Understanding the Relationship Between Caseload and Workload in Child Welfare

Background: Manageable workloads are critical for positive child outcomes and worker retention in child welfare. Larger caseloads are commonly assumed to result in unmanageable workloads—too much work for successful management of assigned cases. However, this relationship may be more complex and vary by aspects of cases assigned to individual caseworkers or even by contextual factors in child welfare agencies. This study explores how caseload characteristics at individual and regional levels are associated with caseworkers’ perceptions of unmanageable workloads and overtime work. The results can provide potential implications for case allocation and staffing that make workloads more manageable and efficient.

Methods: This study used self-reported data collected from 1263 caseworkers across 18 regions in a Midwestern state in 2016. Two binary outcomes of workload indicate whether caseworkers perceived that their workloads were unmanageable and whether they took overtime to manage their workloads. Worker-level factors include proportion of substantiated cases, assessment caseloads greater than 12 cases, ongoing caseloads greater than 17 cases, and blended caseloads with both assessments and ongoing services. As a regional-level factor, a staffing level to meet regional caseload demands based on a recommended standard was obtained from a state report and matched with the survey data by region. Control variables include satisfactory supervision, organizational support, gender, race, age, and work experience. Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression was performed using Stata 14.

Results: Caseworkers perceived that their caseloads were unmanageable when they managed a higher proportion of substantiated cases [OR = 2.25, 95% = 1.22-4.17], excessive assessment caseloads [OR = 6.89, 95% = 3.99-11.91], excessive ongoing caseloads [OR = 4.11, 95% = 2.77-6.10], or blended caseloads [OR = 1.80, 95% = 1.28-2.53]. Caseworkers also took overtime when they managed excessive assessment caseloads [OR = 4.80, 95% = 2.12-10.88] or blended caseloads [OR = 1.50, 95% = 1.03-2.20]. A sufficient staffing level to meet caseload demands at the regional level was significantly associated with the decreased likelihood of overtime work [OR = 0.95, 95% = 0.92-0.99]. Of control variables, satisfactory supervision was positively associated with both workload outcomes.

Implications: There are several implications of this study. First, excessive assessment caseloads appeared to be a stronger factor for perceptions of unmanageable workloads and overtime work as workers carry a usual caseload and must work “on-call” frequently evenings, nights, and weekends rather than the state having a separate evening or weekend staff. Staffing which realigns assessment workers’ duties, tasks, and schedules to allow them more time for their main work is recommended. Second, the results indicated that blended caseloads made workloads less manageable and efficient. Staffing which follows a separation of types of cases may be beneficial for workload management because it enables caseworkers to be more familiar with regular tasks and more knowledgeable of effective practice for their similar cases. Third, child welfare agencies should develop comprehensive recruiting and retention strategies to meet regional caseload demands given that sufficient staffing at the regional level reduced caseworkers’ overtime work. Finally, supervisors can enhance workload management by providing emotional, professional, and administrative supports.