220 likes | 346 Views
Filling in the Gaps in Administrative Data: Lessons from the Ticket to Work Evaluation. Paul O’Leary U.S. Social Security Administration October 2006. Evaluation objectives. Address evaluation questions specified in the legislation Determine the basic impacts of the ticket program:
E N D
Filling in the Gaps in Administrative Data: Lessons from the Ticket to Work Evaluation Paul O’Leary U.S. Social Security Administration October 2006
Evaluation objectives • Address evaluation questions specified in the legislation • Determine the basic impacts of the ticket program: • Return-to-work service participation • Work and earnings • SSA program benefits • Broader social impacts • Determine how aspects of the ticket program affect program success
The Evaluation Data Process • Identify specific evaluation questions • Model the Ticket to Work process • Assess existing data resources • Prioritize data needs • Develop resources to fill data gaps
Data gaps • Service providers: • Descriptive information • General Awareness/perceptions • Program mechanics • Satisfaction • Beneficiaries: • Descriptive information (esp. disability) • General Awareness/perceptions • Attitudes toward work • Work outcomes • Satisfaction
Organize data collection to fit with evaluation priorities • For highest priority questions: • Collect supplementary data • For low priority questions: • Collect supplementary data if costs are low • Use secondary data where costs are high • For medium priority questions: • Balance cost and benefit
Data resources The four components of the data: • Administrative data • The Ticket Research File—TRF • Process data • Qualitative interviews with employment service providers, SSA, MAXIMUS/CESSI, and others • Survey data • The National Beneficiary Survey—NBS • Secondary data
Current evaluation resultsCharacteristics affecting participation(from the multivariate analysis of SSA data)
Ticket assignments rise steadily with months since ticket mailing
Beneficiaries with higher levels of education participate at higher rates.
While some small groups are much more likely to participate, variation among large groups is only modest