MEASURING WORKLOAD IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES Tools That Work Conference CWLA November 2003

1
MEASURING WORKLOAD IN CHILD PROTECTION
SERVICESTools That Work ConferenceCWLANovemb
er 2003
2
Why Measure Workload?

• To More Fully Understand
• increased difficulties of the children/families
  involved with child protection services
• high level of risk that workers manage
• service and financial gaps between the amount of
  work that needs to get done and available
  staffing

3
Relevancy of Tool For USA

• Workload is an issue for most jurisdictions in
  the U.S.
• Tool is based on a taxonomy of known child
  welfare tasks
• Tool flexible to include tasks relevant to your
  community
• Way to compare time taken to complete tasks
  (within agency, city, state, nationally)

4
Child Protection Demographics in Ontario

• Ontario province is largest in Canada 12
  million people
• Child welfare services are delivered by 52
  childrens aid societies (CASs)
• Child Welfare Budget 974 million (59)
• of children in care18,040 (47)
• of child protection staff7,401 (48)

5
Workload Measurement Project

• Study Purpose
• To develop a standardized tool to measure CAS
  workload
• Study Results
• Task lists for key areas in child protection work
• Findings on average time to complete different
  aspects of child protection work
• Basic components of a Workload Measurement tool

6
Context For Measuring Workload in Ontario

• Child Mortality Task Force-1996
• Risk Assessment Model - 1997
• Legislative amendments -2000
• Expanded emotional abuse definitions
• Standards for neglect
• Technology Funding equity/model - 1997
• Accountability Mechanisms
• Training

7
Phases of Workload Measurement Project

• Phase 1 (1997)
• Developed Project Concept
• Phase 2 (1999 )
• Developed task lists
• First data collection period
• Phase 3 (2001)
• Second data collection period
• Project Completed (2002)

8
Project Management

• Project Managers
• Researcher
• Steering Committee

9
Conceptual Framework
10
Service Task Lists

• Intake and Family Services
• Family Services
• Intake and Assessment
• Children in Care
• Admission to Care
• Children in Care
• Resources
• Foster Care
• Adoption

11
Additional Task Lists

• Travel
• Travel to/from all client related activity
• Court
• Preparation of court documents
• Court preparation
• Service of documents
• Waiting in court
• Providing evidence

12
Level of ParticipationStudy was commissioned
and funded by OACAS

• Phase 2
• 41 out of 50 CASs (82)
• 251 child protection workers provided data on
  5,436 cases
• 2 week data collection period
• Phase 3
• 38 out of 50 CASs (76)
• 800 child protection workers provided data
• 4 week data collection period for all task areas
  but foster/adoption training/recruitment was
  collected over 2 months
• Lessons learned in Phase 2 informed Phase 3

13
Time Gathering Methodology

• Phase 2
• Workers recorded actual time spent on work, per
  case, on time sheets over 2 weeks in Spring 2000
  for all service areas, court and travel
• Phase 3
• Workers recorded actual time spent on work, per
  case, on time sheets over 4 weeks in Fall 2001
  for foster care, adoption, admission to care,
  court and travel

14
Time Gathering Methodology

• Goal
• Data will provide reasonable starting point for
  understanding workload of child protection
  workers
• Method
• Sample Size Requirements Need to be Met
• Use Only Data Where Time for Full Case Work
  Provided

15
Focus GroupsUsed at different points to

• Before Data Collection
• Confirm accuracy of task lists
• Feedback on user-friendliness of task lists
• Post Data Collection
• Review preliminary data from the time surveys
• Identify ideal amount of time required as part of
  a best practice approach
• Reference group to validate whether survey data
  matched actual practice

16
RESULTS Protection, Children in Care, Resources

• Results where benchmarks existed, indicated
  actual amounts of time required is higher than
  funding formula i.e.
• Report Received No Further Investigation Required
• Investigation
• Protection Services
• Results provided time required in areas where
  no benchmarks existed e.g.
• Admission to Care
• Foster Care Evaluation
• Adoption Matching / Placement

17
ResultsCourt Travel

• COURT
• 2.65 hours per week, per worker are spent in
  court activities
• TRAVEL
• 3.94 hours per week, per worker are spent in
  travel activities
• FINDING
• Each worker spends approximately one day a week
  in court and travel activities

18
Workload Measurement Tool

• AGGREGATE
• Time-based measurement of total workload (the sum
  total of all worker activities
• Allows calculation of number of workers required
  (e.g. Admission to Care of a Child - average is
  25.9 hrs. per admission per child X 300
  admissions/year 7770 worker hrs) divided by
  1112 hrs/yr 6.7 workers (govt) VS. 8 workers
  (WMP study)
• Can transform workload data into caseload data
• INDIVIDUAL TASK
• Time-based measurement of each task for each
  service area
• Allows for strategic examination of specific work
  areas

19
Workload Benchmarks and Staff Availability

• the supply side of the equation relates to the
  amount of time not available to the social worker
  to provide direct casework
• these activities include travel time, court
  work, staff training, vacation, etc. and are
  subtracted from the total time available for work
• overall figure is calculated based on how much
  time is available for work

20
Focus Groups Told Us

• feedback on the use of the tool was positive
• workers felt that their input was important
• workers recognized the importance of a tool that
  was developed from the perspective of the
  front-line worker

21
Comparison with Funding Framework Benchmarks
22
Implications For Staffing

• Intake Investigation
• 54 more staff
• Ongoing Child Protection
• 29 more staff
• Children in Care
• 133 more staff

23
Ways Data Can Be Used

• Understand time to do service areas
• Plan for number of workers required
• Inform budget discussions
• Examine tasks to best practice implications
• Strategically examine specific areas for
  enhancement, reduction, reassignment
• Empirical data underpins discussion with funding
  bodies
• Region, Area and Provincial breakdowns

24
ExampleCourt and Travel Results

• On average direct service workers spend 111.3
  hours/year or 2 hours/39 min./wk in court related
  activities
• 48 of the time/yr is spent in preparation of
  court documents
• 13 of time/yr is spent in court
  consultations/meetings
• 4 of the time/yr is spent in providing evidence
  before the court
• 7 of the time/yr is spent in the service of
  court documents
• 28 of the time/yr is spent in waiting in court

25
Conclusions

• Staff working in CASs in Ontario are stressed
• They are overloaded with workload and
  administrative pressures
• Comprehensive task lists developed
• Actual time taken to complete tasks is higher
  than Funding Framework Benchmarks
• Benchmarks in the Funding Framework must be
  revised to reflect the actual time taken to
  complete tasks

26
Conclusions

• High level of participation and large sample size
  is an accurate reflection of amount of time taken
  to complete all aspects of child protection work
• Revisions to staffing and workload benchmarks
  must be considered in the context of
• other strategies intended to reduce
  administrative tasks of front-line workers
• options to streamline workflow
• approaches to increase the time available to
  provide support and clinical intervention with
  children and families

27
Advocacy Efforts

• It is recommended that
• Workload benchmarks in the Funding Framework be
  increased to reflect the results of this study
• Implementation of the revised benchmarks be
  staged in over the next two years
• OACAS share the results of the study with funders
  and work cooperatively to develop realistic and
  adequate funding benchmarks

28
Next Steps

• The Workload Measurement Tool be automated
• Further data analysis obtained from Phase II and
  Phase III of the WMP can assist agencies in
  reviewing specific agency needs (i.e.. Court,
  travel, administrative)
• Further workload measurement may be required for
  other positions within child protection (e.g.
  Legal, protection support, Management)

29
Benefits of the Project

• Extensive research and information for the
  government to use in reviewing and assessing the
  Funding Framework
• Extensive research and information for agencies
  to use in reviewing their structure and delivery
  of service
• Agencies can compare time taken to complete tasks
  
• Research and data are available and updated for
  future policy development at the government level

30
Dissemination

• Information has been shared with all Ontario
  CASs, the Provincial government and the unions
• Local agencies, the provincial child welfare
  association and the unions are using the
  information in their advocacy efforts

31
KEY MESSAGES

• Workload
• Is/and will continue to be a problem
• Is measurable
• There is a tool to measure workload
• Once measured, we have data/choices around how,
  where staff is used
• Measuring workload is critical in articulating
  need for increased resources

32
THE END

• Presented by
• Howard Hurwitz, MSW (hhurwitz_at_jfandcs.com)
• Deborah Goodman, MSW,PH.D.
• (dgoodman_at_TorontoCAS.ca)