Policy on the Ground: Caseworker Decision Making in Alternative Response

Background and Purpose: Alternative response (AR) is typically a legislatively mandated policy where child protective services (CPS) caseworkers are required to provide a family-centered, strengths-based approach as opposed to making a final determination of abuse/neglect. Families who enter the child welfare system are reliant on caseworkers to make the best decisions for them, but these decisions are influenced by multiple factors. This qualitative study explores caseworker decision making as it relates to systemic expectations and changes due to the demands of a new policy.

Method: Focus groups in three counties were conducted in a mid-Atlantic state that recently completed implementation of AR. Participants were recruited through each county’s local department of social services (LDSS) with caseworkers who held their position in AR for at least six months. The AR workers in two of the jurisdictions conducted both traditional response (TR) and alternative responses whereas the other jurisdiction had caseworkers who only conducted alternative responses. Three focus groups were held with a total of 18 caseworkers. Caseworkers were asked about how a new policy coupled with personal experience, case/family, and organizational factors influenced their overall decision making for families.

Results: Using a thematic content analysis (TCA) two broad themes emerged: Organizational Expectations and Barriers and Community and Departmental Misunderstanding. Within the first broad theme, the challenges of completing the work in CPS both for investigative and alternative responses emerged. Additionally, a caseworker’s interpretation of policy and its impact on practice decisions became apparent. Thus, five subthemes emerged: The Burden of Mandates, Unclear/Conflicting Policies, Approaching Families, Resource Availability, and Other Barriers. Within the second broad theme caseworkers revealed that community partners often misunderstood the mission of child welfare. They also felt they lacked knowledge about the procedures and expectations within their own department, most specifically intake, where families are “tracked” into either a TR or an AR. Thus, two subthemes were incorporated: The Community’s Lack of Knowledge and Interdepartmental Conflicts.

Overall, caseworkers felt taxed due to the high needs of families and the lack of available resources. Within the two counties that held TR/AR caseloads, none of participants felt they differentiated between TR and AR despite the mandate to do so whereas the county that held AR only caseloads still felt burdened by having the same expectations/demands as TR workers.

Conclusions and Implications: The results suggested that child welfare administrators should consider having different timelines/mandates for AR cases as it prevents caseworkers from fully embracing the AR approach. Administrators should also consider how information about the work of individual units within the department are connected as well as actively dialoguing with community partners about the mission and purpose of CPS. Future research should continue to focus on caseworker voice as they are the lynchpin to understanding how policy in practiced on the ground and how different variables (e.g., personal experience, case/family, and organizational factors) influence overall outcomes for families