text:
Building at the Heart of Koothattukulam. Market road.,100 Feet from MC road Junction. 2200 Sq ft covered area. Back and Front...
Property ID P916880
Posted On 16/Jan/2023
Built up Area 2200 Sq-ft
Building at the Heart of Koothattukulam.
Market road.,100 Feet from MC road Junction.
2200 Sq ft covered area.
Back and Front main road access.
Ready to move.
Only serious parties.
Price : 1.4Cr ( Negotiable)
Posted by Mahale IncView Contact
I was looking for a house for rent in Kottayam town from a long time.Thanks to helloaddress.com, I found a good house in 1 week. Most appreciable things is we found it just where we were looking for at reasonable rent. Leji Varghese
Helloaddress.com is awesome. After searching for almost a month helloaddress.com helped me find my perfect home. For the last one month i have contacted three brokers and seen several flats and houses, but none of them matched my preferences. Brokers were asking huge amount as brokerage. I came to know about helloaddress.com through the print ad in Malayala Manorama and i decided to give a try. For my surprise there were almost 8 to 10 properties suiting my taste in helloaddress.com and i could finalise one as per my choice in one day. I would say it was a wonderful experience. It is very user friendly and have got lot of listings in it. Moreover i could save a good amount of money as there was no broker and the deal was direct with the landlord. Thank you helloaddress.com for getting me a new address in this town. Sandeep S Nath
I am very happy with the service from helloaddress.com. I found a very good tenant for my house which I had posted on helloaddress for rent. Thank you for your service. I shall surely recommend helloaddress to anyone who is looking for a property. P C Thomas


text:
III. Beneficiary Participation in Ticket to Work
Ticket to Work participation rates (the number of Tickets in use divided by the number of Ticket-eligible beneficiaries) have continued to rise each month since the early months of program rollout. However, participation rates in the Phase 2 and 3 states lag behind those observed at comparable points of TTW rollout in the Phase 1 states. Most of the difference is attributable to differences in assignment rates to SVRAs; participation rates at ENs are similar in all phases.
As of December 2004 (the last month for which we have complete data), the participation rate in Phase 1 states had risen to 1.4 percent, up from the 1.1 percent for March 2004 ( Thornton et al. 2006). This overall level of participation is well below the 5 percent rate used as a standard in the preliminary evaluation design report (Stapleton et al. 2003). However, introduction of TTW did appear to have a positive impact on beneficiary receipt of employment services (see Chapter XIII). It is also important to recognize that the Ticket participation rate is much lower than the percentage of beneficiaries who obtain services from SVRAs, because SVRAs are not obtaining Ticket assignments from all the beneficiaries they serve. In fact, based on RSA data that have been matched to SSA administrative data, 4.6 percent of all Ticket-eligible beneficiaries in Phase 1 states received services from SVRAs or ENs in the first year of Ticket rollout. 1 This is partly because many beneficiaries served by SVRAs started to receive services before Ticket rollout, and partly because SVRAs did not obtain assignments from a large share of those beneficiaries starting to receive services after rollout.
It is also worth noting that TTW participation does not have to be as high as five percent to achieve the modest goal expressed in the Ticket Act: doubling the number of beneficiaries who leave the rolls because they find work. As only about one-half of one percent of beneficiaries were exiting due to work at the time of the Ticket Act's passage, the goal could be attained by inducing as little as one-half of one percent of beneficiaries to assign their Ticket and exit the rolls. Thus, the current participation rate does not necessarily imply that TTW is falling far short of the act's goal. Of course, it also does not imply achievement of that goal. Chapter XIII presents more direct evidence concerning the early impact of TTW on program exits.
For the first time we are able to report statistics on participation in Phase 3 states; December 2004 is the 13th month after the first Phase 3 rollout month and the 3rd month after completion of the initial Phase 3 mailing. At this stage, the overall participation rate in the Phase 3 states is between the participation rates in the Phase 1 and 2 states at the comparable stage of the latter's rollouts. The Phase 3 EN participation rate at this stage is virtually identical to that in both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 states at the comparable stage. The only substantial source of variation in participation rates across the three phase groups at the comparable stage is variation in SVRA participation rates.
We now know that the relatively high SVRA participation rate in Phase 1 states resulted entirely from the relatively large number of assignments SVRAs obtained from "pipeline cases"—clients already receiving SVRA services before the start of their Ticket rollout; Phase 1 SVRA assignment rates for new clients early in the rollout were comparable to those observed more recently in Phase 2 states. This finding is based on an analysis of SVRA case closure data from the RSA that we linked to SSA data. Another interesting finding from the analysis of the linked data is that, since the start of the rollout, SVRAs have not obtained assignments from a large share of their new clients who are, in fact, Ticket-eligible—perhaps over half, based on the most recent data available.
The overwhelming majority of Tickets continues to be assigned to SVRAs (91.7 percent as of December 2004), and most are assigned under the traditional payment system, which is available to SVRAs only (85.6 percent as of December 2004). We also found that the percentage of Tickets assigned to SVRAs has gradually increased after the end of each phase's rollout, as has the percentage assigned under the traditional payment system.
We previously concluded that the high percentage of Tickets assigned to SVRAs and the high percentage assigned under the traditional payment system appear to limit the extent to which TTW represents a dramatic break from the past. If current trends continue in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 states and are replicated in the Phase 3 states, the program will become even less of a departure in the sense that TTW will be dominated by providers and a payment system that were available before the program was initiated. This point is reinforced by our interviews with several SVRA staff members (discussed in Chapter XI) who reported that the agencies have not made major changes in their service offerings or targeting.
Participation rates vary with the characteristics of eligible beneficiaries. Earlier analysis, based on administrative data only, determined that no combination of observed characteristics leads us to predict a probability of participation higher than 10 percent or so; that is, even among those beneficiaries most likely to participate, based on observed characteristics, many will not do so.
In the last report, we identified numerous other characteristics from administrative data that are at least somewhat predictive of participation. Among these characteristics, age stands out as a particularly important predictor, with participation rates declining sharply with age, holding many other variables constant. Beneficiaries with sensory impairments, and especially hearing impairments, are much more likely to participate than are other beneficiaries. The small percentage of Ticket-eligible beneficiaries participating in other DI or SSI work incentive programs also participate at relatively high rates. In addition, participation rates vary markedly across states and increase with education.
For this report, we extended the earlier analysis to include characteristics that we are able to observe in the NBS. The new analysis reinforces the findings from the administrative data analysis and shows that the following are positive predictors of participation: disability onset before age 18; no spouse or other relatives in the household; no children under age six; receipt of little or no other public or private assistance; and, for DI beneficiaries only, below-average benefits.
Additional analysis of the survey data provides some evidence that beneficiaries facing challenges to return-to-work beyond their disabilities are somewhat more likely than others to assign their Ticket to non-SVRA ENs. They include beneficiaries with limited or no work experience (i.e., SSI-only beneficiaries), older beneficiaries, those with limited education, Hispanic beneficiaries, single parents, and those living with children under age six. Somewhat counter to this finding, however, we found that those in households with incomes above 300 percent of the poverty line are more likely than others to assign their Ticket to non-SVRA ENs. Findings on the use of one of the new payment systems, versus the traditional payment system, are similar.
This chapter extends the findings presented in our initial and second evaluation reports through December 2004 (the initial report included data through August 2003, and the second report included data through March 2004). We summarize the findings from the most recent analysis, focusing on how previous findings have changed and presenting completely new findings. The major sections present updated rollout and participation statistics and discuss how participation rates, provider type, and payment type vary with beneficiary characteristics. Appendix C provides detailed statistics.
A. Rollout Statistics
1. Ticket Mailings and Eligible Beneficiaries with Tickets
The Ticket rollout was formally completed in September 2004, when SSA finished sending Tickets to existing Ticket-eligible beneficiaries in the Phase 3 states (see Exhibit III.1); all mailings after that month went to beneficiaries who became eligible for TTW after the rollout ended—mostly new SSDI and SSI beneficiaries. As of December 2004, SSA had mailed over 10 million Tickets to beneficiaries. As previously reported, SSA used a slower and more uniform schedule for the Phase 2 and 3 mailings than for the Phase 1 mailings because of difficulties experienced by providers and others in Phase 1 states in handling the large number of beneficiary inquiries generated by the mailings.2
Exhibit III.1. Ticket Mailings, by Month and Phase (in thousands)
Source: Based on July 2005 extract from SSA's Disability Control File through September 2004.
Note: Values for October to December 2004 are estimates based on preliminary analysis of a March 2006 extract. Because some beneficiaries move, the data show that a small number of Tickets sent to those we have classified as living in Phase 2 or 3 states were sent before their phase's rollout began.
As of December 2004, there were 9.23 million Ticket-eligible beneficiaries.3 About 30 percent of them are in the Phase 1 states, another 30 percent are in the Phase 2 states, and the remaining 40 percent are in the Phase 3 states.
2. Participation Rate
The TTW participation rate is defined as the number of "in-use" Tickets (i.e., Tickets currently assigned to providers) as a percentage of current Ticket-eligible beneficiaries. At the beginning of each rollout, rates vary substantially from month to month and across phases depending on how quickly Tickets are mailed out (and hence how quickly the participation rate denominator grows) and on how providers treat pipeline cases (which affects the participation rate numerator). As time passes, however, the rate stabilizes and then changes slowly because the vast majority of those who participate in any one month were also participating in the previous month. The number of in-use Tickets can decline only if Tickets are formally deactivated, and it is likely that some beneficiaries whose Tickets are in use are not actively receiving services, are not employed, or are not otherwise seeking employment.
By December 2004, 83,568 Tickets were in use. Reflecting the rollout schedule, 45 percent of the Tickets were held by beneficiaries residing in Phase 1 states, 30 percent in Phase 2 states, and 25 percent in Phase 3 states. Participation rates continued to rise steadily. The Phase 1 participation rate reached 1.38 percent in December 2004, the Phase 2 rate reached 0.90 percent, and the Phase 3 rate reached 0.56 percent.4
We reported previously that the Phase 2 participation rate appears to be on a track that is lower than that for the Phase 1 participation rate, and that continues to be the case. Exhibit III.2 permits comparisons of rates across phases by showing the number of months since each phase's first rollout month (the zero month) on the horizontal axis. In this way, we can see the participation rate for each set of states at the same point in the rollout (the comparison is complicated slightly because the Phase 2 and Phase 3 rollouts were stretched out over longer periods than the Phase 1 rollout, and some differences might be associated with seasonal factors; for example, the rollouts did not all start in the same season of the year). For instance, 25 months after the rollout started, the participation rate in the Phase 2 states was 21 percent less than the rate observed in the corresponding month for Phase 1 states (0.90 in Phase 2 states compared with 1.14 in Phase 1 states). The Phase 3 rate appears to be on a track that is between those for the Phase 1 and 2 rates.5 For example, 13 months after the start of the rollout, the Phase 1 participation rate was 0.63 percent, 12.5 percent higher than the Phase 3 rate, and the Phase 2 rate was 0.50 percent, 10.7 percent lower than the Phase 3 rate. States were assigned to phases in a way that tried to make those in Phases 1 and 3 generally similar to each other (Stapleton and Livermore 2003; Thornton et al. 2005). Thus, the fact that participation rates in Phases 1 and 3 exceed those for Phase 2 (at comparable points in the rollout) is not surprising. The fact that Phase 3 rates seem to lag behind those observed for Phase 1 suggests that formal beneficiary enrollment in TTW is declining, but as the evidence from the next section shows, the decline appears solely caused by changes in the extent to which SVRAs obtain assignments from their beneficiary clients.
Exhibit III.2. Participation Rate, by Months Since Rollout Start and Phase
|Source: Based on July 2005 extract from SSA's Disability Control File.
3. Participation by Provider Type
In addition to the overall participation rate, the participation rates at each of the two provider types (ENs and SVRAs) are an important indicator of program success. As in each of our two previous reports, we again note that the vast majority of in-use Tickets was assigned to SVRAs but point to important differences across the Phase 1, 2, and 3 states. The Phase 2 SVRA participation rate is substantially lower than the Phase 1 SVRA participation rate during the comparable month in the rollout, and the Phase 3 SVRA participation rate falls between the corresponding Phase 1 and Phase 2 rates in their respective comparable months (see Exhibit III.3). In fact, holding constant the number of months since the rollout began, variation in SVRA participation rates across phases essentially accounts for all of the variation in overall participation rates across phases; variation in EN participation rates across phases is remarkably small.
The difference across phases does not merely reflect the fact that the rollouts in Phases 2 and 3 were slower than in Phase 1. If that were the only reason for lower participation rates in Phase 2 and 3 states, then—holding months constant since the start of rollout—the differences would likely be observed for ENs, not just for SVRAs. In addition, we would observe no differences across Phases 2 and 3, and differences between rates for those phases and Phase 1 would narrow as time passed. Instead, differences in the EN rates are tiny, with a substantial difference between the overall Phase 2 and 3 rates, and the difference between the overall Phase 1 and 2 rates appears to be increasing rather than decreasing.
Exhibit III.3. Participation Rates, by Months Since Rollout Start, Phase, and Provider Type
|Source: Based on July 2005 extract from SSA's Disability Control File.
In each of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 state groups, the percentage of assigned Tickets in use at SVRAs has been gradually increasing since the end of the respective rollouts and appears to be leveling off at above 90 percent (93.9 percent for Phase 1 states and 92.1 percent in Phase 1 states as of December 2004). Although the SVRA and EN participation rates have been increasing in both phase groups, SVRA participation rates have been increasing more rapidly. It is too early to observe post-rollout trends in Phase 3 states, but at the end of the rollout in Phase 3 states, the percentage of assigned Tickets in use at SVRAs was just slightly below the values observed in the Phase 1 and 2 states in the comparable months in their rollouts.
Now that matched RSA and SSA data are available, we have been able to investigate variation in SVRA participation rates across phases. With the matched data, we are able to determine the extent to which SVRAs obtained Ticket assignments from entrants into their systems. Although we observe entrants only for cases closed by the SVRAs before September 30, 2004, we can note for these cases the percentage that assigned their Ticket to an SVRA in each month since the start of a phase's rollout. If Ticket assignment is unrelated to duration from entrance to closure, the estimates will be unbiased estimates of the percentage of beneficiary entrants assigning their Ticket in each month, including cases not yet closed.
The evidence from the matched data shows that the relatively high assignment rates for Phase 1 SVRAs reflect SVRAs' success in obtaining assignments from a larger share of pipeline cases (i.e., cases that entered SVRA service before Ticket rollout began). In fact, it appears that shortly after the rollout start, Phase 2 SVRAs were obtaining just as large a share of assignments from "new" clients—those determined eligible for services after the start of rollout—as did the Phase 1 SVRAs. The data also show that SVRAs are obtaining assignments from only a minority of the beneficiary clients they serve. The findings for new clients might change as data for later closures become available, but we think the findings for pipeline cases will not change because most such cases will have closed before September 30, 2004.
We base our conclusions on Exhibit III.4, which plots the percentage of SVRA entrants who assigned their Ticket to an SVRA, by phase and month of entry relative to the start of Ticket rollout in their phase (month zero). The analysis includes only cases closed after receipt of services and after the client's Ticket mailing date, but before September 30, 2004. We used six-month moving averages to smooth the plots. Thus, the plotted values are the percentage of entrants who assign their Ticket and entered the SVRA system during the six-month period ending on the month plotted. The last point plotted is for those entering between January and June 2004 and closing after services by the end of December 2004. We reiterate that these series will change as new data become available because the data exclude those who entered service during the sample period and did not close by the end of September 2004. The greatest number of updates will be for those entering in the most recent months, but it is hard to predict the direction of change.
It is apparent that the Phase 1 SVRAs were much more likely to obtain assignments from pipeline cases than either the Phase 2 or 3 SVRAs. The assignment rate statistic for Phase 1 SVRAs is higher than the statistic for Phase 2 SVRAs in every pre-rollout month from -132 to -1, with the exception of months -49 to -40. The Phase 2 and Phase 3 statistics are similar for most pre-rollout months, with the exception of months -57 to -30, when the Phase 2 rate is notably higher. We do not know what accounts for the relatively high Phase 2 assignment rate for those entering service during this period.
In our second evaluation report (Thornton et al. 2006), we tentatively concluded, on the basis of more limited evidence, that the Phase 2 and 3 SVRAs were simply less aggressive than Phase 1 SVRAs about obtaining Ticket assignments from their beneficiary clients, perhaps because of lower expectations about the value of assignments relative to the administrative cost of obtaining and processing them. The new evidence suggests that this conclusion might apply to pipeline cases, but there is no clear evidence yet that it applies to new cases. We also cannot rule out the possibility that idiosyncratic differences in how SVRAs manage their long-term cases are the underlying cause of the variation in assignment rates for those cases across the three phase groups.
Exhibit III.4. Percentage of Beneficiary Entrants to SVRA Services Who Assigned a Ticket, by Phase and SVRA Entry Month
Source: Based on RSA data for closures through September 2004 matched to the Ticket Research File.
Note: Statistics plotted are six-month moving averages. The sample excludes cases that closed before the individual's Ticket mailing date, cases that closed after September 2004, and cases that closed with receipt of services. "Entrants" are those determined eligible for services, and "entry month" is the month of eligibility determination.
The above analysis does not consider the possibility that the introduction of TTW had an impact on the number of beneficiaries obtaining services from SVRAs and that the impact may have differed by phase. We examine such a possibility in Chapter XIII.
From a few months after rollout start to the end of the Phase 2 series, the assignment rate statistic for Phase 2 SVRAs is higher than for Phase 1 SVRAs. Given the incomplete data, we think it is too early to conclude that the assignment rate for new entrants in Phase 2 SVRAs is higher than in Phase 1 SVRAs, but there is certainly no indication that it is lower.
Based on the RSA data, since TTW started, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 SVRAs have typically obtained assignments from only 30 to 40 percent of the new beneficiary clients they serve. This does not count cases that close without receipt of services; not surprisingly, SVRAs rarely obtain assignments from these cases. Although the numbers might change as we obtain data about more recent case closures, it is apparent that many beneficiaries receive services from SVRAs without assigning their Ticket to an SVRA. In 2003 4.6 percent of all Ticket-eligible beneficiaries in Phase 1 states received SVRA services in 2003. Yet the SVRA participation rate in those states ranged from 0.5 in January to 0.9 in December. Clearly the SVRA Ticket participation rates in Phase 1 states over this period would have been several times larger had the SVRAs obtained assignments from all beneficiary clients served in 2003. Presumably the SVRAs do not obtain assignments for many cases because they think reimbursement from SSA is highly unlikely. For many beneficiary clients, earnings at levels sufficient to trigger payments to the SVRA under any payment system are not a reasonable goal; for some SVRA clients, the goal is something other than paid employment (e.g., the ability to function as a homemaker).
4. In-Use Tickets by Payment Type
As in previous reports, we found that assignments to the three payment systems (traditional, milestone-outcome, and outcome-only) largely mirror assignments to provider types because only SVRAs can use the traditional system. Thus, most in-use Tickets are assigned under the traditional payment system, necessarily to SVRAs. In December 2004, 86.4 percent of Tickets in the Phase 1 states were assigned under the traditional payment system, 81.2 percent of Tickets in Phase 2 states, and 81.0 percent of Tickets in Phase 3 states.6
Exhibit III.5. Percentage of In-Use Tickets Assigned Under the Traditional Payment System, by Months Since Rollout Start and Phase
|Source: Based on July 2005 extract from SSA's Disability Control File.
The most recent data show that the percentage of Tickets assigned under the traditional payment system has been rising very slowly in Phase 1 and 2 states since the end of the phases' respective rollout periods (see Exhibit III.5). In the Phase 1 states, 81.4 percent of in-use Tickets were under the traditional payment system in month 12 (5.0 percentage points lower than the December 2004 value); in the Phase 2 states, the comparable figure was 75.3 percent (5.9 percentage points lower than the December 2004 value). It is too early to establish a trend for the Phase 3 states.
The pattern of participation under each of the two new payment systems varies little across the three phase groups (see Exhibit III.6). In December 2004, 0.16 percent of eligible beneficiaries in Phase 1 states had assigned their Ticket under the milestone-outcome payment system, and 0.04 percent had assigned their Ticket under the outcome-only system. Thus, 78.6 percent of Tickets assigned under the new payment systems are assigned under the milestone-outcome system. Experience to date in the Phase 2 and 3 states is similar to the Phase 1 experience at comparable points in the rollout.
Exhibit III.6. Participation Rates for New Payment Systems, by Months Since Rollout Start and Phase
|Source: Based on July 2005 extract from SSA's Disability Control File.
We have observed no appreciable change in SVRAs' use of the new payment systems. The percentage of SVRA assignments under one of the new payment systems in Phase 1 states was essentially constant from September 2002 through December 2004, at 5 percent. The percentage is twice as high in Phase 2 states, at 10 percent, but has not changed since March 2003. In Phase 3 states, the figure has been steady at 6 percent since March 2004. Most SVRA assignments under the new payment systems are to a small number of SVRAs (see the state participation statistics later in this chapter).
5. Deactivations and Reassignments
As in earlier reports, we have examined administrative data on deactivations and reassignments to determine whether substantial numbers of beneficiaries who have assigned their Ticket are changing providers, formally withdrawing from participation, or being withdrawn. The number of deactivations has been small relative to the number of in-use Tickets since the beginning of the program and continues to be small (fewer than 3 per 1,000 Tickets in use as of December 2004), and reassignments are extremely rare (just 4 per 10,000 in-use Tickets in December 2004). However, we noted some interesting patterns as depicted in Exhibit III.7, which shows deactivations as a percentage of in-use Tickets by phase and months since rollout start.7
Exhibit III.7. Net Deactivations, by Months Since Rollout Start, Provider Type, and Phase
Source: Based on July 2005 extract from SSA's Disability Control File.
Note: Net deactivations are defined as total deactivations minus reassignments. Statistics before month six of each rollout are not meaningful because of the small number of assignments.
First, net deactivations are much less frequent for Tickets assigned to SVRAs than for Tickets assigned to ENs (0.13 percent versus 1.22 percent in December 2004). Second, net deactivations from ENs for beneficiaries in Phase 1 states were relatively high during the period 8 to 15 months after the start of the Phase 1 rollout (from October 2002 through May 2003), peaking at 6.0 percent in March 2003. As discussed in our first report, a number of large ENs consolidated or terminated their operations during this period.8
After that period, net deactivations in Phase 1 states hovered around 1.5 percent until month 26 and then increased to around 2.0 percent for four consecutive months before falling to the 1.0 percent level or lower after month 30. The small increase for months 26 through 30 may reflect deactivations initiated by providers as the first cohort of Ticket participants reached the 24-month point in cohort assignments, after which providers are required to deactivate the Tickets of participants who are not making timely progress. The administrative data show no evidence of an increase in deactivations by Phase 1 SVRAs after month 24, although our interviews with the Program Manager indicate that some Phase I SVRAs did begin deactivating Tickets in response to letters that the Program Manager sent out in November 2004 (month 34). The Program Manager also reports that, after the initial flurry, further requests for timely progress reports went ignored, particularly by Phase 2 and 3 SVRAs, as there was little consequence for failure to comply. No response to the letter is interpreted as affirmation that the person is making timely progress. SSA's proposed changes to the regulations drop the timely progress requirement.
As pointed out in our previous report, we do not know how many Tickets classified as in-use are actually inactive. Ticket users who halt their return-to-work effort have little motivation to withdraw their Tickets, and, as indicated above, providers have little incentive to take the initiative to do so themselves. Hence, we have to conclude that some—and possibly many—in-use tickets are inactive. It appears, however, that the vast majority of participants are engaged in some form of employment or employment preparation activity. Chapter VII presents tabulations on the employment and employment plans for Ticket participants from a survey conducted in 2004. As of that time, all but 5 percent of participants were employed, seeking work, or planning to seek work in the not too distant future (see Exhibit VII.1).
6. Participation Rates by State
Participation rates continue to vary by state. Part of the variation results from the phased rollout, but variation is high even within phases. Vermont, a Phase 1 state, continues to exhibit the highest participation rate; since March 2004, the state's participation rate has more than doubled, to 5.6 percent (Exhibit III.8). In contrast, Massachusetts, a neighbor of Vermont, has the lowest participation rate among Phase 1 states, at 0.6 percent. Only Delaware has a participation rate that is even half the size of Vermont's, at 2.8 percent.
Exhibit III.8. Ticket Participation Rates by State, Provider Type, and Payment Type, December 2004
Note: Based on July 2005 DCF data.
Source: Based on July 2005 extract from SSA's Disability Control File.
South Dakota's participation rate, 2.7 percent, is also remarkable. Even though, as a Phase 2 state, its rollout started almost a year later than the rollout for the Phase 1 states, its participation rate is tied for third highest with Wisconsin, a Phase 1 state. At 1.5 percent, Idaho has the highest participation rate among Phase 3 states and is ranked eighth among all states (tied with Michigan).
It is apparent from the left side of Exhibit III.8 that variation in state participation rates is largely driven by SVRA participation rates; with few exceptions, a large majority of assignments in each state are assignments to SVRAs. The Phase 1 states with the highest EN participation rates are Arizona (1.6 percent) and Wisconsin (1.2 percent); for Phase 2, the highest rates are for the District of Columbia (0.4 percent) and Nevada and Tennessee (each at 0.2 percent). In Phase 3, the EN participation rate for the Virgin Islands, at 0.6 percent, stands out. (It is worth noting that the Virgin Islands do not have an SVRA).
With few exceptions, cross-state variation in use of the three payment systems is closely related to variation in SVRA participation, as is evident in the right side of Exhibit III.8, and is not surprising given the preponderant use of the traditional payment system by SVRAs. Vermont again stands out, with a participation rate of 1.7 percent under the Outcome-only payment system (29.7 percent of assignments in the state)—all of which are at the state's SVRA. Thus, given the number of eligible beneficiaries in the state, Vermont's SVRA is not only obtaining a particularly large number of assignments, but it is also using one of the new payment systems relatively frequently. Participation under the milestone-outcome system was exceptionally high in Oklahoma, where the SVRA accepts a relatively large number of beneficiary clients under that system (the Oklahoma SVRA has more experience with the TTW payment systems because it ran a demonstration program that was similar to TTW as part of the earlier State Partnership Initiative). In the Phase 2 group, use of the new payment systems is highest in Indiana, Connecticut, Louisiana, and the District of Columbia. The Virgin Islands is the only Phase 2 jurisdiction with an exceptionally high rate of utilization under the new payment system.
We also found that the SVRA participation rate for each Phase 1 and 2 state increased from March through December 2004. In addition, EN participation rates increased in most states, but Nevada experienced a substantial decline (0.5 percentage points), and four others experienced very small declines.
B. Predictors of Participation
In earlier reports (Thornton et al. 2004, 2006), we used administrative data to analyze how the participation rate varies with beneficiary characteristics. For this report, we used the first round of the NBS data, linked to administrative data, to enhance the participation analysis. To provide context for the presentation of the new findings, we begin with a summary of the earlier findings before turning to the new findings.
1. Findings from Analysis of Administrative Data
The most important of the earlier findings come from multivariate analysis of participation. For each factor, we estimate the relationship between the probability of participation and the factor, holding other factors constant. We have also conducted bivariate analyses of how the likelihood of participation varies with each factor, but without holding other factors constant. In the bivariate analysis, the relationship between a single factor (e.g., age) and participation might reflect the relationship between other predictors that change with age (e.g., impairment type) and participation. In multivariate analysis, we are able to estimate the effect of age on the likelihood of participation after holding impairment type (and other observed factors) constant.
Using data for March 2004 (Thornton et al. 2005, Appendix B), we conducted the multivariate analysis for Phase 1 states. The first important finding from that analysis is that it is particularly difficult to predict which beneficiaries participate based only on characteristics observed in administrative data. That is, we cannot define even a small group of beneficiaries based only on characteristics observed in administrative data in which the participation rate is very high in an absolute sense. In fact, when we use all of the characteristics as predictors together, the highest estimated probability of participation is less than 10 percent, and only 1 percent of beneficiaries have a predicted participation probability of 4.4 percent or higher. Although 4.4 is over four times the overall rate at the time of the analysis, it is still noticeably small.
Thus, it is not possible to rely on administrative data to identify beneficiaries who are "highly likely" to participate in TTW. The low predicted probabilities suggest that other unmeasured factors, such as the nature/severity of the individual's impairment, other sources of support, and personal motivation, play an important role in beneficiary decisions. The survey data capture some such factors and are included in the analysis presented in the next section. Although we cannot use administrative data to identify beneficiaries highly likely to participate, we can identify several factors predictive of participation, holding other factors constant. The multivariate analysis also shows that, holding other factors constant, the likelihood of participation was higher if, at the time the Ticket was mailed, the beneficiary:
Was relatively young
Had attained a relatively high level of education
Had a sensory impairment (especially hearing)
Was classified as African American or Asian/Pacific Islander
Had been on the rolls between 6 and 60 months
Had been awarded benefits at the initial determination stage
Was already using one of the work incentive programs (Section 1619 for SSI and participation in the extended period of eligibility for DI)
In addition, holding other things constant, participation rates were especially low for those:
On SSI only
With mental retardation, a musculoskeletal impairment, a circulatory condition, or a respiratory condition
Requesting written communications in Spanish
The relationship between age and participation is particularly important. Participation rates are much higher for younger beneficiaries than for older beneficiaries. For instance, in March 2004, the probability that a beneficiary age 18 to 24 had assigned his or her Ticket was 2.7 percentage points higher than for a beneficiary age 60 to 64, holding other things constant. This relationship, along with the fact that a large majority of beneficiaries are over age 50, makes the average rate for all beneficiaries much lower than for relatively young beneficiaries.
We also included a variety of county characteristics in the multivariate analysis. Although bivariate analyses show some of the characteristics to be predictive of participation, they are not substantially predictive after controlling for other factors.9
2. Findings from National Beneficiary Survey
The data from the first round of the NBS provide additional information about characteristics related to TTW participation. We used NBS data for the 2,932 respondents from Phase 1 states to conduct a multivariate analysis of Ticket participation in June 2003 (when the survey sample was drawn, 15 months after the start of the Phase 1 rollout).10 Participation itself is based on administrative data. The sample participation rate (weighted to reflect the beneficiary population in Phase 1 states) is 0.82 percent as compared with 0.83 percent based on administrative data for the same month.
We included the following characteristics in the analysis (an asterisk indicates that the characteristic is from the survey data): title; primary insurance amount for DI beneficiaries; DI and SSI benefits if countable earnings are zero; cash benefits received from other programs*; months on the disability program rolls; Medicare eligibility; age; sex; race (Caucasian, African American, or other)*; Hispanic ethnicity*; education*; parental education*; living arrangements (living alone or with unrelated others, living with spouse or another adult as if married, living with minor children)*; age of disability onset*; main condition that restricts activities*; scores on physical and mental wellness scales*; functional limitations (e.g., concerning ability to walk, climb steps, lift 10 pounds, grasp objects, reach, stand, or crouch; ability to perform ADLs for bathing and dressing, getting around the house, getting into or out of bed, and eating; ability to perform instrumental activities of daily living IADLs for getting around outside the home, shopping, and preparing meals*; obesity (body mass index greater than 30)*; evidence of substance abuse*; and family income relative to the official poverty standard.* The following discussion of the findings focuses on the characteristics that are the strongest predictors of Ticket participation after holding constant all other characteristics on the list.
At least qualitatively, many of the findings reinforce the findings based on the administrative data only; quantitative differences may reflect differences in specifications, timing of measurement, and random sampling error. The survey analysis pertains to June 2003, whereas the administrative data analysis pertains to March 2004. We did not include all of the administrative variables and categories in this analysis because sample sizes for some groups were extremely small (e.g., those with hearing impairments and those in DI or SSI work incentive programs). It is also important to recognize that the estimates presented here are based on a survey sample of a few thousand beneficiaries, whereas the administrative data estimates summarized above are based on data for all of the over 2 million beneficiaries in Phase 1 states. Hence, differences due to sampling error can be substantial. All estimates reported here reflect statistically significant effects (5.0 percent level using a two-tailed test). Detailed results for participation appear in Appendix Table B.22, and detailed results for provider type and payment type appear in Appendix Tables B.23a and B.23b.
a. Participation
Overall, the variables included in the survey data enhance the ability to predict which beneficiaries will participate. Yet, even with the inclusion of these variables, it is not possible to single out individuals who are "highly likely" to participate. The highest predicted participation rate is 22.4 percent (more than twice the highest rate with use of administrative data alone), and 1 percent has predicted probabilities of 11.1 percent or greater (versus 4.4 percent or greater with use of administrative data alone).
Age is a strong predictor of participation. Holding other characteristics constant, those age 18 to 24 are 5.7 times more likely to participate than those 55 or older (Appendix Table B.22). African Americans are 80 percent more likely to participate than Caucasian Americans, holding other characteristics constant. We did not find significant differences for other races or Hispanic ethnicity. Participation increases with education, with the participation rate for those with more than a high school education 4.1 times higher than for those with less than a high school education, holding other things constant.11 Beneficiaries with sensory impairments are 80 percent more likely than others to participate.12 DI beneficiaries (both concurrent and DI-only) are 50 percent more likely to participate than SSI-only recipients. Participation is relatively low for those who first entered the DI or SSI program less than 6 months earlier, increases gradually through 24 months, is highest for those on the rolls between 24 and 60 months, and is significantly lower for those on the rolls for more than 60 months. Those on the rolls for more than 60 months are 40 percent less likely to participate than those on the rolls for 24 to 60 months.
Other findings pertain to variables not captured in administrative data. The first of these is that beneficiaries unable to perform one or more ADLs or IADLs without assistance are only about half as likely to participate as those with less severe or no ADL or IADL limitations. The evidence also indicates that inability to perform one or more physical functions reduces participation, but after controlling for ADLs and IADLs (as well as for other variables), the estimated effect is relatively small and not statistically significant.13
The probability of participation declines with age of disability onset after controlling for other factors (including current age). Those experiencing disability onset before the age of 18 are the most likely to participate. Those experiencing onset at age 55 or older are 60 percent less likely to participate than the former group. As expected, other groups fall between these two.
We expected to find that mental and physical health status would be predictive of participation, but the estimated effects are small and not statistically significant. It could be that other independent variables, such as the functional and activity limitation variables, have captured the effects of health status on participation, but we have not explored this possibility further.14 We also did not find significant effects for obesity or substance abuse after controlling for other variables.
Beneficiaries who live with a spouse, significant other, or other family members are less likely to participate than those who live on their own or with unrelated adults. Holding other variables constant, beneficiaries who live with relatives but do not have children under age six are 20 percent less likely to participate, while those with at least one child under age six are 70 percent less likely to participate. One possible explanation for lower participation rates when an individual lives with other adults is that the income of the other adults reduces the need for the beneficiary to generate income via work. In addition, the presence of others in the household may create better opportunities for the beneficiary to engage in productive household activities—particularly for those with children under age six. These factors appear to more than offset any positive effect that the availability of personal support within the household might have on participation.
Holding other variables constant, we expected to find that high benefit levels in the absence of countable earnings would reduce participation because of strong incentives to stay on the rolls, but we found no significant effect. One variable closely associated with benefits did, however, have a large negative effect: DI primary insurance amount (PIA). Holding other things constant, those with PIAs above $1,200 are only half as likely to participate as those with lower PIAs. This difficult-to-interpret finding might be termed a benefit effect because the DI benefit of a beneficiary with no dependents and with countable earnings below the SGA level is equal to the beneficiary's PIA. The analysis, however, directly controls for benefits. Similarly, PIA is highly correlated with age, but we have controlled for age in the analysis. Hence, it seems that the negative effect of a high PIA on participation is attributable to some other factor associated with PIA that is not captured in the control variables.
A beneficiary's PIA can be viewed as a composite measure of the beneficiary's earnings experience; high PIAs are achieved only by those beneficiaries who received high levels of earnings subject to Social Security payroll taxes during a long period of their work career. High levels of past earnings may be predictive of high levels of potential earnings if the beneficiary returns to work, and we would expect high predicted earnings to increase participation, which is the opposite of what we found. One possible explanation is that beneficiaries with high past earnings are more likely than others to have accumulated substantial wealth, which would reduce the incentive to return to work. More broadly, the fact that such individuals have entered DI despite the low DI replacement rate for workers with high earnings suggests that they are poor candidates for return-to-work for some other reason—extremely severe disability, substantial income from other sources (pension, a spouse, private disability benefits, etc.), and perhaps others. Perhaps high earners have better opportunities and stronger incentives than other workers to continue work after disability, so they are more likely than others to delay their entry into SSDI until they are ready to retire permanently. They might enter SSDI only when changes in their circumstances make permanent retirement attractive: significant deterioration in their health, availability of private pension or disability benefits, changes in their spouse's circumstances, etc. Although other control variables might serve as proxies for some such differences between high PIA beneficiaries and others, they likely do so only in a limited fashion.
We considered the possible effect of other (non-SSA) cash (e.g., private disability insurance) or near-cash (e.g., food stamps) benefits (public and private) that would likely be jeopardized by return-to-work. Our hypothesis posited that beneficiaries with such benefits would be less likely to participate. We found, however, that the results depend on the value of the other benefits. Those reporting low levels of such benefits (estimated to be worth less than $200 per month) were 60 percent more likely to participate than those reporting no such benefits. Those reporting high levels of such benefits ($500 or more per month) were—consistent with our hypothesis—40 percent less likely to participate, but the result is only marginally significant.15 It may be that low levels of other benefits are indicative of material hardship (e.g., not enough food or fuel) and that such hardships might motivate the beneficiary to seek work.
We also included an indicator for relatively high household income—that is, at least 300 percent FPL. We view this variable as a crude measure of a household's total resources and expect that beneficiaries in high-resource households will have less of an incentive to participate in TTW. We found no evidence of any effect, however.
In many respects, the findings from the analysis of participation predictors are qualitatively similar to those from the analysis of predictors of employment (see Chapter II). That is, factors that predict employment also predict Ticket participation, after controlling for other factors, and in the same direction. Some exceptions, however, apply. Other things constant, SSA benefits are a negative predictor of employment, but not of participation; men are more likely than women to be employed but not more likely to participate; African Americans are more likely to participate than either Caucasians or those of other races, but not more likely to be employed; those of other races are more likely to work than either Caucasians or African Americans, but not more likely to participate; living with a child under age six reduces the likelihood of participation, but does not reduce the likelihood of employment; those with sensory disorders are more likely to participate, but not more likely to be employed; those in poor mental or physical health are much less likely to be employed, but only marginally less likely to participate.
b. Provider and Payment Type
We also consider characteristics predictive of type of provider and type of payment system for those who do participate. The number of (unweighted) participants in this sample is 1,105. By design, the respondents are approximately uniformly distributed across the three payment types. After weighting to reflect the population from which they were drawn, 13.0 percent had assigned their Ticket to an EN, 84.2 percent had assigned their Ticket under the traditional payment system, 13.5 percent under the milestone-outcome system, and 2.3 percent under the outcome-only system. These statistics are comparable to what is observed in administrative data for Phase 1 in June 2003.16
Several characteristics are associated with an increased likelihood of assignment to an EN, holding other characteristics constant (Appendix Table B.23a). SSI-only recipients are 70 percent more likely than DI recipients to assign their Ticket to an EN. The likelihood of assignment to an EN increases with age; those in the oldest age group (55 and above) are 4.7 times more likely than those in the youngest age group (18 to 24) to assign their Ticket to an EN. Hispanics are 80 percent more likely than non-Hispanics to assign their Ticket to an EN. Those with less than a high school education are 90 percent more likely than those who completed high school to assign their Ticket to an EN; unmarried parents with children are 70 percent more likely than others to assign their Ticket to an EN; and all parents with children under age six are 2.9 times more likely than others to assign their Ticket to an EN.
These findings suggest that participants facing return-to-work challenges other than disability—i.e., limited or no work experience, age, limited education, Hispanic ethnicity, parenting alone, and presence of preschool children—are more likely than others to be served by ENs. However, one finding appears to be contradictory to this conclusion: participants in households with incomes of at least 300 percent of the federal poverty line are 80 percent more likely to assign their Ticket to an EN. Not surprisingly, these same characteristics are associated with an increased likelihood of assignment under one of the new payment systems.
Given assignment under one of the two systems, fewer findings concern factors affecting the likelihood of assignment under the outcome-only payment system, probably reflecting both the relatively small sample for this analysis (722) and the small share that assigned their Ticket (after weighting) under the outcome-only system (14.8 percent) (Appendix Table B.23b). One clear finding is that participants under one of the new payment systems who experience disability onset relatively late in their lives are substantially more likely to assign their Ticket under the outcome-only system. For instance, those who experienced disability onset at age 55 or later are 2.6 times more likely to assign their Ticket under the outcome-only system than those who experience disability onset before age 18. In the earlier analysis of administrative data, we found that older participants under the new payment systems were more likely to assign their Ticket under the outcome-only system. In the current analysis, the relationship between age and payment system is relatively weak, although still positive, after controlling for age of onset and other characteristics. It appears that age of onset, which is highly correlated with age, largely explains the earlier finding.
1 See the discussion of aggregate impacts on service enrollment (Chapter XIII) for more information. (back)
2 See Appendix A for the rollout schedule and a list of states by phase. (back)
3 The number of beneficiaries eligible at the end of the period is lower than the cumulative number of Tickets mailed because of exits from the beneficiary rolls among the working-age population, which happened primarily because they either reached retirement age or died. (back)
4 This estimate is based on reporting through July 2005. Because of the lags in recording all assigned Tickets, we consider the July 2005 data as providing an accurate measure of actual Ticket assignments only through December 2004. (back)
5 The very high participation rate early in the Phase 3 rollout reflects the fact that some beneficiaries classified as residing in Phase 3 states had obtained and assigned their Tickets during the Phase 1 or 2 rollouts, most likely because of a later change in residence. Early in the rollout, the number of individuals in this group is substantial relative to the number of Ticket-eligible beneficiaries in the Phase 3 states, but their influence on the participation rate quickly disappears as Tickets are sent to all other beneficiaries in the Phase 3 states. A similar but smaller phenomenon is observed early in the Phase 2 states. (back)
6 Our earlier estimate was 75.9 percent. Most assignments reported after completion of the extraction of data for the earlier report were to SVRAs. (back)
7 We excluded the small number of reassignments from the count of deactivations, but the exhibit would change little if they were included. We omitted the first six months of the rollout period because the small numbers of in-use Tickets early in each phase's rollouts leads to large but meaningless variation in net deactivations as a percentage of in-use Tickets. (back)
8 Based on Program Manager data from December 2004, the most extreme case is a provider that had accepted 361 assignments from the start of the Phase 1 rollout through December 2004 but had only 12 assignments in the last month. Two other ENs had at least 100 assignments fewer in December 2004 than the number they had accepted since rollout, and 116 ENs had withdrawn from the program entirely. (back)
9 The variables are population density, population loss between 1990 and 2000, percent African American, percent nonwhite, percent Hispanic, percent of populations living in households with income below the poverty line, percent of employment in manufacturing, unemployment rate, another low-employment index, an urban/rural index, the percentage of workers using public transit, a housing stress index, and a low-education index. (back)
10 All survey respondents were Ticket-eligible in that month. (back)
11The estimates for education are based on the survey measure of education rather than on the administrative measure because the latter is missing for many observations. (back)
12Small samples prevent separate estimation of rates for hearing, vision, and communication impairments. (back)
13For analysis purposes, we used responses to questions about functional limitations and activity limitations to categorize respondents into four groups: (1) no functional, ADL, or IADL limitation; (2) moderate functional, ADL, or IADL limitations only; (3) inability to perform an ADL or IADL without assistance; and (4) inability to perform at least one physical function. "Moderate" means that the individual can perform the function, ADL, or IADL on his or her own, but with difficulty. Based on the survey, most beneficiaries are in at least one of the two "inability" categories, and many are in both; only 2 percent are in the "no limitation" category. Based on the estimates and after controlling for other variables, those reporting no or moderate conditions only are equally likely to participate, those reporting severe ADL/IADL limitations only but not severe functional limitations are 52 percent as likely to participate, those reporting severe functional limitations but not severe ADL/IADL limitations are 85 percent as likely to participate, and those reporting both severe ADL/IADL and functional limitations are 44 percent as likely to participate. (back)
14 This statement alludes to the statistical problem of collinearity between the independent variables. The analysis relies on the independent variation in each variable to estimate the variable's coefficient. The independent variation of a particular variable is the variation left after removing the variation that can be accounted for by the other variables. Even if a variable's total variation is high, the independent variation might be too low to estimate an effect with enough precision to be statistically different from zero, especially if the true effect is small. The variance inflation factor (VIF) is sometimes used as a measure of the extent to which collinearity affects the precision with which the coefficient of a variable can be estimated. The square root of the VIF is the amount by which the coefficient's standard error is inflated by the inclusion of all of the other independent variables. Thus, a VIF of 1.0 implies no effect at all, a VIF of 4 corresponds to a doubling of the standard error, and a VIF of 9 corresponds to a tripling of the standard error. Three of the health category variables had VIF values ranging between 2.3 and 3.1—high but not excessive. Only five of the independent variables had VIF values in excess of 4.0—the indicator for those age 25 to 39 and each of the four indicators for age of onset. The effects of these variables on participation are so strong, however, that we found significant effects despite the level of collinearity. (back)
15 The result is significant at the 6.5 percent level using a one-tailed test. (back)
16 The weighted percentage assigned to ENs, 13.0 percent, is higher than the comparable number from the administrative data for June 2003, when 8.1 percent of in-use Tickets in Phase 1 states were assigned to ENs. The difference reflects sampling error. The weighted percentages assigned under each payment system are very close to the administrative data figures from June 2003 (83.9 percent under the traditional payment system; 13.4 percent under the milestone-outcome system; and 2.8 percent under the outcome-only system), reflecting the fact that the sample was stratified by payment type and the weights designed to reflect the variation in sampling probabilities across strata. (back)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Resource Type
4 Matching Results
Results open in a new window/tab.
Results: 1 - 4 of 4
Newsmap. Monday, October 11, 1943 : week of September 30 to October 7, 213th week of the war, 95th week of U.S. participation
Front: Text describes action on various war fronts: Aegean Sea, Italy, Corsica, Russia, Norway, Southwest Pacific, Air offensive. Maps show Greece and Turkey, Eastern front, Central Italy. Includes photographs: Soldier killed by booby-trap, "Battleship X" is the USS South Dakota, Brenner Pass, Resting American soldiers following a battle in Munda. Back: Typical German infantry regiment. Illustration shows regiment. Text gives detailed description of Regimental Headquarters Company, Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, Battalions, Infantry and Motorized Companies.
Date: October 11, 1943
Creator: [United States.] Army Orientation Course.
System: The UNT Digital Library
Newsmap. Monday, May 18, 1942 : week of May 8 to May 15
Text describes action on various war fronts: Jap advance lines cut -- U.S. bombers in India -- Jap defeat in China -- Tribute to team work -- Tokyo raid confirmed -- Axis attack forecast -- Subs in St. Lawrence -- Plan relief corps -- WAAC bill passes -- State laws 'brake' war -- Deal at Martinique -- Raid Jap settlements -- Peru's president here -- Freight by plane -- Gas rationing starts -- Indies fliers here -- British announce war casualties -- R.A.F. pushes attacks -- Gort to Malta command -- Mission to Africa -- Spring offensive on -- Norway plant wrecked. Large world map is keyed to text and illustrates time zones around the world. Inset map shows German and Russian advances near the Black Sea. Includes photographs: Lt. Gen. Stillwell -- Vice Pres. Wallace -- Lt. Gen. Somervell -- New bombs piled underground awaiting delivery -- Lord Gort -- Russian troop answer the Nazi assault -- British troops practice street fighting tactics. Includes 1 cartoon.
Date: May 18, 1942
Creator: [United States]. Army Orientation Course.
System: The UNT Digital Library
Newsmap. Monday, October 18, 1943 : week of October 7 to October 14, 214th week of the war, 96th week of U.S. participation
Front: Text describes action on various war fronts: Russia, Central Italy, Italy, Azores, Air offensive, Norway, Southwest Pacific, Wake. Large world map shows United Nations, Axis and Axis occupied areas, countries with Axis relations broken, and neutral countries. Includes inset maps: Eastern Europe, Roads to Rome, the globe, Scene of combined operations in the southwest Pacific. Photographs: Burma bombing campaign, Modern road to Rome, Wake Island, Tailgunner Sergt. Harris Goldberg of Brookline, Mass. Back: Photographic view of the world with the center at Tokyo, Japan. Includes instructions for using a detachable scale that, when centered on Tokyo, measures distances along any line running through Tokyo.
Date: October 18, 1943
Creator: [United States.] Army Orientation Course.
System: The UNT Digital Library
Newsmap for the Armed Forces : Moscow conference decisions
Front: Text describes 5 Moscow conference decisions. Maps: Moscow conference decisions as reflected on the global map. Includes photograph of Ernest Bevin (Britain), V. M. Molotov (Russia) and James F. Byrnes (U.S.) Back: Reenlistment. List of reasons to reenlist. Charts of income and retirement income for enlisted classes.
Date: January 7, 1946
Creator: [United States.] Army Information Branch.
System: The UNT Digital Library


text:
Hüper Optik's vision is to help dealers reach their business objectives by creating a Dealer Network Alliance that will pull demand for the window film market by utilizing its collective resources.
At Hüper Optik, we share your vision for success in the window film market.
We want to help you achieve business goals by offering three competitive advantages:
This MAX/MIN philosophy consists of Huper Optik partnering with you, the dealer, to produce the maximum sales with the minimum amount of dealers. This philosophy increases profitability and value for all including the consumer.
Hüper Optik's Dealer Network Alliance (DNA) is comprised of the top 10% of dealers in the window film industry.
Our dealers are inspired, and rewarded, to share with and mentor other dealers new to our network.
Locate a residential, commercial, automotive, marine, or security window film dealer for your next project.Find a Dealer
We'd love to hear from you. Tell us about your next project.Let's get started


text:
Karl Lagerfeld supports Nicolas Ghesquière if the former Balenciaga designer wishes to start his own line. {The New York Times}
Congrats to Devon Aoki! The model and actress is pregnant with her second child, a daughter. {People}
More From ELLE
Check out this first look of Gwyneth Paltrow in her latest beauty role as the face of Max Factor. {Telegraph}
London is set to host the first-ever, three-day Global Kids Fashion Week in March 2013. {Telegraph}
Watch Rihanna's new Diamonds music video. {Grazia Daily}
60 Years of Fred Perry, a Fred Perry documentary about British music and street style, premiered in Berlin. { WWD}
Designer Tori Praver stars in her own Resort 2013 lookbook, wearing a bikini and all. {Refinery 29}
Australian DJ duo Nervo has been added to the CoverGirl campaign roster. {MTV Style}
See behind-the-scenes photos of Arizona Muse's commercial video for Louis Vuitton. {WWD}


text:
Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1986 - Science - 298 pages
In this original book about the consequences of new technologies, Drexler takes the reader through exhilarating new discoveries and the promise of those around the corner. Beginning with the insight that what we can do depends on what we can build, Drexler analyzes nanotechnology, which involves the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules. He makes a plausible case for expecting technological developments in artificial intelligence and molecular engineering that will result in tiny mechanisms being controlled by microscopic powerful thinking computers. He also explains how the new alternatives could be directed toward vital human concerns -- wealth or poverty, health or sickness, peace or war. ISBN 0-385-19972-4: $17.95.
What people are saying - Write a review
User ratings
|5 stars
|4 stars
|3 stars
|2 stars
|1 star
Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified
Great BookUser Review - nubianangel - Overstock.com
Engines of Creation is a very good book to help the nonscientist get a grasp on the complexities of nano technology where we are and where we could go with it. While it breaks the information down to ... Read full review
LibraryThing ReviewUser Review - mentatjack - LibraryThing
This is one of my favorite science non-fiction books ever. If you've enjoyed any of the nanotechnology in science fiction in the last few decades, it was probably informed in some way by Drexler's ... Read full review
Engines of Construction
The Principles of Change
Predicting and Projecting
12 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
ability able active already arms assemblers atoms basic become better biostasis brain bring build called cell repair machines Chapter chemical complex computers consider copies cost damage dangerous described develop devices direct discussion Earth effect electronic energy engineering evolution evolved example exist fact force future genes give groups grow growth holds human hypertext ideas imagine institutions intelligence knowledge lead less light limits living machinery material matter means mechanical memes million mind molecular molecular machines molecules move natural organisms patterns possible present principles problem produce protein quantum mechanics reach reason remain replicators require seems selection shape simple solar space speed spread structures success suggest technical things thousand tion tissue understand universe


text:
LONDON (AP) — Oscar Pistorius has been chosen to carry South Africa's flag at the closing ceremony for the London Olympics.
Pistorius wrote on Twitter on Sunday: "Really feel honoured ... What a great ending to the games it'll be!"
The double-amputee runner competed in the men's 400 meters and 4x400 relay, and ran the anchor leg for the South Africans on his carbon-fiber blades in Friday night's relay final.
South Africa was the last team to cross the finish line in the final, but Pistorius already had made history as the first double amputee to compete at any Olympics.
Following Sunday's ceremony, Pistorius will return to the Olympic Stadium at the end of this month for the Paralympics, where he is the defending champion in the 100, 200 and 400 meters in his class.


text:
I needed to export some query results to an Excel workbook from an Asp.Net 4.0 webpage.
The simplest way I found is to exploit Excel for all the stinky work.
Excel is able to understand an html form and to render it to a worksheet, so this is the starting point.
Thus, I also needed to have this export available on several pages and with different ObjectResult.
Then I decided to write an Extender for an IQueryable object that can get the work done.
This is how the class look like, with some comments
// A static class public static class ExcelExportExtender { static String C_CONTENT = "attachment;filename={0}.xls"; // static method that extend an IQueryable public static void ExportToExcel(this IQueryable Data, Page ParentPage, String FileName) { if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(FileName)) throw new ArgumentNullException("FileName is null"); HttpResponse ResponseObject = ParentPage.Response; GridView gdvList = new GridView(); // Let's hide all unwanted stuffing gdvList.AllowPaging = false; gdvList.AllowSorting = false; gdvList.EditIndex = -1; // Let's bind data to GridView gdvList.DataSource = Data; // We exploit the data binding for columns name! gdvList.DataBind(); // Let's output HTML of GridView ResponseObject.Clear(); ResponseObject.ContentType = "application/vnd.xls"; String head = String.Format(C_CONTENT, FileName.Trim()); ResponseObject.AddHeader("content-disposition", head); StringWriter swriter = new StringWriter(); HtmlTextWriter hwriter = new HtmlTextWriter(swriter); HtmlForm frm = new HtmlForm(); ParentPage.Controls.Add(frm); frm.Attributes["runat"] = "server"; frm.Controls.Add(gdvList); frm.RenderControl(hwriter); ResponseObject.Write(swriter.ToString()); ResponseObject.End(); } }
and this is an example of how to utilize the ExcelExportExtender
protected void LinkButton1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { FakeDataAccess fda = new FakeDataAccess(); var DataToExport = from r in fda.RandomData where (r.MyFirstProperty % 2 ==0) select r; // only for learning purposes =) IQueryable result = DataToExport.AsQueryable(); // "this" refers to the Page where this method lives // Let's rock! result.ExportToExcel(this, "EvenRecordsFileName"); }
Job Done!
Download the source code and the example project here!


text:
On the morning after Colorado voters took a sledgehammer to Amendment 66, everyone seemed to be picking through the wreckage to see what could be salvaged, what's best left on the scrap heap — and what message to take away from the demolition.
Educators took a hard look at where defeat of the measure left them, legislators calculated how to move forward, and observers on both sides of the issue interpreted what the public really meant by its resounding "No."
Democratic state Sen. Mike Johnston, the legislative force behind the hybrid tax hike and school-finance measure called Senate Bill 213, by noon Wednesday had already attended meetings with business leaders, educators and his team to address next steps.
"There's no doubt for me that the policy foundation in 213 is as important and transformative today as yesterday," said Johnston.
"I think we have to go back and look at how you try to match these improvements with these investments. Is it one year at a time? A five- or 10-year horizon? Is it through existing revenues or a new revenue source or some combination?
"That's a conversation we have to start with all Coloradans all over again, with the supporters of 66 and opponents."
Meanwhile, Colorado House Republicans unveiled their own 2014 education agenda — largely an … la carte selection from SB 213's menu of initiatives that members promise to introduce individually during the next legislative session.
Republicans singled out some elements that attracted bipartisan support before the accompanying tax increase became a deal-breaker: a new rolling student count system; greater school spending transparency; capital construction funding for charter schools; and more funding for English-language learners.
House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, acknowledged that even these items carry a price tag but added that much can be done with existing funds. He estimated that money currently in the state education fund, coupled with higher revenue forecasts, could give lawmakers $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion to work with.
"Everybody and his brother has been commenting on why (Amendment 66) didn't pass," he said. "But now it's about what are we going to do to move forward. Obviously, what we have is broken. Let's see what we can do to make it better."
Although voters proved Tuesday night they want to keep their state tax burden low, Johnston said local investments in education of the kind several districts passed have their limitations.
"The challenge with that," he said, "is that the things people like most about (Amendment 66) — transparency, innovation — only come with state level reforms. If you go local by passing mill levies, some districts will always pass them and some will never pass them. You get huge inequalities in the system."
Kathleen Gebhardt, the lead attorney for plaintiffs in the Lobato school-funding lawsuit, opposed Amendment 66 as insufficient to fix those inequities. The Lobato suit, which argued the state's spending formula for K-12 education fell far short of constitutional standards, won at trial but lost on appeal.
"What you have not heard from any side is that this is a good day for kids," Gebhardt said. "So I do think we have to pay attention to what voters said and go back to the drawing board, as soon as possible. The facts haven't changed. We still have a system that's not meeting children's needs."
In the Ignacio School District, in southwest Colorado, Superintendent Rocco Fuschetto found himself in no worse shape Wednesday than he would have been if Amendment 66 had passed. In fact, he said, his district would have been one of a handful that would have seen per-pupil funding cut by the measure.
"How could I go to our community and say I'd like you to support this amendment, but then get our student revenue cut by $71, and have to increase our mill levy to make up the money?" Fuschetto said. "Am I happy it didn't pass? I'm not. But I think looking ahead, one thing I'll say, if they're going to try this again, please don't cut any funding on any school district."
The defeat of Amendment 66 means that areas such as the Center School District, in the San Luis Valley, will remain "at the low end of the food chain on equity" with regard to funding an overwhelmingly poor student population, said Superintendent George Welsh.
His district would have benefited significantly. Unable to turn to his local tax base to fill funding gaps, he said the district must continue to depend on patchwork grants.
"The problem is, there's no sustainability in that," Welsh said. "But that's the game we play if we're going to give our kids any chance in ZIP code 81125."
He described one after-school reading intervention, paid for with federal grant money, that has yielded strong results. Then the grant ended this year. He likened the situation to having a cure for cancer that you can't afford to deliver.
"I can't expect my people to work for free to deliver that treatment," Welsh said. "But the state of Colorado expects them to. That's the message my staff gets. 'Do it anyway.' And you know what? They will."
Kevin Simpson: 303-954-1739, ksimpson@ denverpost.com or twitter.com/ksimpsondp


text:
GloucesterCast With Peter and Vickie VanNess and Joey Ciaramitaro Taped 4/16/14
Topics Include: Gloucester MA, April 16 Snow, Peter VanNess, Vickie VanNess, Peter Lovasco Doing a Great Job With Cape Ann Weather, Bitstrips, Kevin Edson, Rice Cooker Hoax, Boston Strong, ACLU, Dog Leash Controversy, Bad Dog Owners,Beach Trash Barrels vs Carry In/Carry Out, Larcom Theater, UU Meetinghouse, Henri Smith, Jon Butcher Axis, Celebrate Gloucester, Red Tape For Community Events, Castleberry Fairs, Block Party, Jackie Hardy, Tourism, Fun Should Not Be Illegal, Gran Prix of Gloucester, Cyclocross, I4C2, Downtown Parking Is Not Bad if You are Willing To Walk One Block (Which Is Less Walking You'll Do If You Park In A Mall Parking Lot and Walk Into The Mall), People That Will Drive In Circles 20 Times Unless They Get A Parking Spot On Main St vs Parking On Rogers or Middle St, Stitcher App, Cross Platform, BossJock App, Email Subscription Service Is Broken, Explaining Hyperlinks, Sister Felicia, Shalin Liu, Embedding A Video, Get Her A Muzzle.
Check Out Peter and Vickie At www.gimmelive.tv
The GloucesterCast Has Been Been Invited To Be A Station On Stitcher Radio On Demand!
Subscribe to The GloucesterCast Podcast by Email Free


text:
2016 WSOP Main Event: Welcome to the November Nine
The biggest day in poker is here; the World Series of Poker Main Event Final Table kicks off today! We talked to November Niner Kenny Hallaert about his preparation, spoke to Randal Flowers who was there to support Cliff Josephy, and Anthony Charter who's on Griffin Benger's rail.
- Category:


text:
Tune in to a CNN Presents special presentation: "Presumed Guilty: Murder in West Memphis" at 11 p.m. ET on CNN for more on the West Memphis Three and the evidence that set them free.
Jonesboro, Arkansas (CNN) -- Three men who served 18 years in prison following their convictions in a 1993 triple-slaying in West Memphis, Arkansas, walked free Friday to cheers from a supportive crowd after entering new pleas in the case.
"I want to be out. I deserve to be out," said Jason Baldwin, who along with Damien Echols and Jessie Misskelley Jr., was freed after entering rarely used pleas in which they maintained their innocence but acknowledged that prosecutors have evidence to convict them.
Echols and Baldwin entered what is known as an Alford plea on three counts of first degree murder. Misskelley entered similar pleas to one count of first degree murder and two counts of second degree murder.
Craighead County Circuit Judge David Laser sentenced the three to the 18 years already served and imposed a 10-year suspended sentence -- meaning they could be returned to jail if they violate the law.
"I don't think that it will make the pain go away to the victim families. I don't think it will make the pain go away to the defendant families," Laser said, adding it was nevertheless the best for all involved.
Echols was previously sentenced to death and Misskelley and Baldwin were given life sentences in the May 1993 slayings of second-graders Steven Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore.
The boys' bodies were mutilated and left in a ditch, hogtied with their own shoelaces. Prosecutors argued that the men who were convicted, teenagers at the time, were driven by satanic ritual and that Echols had been the ringleader.
Critics of the case against the men argued that no direct evidence tied the three to the murders and that a knife recovered from a lake near the home of one of the men could not have caused the boys' wounds. More recent DNA testing also demonstrated no links, according to the men's supporters.
Echols said after his release that he was "very much in shock, very overwhelmed."
"I'm just tired," Echols said. "This has been going on for over 18 years, and it's been an absolute living hell."
Baldwin said he didn't initially want to accept the deal.
"This was not justice," he said, adding that he dropped his opposition to pave the way for Echols' release from death row.
"He had it so much worse than I had it," Baldwin said of Echols. "It's just insufferable to put a person through that."
While prosecuting attorney Scott Ellington said the pleas entered Friday validate the decision of jurors who sent the men to prison, it also spares Arkansas the possibility of a retrial, which would have been difficult to prosecute after so many years, or a potential civil lawsuit by the men. The trio had been on course to win the right to new trials later this year.
"This is an appropriate resolution to this case at this time," Ellington, who works in Arkansas' second judicial district, told reporters. "Only time will tell as to whether this was a right decision on my part."
Although supporters of the men, dubbed the West Memphis 3, believe the true killer remains free, Ellington said he believes the pleas resolve the case.
"I have no reason to believe there was anyone else involved in the homicide of these three children but the three defendants who pled guilty today," he said. But he said the state could file charges against others if new evidence emerges implicating someone else in the case.
Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said his staff had been helping Ellington's staff prepare for a state Supreme Court hearing on the case scheduled for December. But he said he learned this week that Ellington had accepted a plea deal proposed by the defense.
"I continue to believe that these defendants are guilty of the crimes for which they have now been twice convicted," McDaniel said in a release. "Prosecutors know their cases better than anyone. In this case, Mr. Ellington has exercised his discretion in such a way that has led to nine murder convictions that can never be appealed."
The case has drawn national attention, with actor Johnny Depp and singers Eddie Vedder and Natalie Maines trying to rally support for the men's release. Vedder and Maines were at the courthouse on Friday.
John Mark Byers, whose stepson Christopher Byers was one of the three victims, said he believes the three men are innocent and releasing them without exonerating them of the crime is an outrage.
"They're innocent. They did not kill my son," Byers said before the hearing.
The father of another of the victims, Steven Branch, also blasted the decision, but for another reason.
"I don't know what kind of deal they worked up," Steve Branch told CNN affiliate WMC-TV before the hearing. "Now you can get some movie stars and a little bit of money behind you, and you can walk free for killing somebody."
But Jessie Misskelley Sr. said he was happy that his son would be getting out of prison.
"I thought it might be some kind of publicity stunt. I can't believe it but it's real," he told WMC.
The three men were seeking a retrial in the case, and a hearing had been scheduled for a new trial. The state Supreme Court ruled in November that the three could present new evidence to the trial court after DNA testing between 2005 and 2007 failed to link them to the crime.
The material included hair from a ligature used to bind Moore and a hair recovered from a tree stump near where the bodies were found, Arkansas Supreme Court documents said.
The hair found in the ligature was consistent with Branch's stepfather, Terry Hobbs, while the hair found on the tree stump was consistent with the DNA of a friend of Hobbs, according to the documents.
Police have never considered Hobbs a suspect, and he maintains that he had nothing to do with the murders.
Echols and Baldwin said in a news conference after the men were released that they would continue to work to clear their names, something Baldwin said authorities aren't trying to do.
"They're not out there trying to find out who really murdered those boys," he said.


text:
Asked by S. Licare, Missouri
What is the long-term effect of Adderall on a child starting it at age 8? I see there is no appetite from morning to noon, but then the child becomes ravenous from late afternoon until bedtime. How can a child function without eating a good breakfast and getting through the rest of the day at school by picking at lunch? I'm not sure if I want to continue this medication or any other. Can diet alone help?
Mental Health Expert
Dr. Charles Raison
Emory University Medical School
Dear S,
In many ways, we know more about answers to your first question than we do about many things in psychiatry. Because for all the controversy surrounding them, stimulants like Adderall have been the subject of thousands of studies. A number of studies have now followed children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) from childhood through adolescence, and the findings are pretty consistent.
The short answer is that most studies find treatment with medications like Adderall to have good long-term effects on children with ADHD. That is, children with ADHD who receive treatment with Adderall or one of the other psychostimulants do better in multiple areas of their lives than do children with ADHD who don't receive treatment. For example, treatment in childhood is associated with better grades and less substance abuse during the teenage years.
So that is the overall good news. Here's the bad news: As a group, children with ADHD don't do as well in school and have more behavioral and emotional problems through the years than do children without ADHD regardless of how much treatment they get. Notice, please, that I added the qualifier "as a group" to my statement. This is very important, because individual children have very different responses to all manner of treatment, and it turns out this is very important for predicting how they will do over the long haul.
We can see this in the long-term findings from a large study of ADHD funded by the federal government. This study has now followed hundreds of subjects from childhood into adolescence over an eight-year period. A key finding at eight years is that how children responded when they first got either medication or therapy strongly predicted how well they were doing as teenagers. If a child responded very well to initial treatment, he or she was much more likely to be doing well in their lives as teenagers than children who didn't respond well.
Taken together, this is what I think the science says: ADHD is a serious disorder that has long-term negative consequences on a person's life. In general, treatment provides long-term benefit, but it's not perfect, and most children with ADHD continue to struggle into their teen years, compared with their peers without ADHD. If you can find an intervention -- either medication-based or therapy-based -- that produces significant improvements, this is a strong sign that your child will probably do well over the long term, especially if he or she continues with the treatment. This means that it is very worthwhile to keep searching for a treatment that produces clear improvements in your child, even if this requires trials of several medicines, therapists or both.
Your issue about appetite is a fairly common side effect of psychostimulants. If the medication is working for your child, and if you are seeing clear improvements in his school performance and behavior, then I would encourage you to work with your doctor to find ways to alleviate your child's erratic eating. There are multiple stimulant preparations these days that have different patterns of onset and offset and that might help improve this problem.
Now to your final question. I think the bulk of scientific data indicate that for most children with ADHD, diet alone will not significantly improve symptoms. On the other hand, recent studies suggest that certain dietary interventions may be of some benefit and might be worth considering. Several recent studies found that artificial food coloring additives may increase hyperactivity. Supplements with omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids may be of some benefit -- in some children.
In general, current recommendations are that all children -- regardless of whether or not they have ADHD -- eat a balanced diet heavy on fruits and vegetables and low on fatty junk food. If you find that certain dietary measures help your child, and they are not unreasonable from a nutritional point of view, they may well be worth pursuing. But I would not recommend replacing better-proven therapies with diet changes alone.
Next question:
The pregnancy of friends is making me depressed
CNN Comment Policy: CNN encourages you to add a comment to this discussion. You may not post any unlawful, threatening, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or other material that would violate the law. All comments should be relevant to the topic and remain respectful of other authors and commenters. You are solely responsible for your own comments, the consequences of posting those comments, and the consequences of any reliance by you on the comments of others. By submitting your comment, you hereby give CNN the right, but not the obligation, to post, air, edit, exhibit, telecast, cablecast, webcast, re-use, publish, reproduce, use, license, print, distribute or otherwise use your comment(s) and accompanying personal identifying and other information you provide via all forms of media now known or hereafter devised, worldwide, in perpetuity. CNN Privacy Statement.
The information contained on this page does not and is not intended to convey medical advice. CNN is not responsible for any actions or inaction on your part based on the information that is presented here. Please consult a physician or medical professional for personal medical advice or treatment.


text:
More than 1,500 Lady Health Workers who work in areas in the areas of Punjab and Sindh provinces in Pakistan will receive kits of basic equipment to help them as they offer vital health care services to families in their communities. This donation is part of the United States' continuing support for Pakistan's flood relief and recovery efforts.
The kits were donated by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to Pakistan's National Program for Family Planning and Primary Health Care. Kits include blood pressure monitors, scales, thermometers, blankets, tents, and basic furniture. This equipment will enable Lady Health Workers to set up health houses to provide basic services in flood-affected communities.
Read more here.


text:
The afternoon sprawled like a lazy dog in the little town. Sweat trickled down my back as I raced from the sun-scoured piazzas to the shade of the whitewashed alleys. She was not there. Had I imagined her, loping tall and bronzed into the taverna, swinging a leg over the chair beside me? Was our perfect closeness a dream?
At the harbourside, the taverna keeper passed me a message scrawled on a scrap of paper.
Some moments are so perfect they deserve to be protected from life's corrosion.
The ferry hooted as the mooring ropes fell away.
Friday fictioneers is a weekly challenge to write a 100-word story in response to a photo prompt. You can find other stories here


text:
In honor of this Advent/Christmas Eve, I decided to repost an article on Reform & Revive written almost exactly a year ago by my good friend (and incredible photographer) David Schrott. He is an amazing writer (and here) and an even more amazing friend. This article reflects much on the year that brought the writing into existence with anticipation for the year to come. Well, having been with him and watching him for that year, it was an amazing moment for me to read this and see all that has been done in his life.
The article has all that Advent is about. It's a reflection on the work of God in the past to build your anticipation for the work of God to come. May this article stir you, sober you, and give you a sense of both the fallenness of the world that is and the glory of the world to come. Here's the full link:
Also, feel free to check out an article I wrote for Going To Seminary magazine for Advent called "The Beauty of Theology (an Advent Call)"
Lastly, if you're in town (Philly, that is), my church Liberti: South Philly is doing what should be a beautiful Christmas Eve service tonight (details).
Merry Christmas Eve


text:
RALEIGH, N.C. — One sequence — a referee's whistle, a turnover and a touchdown — changed everything for North Carolina State in its first Atlantic Coast Conference game under coach Dave Doeren.
The Wolfpack hung with No. 3 Clemson through the first half Thursday night and appeared to have momentum on Bryan Underwood's long sideline run for a touchdown. But a referee ruled him out of bounds, then Clemson capitalized on an N.C. State turnover in a game-changing sequence in the Tigers' 26-14 win.
TV replays appeared to show Underwood staying just inside the sideline for an 83-yard score to tie the game, but the whistle made the play unreviewable and gave the ball to the Wolfpack at the Clemson 47. Pete Thomas fumbled on a sack three plays later, then Tajh Boyd threw a 30-yard touchdown pass to Martavis Bryant to make it 20-7.
"It's just disappointing when have a big play like that and it doesn't count," Doeren said. "You've just got to move on. You can't complain about things you can't control. … Unfortunately it cost us some points."
Doeren said the call came right in front of him and that Underwood didn't step out.
"You've got to get some breaks throughout your season if you're trying to have a great year," Clemson coach Dabo Swinney said. "We got a couple breaks, there's no question about it. … That's a tough break for them, and a good break for us."
For Clemson (3-0, 1-0 ACC), Boyd threw for 244 yards and three touchdowns, two to Bryant. On the second, Bryant snatched the ball from defender Niles Clark for a 15-yard score that helped the Tigers make it a three-possession game.
Sammy Watkins added 10 catches for 96 yards on a night when Clemson's explosive offense didn't manage many big plays yet finished with 415 yards.
Shadrach Thornton scored the Wolfpack's first touchdown on a 21-yard run in the second quarter. N.C. State (2-1, 0-1) led 7-6 at that point but couldn't complete the upset.
The Tigers entered Raleigh with their highest ranking in 25 years and a prime spot in the national championship chase. They also came with memories of their inexplicably bad performance here two seasons earlier, when the Wolfpack scored 27 second-quarter points en route to a 37-13 rout of the then-No. 7 Tigers.
N.C. State followed that win with an upset of No. 3 Florida State here last year, and Doeren — the former Northern Illinois coach — said that history gave his veterans confidence they could do it again.
But N.C. State's hopes of beating a Top 10 team at home for the third straight season essentially ended in that frustrating sequence midway through the third.
The Underwood call led to boos raining down from the Carter-Finley Stadium stands and continued until after Bryant's second score made it 26-7 with 11:27 left.
Sam Cooper added an 11-yard touchdown catch with 2:23 left in the second quarter that gave the Tigers a 13-7 halftime lead they wouldn't relinquish.
Thomas threw for 213 yards on 20-for-36 passing for the Wolfpack. He ran for a 4-yard score to cap a 23-play scoring drive with 3:50 left.
N.C. State finished with 378 total yards, but failed to convert its first eight third-down tries and finished 3 for 16 for the game.
Clemson reserve left tackle Isaiah Battle was ejected for a late shove to the facemask of N.C. State's Jarvis Byrd with 1:33 left.


text:
No. 8 Kentucky to face No. 9 K-State in St. Louis
LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) — Preseason No. 1 Kentucky is seeded eighth in the Midwest Region of the NCAA tournament and will face Kansas State at 9:40 p.m. in St. Louis on Friday.
The Wildcats (24-10) fell out of the Top 25 but bounced back with wins over LSU and Georgia in the SEC tournament. Kentucky also pushed top-seeded Florida in Sunday's tourney final before falling 61-60.
Kansas State (20-12) is one of seven teams from the Big 12 to make the NCAA tournament. The Wildcats have lost their last three, including a 91-85 defeat to league tournament champion Iowa State.
The Kentucky-Kansas State winner faces a likely matchup against top-seeded Wichita State on Sunday.