The Wisconsin Works (W-2) program changed the administrative structure for social welfare services delivery from county government administration to one that includes performance-based contracting and private sector management of programs. We present a theoretical discussion of government contracting and the implications of alternative contract structures for service provider behavior and performance. We then analyze W-2 contract design and management across four contract periods (1997-2005) as the state transitioned to a performance-based contracting regime. We find that the state made rational changes in the W-2 contract specifications and performance measures that should have improved contract efficiency and effectiveness over time, and service providers responded to these changes in allocating effort toward the achievement of priority performance goals. At the same time, deficiencies in program administration and contract management contributed to some contract and performance failures and setbacks.
Baker, G.P. (1992). Incentive contracts and performance measurement . Journal of Political Economy, 100, 598-614.
2.
Brown, T.L., & Potoski, M. (2003). Managing contract performance: A transaction costs approach. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22, 275-297.
3.
Burghardt, J., & Schochet, P. (2001). National job corps study: Impacts by center characteristics . Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
4.
Courty, P., & Marschke, G. (2004). An empirical investigation of gaming responses to performance incentives. Journal of Labor Economics, 22(1), 23-56.
5.
Department of Workforce Development (State of Wisconsin). (2001). Notice of changes in W-2 contract documents as a result of the 2002-2003 biennial budget (2001 Wis. Act 16). Memorandum. ADM 01-20, October 31. Madison: State of Wisconsin.
6.
Department of Workforce Development (State of Wisconsin). (2002). Performance bonuses for the 2000-2001 Wisconsin works (W-2) and related programs implementation contract. Memorandum. ADM 02-14, July 1. Madison: State of Wisconsin.
7.
Department of Workforce Development (State of Wisconsin). (2003a). $2.6 M reduction and reallocation for W-2 and related programs contract for 2002-03. Memorandum. ADM 03-17, September 11 . Madison: State of Wisconsin.
8.
Department of Workforce Development (State of Wisconsin). (2003b). Community reinvestment funds—Revised amounts based on 2003-2005 biennial budget enactment. Memorandum. ADM 03-19, September 16. Madison: State of Wisconsin .
9.
Department of Workforce Development (State of Wisconsin). (2004). Wisconsin works (W-2) 2002-03 final performance standards results. Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/dws/W2/pdf/PS2002-03.pdf
10.
Dodenhoff, D. (1998). Privatizing welfare in Wisconsin: Ending administrative entitlements—W-2 untold story (Report 11-1). Madison : Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
11.
Dodenhoff, D. (2002). Privatization works: A study of the private administration of the Wisconsin Works Welfare Reform Program. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute.
12.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57-74.
13.
Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1988). Incomplete contracts and renegotiation. Econometrica, 56, 755-786.
14.
Hart, O., Schleifer, A., & Vishny, R.W. (1997, November 4). The proper scope of government: Theory and an application to prisons. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 112, 1127-1161.
15.
Heckman, J., Heinrich, C., & Smith, J. (2002). The performance of performance standards. Journal of Human Resources, 38, 778-811.
16.
Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2004). Privatization and its reverse: Explaining the dynamics of the government contracting process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 171-190.
17.
Heinrich, C.J. (1999). Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 363-393.
18.
Heinrich, C., & Lynn, L.E., Jr. (2000). Governance and performance: The influence of program structure and management on job training partnership act (JTPA) program outcomes. In C. J. Heinrich & L. E. Lynn, Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 75-123). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
19.
Huston, M. (1998, October 13). Private W-2 agencies to share in profits . Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved November 21, 2003, from http://www.jsonline.com/w2/welfare/stories/develop/1013welf.stm
20.
Kaplan, T. (2000). Wisconsin's W-2 program: Welfare as we might come to know it? In Carol S. Weissert (Ed.), Learning from the leaders: Welfare reform and policy in five midwestern states (pp. 77-118). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
21.
Kettl, D.F. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
22.
Liebschutz, S. (2000). Managing welfare reform in five states: The challenge of devolution. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
23.
McAfee, R.P., & McMillan, J. (1989). Incentives in government contracting. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
24.
Mead, L.M. (2000, Summer). Caseload change: An exploratory study . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 465-490.
25.
Mead, L.M. (2004). Government matters: Welfare reform in Wisconsin . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Milward, H.B., & Provan, K.G. (2000, April 2). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 359-379.
27.
Moynihan, D. (2005). Goal-based learning and the future of performance management. Public Administration Review, 65, 203-216.
28.
Norris, D. F., & Thompson, L. (Eds.). (1995). The politics of welfare reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
29.
Romzek, B., & Johnston, J. (2002). Effective contract implementation and management: A preliminary model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 423-453.
30.
Sanger, M.B. (2003). The welfare marketplace: Privatization and welfare reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
31.
Schultze, S. (2000, August 31). Regulators accused of being easy on W-2 agencies. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/aug00/maximus01083100a.asp
32.
Schultze, S. (2003a, August 4). YW works cut out of W-2. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug03/159957.asp
33.
Schultze, S. (2003b, October 10). W-2 money shuffle adjusted. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from http://www.jsonline.com/news/Metro/oct03/176339.asp
34.
Schultze, S. (2006, February 25). In a badgered state: Israel grapples with own model of Wisconsin Works. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel . Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=404308
35.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002). Welfare reform: Interim report on potential ways to strengthen federal oversight of state and local contracting. GAO-02-245. Washington. DC: Author.
36.
Van Slyke, D. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 296-315.
37.
Weissert, C. (Ed.). (2000). Learning from midwestern leaders. In C. S. Weissert (Ed.), Learning from leaders: Welfare reform politics and policies in five midwestern states (pp.1-24). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
38.
Williamson, O. (1981). The economics of organization. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548-557.
39.
Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau. (1999). A review: Wisconsin works (W-2) expenditures. Madison, WI: Author.
40.
Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau. (2001). An evaluation: Wisconsin works (W-2) program: Department of Workforce Development . Madison, WI: Author.
41.
Yin, R. ( 2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
