Case Work Management PDF

sTATe MANAGers serIes
Issue brIef
April 2010
Caseload
and Workload
Management
Whats Inside:
Large caseloads and excessive workloads in many jurisdictions
Definitions
make it difficult for child welfare workers to serve families
effectively. The average caseload for child welfare workers Benefits of Caseload and
often exceeds recommended levels, sometimes by double Workload Management
or more (Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Catalysts and Motivating
Human Services Association [APHSA], & Child Welfare League Factors
of America [CWLA], 2001). The complexity of cases requiring Workload Studies and Other
intensive intervention, as well as administrative requirements, Tools
further adds to a caseworkers workload. Manageable caseloads Strategies for Caseload and
and workloads can make a real difference in a workers ability to Workload Management
spend adequate time with children and families, improve staff
State and Local Examples
retention, and ultimately have a positive impact on outcomes for
of Caseload and Workload
children and families. Strategies
Related Resources
References
Child Welfare Information Gateway

Childrens Bureau/ACYF
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW
Eighth Floor
Administration for Children and Families
Washington, DC 20024
Administration on Children, Youth and Families 800.394.3366
Childrens Bureau Email: info@childwelfare.gov
www.childwelfare.gov
Caseload and Workload Management www.childwelfare.gov
Reducing and managing caseloads and

workloads are not simple tasks for child defInItIons
welfare administrators. Agencies face a
number of challenges, including negotiating Caseload: The number of cases
budget crises and hiring freezes, addressing (children or families) assigned to an
worker turnover, finding qualified applicants individual worker in a given time period.
for open positions, implementing time- Caseload reflects a ratio of cases (or
intensive best practices, and managing clients) to staff members and may be
multiple reforms simultaneously (Day & measured for an individual worker, all
Peterson, 2008). Even the basic determination workers assigned to a specific type of
of what caseloads and workloads currently are case, or all workers in a specified area
and what they should be can be thorny. (e.g., agency or region).
Nevertheless, States are addressing these Workload: The amount of work
challenges and successfully implementing a required to successfully manage
variety of strategies to make caseloads and assigned cases and bring them to
workloads more manageable. Approaches resolution. Workload reflects the
range from adding and retaining staff average time it takes a worker to (1) do
to improving worker effectiveness to the work required for each assigned
implementing system improvements. case; and (2) complete other non-
casework responsibilities.
In an effort to build the workload knowledge
base and share lessons learned across States,
this information brief provides State child
welfare managers with an overview of:
benefits of Caseload and
The benefits of caseload and workload
management Workload Management
Catalysts and motivating factors
Caseload and workload management
Workload studies and other tools often appear as key ingredients in a States
Strategies for caseload and workload comprehensive strategy to produce better
management outcomes for children and families. The
benefits of reasonable caseloads and
State and local examples of caseload and manageable workloads relate to:
workload strategies
Related resources Retaining staff and reducing turnover.
Heavy caseloads and workloads have
been cited repeatedly as key reasons that
workers leave the child welfare workforce
(Zlotnik, DePanfilis, Daining, & Lane, 2005;
U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO],
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare
2
Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case_work_management/
2003; Gonzalez, Faller, Ortega, & Tropman, reduction efforts typically emerges from
2009; Ellett, A. J., Ellet, C. D., & Rugutt, one or more of the following catalysts:
2003; Social Work Education Consortium, CfsRs. After the first round of CFSRs, about
2002). half the States Program Improvement Plans
delivering quality services. High staff (PIPs) noted the need for improvements in
turnover resulting from heavy caseloads can workloads or caseloads (Childrens Defense
have a negative impact on the timeliness, Fund and Childrens Rights, 2006). States
continuity, and quality of services provided continue to address workloads/caseloads
by an agency (National Council on Crime and related issues (e.g., recruitment,
and Delinquency, 2006; Strolin, McCarthy, & retention, training, supervision, and systems
Caringi, 2007; Flower, McDonald, & Sumski, reform) in the second round PIPs as a
2005; GAO, 2003). means to improve CFSR outcomes and to
achieve compliance with Federal standards.
engaging families and building
relationships. Essential child welfare Legislation. Several State legislatures have
processesincluding family engagement, mandated State and local jurisdictions to
relationship building, assessment, and assess workload issues, meet identified
permanency planningare time intensive standards, implement specific strategies
and require frequent worker-client contact. such as hiring additional staff, and report
Heavy workloads and caseloads reduce on progress. For examples of existing
the amount of time available for these legislation, see Delaware, Florida, Indiana,
processes. and Texas .
Positive outcomes for children and Litigation and consent decrees. Class-
families. Workloads and caseloads have action litigation across the country
been linked to performance on Federal frequently resulting from high-profile
Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) fatalitieshas brought attention to child
and achievement of safety and permanency welfare system reform and generated
outcomes (Childrens Bureau, 2006; GAO, workforce improvements (Farber & Munson,
2003). 2007). Provisions in settlement agreements
and consent decrees often require
jurisdictions (for example, Baltimore,
Catalysts and Motivating MD; District of Columbia; Illinois; and
factors Milwaukee, WI) to meet specific caseload
standards.
Some States set out specifically to reduce staffing needs. In a nationwide survey,
caseloads and workloads; others have State administrators identified reducing
reforms imposed on them; and still others caseloads, workloads, and supervisory
arrive at caseload and workload reduction ratios as the most important action for child
as an unintended effect of other initiatives. welfare agencies to take to retain qualified
The impetus for caseload and workload frontline staff (APHSA, 2005).
3
standards and accreditation. When program areas and then setting caseload
developing caseload management standards and staff allocations accordingly
strategies, some States and localities take
Understanding how much time workers
into consideration the caseload standards
spend on providing services to clients,
and guidance recommended by CWLA;
documenting their work, completing other
others strive to meet the Council on
administrative tasks, traveling, etc., and
Accreditation (COA) standards in order
then identifying more efficient processes
to achieve accreditation. States have
and practices
had varying success in achieving and
maintaining these standards. Exploring how various case characteristics
(such as risk levels, number of siblings,
systems reform. Currently, some States
immigrant status) can influence workload
are engaged in developing new practice
and assessing workflow implications
models and implementing systemwide
(Tooman & Fluke, 2002)
reform efforts, such as differential response,
family engagement, and system of care Managing work expectations, which can
initiatives. While caseload/workload lead to higher work satisfaction and boost
reduction may not be a stated goal of these staff morale (Edwards & Reynolds, 2008)
reform efforts, it sometimes is a necessary
Justifying resource allocations and building
component or a resultant outcome.
stakeholder support for caseload/workload
Union negotiations. Unions representing management strategies
child welfare workers have played an
Often working with expert consultants,
important role in negotiating improved
many States and counties across the country
caseload ratios.
have conducted workload studies using
various methodologies to address their
workforce issues. Several States are now
Workload studies moving from point-in-time studies to periodic
and Other Tools and automated tracking of workloads and
caseloads to inform ongoing workforce
decisions. Analytic tools, like those used in
The process of caseload and workload Minnesota and New Jersey, serve as further
management often begins with workload supports to routinely assess caseload data and
and time studies. These studies analyze how their implications for staffing and workflow
work is being done and how time is spent, management.
and frequently compare the actual data with
In other States and counties, however, it has
estimations of what is needed to deliver
not been feasible for cost, time, or other
quality services and best practices. Workload
reasons to conduct workload studies. These
studies can provide a foundation for:
jurisdictions can still improve their workforce
Determining how many workers are needed management by learning from other workload
to handle cases effectively in different study findings to approximate their staffing
4
and workforce needs (Wagner, Johnson, & Retention of existing staff. To reduce
Healy, 2008). turnoverwhich is both a consequence
and a cause of high workloadsagencies
are introducing employee recognition and
reward programs, providing mentoring
strategies for Caseload and initiatives, enhancing supervision and
support, enabling job sharing and flex time,
Workload Management and offering opportunities for professional
development and advanced education.
In addition, retention efforts include
Strategies to reduce caseloads and practices intended to improve the match
workloads include targeted efforts as well between the worker and the job through
as broader initiatives in three categories: competency-based hiring (Bernotavicz,
staffing, improving worker effectiveness, and 2008), internships, and use of videos
implementing program and practice changes. that provide recruits with a more realistic
view of child welfare work (for examples,
staffing see Realistic Job Preview Videos from
Manageable caseloads and workloads are Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina. Many
functions in large part of the number of States also are conducting exit interviews
qualified staff available to handle cases. to determine why staff leave and using
Caseload/workload strategies related to findings to inform new retention initiatives
staffing reflect: (Robison, 2006).
Recruitment of new staff. Agencies are Reallocation of staff. In some instances,

implementing a range of activities to attract agencies (e.g., in Maryland and Idaho)
qualified applicants, including adopting have been reallocating staff to more
new outreach strategies, revising hiring efficiently address workloads and caseload
practices, offering higher salaries, and distribution. In making reallocation and case
providing stipends for bilingual staff or for assignment decisions, States may consider
masters in social work. While adding staff not only the number of cases but also the
may be the most obvious approach to type of case and level of effort required.
reducing caseloads and workloads, it often specialized and support staff. Some
is constrained by available funding and States develop specialized staff units or
the lack of qualified applicants for open positions to allocate workloads more
positions. Several States that have added efficiently; others assign support staff to
large numbers of new positions (e.g., help lessen caseworker paperwork and
Delaware, Indiana, and New Jersey) have administrative tasks.
been supported by legislation or consent
decrees.
5
that provide training and, in some cases,

funding for child welfare staff to pursue
graduate social work degrees (e.g., New
For more research-based and practical
Yorks Social Work Education Consortium).
how-to information on recruitment and
retention strategies used in the field, see: supervision. Good supervision helps
workers gain knowledge and build the
Strategies Matrix Approach to
skills needed to conduct their work more
Recruitment and Retention Techniques
effectively and efficiently. In addition,
(SMARRT Manual), produced by the
research points to supportive supervision
Western Regional Recruitment and
as a critical factor in reducing turnover
Retention Project
(Zlotnik et al., 2005; Juby & Scannapieco,
Training Series: Staff Retention in Child 2007; GAO, 2003.) Agencies are working
and Family Services developed by to reduce staff/supervisor ratios, build
Michigan State University School of supervisor skills, and improve the
Social Work supervisor-caseworker relationship through
supervisory training, coaching initiatives,
Workforce Tools featured on the Child mentoring opportunities, and feedback
Welfare Information Gateway website mechanisms.
design teams. Bringing together staff
of every level from frontline workers and
supervisors up through managers and
administrators, design teams in New
Improving Worker effectiveness York State and elsewhere are used first to
Agencies also address workload management identify workforce issues and their causes
through practices that aim to improve the and then to develop and implement
efficiency and effectiveness of workers, so that workable solutions.
once in place, staff can handle more cases or
work in less time. Strategies include: tools and technology. Agencies are using
current technologies and mobile devices
training and professional development. to help workers document casework more
Well-trained staff are able to complete efficiently, access information that supports
tasks accurately and in a timely manner. In decision-making, and make use of waiting
addition, studies suggest that educational time. For example, workers in parts of
programs provide workers with both Texas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma take tablet
competencies and increased commitment PCs into the field to aid in streamlined
to their jobs, which are associated with documentation; workers in Vermont carry
retention (Zlotnik et al., 2005). Agencies cell phones that not only offer telephone
are delivering a variety of training initiatives service but also email, scheduling, and
to build competencies and align skills with modem functions; and workers in Iowa are
new practice models. Some States have using SACWIS as a case management tool
formed university-agency partnerships and resource for decision-making.
6
Quality assurance. States and localities

are implementing case review processes state and Local examples
and quality assurance efforts to ensure
effectiveness. of Caseload and Workload
strategies
Implementing Program and
Practice Changes
While some States focus on enlarging or State and local agencies throughout the
enhancing the workforce, others approach country are using the strategies above to
caseload/workload management by reducing reduce caseloads and manage workloads.
the work, i.e., decreasing the number of Following are selected examples.1 While the
children and families who enter, reenter, or examples below highlight certain aspects of
remain in the system. a States caseload/workload strategy, they
may not provide the complete picture of
Prevention and early intervention.
that States multifaceted initiative. Also, it
Agencies seek to reduce the number of
is important to note that current economic
cases entering the child welfare system
conditions and budget crises are affecting
through in-home and other prevention
many agencies abilities to implement and
services as well as differential/alternative
sustain caseload and workload reduction.
response initiatives. Arizona and Idaho are
The following profiles represent point-in-time
among the States that recognize prevention
snapshots. As agencies respond to budget
and early intervention as part of their
constraints and other environmental factors,
workload/caseload management strategies.
activities and results may change.
Permanency initiatives. Other States
New Jersey: Infrastructure changes and
and jurisdictionsfor example, Suffolk
case practice model
County, New York (Levy Credits Foster
Care, 2009)focus on the backend of the Minnesota: Workload analytic tool
system, employing initiatives related to
Larimer County, CO: Workload reports and
kinship care, adoption, and other avenues
informed decision-making
to permanency as a means to reduce
caseloads. Indiana: Staff expansion, enrichment, and
practice reform
other systems reforms. While systemwide
reforms such as new practice models Delaware: Designated funding, overhiring
and systems of care may not always pool, and staff retention
be identified as caseload/workload
Arizona: Staffing, staff development, and
management, they can, nevertheless, yield
prevention
significant results in reducing caseloads and
workloads. Some argue that such efforts
1
The examples are presented for information purposes
will not be effective without attention to
only; inclusion does not indicate an endorsement by the U.S.
caseload and workload (Childrens Bureau, Department of Health and Human Services, Childrens Bureau,
n.d., slide 15). or Child Welfare Information Gateway.
7
New Jersey: Infrastructure Changes caseload standards set forth in the MSA, direct
and Case Practice Model new staff and supports to identified areas of
need, and distribute cases rationally across
Caseload management has played a central staff (DCF, 2007).
role in New Jerseys recent reform efforts with
an emphasis on infrastructure improvements. With a foundation of infrastructure, workforce,
In response to a modified settlement and service improvements in place, New
agreement (MSA), Charlie and Nadine H. Jersey entered the second phase of its
v. Corzine, the Department of Children and massive reform effort in January 2009.
Families (DCF) was created as a standalone, Attention has shifted to sustainability, further
cabinet-level department in 2006. DCF hired institutionalizing the case practice model,
hundreds of new workers, implemented more developing quality review processes, and
comprehensive and timely training for frontline maintaining progress toward meeting
staff and supervisors, and provided critical specified outcome benchmarks and
supports. performance indicators.
To serve children and families more effectively, Results: New Jersey has made substantial
DCF introduced a case practice model. The progress in achieving more manageable
model articulates the departments guiding caseloads for caseworkers. In March 2006,
values, integrates best practices, and identifies more than 100 caseworkers in New Jersey
family engagement as a core strategy. DCF had caseloads of more than 30 families; as
is implementing the case practice model of June 2009, no caseworkers had more than
incrementally through extensive instruction, 30 families (DCF, 2009). According to a court-
coaching, and mentoring to selected ordered independent monitor, in 2009 DCF
immersion sites, as well as broader training achieved or exceeded the office average
statewide. Caseload management makes caseload standards set for intake workers (no
possible the time caseworkers need to apply more than 12 open cases and 8 new referrals
the case practice model. In turn, using the per month), permanency workers (no more
case practice model to serve children and than 15 families and 10 children in out-of-
families more purposefully supports caseload home care at one time), and adoption workers
management. (no more than 12 children). Individual caseload
standards were met by 90 percent of all
Enhanced data and management tools case-carrying staff. In addition, DCF showed
represent another element in New Jerseys significant improvements in child safety and
caseload management efforts. Safe Measures, placement outcomes (Center for the Study of
an analytic tool, pulls data from SACWIS Social Policy [CSSP], 2009).
and the NJ Spirit data system and provides
managers, supervisors, and workers with The independent monitor credited New
access to a range of information including Jerseys caseload reduction with beginning
current caseload levels, completion of key to make a difference in the quality of practice
case events, family contacts, and compliance across the State, producing greater stability in
with Federal requirements. Managers have the workforce, and creating an environment
used Safe Measures to track progress against that provides staff the opportunity to follow
8
the principles articulated in the case practice Average time spent on cases. Under a
model. (CSSP, 2008). case time study, workers recorded the
time spent on various tasks for a sample
For more information, contact Kathleen Niedt,
of 2,155 cases. This information was
DCF, 609.292.9062, kathleen.niedt@dcf.state.
used to calculate how much time was
nj.us
needed to handle different types of cases
in accordance with State and Federal
Minnesota: Workload Analytic Tool requirements.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services
(MDHS) has developed an innovative and Integrating the findings from both sources into
easy-to-use analytic tool to help counties the analytic tool, Minnesota has developed
manage their child welfare workloads. The an ongoing mechanism for tracking caseloads
tool, constructed using MS Excel, allows and generating indicators of resource
county directors, managers, and supervisors needs. The State has introduced the tool
to enter caseload and workforce data and to county administrators through a series of
project staff needs. By using the tool over training webinars and continues to plan and
time, counties in this county-administered implement additional training and one-on-one
child welfare system can assess whether they technical assistance.
are under- or over-staffed to handle cases Given the importance of a stable workforce to
properly and also whether the distribution of meaningful workload measures, Minnesotas
staff across case type is appropriate (Hornby workload study also addressed retention
Zeller Associates, Inc., 2009a). and the role of supervisors in supporting
Critical data inputs for the analytic tool were and retaining staff. Nearly 900 caseworkers,
generated from a statewide child welfare case aides, and supervisors completed staff
workload study conducted in 2009 through a surveys indicating reactions to statements
contract with Hornby Zeller Associates. The about various topics associated with retention
study was not intended to calculate a caseload (e.g., agency policy, training, supervision). The
standard, but rather to develop a better survey findings are being used in planning the
understanding of the time required for staff States new Supervision Initiative.
to conduct children and family workgroups Minnesota experienced high response rates
(Minnesotas term for cases). The workload in each of the workload study components.
study collected data to measure two types of The random moment survey yielded a 99
time: percent response rate, and more than 84
staff time available for casework. Through percent of caseworkers completed the staff
a random moment survey reflecting 4,000 survey. Administrators attribute this success in
random moments, staff in 40 counties were large part to the upfront activities conducted
asked to report what they were working to ensure buy-in at the county level (C.
on. Survey results found that workers Borsheim, personal communication, Jan.
spent approximately two-thirds of their 13, 2010). These activities included inviting
time on case-specific work (Hornby Zeller county directors to be part of the workload
Associates, 2009b). study advisory group, assigning champions
9
in specific sites to oversee data collection, family team meetings, service delivery, and
and clearly communicating the objectives and deinstitutionalization.
intended uses of the study. For examples of
Using data from an internal time study
MDHS communication soliciting participation
coupled with other State and county workload
among county staff, see Minnesota Child
studies, Larimer County developed time
Welfare Workload Study Memos (Minnesota
standards for assessments and ongoing
Department of Human Services, 2009).
services. These standards incorporated time
Results: Minnesota recognized that while it for family meetings and travel and also reflect
was introducing a number of new practice time adjustments for cases with multiple
reforms, training initiatives, and quality children and placement changes (Drendel &
assurance improvements, these efforts Suniga, 2008). The standards are integrated
would have little effect with an inadequate into the statewide information system, and
workforce. While it is too early to assess weekly reports present workloads for every
their effects, recent workload management worker.
efforts are important steps to stabilizing the
Larimer County administrators and supervisors
workforce. The workload study has helped
use these workload reports to assess and
MDHS gain a better understanding of how
redistribute ongoing work. In some instances,
to measure staffing levels needed to provide
managers have moved staff from one unit with
quality services, which in turn provides a
a lower workload to another with a higher
foundation for resource management and
workload. Based on workload reports, changes
financing decisions. The recently introduced
also have been made to the composition
analytic tool has been well received by county
of paired teams implementing differential
administrators who described it as awesome
response (adding one intake worker and
and found it useful in considering staff
reducing one ongoing worker for each team).
workloads.
Presented with data from workload reports
For more information, contact Christeen that highlighted the need for more upfront
Borsheim, MDHS, 651.431.3857, christeen. support, supervisors and staff readily accepted
borsheim@state.mn.us reallocation changes.
Results: Larimer Countys workload reports
Larimer County, CO: Workload
have resulted in more equitable distribution
reports and Informed of casework. They also have provided
Decision-Making supervisors and program managers with
In Larimer County, CO, workload reports tools for enhanced staffing and program
serve as a tool to make informed decisions decisions, supporting the implementation of
on work distribution and staff allocation. differential response and deinstitutionalization.
These reports have helped administrators and In addition, workload efforts have contributed
supervisors recognize where staffing needs are to positive safety outcomes for children. For
greatest and respond accordingly. Workload example, according to Jim Drendel, manager
efforts also have supported other reform of the Larimer County Children, Youth &
initiatives related to differential response, Family Division, maltreatment recurrence has
10
dropped from over 10 percent in 2007 to model emphasizing five core skills
below 4 percent in 2009 (J. Drendel, personal teaming, engaging, assessing, planning,
communication, Feb. 8, 2010). and intervening (TEAPI). Administrators
expect that this reform will have long-term
For more information, contact Jim Drendel,
positive effects for children and families
Larimer County Department of Human
leading to shorter lengths of stay [in the child
Services, Children, Youth & Family Division,
welfare system] and faster reunification or
970.498.6990, jdrendel@larimer.org
permanence, which will ultimately reduce
caseloads (DCS, 2009a).
Indiana: staff expansion,
enrichment, and Practice reform Reinforcing the practice model and
caseload reduction efforts, DCS launched
With Indiana caseloads at times exceeding 50
multiple initiatives focused on training, staff
children per worker, a statewide stakeholder
enrichment, and retention:
groupthe Indiana Commission on Abused
and Neglected Children and Their Families Enhanced pre-service training, which offers
issued recommendations to the General less classroom work and more on-the-job
Assembly in 2004 to reduce caseloads to training and transfer of learning
CWLA standards (Folaran, 2004). The election
Field mentor program matching each
of a new governor that year provided the
trainee with an experienced family case
catalyst for commitments to reform and
manager who provides one-on-one
support the child protection system. The
assistance and structured feedback
State passed the best practice standards,
which included, among other systemic Supervisor initiative to improve supervisor-
improvements, caseload standards. employee relationships with an emphasis
on building communication and feedback
In the following years, Indiana completed
skills
a large hiring wave, adding 800 family case
manager positions to nearly double its Comprehensive exit interview tool that
frontline staff. The State hired an additional captures reasons for turnover and informs
150 supervisors and reorganized the statewide hiring and retention practices
child protection administration through
Indiana also developed caseload management
regionalization. The Indiana Statewide
software to allow managers to assign
Assessment reported that the additional staff
assessments and ongoing cases according
lowered caseloads for many of the States
to best practice standards. In the coming
family case managers (Childrens Bureau,
years, the State plans to establish a caseload
2008b).
weighting system to more accurately reflect
In addition, the Indiana Department of Child workloads and allow managers to distribute
Services (DCS), established as a separate work and set expectations more effectively
entity in 2005, redesigned its infrastructure, (DCS, 2009b).
policies, and practices to support practice
Results: As of June 2009, 16 of 18 Indiana
reform. The States practice reform centers
regions (89 percent) met the caseload
on a family engagement-focused practice
11
standards of no more than 12 active cases immediately to step into a position when a
related to initial assessments/investigations worker resigns. They also carry cases while
and 17 ongoing cases. Turnover of family newly hired workers focus on training, fill in
case managers decreased to 16 percent temporarily during a maternity or medical
(DCS, 2009a). The State also observed steady leave, and receive assignments to units
improvements in monthly caseworker visits experiencing high fluctuations in cases.
and improved permanency outcomes on CFSR
In addition, Delaware also implemented
composite measures.
several other recruitment, retention, and
For more information, contact James Payne, training efforts:
Indiana DCS, 317.234.1391, james.payne@
Establishing a new career ladder with
dcs.in.gov
additional job categories for family
service workers that enabled promotional
Delaware: Designated funding,
opportunities
Overhire Pool, and staff retention
Increasing salaries for workers with more
Challenged by high staff turnover rates and
than 1 year of experience
concerns over well-publicized child fatalities,
Delaware adopted an aggressive approach Introducing a rapid replacement process for
to managing caseloads that encompasses new workers, which draws on continuous
legislative support to meet caseload interviewing and a hiring waiting list
standards, hiring strategies, and initiatives to
Expanding pre-service training to 125
more effectively prepare and retain workers.
hours and implementing formal mentoring
Supported by legislation enacted in 1998
and shadowing programs for new workers
and 2004 and amended in 2007, Delaware
before they receive cases
set caseload standards (currently 11 cases for
investigation workers and 18 for treatment Providing enhanced supervisor training,
workers) as well as supervisor standards (five setting competency-based performance
family services workers per supervisor). expectations, and engaging supervisors in
turnover prevention
The legislation further tied allocation and
funding of new positions to these caseload These efforts were intended to keep staff
standards. Each year, based on projections of levels stable and thereby better control
child abuse and neglect cases, the General caseloads.
Assembly is authorized to fund adequate
DFS administrators attribute the involvement
staff so that caseloads do not exceed the
of community partners to their success in
established standards.
caseload management and reduced turnover
In a related innovative hiring strategy, the (S. Roberts, personal communication, Feb. 5,
Division of Family Services (DFS) established 2010). In particular, the multidisciplinary Child
an overhire pool to fill vacancies quickly and Protection Accountability Commission has
stabilize caseloads. For up to 15 positions, been instrumental in advocating for needed
the agency assigns two people to one change.
budget position slot. Overhires are available
12
Results: Overhire and rapid replacement standards, a workgroup assessed the time
processes reduce the impact of turnover needed to perform casework activities in
by allowing a trained person to step into a Arizona in accordance with identified best
vacancy as soon as it is announced and by practices (Costello, 2004). While the ideal best
reducing the need to redistribute caseloads practice estimates were not fiscally viable,
or interrupt service delivery (DFS, 1999). new standards were set in 2004, significantly
Following implementation of the above below Arizonas prior caseload levels. The new
workforce initiatives, staff turnover dropped standards called for a maximum caseload of
substantially from approximately 48 percent in 10 investigations, 19 in-home cases, and 16
1998 to 8 percent in 2009 (DFS, 2010). children in out-of-home care.
Delaware child welfare caseloads are To reduce caseloads and strengthen its
monitored monthly against standards. In workforce, Arizona implemented multiple
2009, based on fully functional workers, strategies, which coincided with reforms
statewide investigation caseloads averaged outlined in the Division of Children, Youth and
approximately 13 (slightly above standard), Familys (DCYF) Strengthening FamiliesA
while statewide treatment caseloads fell Blueprint for Realigning Arizonas Child
below the caseload standard of 18 (DFS, Welfare System (DES, 2005). Multifaceted
2010). Based on progress evident in its CFSR, initiatives included:
Delawares initiatives earned it recognition as a
Additional staff. More than 375 new
Childrens Bureau Promising Approach in Child
caseworker positions were authorized
Welfare.
between 20032008, resulting in an
For more information, contact Shirley Roberts, approximate 50 percent increase.
Delaware DFS, 302.633.2601, Shirley.
Recruitment and hiring strategies.
Roberts@state.de.us
While the State was actively recruiting
new workers, it expanded employee
Arizona: staffing, staff
benefits to include increased salaries and
Development, and Prevention stipends for bilingual staff, workers with
Between 2000 and 2010, Arizonas masters degrees in social work, workers
Department of Economic Security (DES) in rural areas, and frontline investigators.
implemented several initiatives related (Due to budget cuts, these stipends have
to workload management. Many of these since been discontinued.) In addition, the
initiatives were sparked by then-Governor State introduced a competency-based
Janet Napolitanos Action Plan for Reform recruitment model and began offering a
of Arizonas Child Protection System and realistic job preview to promote better fit
supported by legislation passed during a for new hires.
2003 Arizona Legislature Special Session
training and staff development. The
(Napolitano, 2003).
States Child Welfare Institute developed
As called for under the new legislation (HB and trained new case managers on
2024), Arizona established State-specific its CORE curriculum, which combined
caseload standards. To inform these classroom instruction with use of prototype
13
cases, simulations, and hands-on activities, is not clear, improvements have been reported
followed by field training. In addition, in the number of children in foster care and
a partnership with the Arizona State their parents receiving required contact with
School of Social Work supports classes case managers (Childrens Bureau, 2008a).
and supervised casework experiences for Additionally, the expansion in prevention
social work students and potential DCYF and in-home services appears to have
employees. had a positive effect on reducing repeat
maltreatment reports (DCYF staff, personal
supervisor initiatives. Recognizing the
communication, Feb. 12, 2009).
link between supervision and retention,
the State developed enhanced supervisor Initially, as staff numbers increased, Arizona
training and strengthened clinical experienced progress in reducing caseloads.
supervision practices. However, budget cuts and unfunded positions,
along with State increases in maltreatment
Prevention and early intervention. Arizona
reports, currently contribute to higher
introduced a major Family to Family
caseload levels. During the period July
initiative, focused on team decision-making,
December 2008, CPS specialists were carrying
recruiting resource families, and building
caseloads that were on average 19 percent
community partnerships. This strategy
above the caseload standard (DES, 2009).
is intended to safely reduce the number
of children in out-of-home care, thereby For more information, contact Jakki Hillis,
reducing caseloads. Arizona also expanded DES, DCYF, 602.542.3598, JHillis@azdes.gov
its Healthy Families program and offered
an array of contracted in-home services to
link at-risk children and families to needed related resources and
services.
services of the Childrens
The sustainability of Arizonas workload
bureau
management efforts has been challenged
by the current economic environment. DCYF
budget cuts have led to the suspension of Child Welfare Workload
some of the above programs, layoffs among Compendium
150 frontline workers in 2009, a hiring freeze,
and severe reductions in prevention and family This database on Child Welfare Information
support services. At the same time, economic Gateway provides child welfare administrators
factors create additional stress on families and and policymakers with information and
increase factors that place children at risk of tools for improving workload management,
maltreatment (DES, 2010). With the decrease including studies, standards, legislation, and
in funded positions, the State is no longer policies. It can be searched by State, category,
staffed to meet casework standards. date, and keyword.
Results: Arizonas initiatives have strengthened

its capacity to attract, prepare, and support its
frontline staff. While the impact on outcomes
14
National Child Welfare Success. Information on current child welfare

Workforce Institute workforce projects is available at http://ncwwi.
org/projects.htm
Works to build the capacity of the child
welfare workforce by disseminating
National resource Center for
information on effective and promising
workforce practices, facilitating leadership Child Protective services
training, coordinating peer networks, and Addresses workload issues and provides
advancing knowledge. It partners with and expert consultation, technical assistance, and
coordinates evaluation activities of the Child training in all areas of child protective services,
Welfare Comprehensive Workforce Grants including intake, assessment, case planning,
and supports the Child Welfare Workforce ongoing safety management, removal and
Connection, an online forum for discussion, reunification decision making, ongoing
collaboration, and exchange of ideas related services, and case closure.
to pressing workforce issues.
National resource Center for Child
National resource Center for Welfare Data and Technology
Organizational Improvement Offers States a wide range of technical
Helps States assess workforce development assistance and products to enhance data
issues such as recruitment, selection, training, analysis capacities, including support for
retention, and supervision, and helps them monitoring and managing workload data.
make connections with appropriate resources.
National resource Center for
Child Welfare Information Gateway Permanency and family Connections
Presents research, tools, and other resources Provides States with training, technical
that describe a range of topics for enhancing assistance, and information services related
the child welfare workforce, including to family-centered principles and practices.
organizational culture, management, Products include Information Packet:
supervision, recruitment and hiring, and Workforce Issues in Child Welfare.
retention. Tools for building a stable and
competent workforce also are available.
Other resources
Child Welfare Comprehensive
Workforce Projects (Childrens American Humane Association
bureau Discretionary Grants)
Offers consultation and services in workload
Summarizes project activities, findings, and measurement and analysis. Prior workload
products from 20032008 child welfare staff studies are accessible on its website.
recruitment and retention grantees, and
is found in Recruitment and Retention of
a Qualified Workforce: The Foundation of
15
Child Welfare League of America Arizona Department of Economic Security,

Division of Children, Youth and Families.
Publishes best practice and caseload
(2009). Child protective service bi-annual
standards and advocates for policies and
financial and program accountability report.
practices that strengthen the workforce.
Retrieved February 12, 2010, from www.
azdes.gov/CMS400Min/InternetFiles/
Cornerstones for Kids
Reports/pdf/financial_program_
Manages the Human Services Workforce accountability_report_cps_2009_1.pdf
Initiative, supported by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, with the aim of increasing Arizona Department of Economic Security,
awareness of the child welfare workforce crisis Division of Children, Youth and
and building solutions to address it. It also Families. (2010). Child welfare reporting
operates the Workforce Planning Portal, a requirements: Semi-annual report for the
hands-on tool for human services agencies. period April 1, 2009 through September 30,
2009. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from
www.azdes.gov/CMS400Min/InternetFiles/
references Reports/pdf/child_welfare_apr_09_sept_09.
pdf
Alliance for Children and Families, American Bernotavicz, F. (2008). Screening and
Public Human Services Association, and selection of child welfare staff. Retrieved
Child Welfare League of America. (2001). February 17, 2010, from the Child Welfare
The child welfare workforce challenge: Training Institute website: www.cwti.org/
Results from a preliminary study. Retrieved RR/Screening%20and%20selection%20
December 2, 2009, from www.alliance1. Final%206-08%201.pdf
org/Research/Workforce%20survey%20
results%20-%20final.PDF Center for the Study of Social Policy. (2008).
Progress of New Jersey Department of
American Public Human Services Association. Children and Families. Period V monitoring
(2005). Report from the 2004 Child Welfare report for Charlie and Nadine H. v.
Workforce Survey: State agency findings. Corzine. (July 1December 31, 2008).
Retrieved December 2, 2009, from www. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from
aphsa.org/Home/Doc/Workforce%20 www.childrensrights.org/wp-content/
Report%202005.pdf uploads//2009/04/2009-04-27_nj_
monitoring_report_final_corrected.pdf
Arizona Department of Economic Security,
Division of Children, Youth and Families. Center for the Study of Social Policy. (2009).
(2005). Strengthening families: A blueprint Progress of New Jersey Department of
for realigning Arizonas child welfare system. Children and Families. Period VI monitoring
Retrieved November 30, 2009, from https:// report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine.
egov.azdes.gov/CMS400Min/InternetFiles/ (January 1June 30, 2009). Retrieved
Reports/pdf/strengthening_families.pdf January 7, 2010, from www.cssp.org/
16
uploadFiles/FINAL%20Period%20VI%20 Costello, T. (2004). Final report of the

Monitoring%20Report.pdf Investigation Caseload Standard
Workgroup. Retrieved October 30, 2009,
Childrens Bureau, U.S. Department of Health from http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/
and Human Services. (n.d.). Strategies that ws/library/docs/gateway/Record?rpp=10&u
address critical practice areas: Successes pp=0&m=1&w=+NATIVE%28%27recno%3
and challenges in implementation. D49707%27%29&r=1
PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved March
16, 2010, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ Day, P., & Peterson, C. (2008). Caseload
cb/cwmonitoring/strategies/sld001.htm reduction efforts in selected States.
Unpublished manuscript, Casey Family
Childrens Bureau, U.S. Department of Health Programs and ICF International.
and Human Services. (2006). Summary of
the results of the 20012004 Child and Delaware Childrens Department. (2010).
Family Services Reviews. Retrieved March Caseworker turnover. Unpublished.
16, 2010, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/cwmonitoring/results/index.htm Delaware Childrens Department. (1999).
Enhancing workforce effectiveness through
Childrens Bureau, U.S. Department of Health retention. Budget epilogue. Unpublished.
and Human Services. (2008a). Arizona Child
and Family Services Review: Final report. Drendel, J., & Suniga, D. (2008, December).
Retrieved November 30, 2009, from http:// Larimer County Workload versus Caseload
tinyurl.com/5b2syc Project. Paper presented at the conference
Time and Effort: Perspectives on Workload
Childrens Bureau, U.S. Department of Health Roundtable. Santa Fe, NM.
and Human Services. (2008b). Indiana Child
and Family Services Review: Final report. Edwards, M. T., & Reynolds, J. (2008). Work,
Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http:// case, time: Setting standards for workload
tinyurl.com/ychhos8 management. Protecting Children, 23(3),
74-88.
Childrens Defense Fund and Childrens Rights,
Inc. (2006). Supporting and improving Ellet, A. J., Ellet, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (2003).
the child welfare workforce: A review of A study of personal and organizational
Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) and factors contributing to employee retention
recommendations for strengthening the and turnover in child welfare in Georgia:
Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). Final project report. Unpublished. Athens:
Retrieved October 30, 2009, from www. University of Georgia.
childrensdefense.org/child-research-
data-publications/data/supporting-and- Farber, J., & Munson, S. (2007). Improving the
improving-the-child-welfare-workforce.pdf child welfare workforce: Lessons learned
from class action litigation. Retrieved
October 30, 2009, from the National Center
17
for Youth Law website: www.youthlaw.org/ Legislative Council. For the Quarter Ended
publications/improving_the_child_welfare_ 6/30/09. Retrieved November 27, 2009,
workforce_lessons_learned_from_class_ from www.in.gov/legislative/igareports/
action_litigation agency/reports/DCS18.pdf
Flower, C., McDonald, J., & Sumski, M. (2005). Indiana Department of Child Services. (2009b).
Review of turnover in Milwaukee County: State Five Year Comprehensive Child and
Private agency child welfare ongoing case Family Service Plan for the State of Indiana
management staff. Retrieved November for the time period beginning October 1,
27, 2009, from the Wisconsin Department 2009 and ending September 30, 2014.
of Children and Families website: www. Submitted to the U.S. Department of
legis.state.wi.us/lc/committees/study/2008/ Health and Human Services, Administration
SFAM08/files/turnoverstudy.pdf for Children and Families, Childrens
Bureau.
Folaron, G., (Ed.) (2004). Putting children
first: Recommendations from the Indiana Juby, C., & Scannapieco, M. (2007).
Commission on Abused and Neglected Characteristics of workload management
Children and Their Families. Retrieved in public child welfare agencies.
November 27, 2009, from www.in.gov/ Administration in Social Work, 31(3),
legislative/igareports/agency/reports/ 95-109.
ANCH01.pdf
Levy credits foster care avoidance for
Gonzalez, R. P., Faller, K. C., Ortega, R. M., generating $5 million in 2009 savings:
& Tropman, J. (2009). Exit interviews with Excellent child protective services
departed child welfare workers: Preliminary management averts foster care reduces
findings. Journal of Public Child Welfare, caseload by 26 percent. (2009, September
(3)1, 40-63. 25). Hamptons.com For the Record.
Retrieved September 26, 2009, from
Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (2009a). www.hamptons.com/News/For-The-
Statewide Workload Analytic Tool: Record/9014/Levy-Credits-Foster-Care-
Users reference guide. Prepared for Avoidance-For-Generating.html
Minnesota Department of Human Services.
Unpublished. Minnesota Department of Human Services.
(2009). Minnesota child welfare workload
Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (2009b). Child study memos. Retrieved March 16, 2010,
Welfare Workload Study and Analysis. Final from http://basis.caliber.com/cwig/ws/
report. Prepared for Minnesota Department library/docs/gateway/Blob/66865.pdf?w=+
of Human Services. Unpublished. NATIVE%28%27recno%3D66865%27%29&
upp=0&rpp=10&r=1&m=1
Indiana Department of Child Services.
(2009a). Quarterly report to the Indiana Napolitano, J. (2003). Action plan for reform of
State Budget Committee and the Indiana Arizonas child protection system. Retrieved
18
February 12, 2010, from the Arizona workforce turnover: Current state of
Governor website: http://azgovernor.gov/ knowledge and future directions. Journal of
cps/documents/action_plan3.pdf Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 29-52.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Tooman, G., & Fluke, J. D. (2002). Beyond
(2006). The relationship between staff caseload: What workload studies can tell
turnover, child welfare system functioning us about enduring issues in the workplace.
and recent child abuse. Retrieved October Protecting Children, 17(3), 48-59.
30, 2009, from the Cornerstones for Kids
website: www.cornerstones4kids.org/ U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Child
images/nccd_relationships_306.pdf welfare: HHS could play a greater role in
helping child welfare agencies recruit and
New Jersey Department of Children and retain staff. Retrieved October 30, 2009,
Families. (2007). Implementing the case from www.gao.gov/new.items/d03357.pdf
practice model. Retrieved February 6,
2010, from www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/case/ Wagner, D., Johnson, K., & Healy, T.
DCFImplementingCPM9.28.07.pdf (2008). Agency workforce estimation:
A step toward more effective workload
New Jersey Department of Children management. Protecting Children,
and Families. (2009). Annual agency 23(3), 6-19. Retrieved March 16, 2010,
performance report. Fiscal year from www.nccd-crc.org/crc/crc/pubs/
2009. Retrieved January 6, 2010, americanHumane_agency_workforce_
from www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/ estimation.pdf
DCFAnnualAgencyPerformanceReport_
12.15.09.pdf Zlotnik, J. L., DePanfilis, D., Daining, C., &
Lane, M. M. (2005). Factors influencing
Payne, J. (2008, December). Getting from A retention of child welfare staff: A systematic
to Z: Steps for improving child and family review of research. Retrieved October
outcomes through caseload/workload 30, 2009, from the Institute for the
reduction. Presentation at the Workload Advancement of Social Work Research
Round Table, Santa Fe, NM. website: www.charityadvantage.com/iaswr/
FinalReportCWWI.pdf
Social Work Education Consortium. (2002).
Workforce retention study. November
25, 2009, from the New York State
Office of Children and Family Services
website: www.ocfs.state.ny.us/ohrd/swec/
pubs/Executive% 20Summary%20-%20
Quantitative%20Final.pdf
Strolin, J., McCarthy, M., & Caringi, J.

(2007). Causes and effects of child welfare
19

Case Work Management PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case Work Management PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

sTATe MANAGers serIes

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Reducing and managing caseloads and

Recruitment of new staff. Agencies are Reallocation of staff. In some instances,

that provide training and, in some cases,

Quality assurance. States and localities

Results: Arizonas initiatives have strengthened

National Child Welfare Success. Information on current child welfare

Child Welfare League of America Arizona Department of Economic Security,

uploadFiles/FINAL%20Period%20VI%20 Costello, T. (2004). Final report of the

Strolin, J., McCarthy, M., & Caringi, J.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi