Resources for Improving Outcomes for
Children and Families Through
Caseload/Workload Reductions
Webinar Presentation to State Liaison Officers
July 17, 2009
Goals
 To explore the connection between
reduced caseload/workload and
improved child and family outcomes
 To share State efforts to reduce
caseloads and improve practice
 To introduce resources for further
caseload/workload reduction efforts
Session Outline
 Caseload and workload overview
 Initiating organizational and practice
changes which positively impact caseload
and workload
 Making caseload and workload information
readily available to States and counties:
The Child Welfare Workload Compendium
 Discussion
From a Practice Perspective:
Caseload and workload make a difference for
children and families
 Child welfare is a labor-intensive, handson service
 Change happens through relationship
 Spending time with children and families
in order to achieve positive outcomes
From a Workforce Perspective:
Providing child welfare workers with
a manageable client caseload =
a necessary ingredient for achieving
and maintaining a stable and effective
workforce
Caseload/workload impacts turnover
which impacts kids and families
 GAO Report (2003):
A top challenge to recruitment and retention: high
caseloads and workloads
 Zlotnik, et al (2005):
Reasonable workloads impact worker retention
 APHSA Survey (2005):
Reduced caseloads, workloads, and supervisory
ratios=“most important agency action that CW
agencies must take to retain qualified workers and
supervisors.”
From a Systems Perspective:
Increasingly States are viewing caseload
and workload reduction as tools for
improving child and family outcomes
 Increased worker contact with children
and families = better outcomes
(CFSR findings)
If manageable caseloads and workloads
are so important:
 Why have they been so hard to achieve?
 Why has information on caseloads and
workloads been so elusive?
 What are States and local jurisdictions
doing to address caseload and workload
issues?
How are States and local jurisdictions
addressing caseload and workload issues?*





Workload Studies/Analysis
Legislation
Accreditation
Litigation
Negotiation
* Often combined, may be part of larger systems
reform/quality improvement efforts
Conducting a workload study as a first
step to reducing caseload/workload
 Determine how much time workers have to actually
see children and families
 Identify the tasks and requirements that could be
redirected to others, or done away with, so workers
can spend more time with children and families
 Prompt exploration of how staff can be used more
creatively, resources allocated more strategically,
unnecessary paper work eliminated, etc, so workers
can spend quality time with children and families
Legislation
Mandates States and local jurisdictions to:
 Assess workload issues
 Recommend workload/caseload solutions
 Meet certain caseload and workload
standards
 Hire new staff and/or reallocate resources
to meet standards
 Report on progress in meeting legislative
requirements
State example: Delaware
 1998: Legislation codified caseload standards for
DFS workers and supervisors
 2007: Funding for position allocation within State
to ensure that caseloads do not exceed standard
 State strategies include:
– Improved hiring processes
– Over-hire pool
– New employee support
– Salary increases for workers with more than 1
year of experience
Accreditation
States and counties that have been accredited by the
Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and
Children (COA) are required to meet, or come close to
meeting, COA’s caseload standards, which are similar
to CWLA’s caseload standards
 Accredited States include AR, IL, KY, LA, MD (12
counties; 1 city) and WV
 Accredited counties in CA, CO, FL, KY, NJ, OH, TN
and TX

Litigation
 Settlement agreements usually require States
to meet certain standards, usually CWLA
caseload standards
 Often require a settlement plan, timeline for
meeting standards
 May also require minimum qualifications for
workers (e.g., MSW), supervisor/worker ratios,
improved worker training, etc.
State example: Connecticut
 Caseload requirements outlined in Juan v. Rell (2008) which
includes an action plan for addressing key components of case
practice related to meeting children’s needs
 State designed outcomes measures similar to CFSRs to help
address its goal of reducing caseloads
Since implementation, CT has been able to:
 Meet caseload standard by 100% and maintain caseloads
at this level for 14 consecutive quarters
 Maintain monthly worker-to-child visits
 Achieve compliance with its outcome measures
 Show overall improvement in achieving safety,
permanency, and well-being
State example: New Jersey
 Modified Settlement Agreement required caseload
reductions
 Reform efforts included
– Adoption of a case practice model which
identified family engagement as a core strategy
– Improvements in infrastructure
– Lowered caseloads
– Improved training programs for workers and
supervisors
 During 2007 NJ met or exceeded caseload and
training targets and supervisor to worker ratios
 Reduction in caseloads conducive to moving
forward with case practice model and other reform
efforts
Negotiation


Unions representing child welfare workers have
played an important role in negotiating
caseload ratios that meet, or come close to
meeting CWLA standards.
Often, unions advocate for ratios that are
already in place through legislation, consent
decrees, or court settlements, but are not
being implemented due to funding limitations
or competing priorities.
Broad strategies for addressing
caseload/workload issues:
 Hiring additional staff
 Increasing worker effectiveness
 Reducing caseloads through program
or practice changes
 Instituting agencywide/systemwide
reform
Indiana: Instituting organizational and
practice changes which positively impact
caseloads and outcomes
 Establishment of new Children’s Department
 Legislation mandates CPS caseloads of 12
(investigation) and 17 (ongoing)
 Major organizational reforms include
– Hiring and keeping workers
– Defining an evidence based practice model
– Identifying specific practice indicators
– Reorganizing the organizational and field
structure
– Partnering closely with HR and Training in the
overall transformation process
Child Welfare Information Gateway
 Connects professionals and the public to
practical, timely, and essential information.
 Provides information services and resources to
State and local agencies to support them in:
• Improving direct services
• Improving organizational effectiveness
• Improving outcomes for children, youth, and
families
Child Welfare Workload Compendium
 To make caseload/workload information readily
available to States and counties
 To provide public child welfare managers and
administrators with new tools and resources
for workload management
 To raise the visibility of State/county efforts to
reduce caseloads/workloads
http://www.childwelfare.gov/
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/workforce/compendium/
Call on us…
Pamela Day
Co-Director
pday@childwelfare.gov
Julie Felhoelter
Content Specialist
jfelhoelter@childwelfare.gov
Email the library
library@childwelfare.gov
Call toll-free
800.394.3366