

|
|
June 2003
|
Community Service Jobs in Wisconsin Works
The Milwaukee County Experience
Andrea Robles, Fred Doolittle, Susan Gooden
|
 |
Within Wisconsin Works (W-2), the state's TANF program,
community service jobs (CSJs) are the most commonly assigned category, or
"tier," of activities for welfare recipients, both statewide and within
Milwaukee County. The CSJ tier is intended for individuals who are deemed
not ready for immediate regular employment and is designed to provide an
opportunity to practice work habits and skills. Most program participants
entering the CSJ tier, which has a 24-month time limit, are assigned to
work experience, but they also can be assigned to other activities such
as further assessment, employment search, education, and training. They
receive a cash benefit, case management, and other supportive services,
though their cash benefits can be reduced if they do not meet the requirements
set forth in their employment plan.
This report examines the implementation of the CSJ component
of W-2 in Milwaukee County during the first three years of its operation.
Milwaukee County serves the majority of the statewide W-2 caseload, and
the program is being implemented by nongovernmental agencies, some nonprofit
and some for profit, under contract with the state.
Key Findings
- The initial assignments of program activities for entrants
into the CSJ tier gradually changed over the early years of the program.
Work experience remained important throughout the period, with between
60 percent and 80 percent of participants assigned to this activity.
However, other activities such as orientation and assessment, employment
training, education, and soft-skills training increased substantially
in importance. For example, the proportion of those assigned to education
rose from 15 percent in the early months of the program to 50 percent
in the program's second year.
- "Work experience" could mean very different things depending
on the worksite to which a participant was assigned. Most participants
were assigned to thrift store work, office and customer service work,
child or adult care, and light industrial work or housekeeping. But
about 25 percent were assigned to work experiences that included formal
vocational training.
- The five local W-2 agencies differed in how they developed
worksites and assigned participants to them. Two assigned many participants
to operations that were part of the W-2 agency; others relied on a dispersed
network of community organizations or on placements developed by a county
agency. Within several agencies without a centralized CSJ department,
the access of case managers to information about available worksites
differed. A participant's access to the various types of worksites,
however, was a function of the agency that served his or her geographic
area and the caseworker assigned the case. These differences in access
to placements were important because the work habits and skills developed
in work experience depended on the worksite placement.
- Within the W-2 agency, both worksite supervisors and
case managers play a central role in the administration of the CSJ program,
and it is important that they be in close communication. Worksite supervisors
reported that they would have liked more frequent contact with staff
from the W-2 agency.
- Because of the time limits on CSJ participation, it is
important to monitor attendance and respond to problems quickly to ensure
that participants receive the services intended to improve their employability.
It is also important to close W-2 cases when participation has ended,
to prevent the time-limit "clock" from running when no W-2 service is
provided. Monitoring attendance at worksites, however, was a substantial
challenge due to confusion over administrative responsibilities within
some W-2 agencies, assignment of participants to multiple activities
(often not colocated), turnover and gaps in staffing, and the constant
development of new CSJ worksites.
|
 |
Funders
The Wisconsin Works (W-2) implementation study is being funded by the Joyce Foundation, the
Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, and The Rockefeller Foundation.
The findings and conclusions presented in this report do not necessarily represent the official positions
or policies of the funders.
|
|
|