Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS

800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov

ISSUE BRIEF

July 2016

Caseload and Workload 

Management

WHAT’S INSIDE

Background

Benefits of reasonable 

caseloads and 

manageable workloads 

Catalysts and 

motivating factors for 

reducing caseloads 

and workloads 

Assessing caseloads 

and workloads 

Strategies for caseload 

and workload 

management 

State examples 

of caseload and 

workload strategies

Conclusion

Additional resources 

References

Large caseloads and excessive workloads in many 

jurisdictions can make it difficult for child welfare 

caseworkers (workers) to serve families effectively. 

Administrative requirements for each case are on the 

rise, and complex cases require intensive interventions, 

which further add to caseworker workloads. Manageable 

caseloads and workloads can make a real difference 

in a worker’s ability to engage families, deliver 

quality services, stay with the agency, and ultimately 

achieve positive outcomes for children and families. 

Reducing and managing caseloads and workloads 

are not simple tasks for child welfare administrators. 

Agencies face a number of challenges, including 

negotiating budget crises and hiring freezes, addressing 

worker turnover, finding qualified applicants for open 

positions, implementing time-intensive best practices, 

and managing multiple reforms simultaneously 

(Munson, McCarthy, & Dickinson, 2014). It can even 

be difficult to just determine what the caseload and 

workload levels currently are and what they should be. 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

2

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Nevertheless, agencies are addressing these 

challenges and successfully implementing a variety 

of strategies to make caseloads and workloads 

more manageable. This issue brief aims to build the 

knowledge base about caseload and workload issues 

and help State child welfare managers, administrators, 

and others learn how they can improve caseload 

and workload situations in their agencies.

Definitions

Caseload: The number of cases (children or 

families) assigned to an individual worker in a 

given time period. Caseload reflects a ratio of 

cases (or clients) to staff members and may be 

measured for an individual worker, all workers 

assigned to a specific type of case, or all workers 

in a specified area (e.g., agency or region).

Workload: The amount of work required 

to successfully manage assigned cases and 

bring them to resolution. Workload reflects 

the average time it takes a worker to (1) do the 

work required for each assigned case and (2) 

complete other non-casework responsibilities. 

Background

High caseloads and workloads can stem from a variety 

of circumstances. Increased caseloads can be attributed 

to rises in the incidence of maltreatment (e.g., as a result 

of escalations in substance use), increases in reporting 

(e.g., due to increased public awareness), changes 

to intake or case decision criteria (e.g., thresholds 

for opening cases for services), or the expansion of 

services (e.g., extended foster care for older youth).

Increases in the amount of work required for each case 

may also be caused by changes to laws and policies or 

other accountability requirements. For example, child 

maltreatment hotline staff in Pennsylvania experienced 

an unexpectedly high call volume in 2015 after State laws 

expanded the definition of who is a mandated reporter 

(Owens, 2015). The Department of Human Services planned 

to hire additional workers to handle the surge. Additionally, 

workers are increasingly expected to do more assessments, 

searches, notifications, visits, team meetings, plans, 

referrals, court testimonies, and documentation. Although 

the heightened expectations may be necessary to provide 

quality services, they can make for excessive workloads 

even when caseloads do not exceed agency standards.

Although specific results vary by agency, there are some 

common findings about caseload and workload in the 

child welfare literature (American Humane Association 

[AHA], 2000; Deloitte Consulting, 2015; Hornby Zeller 

Associates [HZA], 2006; HZA, 2009; ICF International 

& Walter R. McDonald & Associates, 2014; McKinsey & 

Company, 2008; Walter R. McDonald & Associates & AHA, 

2006; Walter R. McDonald & Associates & AHA, 2007): 

 Available time. Workers tend to spend 60 to 70 

percent of their work time on case-related activities, 

with approximately 20 to 35 percent on direct client 

contact or collateral contact (i.e., individuals, such as 

the referral source or professionals in the community, 

who can provide additional information). The remaining 

non-case-related time is spent on training, leave, and 

administrative tasks (e.g., supervisory or unit meetings 

not related to a case, task forces or committees, 

community outreach, and/or reviewing policies). 

 Variability in workload demands. Workload varies 

by a number of case characteristics, such as where 

the child resides (e.g., in his/her home, relative home, 

foster home, or congregate care), the number of 

children involved, the phase of the case process (e.g., 

intake, assessment, investigation, permanency), court 

involvement, permanency goals, task types (e.g., faceto-face contact, service planning, team meetings, and/

or documentation), and the complexity of the case. It 

also is affected by the worker’s caseload. Workload also 

varies by agency characteristics such as location (i.e., 

urban, rural, remote), number of staff, and number of 

support staff. These data can help establish standards 

for caseload sizes or to weigh cases when calculating a 

worker’s current caseload. 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

3

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Benefits of Reasonable Caseloads 

and Manageable Workloads 

Caseload and workload management often appear 

as key ingredients in a State’s comprehensive 

strategy to produce better outcomes for children 

and families. There are many benefits of reasonable 

caseloads and manageable workloads:

 Engaging families and delivering quality services. 

Essential child welfare processes—including family 

engagement, relationship building, assessment, 

permanency planning, and service coordination—are 

time intensive and require frequent worker-client 

contact. Manageable caseloads and workloads permit 

workers the time they need to invest in these activities 

to support families.

 Achieving positive outcomes for children and 

families. Workloads and caseloads have been linked 

to performance on Federal Child and Family Services 

Reviews (CFSRs) and achievement of safety and 

permanency outcomes (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services [HHS], 2006; U.S. General Accounting 

Office [GAO], 2003).

 Managing organizational commitment and 

worker retention. The child welfare literature is not 

conclusive about whether large caseloads negatively 

affect worker retention or turnover. Studies that factor 

in worker-reported caseload data tend not to find 

a direct association between high caseloads and 

increased turnover or intent to leave (e.g., Jacquet, 

Clark, Morazes, & Withers, 2008; Lee, Rehner, & 

Forster, 2010). In other studies asking caseworkers, 

supervisors, or administrators about why caseworkers 

leave their jobs, however, high caseloads are frequently 

cited (e.g., APHSA, 2005; GAO, 2003). In other words, 

caseworkers may anecdotally cite high caseloads as a 

reason for leaving, but the quantitative data tend to 

show that departing caseworkers did not have higherthan-average caseloads. It may be that the workers in 

the latter studies perceive their caseloads as being too 

high or causing additional stress, which contributes 

to poor organizational commitment and decisions to 

leave (e.g., Bowling, Alarcon, Bragg, & Hartman, 2015; 

Kim & Kao, 2014). Manageable workloads may help 

agencies retain workers who would otherwise opt to 

leave as a result of feeling overloaded.

 Supporting worker attitudes and well-being.

Workers’ perceptions of their workloads are related 

to work-family conflict, job satisfaction, mental wellbeing, strain, depression, distress, fatigue, physical 

symptoms, burnout, and absenteeism (Bowling 

et al., 2015). Efforts to ensure that workloads are 

manageable may prevent workers from experiencing 

myriad negative outcomes and may enhance job 

satisfaction. Workers also may feel overwhelmed due 

to secondary traumatic stress (STS), which can occur 

when a professional experiences stress or symptoms 

of trauma when working with traumatized children 

and families. This additional stress could exacerbate 

any stress they are feeling from high caseloads or 

workloads. For additional information about STS, visit 

Child Welfare Information Gateway at https://www.

childwelfare.gov/topics/adoption/preplacement/

caring-addressing/ or the National Child Traumatic 

Stress Network at http://www.nctsn.org/resources/

topics/secondary-traumatic-stress. 

Catalysts and Motivating Factors for 

Reducing Caseloads and Workloads

Some agencies specifically set out to reduce caseloads 

and workloads. Others have reforms imposed on 

them or achieve reductions as unintended effects of 

other initiatives. The following factors often provide an 

impetus for caseload and workload reduction efforts:

 CFSRs. Beginning with the first round of CFSRs in 

2001, States’ Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) 

have frequently noted the need for improvements in 

workloads or caseloads (HHS, 2012; Children’s Defense 

Fund and Children’s Rights, 2006). States continue 

to address workloads/caseloads and related issues 

(e.g., recruitment, retention, training, supervision, and 

systems reform) in their PIPs as a means to improve 

CFSR outcomes and to achieve compliance with 

Federal standards.
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

4

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

 Legislation. Several State legislatures, such as 

Delaware, Florida, Indiana, and Texas, have mandated 

that State and local jurisdictions assess workload 

issues, meet identified standards, implement specific 

strategies such as hiring additional staff, and report on 

progress.

 Litigation and consent decrees. Class-action 

litigation across the country—frequently resulting 

from high-profile fatalities—has brought attention to 

child welfare system reform and generated workforce 

improvements (Farber & Munson, 2007). Provisions 

in settlement agreements and consent decrees 

often require jurisdictions to meet specific caseload 

standards. 

 Staffing needs. Turnover and hiring freezes can 

result in vacancies, which result in unstaffed cases 

or unmanageable caseloads for existing workers. 

Turnover is also very costly. For example, the Texas 

Department of Family and Protective Services 

estimates that each caseworker who leaves costs 

the agency $54,000, due in part to recruiting and 

training new workers (Sunset Commission, 2014). In 

a nationwide survey, State administrators identified 

reducing caseloads, workloads, and supervisory ratios 

as the most important action for child welfare agencies 

to take to retain qualified frontline staff (APHSA, 2005). 

 Standards and accreditation. When developing 

caseload management strategies, some agencies 

and localities take into consideration the caseload 

standards and guidance recommended by CWLA. 

(As of publication, CWLA has begun the process to 

develop updated standards.) Others strive to meet 

the Council on Accreditation (COA) standards in order 

to achieve accreditation. (For more information about 

the COA standards, visit http://coanet.org/standard/

cps/14/.) Agencies have had varying success in 

achieving and maintaining these standards.

 Systems reform. Currently, some agencies are 

engaged in developing new practice models and 

implementing systemwide reform efforts, such as 

alternative/differential response, family engagement, 

and systems of care initiatives. Although caseload and 

workload reduction may not be a stated goal of these 

reform efforts, it is sometimes a necessary component 

or an unintended outcome. (For more information 

about practice models, visit https://www.childwelfare.

gov/topics/management/reform/approaches/

practicemodels/.) 

 Union negotiations. Unions representing child welfare 

workers have played a role in requesting or negotiating 

improved caseload ratios, as well as bringing greater 

attention to the issue.

Assessing Caseloads and Workloads

The most comprehensive approach to assessing caseload 

and workload is a workload study. A workload study 

can help agencies compare how much time is available 

to complete casework with how much time is spent 

or should be spent completing it. The studies can be 

used by agencies in many ways, including developing 

caseload standards, assessing the number of workers 

or positions necessary to complete the required work, 

and instituting methods to regularly monitor caseload 

and workload. Agencies can assess data across the 

entire staff or by region, office, or unit. Additionally, 

agencies can use the results from the studies to 

justify requests for additional funding or staffing as 

well as to help develop legislation or other policies 

outlining caseload or other practice standards.

Agencies often engage expert assistance to conduct 

workload studies, which may provide the necessary 

credibility and objectivity to secure approval and 

resources for implementing needed improvements. For 

agencies that do not have the resources to contract 

with an expert, it may be possible to leverage university 

partnerships to conduct research and evaluation of 

caseload, workload, or workforce issues. Two States that 

have recently completed workload studies are Colorado 

(see http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf/All/

E5214710B77C878487257D320050F29A/$FILE/1354S%20

-%20Colorado%20Childrens’%20Welfare%20

Workload%20Study%20Report%20August%202014.pdf) 

and Alaska (see http://dhss.alaska.gov/ocs/Documents/

Publications/pdf/HZA-workload-study-2012.pdf). 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

5

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Minnesota Local Workload 

Analytic Tool

The following resources were developed as 

part of a workload study for the Child Safety 

and Permanency Division of the Minnesota 

Department of Human Services. The tool 

calculates resource needs and workloads at the 

county level by unit (or staff person for small 

counties) from intake through case closure. It 

can assist administrators, supervisors, and other 

staff in assessing staffing needs and determining 

the effect of staffing on achieving outcomes 

and practice standards. Although the resources 

were developed for Minnesota counties, they 

can inform the development of similar tools 

or be modified for use at other agencies. 

 Administrator’s Reference Guide and 

System Documentation: http://ncwwi.org/

files/Job_Analysis__Position_Requirements/

MN_Local_Workload_Analytic_Tool_-_

Administrators_Reference.pdf

 User’s Reference Guide: http://ncwwi.org/

files/Job_Analysis__Position_Requirements/

MN_Local_Workload_Analytic_Tool_-_Users_

Reference.pdf

 Workload Study Analytic Tool: http://

ncwwi.org/files/Job_Analysis__Position_

Requirements/MN_Workload_Study_Analytic_

Tool.xls

 Workload Study Measures: http://ncwwi.org/

files/Job_Analysis__Position_Requirements/

MN_Workload_Study_Measures.xls 

For agencies that are not positioned to undertake a 

comprehensive study, the results and recommendations 

from other agencies may have some value. Additionally, 

agencies can use existing quality assurance or 

information system data to assess potential indicators 

of insufficient workforce capacity, including whether 

caseworkers use overtime or unpaid time to complete 

their work. Examples of indicators include backlogs 

of overdue open investigations; past-due medical 

exams, case plans, court hearings, or worker-client 

contacts; turnover rates; and the percent of workers 

in training (Wagner, Johnson, & Healy, 2008). 

Agencies should monitor caseloads and workloads on 

an ongoing basis and institute assessments into their 

ongoing data analysis efforts. Monitoring indicators 

of timeliness and staffing over time and by region 

can reveal trends in workload management needs. To 

facilitate ongoing assessments, agencies can build 

reports or processes into their existing child welfare 

information systems that allow supervisors or other 

staff to view the workload burden of each caseworker. 

Strategies for Caseload and 

Workload Management

Strategies to manage caseloads and workloads include 

targeted efforts as well as broader initiatives in four 

categories: enhancing work processes and supports; 

implementing program, practice, or system changes; 

staffing; and improving worker effectiveness.

Funding for Strategies

The strategies outlined in this section require 

varying levels of funding depending on each 

agency’s current infrastructure and needs. Agencies 

may need to request additional funding to develop 

and fully implement the strategies they require. 

For resources about funding for child welfare 

agencies, visit Information Gateway at https://www.

childwelfare.gov/topics/management/funding/. 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

6

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Enhancing Work Processes and Supports

Agencies can improve worker efficiency by streamlining 

job requirements, providing supports, and allowing 

workers flexibility to meet work demands. The following 

are specific strategies for these types of approaches. 

Consolidated requirements and processes. With 

new legislation, regulations, and technology regularly 

appearing within child welfare, changes in expectations 

for workers are frequent. Agencies can use systematic and 

comprehensive approaches, such as process mapping, 

to analyze and improve workflow efficiency within jobs, 

units, programs, or an entire agency. To promote efficient 

work, agencies can implement the following strategies:

 Review existing policies and procedures to ensure they 

are relevant to current practice needs

 Streamline duplicative or inefficient expectations, 

processes, or forms 

 Retire outdated requirements or processes that no 

longer add value 

Tools and technology. Due to rapid advancements in 

technology, mobile devices such as laptops, notebooks, 

tablets, and smartphones have become commonplace. 

They can allow workers to readily access information that 

supports decision-making; document casework more 

efficiently; communicate with supervisors, providers, and 

families; and make more efficient use of waiting time. 

Large-scale technological support is being provided 

by analytic tools, such as SafeMeasures (http://www.

nccdglobal.org/analytics/safemeasures) and the ResultsOriented Management Reporting System (https://rom.

socwel.ku.edu/ROMTraining/ReportSystem.asp), which 

provide staff with real-time reports and performance 

metrics that can help prioritize and proactively manage 

their work. (See the State examples section for more 

information about the use of SafeMeasures.) Some 

States are modernizing their child welfare information 

systems to allow mobile access, enhance interfaces, 

eliminate redundant data entry, and enable ad hoc 

reporting capabilities. These systems also may be 

useful when assessing an agency’s capability to 

conduct caseload and workload assessments.

For agencies interested in transitioning away from 

in-house information systems, the Administration for 

Children and Families now allows State and Tribal 

agencies to purchase commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 

solutions, including those that are cloud-based, through 

a waiver of limitations on the use of Federal funding 

for proprietary human service software. (See ACFOA-PI-13-01 at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/

files/assets/acf_oa_13_01.pdf for more information.) 

As one of the first recipients of the waiver, Indiana 

purchased and implemented Casebook (http://

casecommons.org/casebook/), a web-based case 

management system that has helped workers in a 

variety of ways, such as making data-driven decisions 

and better understanding families’ interactions 

with the child welfare system (Markowitz, 2015).

Alternative work arrangements. Agencies are 

implementing a variety of work arrangements to reduce 

turnover and improve work-life balance. Several agencies 

(e.g., Alaska, New Hampshire, and Washington, DC) have 

had success with telecommuting, flexible schedules, and 

compressed work weeks. To view examples of alternative 

work schedules, refer to the State examples section.

Implementing Program, Practice, 

and System Changes

Some agencies are using broader approaches to improve 

caseload and workload, such as the use of evidencedbased practices, a larger focus on prevention and 

permanency, continuous quality improvement, changes 

to organizational culture and climate, and other reforms. 

Evidence-based practice. By implementing practices 

that are supported by scientific evidence, agencies 

can help workers invest their time more effectively. 

Although solid empirical evidence in child welfare is still 

developing, there are some casework practice models 

that have greater research support. The California 

Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (http://

www.cebc4cw.org/) is a useful online resource for 

exploring evidence-based programs in child welfare. 

Agencies also can equip workers to refer families to 

evidence-based services in the community for mental 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

7

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

health services, substance abuse treatment, and other 

supports. This may help families better achieve child 

welfare outcomes in a timely manner. The Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration within 

HHS maintains the National Registry of Evidence-Based 

Programs and Practices (http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/), 

which provides information about empirically supported 

mental health and substance use interventions. 

Prevention and early intervention. Agencies seek 

to reduce the number of cases entering the child 

welfare system through in-home and other prevention 

services, as well as differential/alternative response 

initiatives. By decreasing the number of incoming 

cases, workers can spend more time on existing and 

complex cases. For more information about preventing 

child maltreatment, visit Information Gateway at 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/preventing/. 

Permanency initiatives. Some States and jurisdictions 

focus on the back end of the system, employing initiatives 

related to family preservation, reunification, kinship care, 

adoption, and other avenues to permanency as a means 

to reduce caseloads. By finding more permanent homes 

for children in the child welfare system, agencies can 

reduce the number of children on workers’ caseloads. 

For more information about achieving permanency 

for children and youth, visit Information Gateway at 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/permanency/.

Continuous quality improvement (CQI). Agencies 

use a variety of mechanisms, including CQI, to monitor 

and promote effective practice. When implementing 

CQI processes, staff conduct a variety of case reviews; 

track and report on performance measures; and help 

implement statewide, regional, or local improvement 

plans. In some agencies, supervisors and workers receive 

individualized feedback on reviewed cases, including 

strengths, barriers to permanency or closure, and 

recommended actions. These types of reviews can assist 

caseworkers in serving clients more efficiently, which 

may help reduce caseload and workload. In 2012, the 

Children’s Bureau released an Information Memorandum 

(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1207.

pdf) that outlines how agencies can establish and 

maintain CQI systems and how they may be able to use 

Federal funds to support these efforts. For additional 

information about CQI, refer to Information Gateway 

at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/

practice-improvement/quality/approaches/.

Organizational culture and climate. Growing evidence 

suggests that an agency’s effectiveness depends on 

the organization’s culture and climate as well as the 

programs and procedures it implements. Agencies with 

a more positive climate have higher job satisfaction 

and organizational commitment among workers, less 

turnover, better service quality, and more positive 

outcomes for children (Glisson, 2010; Glisson, Dukes, & 

Green, 2006; Glisson & Green, 2011; Glisson, Green, & 

Williams, 2012; Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998; Glisson 

& James, 2002). Moreover, intervention strategies can 

be used to improve organizational climate and reduce 

turnover (Claiborne et al., 2014; Glisson et al., 2006).

Staffing

Manageable caseloads and workloads are dependent 

in large part of the number of qualified staff available to 

handle cases. Below are a few caseload and workload 

strategies related to staffing. Additional information and 

examples of many of these approaches are available 

in the State examples section of this bulletin.

Reallocation of positions. To manage workloads and 

caseloads with existing staff, agencies can reallocate 

staff positions to different regions, offices, or units. 

Child welfare agencies also may be able to obtain 

new positions from other non-child welfare jobs in 

the department that are no longer needed. These 

decisions should be based on what are likely to be 

enduring staffing needs rather than temporary shifts. 

Additional positions. Many agencies are able to 

secure additional positions after pivotal events such 

as a critical incident, litigation or a consent decree, or 

a workload study. Some agencies take advantage of 

smaller-scale additions by hiring and training staff in 

advance of vacancies, so replacements are prepared 

to immediately fill positions. These staff typically do 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

8

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

not carry cases, but they are paid a salary and may 

help with other tasks. Although adding staff may be 

the most obvious approach to reducing caseloads and 

workloads, it often is constrained by available funding 

and the lack of qualified applicants for open positions. 

Recruitment of new staff. Vacancies pose significant 

challenges for caseload management. The first step in 

filling positions is to implement a recruiting plan that 

targets the optimal candidates. Common strategies 

include online job boards, the agency’s website, 

social media, posters, fliers, recruitment brochures, 

public service announcements, employee referral 

incentives, job fairs, public speaking events, university 

partnerships, internships, and realistic job previews 

(National Child Welfare Workforce Institute, 2010). 

Some agencies aim to attract applicants by offering 

hiring bonuses, tuition reimbursement, educational 

stipends, career ladders, or loan forgiveness 

(Gomez, Travis, Ayers-Lopez, & Schwab, 2010).

Selection of new staff. Once an agency has attracted 

a pool of applicants, a competency-based selection 

process will help identify the most qualified candidates 

(Bernotavicz & Locke, 2000; Graef, Paul, & Myers, 2009). 

Common steps include an application, screening for 

minimum qualifications and goodness of fit, a structured 

interview, and reference and background checks. 

Additional competencies can be assessed through 

training and experience forms; writing assessments; 

personality measures; and situational judgment, cognitive 

ability, and critical thinking tests (Graef & Potter, 2002; 

Graef et al., 2009). To ensure that the hiring process is not 

a barrier to staffing, it is important to create streamlined 

and efficient procedures. Online applicant tracking 

systems or talent management software may expedite the 

application process for candidates and hasten the internal 

exchange of information between human resources 

staff and hiring teams. Creating pools of prescreened 

or prequalified candidates can accelerate the hiring 

process by requiring fewer steps when vacancies arise. 

For additional information about recruiting 

and selecting child welfare staff, visit 

Information Gateway’s Recruitment and 

Hiring webpage at https://www.childwelfare.

gov/topics/management/workforce/

recruit-hire/ or its compilation of realistic 

job previews at https://www.childwelfare.

gov/learningcenter/video-series/rjp/.

Specialized and support staff. Some agencies develop 

specialized staff units or positions to allocate workloads 

more efficiently; others assign support staff to help 

lessen caseworker paperwork and administrative tasks.

Teaming. To reduce individual workload and strengthen 

decision-making and service delivery, some agencies 

use a teaming model to manage more challenging 

cases (New York State Office of Children and Family 

Services, n.d.). When teaming is instituted, more 

than one worker is assigned to a case, and group 

supervision and teamwork are used to make decisions 

and develop strategies. (For more information about 

teaming, visit http://ocfs.ny.gov/main/cfsr/Teaming%20

in%20CW%20A%20Guidebook%20Complete.pdf.)

Retention of existing staff. To reduce turnover, which 

can be both a consequence and a cause of high workloads, 

agencies are introducing employee recognition and reward 

programs, providing mentoring and coaching initiatives, 

enhancing supervision and support, enabling job sharing 

and flex time, and offering opportunities for professional 

development and advanced education. Many agencies 

also are conducting exit interviews to determine why 

staff leave and are using findings to inform new retention 

initiatives. Design teams, which bring together staff from 

throughout the agency to address workforce issues, offer 

another method for retaining staff. (For more information 

about design teams, refer to the Design Team Manual at 

https://ncwwi.org/files/Org_Environment/Design-TeamManual.pdf. For additional information about staff retention, 

visit Information Gateway at https://www.childwelfare.

gov/topics/management/workforce/retention/.)
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

9

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Improving Worker Effectiveness

Agencies also address workload management through 

practices, such as training and supervision, which aim to 

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of workers. 

Training and ongoing support. Training and ongoing 

support regarding time management strategies and 

other ways to streamline work processes can help workers 

better manage their workload. Training can also be used 

to improve workers’ performance and their ability to help 

families achieve safety and permanency. This may help 

workers close cases more quickly and successfully and 

prevent reentry, which could have a positive impact on 

caseloads or workload, particularly in the long run. (To 

view a tip sheet from the Ohio Child Welfare Training 

Program about caseworker readiness and workload 

management, visit http://ncwwi.org/files/Job_Analysis__

Position_Requirements/Workload_Management.pdf.) 

When caseloads and workloads are high, however, 

it can be challenging for workers to take time to 

attend training. In addition, new practices may be 

time consuming to learn and implement, especially 

in the early stages of skill development. Even when 

competence is gained, doing tasks the right way (i.e., 

following agency requirements and best practice) 

tends to take longer than the way workers previously 

spent on tasks (HZA, 2006). For new workers, attempts 

to follow training advice can be obstructed by time 

constraints as well as an office culture that does not 

support the training guidelines or transfer of learning 

(i.e., applying the concepts from the training to the job). 

When appropriate, training can be delivered more 

efficiently through interactive webinars, on-demand 

tutorials, job aids, or on-the job training via mentors, 

coaches, supervisors, or field training specialists. 

These methods can minimize workers’ time away 

from direct field work and allow them to get the 

training they need at the time the need it.

Before providing training, agencies should ensure 

that performance issues are due to the absence of 

knowledge or skills (Mager & Pipe, 1997). Workers often 

know exactly what is needed to do their jobs correctly, 

but in the face of competing pressures, they are forced 

to make compromises. For example, a worker may 

know that using a newly instituted assessment is best 

practice but does not have the time to administer the 

assessment to each family assigned to her caseload.

Supervision. Many supervisors are directly responsible 

for making case assignment decisions. Thus, it is essential 

that supervisors have a system for assigning cases in 

a fair and equitable manner. The process should take 

into account the anticipated workload of a case, the 

worker’s experience and capabilities, and the worker’s 

current caseload. Although there may be pressure 

to do so, supervisors should resist the urge to give 

high-performing workers higher caseloads or more 

complex cases. This approach can backfire by unfairly 

overloading the best workers, prompting them to leave. 

Supervisors can enhance workload management 

by providing clear direction about goals, priorities, 

and next steps in a case and by teaching timemanagement strategies. Supervisors should schedule 

regular, uninterrupted case conference time with 

staff to proactively manage work and decrease crises 

and stress (Hanna, 2009). For needs that cannot wait 

for structured consultation, workers benefit when 

supervisors respond in a timely manner to requests for 

signatures, approvals, or other additional support. 

Supervisors also play an essential role in building worker 

knowledge and skills. When workers struggle to meet 

expectations, constructive feedback and monitoring 

are necessary (Paul, Graef, Robinson, & Saathoff, 2009). 

Supervisors are also responsible for approving the 

use of overtime and for ensuring that workers are not 

compensating for excessive workloads by working off 

the clock to keep up with their cases. When working 

with agency administrators, supervisors can advocate on 

behalf of workers to influence systems and procedures 

that facilitate or impede workload management. 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

10

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Supervisor support is positively associated with workers’ 

satisfaction with their workload management (Juby & 

Scannpieco, 2007), intentions to stay on the job (Kim & 

Kao, 2014) and retention (Faller, Graberek, & Ortega, 

2010; Jacquet et al., 2008; Yankeelov, Barbee, Sullivan, & 

Antle, 2009). Agencies can promote effective supervision 

by using a competency-based selection process for 

hiring supervisors, reducing staff-supervisor ratios, 

and building supervisor skills through supervisory 

training and leadership development initiatives. 

For more information about supervision, refer to 

Information Gateway’s Supervising for Quality 

Child Welfare Practice at https://www.childwelfare.

gov/pubs/factsheets/effective-supervision/ or its 

Management & Supervision section webpage at 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/. 

State Examples of Caseload 

and Workload Strategies

State and local agencies throughout the country 

are using the aforementioned strategies to reduce 

caseloads and manage workloads. The following 

examples highlight certain aspects of a State’s 

caseload and workload strategy, but they may provide 

only a point-in-time snapshot rather than a complete 

picture of that State’s multifaceted initiative. The 

examples are presented for informational purposes 

only; inclusion does not indicate an endorsement by 

HHS, the Children’s Bureau, or Information Gateway.

 New Hampshire: Telework units

 Alaska: Position reallocation and alternative work 

arrangements

 New Jersey: Hiring processes, impact teams, and 

SafeMeasures

 Delaware: Structured decision-making (SDM), online 

reporting, and supplemental positions

New Hampshire: Telework Units

Faced with a need to merge district offices due to 

budgetary constraints, the New Hampshire Division 

for Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) decided to 

implement a telework mobile unit in their Southern 

District Office in 2010. Based on telework experiences 

in another division of the Department of Health and 

Human Services and agencies in other States, DCYF 

established telework personnel guidelines, conducted 

a caseload analysis to plan for staffing and service 

areas, convened a workgroup to establish plans for 

daily functions, and identified technology needed 

to support the project. Before launching the unit, an 

explanatory announcement letter was sent to families; 

community providers; and other stakeholders, such 

as law enforcement, schools, courts, and the medical 

community. In addition, a public informational meeting 

was held to address questions and concerns. 

The resulting unit is composed of 10 staff: 9 who 

work remotely (a supervisor, 7 workers, and a staff 

attorney) and an administrative assistant who 

supports the unit from the local office. Together 

they represent approximately 19 percent of the staff 

in the district office, with the remainder working 

according to traditional office arrangements. 

To be selected to work in the unit, applicants must 

meet advanced experience requirements (i.e., the 

positions are not entry level). Workers must have 

at least 1 year of experience as a social worker or 

case manager, and supervisors must have at least 5 

years of experience in a related field and 3 years of 

supervisory experience. Both must pass a competencybased structured hiring interview that addresses 

unique telework challenges related to, for example, 

communication, accountability, and organization.

Using funding from a Child Abuse Prevention and 

Treatment Act discretionary grant, DCYF purchased 

equipment to allow staff to successfully telework, such as 

a laptop, smartphone, printer/scanner/fax, video camera, 

and locking file cabinet. Each employee must have a 

dedicated home-office space that is approved by the 

supervisor. Staff use a virtual private network to securely 

access everything they need (e.g., email, calendars, child 

welfare information system) from home or in the field. 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

11

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Workers are expected to check in with their supervisors 

via phone, text, or email at the beginning and end 

of each work day. Depending on their schedules, 

additional check-ins may be expected (e.g., at the 

conclusion of a home visit). The workers must share 

their electronic calendars and keep them current. 

Weekly supervisory meetings may occur in workers’ 

homes, the supervisor’s home, or in the community, 

as long as confidentiality can be maintained. Biweekly 

staff meetings are held in the community (e.g., a 

hospital) or the district office to ensure thorough 

communication and maintain a sense of community. 

Results: Positive results for employees include a better 

balance of field time and paperwork, fewer distractions, 

increased communication with the supervisor, an 

increased sense of team membership, less travel in some 

cases, greater job satisfaction, increased efficiency, and 

lower turnover. Because laptops allow staff to complete 

work from anywhere, the unit has fewer overdue 

protective assessments. Staff are able to have greater 

presence in the community and be more responsive 

to families. The success led to the creation of a second 

telework unit elsewhere in the State. Nonetheless, 

telework has challenges that need to be managed, 

including feelings of isolation and disconnectedness 

from the district office, technology and connectivity 

issues in remote areas, and steep costs for smartphone 

data plans. Because telework requires additional 

self-discipline, organization, and time management 

skills, workers occasionally require extra oversight and 

accountability to ensure efficiency and accountability. 

For more information, contact Robert Boisvert, DCYF, 

at 603.271.4717 or rboisvert@dhhs.state.nh.us.

Alaska: Position Reallocation and 

Alternative Work Arrangements

A 2006 workload study of frontline caseworkers in the 

Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Office 

of Children’s Services (OCS) found that workers had 

greater workload than they could appropriately handle, 

more positions were needed, vacancies needed to 

be filled, and position distribution should be monitored 

and adjusted if necessary (HZA, 2006). As a result, OCS 

requested and received additional funds over a period 

of several fiscal years to increase the number of frontline 

and supervisory positions accordingly (HZA, 2012). OCS 

now regularly assesses statewide staffing needs and 

reallocates positions as needed on nearly an annual basis. 

To address recruitment and retention, OCS has 

experimented with alternative work schedules. In addition 

to a standard 5-day workweek, compressed schedules 

include a 4-day week; a 4-day week alternating with a 5-day 

week; 1-week on/1-week off; and 2-weeks on/2-weeks off. 

In the 1-week on/1-week off schedule, which is currently 

limited to one remote office, staff work 2 weeks’ worth 

of hours in a single week. They share case coverage to 

ensure that someone is always available to provide case 

management services, and because their permanent 

residence is elsewhere, they temporarily live in the village 

while they work and return home for a week in between. 

Finally, the 2-weeks on/2-weeks off schedule is used by 

a travel team that is deployed to over 25 field offices to 

provide case coverage as needed due to vacancies.

Results: The regular assessment of staffing needs 

has led to smaller adjustments than might otherwise 

be needed if it were done less frequently or not 

at all. Using this approach, statewide position 

allocation stays fairly well balanced across time.

The 1-week on/1-week off schedule has resulted in greater 

staffing stability. The office previously experienced frequent 

turnover. Seasoned staff now occupy the positions and have 

stayed for 18 months after the approach was implemented. 

The success has OCS exploring the possibility of 

implementing this strategy elsewhere in the State. The 

travel team is considered a remarkable support to the field. 

For more information, contact Travis Erickson, OCS, 

at 907.269.3903 or travis.erickson@alaska.gov.
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

12

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

New Jersey: Hiring Processes, Impact 

Teams, and SafeMeasures

The New Jersey Department of Children and Families 

(DCF) takes a proactive approach to hiring by establishing 

a pool of prescreened, prequalified candidates to 

fill vacancies for entry-level case manager positions. 

Because DCF receives more than 9,000 resumes for 

the case manager positions each year, candidates are 

prioritized based on their education and experience in 

order to select those most likely to succeed in public 

child welfare. Two to three times per month, a group of 

25 to 35 candidates participates in a large-scale selection 

process called Job Fest, which consists of an overview 

of the agency, the job, and the hiring process; a realistic 

job preview video; a panel interview; a writing sample; 

and application paperwork. Candidates that successfully 

complete the Job Fest and background check processes 

are added to a hiring matrix distributed weekly to local 

offices throughout the State. Several hundred candidates 

are on the matrix at any given time, and each stays on for 

18 months. For employees who left the agency in good 

standing and want to be considered for employment 

again, a rehire list is also maintained. Managers and 

supervisors use the hiring matrix and the rehire list to 

select candidates to fill positions as vacancies occur. 

DCF also has impact teams, which consist of a supervisor 

and three workers that can be assigned to a unit or 

an office throughout the State wherever intakes are 

unusually high. Each of the nine area offices have 

an impact team to assist in maintaining caseload 

standards by taking any overflow of investigations.

Since 2006, DCF has used SafeMeasures to enhance 

caseload and workload management. SafeMeasures is 

a web-based reporting service that pulls data nightly 

from the New Jersey Statewide Protective Investigation, 

Reporting and Information Tool (NJ SPIRIT) and provides 

administrators, supervisors, workers, CQI staff, and 

Central Office staff with detailed reports and other 

performance indicators. More than 80 reports are 

available to allow quick and easy access to important 

information, such as current caseload and workload 

levels, completion of key case activities, family contacts, 

and compliance with other Federal requirements. Users 

can view the data at the statewide level or filter down 

to any level of the agency, from an area office to an 

individual caseload. Managers use SafeMeasures to track 

progress against caseload standards, direct new staff 

and supports to identified areas of need, and distribute 

cases appropriately across staff. Managers and workers 

can more efficiently manage workloads by viewing 

overdue and upcoming tasks, such as contacts, hearings, 

or case plans. SafeMeasures is available through the 

National Council on Crime & Delinquency (NCCD). 

Results: Job Fest is considered a robust and successful 

program that allows the agency to fill caseload-carrying 

positions as soon as vacancies arise. Being able to quickly 

fill positions is an important step in trying to achieve 

and maintain caseload standards. The impact teams 

are a successful strategy to balance intake operations 

and help local offices maintain caseload size. They 

have the flexibility to move quickly to an office and 

respond to new referrals and assume caseloads from 

staff who have taken emergency leave, thus ensuring 

there is no break in service for the children and families. 

Impact team members develop a strong knowledge 

base as they respond to a much larger geographical 

area, whereas staff from a local office work within a 

prescribed catchment area. The use of SafeMeasures 

allows the agency to use timely data to monitor and 

proactively manage caseloads and workload. 

For more information, contact Betsy Sunder, DCF, 

at 609.888.7000 or betsy.sunder@dcf.state.nj.us. 

Delaware: SDM, Online Reporting, 

and Supplemental Positions

For a variety of reasons, including new legislation related 

to mandatory reporting, the Delaware Division of Family 

Services (DFS) experienced a 50 percent increase in the 

volume of calls to its child abuse and neglect report 

hotline over approximately a 4-year period. In addition, 

it had an above-average percentage of cases accepted 

for investigation and a large number of unsubstantiated 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

13

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

cases. Immense resources were directed to families 

that might not require agency intervention, and those 

limited resources needed to be used more effectively. 

With the help of the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the 

NCCD’s Children’s Research Center, DFS implemented 

SDM at the hotline. SDM is an evidence- and researchbased system that includes structured assessments to 

improve the consistency and validity of case management 

decisions (NCCD, 2015). The intake assessment helps 

workers use a systematic decision process to determine 

whether a report requires an investigation and, if 

so, how soon a response should be initiated. Staff, 

supervisors, and administrators received training prior to 

implementation, and fidelity case reviews were conducted 

to address strengths and areas for improvement. 

As an additional support to hotline workers, DFS also 

has an online reporting system tool for reports that 

do not warrant an immediate screening and response. 

Reporters must answer four questions before being 

allowed to report online to determine if an immediate 

response is required. (To view the questions, visit http://

kids.delaware.gov/fs/fs_can_report.shtml.) The intent 

of the system was to reduce frustration of professional 

reporters waiting in queue due to the increased high 

call volume (Delaware Department of Services for 

Children, Youth, and Their Families [DSCYF], 2014). 

To better meet legislatively mandated caseload 

standards, DFS employs overhire workers and casual 

seasonal workers. Overhires are full-time, permanent 

positions that result from assigning two people to one 

budget position slot, which the agency is permitted to 

do for up to 15 positions. Casual seasonal workers are 

part-time, temporary positions. Both overhires and casual 

seasonal staff must complete all new worker training 

before receiving cases beyond their training cases. 

Overhire positions were created to have a pool of trained 

caseworkers ready to quickly move into vacant positions. 

To ensure their availability, overhires can only have a 

maximum of five cases once they have completed training. 

If no vacancies are imminent, they can still provide 

workload relief by assisting with certain tasks, such as 

making home visits, supervising family visits, and providing 

transportation. An employee can be in an overhire status 

for as little as a few weeks or sometimes up to 1 year. 

Casual seasonal workers provide additional support by 

managing cases in areas with high caseloads or covering 

for employees on extended medical leave. Many of the 

casual seasonal workers serve in that role for an average 

of 5 to 7 months and then move into overhire positions. 

Results: Although the number of child abuse or 

neglect reports has continued to increase, the number 

of screened-in investigations has decreased as a 

result of implementing SDM at the hotline (Delaware 

DSCYF, 2014). Moreover, the percent of screened-out 

reports with a subsequent screened-in report within 

1 year has also gone down. Although some revisions 

to the process have been made since the initial 

implementation, DFS has achieved greater consistency 

in the screening of reports. The positive experience led 

DFS to adopt the full array of SDM assessments, which 

span the case process from intake to permanency. 

The use of an online reporting process has 

helped to partially offset the increased workload 

resulting from a continued rise in call volume.

The use of overhires and casual seasonal workers has 

been an indispensable means of filling vacancies quickly, 

managing extra work, and stabilizing caseloads. Overhires 

are available to step into a position immediately when 

a worker resigns, thereby preventing the domino effect 

of turnover on caseloads. Casual seasonal workers 

provide the temporary assistance needed to successfully 

manage workload fluctuations and limit the burden on 

permanent workers when coworkers take extended leave.

For more information, contact Shirley Roberts, DFS, 

at 302.633.2601 or Shirley.Roberts@state.de.us. 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

14

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Conclusion

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to reducing and 

managing caseloads and workloads. However, there is a 

wide range of promising practices that administrators can 

choose from and tailor to meet the needs of their staff 

and agency. Additional funding or staffing can greatly 

assist agencies achieve improvements in caseloads and 

workloads, but many strategies can be implemented even 

without additional funding. Striving to ensure staff have 

manageable caseloads and workloads will help them 

better support families in achieving positive outcomes. 

Additional Resources

Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative:

Helps public child welfare agencies, Tribes, and courts 

enhance and mobilize the human and organizational 

assets necessary to meet Federal standards and 

requirements; improve child welfare practice and 

administration; and achieve safety, permanency, 

and well-being outcomes for children, youth, and 

families (https://capacity.childwelfare.gov/)

Child Welfare Information Gateway: Presents 

research, tools, and other resources that describe 

a range of topics for enhancing the child welfare 

workforce, including organizational culture, 

management, supervision, recruitment and hiring, 

and retention (https://www.childwelfare.gov/) 

 Child Welfare Staff Recruitment and Retention 

Training Discretionary Grant Cluster: Provides 

information about eight Children’s Bureau grants that 

developed and implemented comprehensive training 

curricula and models for recruiting and retaining a 

competent workforce in public child welfare agencies 

(https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/

funding/funding-sources/federal-funding/cb-funding/

cbreports/randrt/)

 Workforce: Describes workforce issues in child 

welfare, including State and local examples, such 

as organizational culture, managing the workforce, 

supervision, recruitment and hiring, and workforce 

retention (https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/

management/workforce/)

National Child Welfare Workforce Institute:

Seeks to increase child welfare practice effectiveness 

through partnerships that focus on workforce 

systems development, organizational interventions, 

and change leadership (http://www.ncwwi.org)

Acknowledgment: 

This issue brief was developed with help and 

support from Megan E. Paul, Ph.D., Research 

Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 

Center on Children, Families, and the Law.

Suggested citation: 

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016). Caseload and 

workload management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

References

American Humane Association. (2000). SB 2030 child 

welfare services workload study: Final report. 

Retrieved from www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/

res/cws/sb2030final/pdf/section5.pdf

American Public Human Services Association. (2005). 

Report from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: 

State agency findings. Washington, DC: Author.

Bernotavicz. F., & Locke, A. (2000). Hiring child welfare 

caseworkers using a competency-based approach. 

Public Personnel Management, 29, 33–42.

Bowling, N. A., Alarcon, G. M., Bragg, C. B., & 

Hartman, M. J. (2015). A meta-analytic examination 

of the potential correlates and consequences of 

workload. Work & Stress: An International Journal 

of Work, Health, & Organizations, 29, 95–113.
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

15

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Children’s Defense Fund, & Children’s Rights. (2006). 

Supporting and improving the child welfare 

workforce: A review of Program Improvement Plans 

(PIPs) and recommendations for strengthening 

the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs). 

Retrieved from www.childrensdefense.org/childresearch-data-publications/data/supporting-andimproving-the-child-welfare-workforce.pdf

Claiborne, N., Auerbach, C., Lawrence, C., McGowan, B., 

Lawson, H., McCarthy, M.,... Caringi, J. (2014). Design 

teams as an organizational intervention to improve 

job satisfaction and worker turnover in public child 

welfare. Journal of Family Strengths, 14(1), Article 12. 

Delaware Department of Services for Children, 

Youth and Their Families. (2014). Child and family 

services plan: 2014 Annual progress and services 

report. Retrieved from http://kids.delaware.

gov/pdfs_archive/fs/fs_cfsp_apsr_2014.pdf 

Deloitte Consulting. (2015). Indiana Department 

of Child Services (DCS) caseload and 

workload analysis: Final recommendations. 

Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/dcs/files/

IN_DCS_Final_Recommendations_Deliverable_v1.2.pdf 

Faller, K. C., Graberek, M., & Ortega, R. M. 

(2010). Commitment to child welfare work: 

What predicts leaving and staying? Children 

and Youth Services Review, 32, 840–846.

Farber, J., & Munson, S. (2007). Improving the child 

welfare workforce. Retrieved from http://youthlaw.org/

publication/improving-the-child-welfare-workforce/

Glisson, C. (2010). Organizational climate and 

service outcomes in child welfare settings. In M. 

B. Webb, K. L. Dowd, B. J. Harden, J. Landsverk, 

& M. Testa (Eds.), Child welfare and child wellbeing: New perspectives from the National 

Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (pp. 

380–408). New York: Oxford University Press.

Glisson, C., Dukes, D., & Green, P. (2006). The effects of 

the ARC organizational intervention on caseworker 

turnover, climate, and culture in children’s service 

systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 855–880.

Glisson, C., & Green, P. (2011). Organizational 

climate, services, and outcomes in child welfare 

systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 582–591.

Glisson, C., Green, P., & Williams, N. J. (2012). Assessing 

the Organizational Social Context (OSC) of child 

welfare systems: Implications for research and 

practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 621–632.

Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. L. (1998). The effects 

of organizational climate and interorganizational 

coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s 

service systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 401–421.

Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2002). The cross-level effects 

of culture and climate in human service teams. 

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 767–794.

Gomez, R. J., Travis, D. J., Ayers-Lopez, S., & 

Schwab, A. J. (2010). In search of innovation: 

A national qualitative analysis of child welfare 

recruitment and retention efforts. Children 

and Youth Services Review, 32, 664–671. 

Graef, M. I., Paul, M. E., & Myers, T. L. (2009). Recruiting 

and selecting child welfare staff. In F. Alwon, K. 

Greenhill, S. Steib, & B. Schmitt (Eds.), On the 

job in child welfare: Recruiting, retaining, and 

supporting a competent child welfare workforce. 

Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Graef, M. I., & Potter, M. E. (2002). Alternative 

solutions to the child protective services staffing 

crisis: Innovations from industrial/organizational 

psychology. Protecting Children, 17, 18–31.
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

16

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway. 

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/case-work-management/.

Hanna, M. D. (2009). The child welfare unit. In C. 

Potter & C. Brittain (Eds.), Supervision in child 

welfare. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (2006). Statewide 

workload study. Retrieved from http://dhss.

alaska.gov/ocs/Documents/Publications/

pdf/StatewideWorkloadStudy1.pdf

Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (2009). Child 

welfare workload study and analysis: 

Final report. Troy, NY: Author.

Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (2012). Workload 

study: Final report—September 2012. Retrieved 

from http://dhss.alaska.gov/ocs/Documents/

Publications/pdf/HZA-workload-study-2012.pdf

Jacquet, S. E., Clark, S. J., Morazes, J. L., & 

Withers, R. (2008). The role of supervision in 

the retention of public child welfare workers. 

Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1, 27–54. 

Juby, C., & Scannapieco, M. (2007). Characteristics 

of workload management in public child welfare 

agencies. Administration in Social Work, 31(3), 95–109.

Kim. H., & Kao, D. (2014). A meta-analysis of turnover 

intention predictors among U.S. child welfare workers. 

Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 214–223.

Lee, J., Rehner, T., & Forster, M. (2010). Employees’ 

intentions to remain employed in child 

welfare: Testing a conceptual model. Journal 

of Public Child Welfare, 4, 174–197.

Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing 

performance problems. Atlanta, GA: 

Center for Effective Performance.

Markowitz, T. (2015). Small moves yield big 

results. Policy & Practice, 73, 34–35. 

ICF International, & Walter R. McDonald & Associates, 

Inc. (2014). Colorado Department of Human Services: 

Colorado child welfare county workload study. 

Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.

nsf/All/E5214710B77C878487257D320050F29A/$FILE/

1354S%20-%20Colorado%20Childrens’%20Welfare%2

Workload%20Study%20Report%20August%202014.pdf

McKinsey & Company. (2008). State of Oregon 

Department of Human Services: Child welfare 

staffing study. Retrieved from http://www.

thesoutherninstitute.org/docs/publications/

ORChildWelfareStaffingStudy08.pdf

Munson, S., McCarthy, M., & Dickinson, N. (2014). 

The child welfare workforce. In G. Mallon & P. 

Hess (Eds.), Child welfare for the 21st century: A 

handbook of practices, policies, and programs (pp. 

624–642). New York: Columbia University Press.

National Council on Crime & Delinquency. 

(2015). SafeMeasures overview. Retrieved from 

http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/

files/pdf/safemeasures-overview.pdf

National Child Welfare Workforce Institute. (2010). 

Leadership academy for supervisors: Recruitment 

Strategies. Retrieved from http://www.ncwwilas.

org/msu/recruitment/presentation.html

New York State Office of Children and Family 

Services. (n.d.). Teaming. Retrieved from http://

ocfs.ny.gov/main/cfsr/teaming.asp

Owens, D. (2015, February 2). Long wait times, dropped 

calls on Pa. child abuse hotline. Retrieved from 

http://abc27.com/2015/02/02/long-wait-timesdropped-calls-on-pa-child-abuse-hotline/

Paul, M. E., Graef, M. I., Robinson, E. J., & Saathoff, 

K. I. (2009). Managing performance. In C. 
Caseload and Workload Management https://www.childwelfare.gov

Paul, M. E., Graef, M. I., Robinson, E. J., & Saathoff, 

K. I. (2009). Managing performance. In C. 

Potter & C. Brittain (Eds.), Supervision in child 

welfare. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sunset Advisory Commission. (2014). Staff report with 

commission decisions: Department of Family and 

Protective Services. Retrieved from https://www.

sunset.texas.gov/public/uploads/files/reports/

DFPS%20Commission%20Decisions.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Children’s Bureau. (2006). Summary of the results 

of the 2001–2004 Child and Family Services 

Reviews. Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/index.htm

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Children’s Bureau. (2012). 52 program 

improvement plans: Strategies for improving 

child welfare services and outcomes. Retrieved 

from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/

cb/52_program_improvement_plans.pdf

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Child welfare: 

HHS could play a greater role in helping child 

welfare agencies recruit and retain staff. Retrieved 

from www.gao.gov/new.items/d03357.pdf

Wagner, D., Johnson, K., & Healy, T. (2008). Agency 

workforce estimation: A step toward more effective 

workload management. Protecting Children, 23(3), 6–19. 

Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc., & American 

Humane Association. (2006). New York State child 

welfare workload study: Final report. Retrieved from 

www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/reports/WorkloadStudy.pdf 

Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc., & American 

Humane Association. (2007). Washington State 

Children’s Administration workload study: 

Summary report. Retrieved from https://www.dshs.

wa.gov/sites/default/files/CA/pub/documents/

WLS%20Summary%20Report%2011-2007.pdf 

Yankeelov, P. A., Barbee, A. P., Sullivan, D., & Antle, B. 

F. (2009). Individual and organizational factors in 

job retention in Kentucky’s child welfare agency. 

Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 547–554.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Administration for Children and Families 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Children’s Bureau