes. Ms. Mitchell moved and Ms. Gracechild seconded a motion to move the first part of recommendation seven up to the preceding discussion, and to remove the first three sentences of the discussion and replace it. The motion passed. Ms. Gracechild moved and Ms. Flaten seconded a motion to adopt the following recommendation as Recommendation 7: "While there is a need to take advantage of what is known about diagnostic categories with high proportions of those most likely to fall in the four groups relative to work capability, the Social Security Administration, in addition to diagnostic data, should also use other information, such as survey information, information on earnings, onset date, and medical improvement assessments, et cetera. SSA should also go to outside data sources, such as those identified in the expert roundtable recommendation one to identify members of the four target groups." The motion passed unanimously.
Panel Recommendation 8: Ms. Gracechild took issue with the mention of effective participation in the survey portion of this recommendation. She felt that this was overly broad because it would exclude people with cognitive and speech disabilities from participating in the survey. Mr. Wixon suggested that in-person interviews be conducted in cases where a telephone interview was not possible and that respondents give permission for a proxy to be used where necessary. He also suggested that experts from the roundtable review the protocol. Mr. Wixon will draft language on this issue for later consideration.
A motion was made and seconded that the meeting time be extended to 4:30. The motion passed.
Recommendation 9: Ms. Lee proposed a new bullet under this recommendation to read, "Conduct ongoing demonstration projects, modeling, and evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative incentives identified. Her suggestion was moved, seconded and passed unanimously. This became the new Recommendation 10.
New Recommendation 11: Ms. Webb stated that the question of how ENs should be consulted in the AOI report had not been addressed. She read the recommendation to address this as follows:
SSA should work with employment networks to develop a comprehensive list of the data ENs will be asked to collect on who they serve and do not serve in the four functional groups identified in the statute, as well as on their own characteristics. Data should be collected that could be used to explain the Ticket acceptance, position of ENs both within the four functional groups and between these groups, and all other groups.
For instance, these data should be capable of estimating the importance of cost, and the risk of the successful outcome. It should also be able to identify the characteristics of ENs that are more likely to serve these four functional groups. Collecting these data, SSA should minimize the administrative burden on ENs by using a representative sample of ENs rather than requiring all ENs to collect data, and consider paying ENs for the administrative burden of collecting the data.
This recommendation, along with a shorter version developed by Ms. Webb, will be mailed out to the panel and panel members will send their comments. The recommendation will be redrafted and considered at the February meeting.
Roundtable Recommendations: Various panel members requested that language be included to clarify that these recommendations were put forth by the Roundtable for consideration, not by the panel. In response to a question, Dr. Mank stated that the word, "availability" referred to the availability of tickets. The sentence on page 25 that begins with, "The experts roundtable also addressed six additional questions regarding the." will be removed. The words, "and other socio-economic conditions," will be added to Roundtable Recommendation 12, so that the recommendation will read, "such as rural and urban settings, minority representation and socio-economic conditions across the country." Ms. Mitchell moved and Mr. Golden seconded a motion that Roundtable Recommendation 12 be adopted as a panel recommendation. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Lee suggested that the panel consider adopting all of the Roundtable recommendations as panel recommendations and this will be considered at the February meeting. Ms. Lee also suggested that the panel hold a public comment period before discussion and passage of the report in February and Ms. Mitchell said this would be considered.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m.
|
