Structured Case Recording in Child Welfare: An Assessment of Social Workers' Reactions

Recording in child welfare traditionally that are redundant and irrelevant to their has taken the form of a chronological narprovision of service to clients, rative. Structured records, however, The authors conducted a secondary specify types of information to be includanalysis of data originally collected 6 ed and require line workers to record years earlier as part of a larger evaluation case information under established of the implementation of the UCR system categories. Examples of structured in New York State (Edwards M Kane, evidenced by the recent mandating of 1974; Weed, 1969); the structured such systems in several states (Streat, clinical record (Videka-Sherman & Reid, 1987), and because little information ex 1985); the chronolog (Kagle, 1984); and ists about workers' experiences with the Uniform Case Record (UCR) (Weisuch systems, the data analyzed in the fare Research Institute, 1982). study are instructive despite the fact that Advocates of structured records argue the data are not more current, that they have several advantages (Reid The study's focus was on line workers' & Smith, 1981; Streat, 1987; Videkaevaluations of a structured record used in Sherman & Reid, 1985). Structured child welfare agencies to learn how line records organize case data in a manner workers assessed the utility of this kind of that permits users to locate needed inforrecord as a tool for providing services to mation quickly. The information obchildren and their families. The authors tained is more likely to be pertinent and also wanted to learn whetherworkers' ap omissions are less likely to occur. In adpraisals of the structured record varied dition, the structured, compact organizaaccording to such factors as job position, tion of data facilitates processing for size of caseload, or time demands per computerized information systems (Mutceived as the result of recording, schler & Hasenfeld, 1986). Structured The perspective of line workers is records also provide a means for ensurcritical to an evaluation of structured ing line worker accountability in carryrecords for at least three reasons. First, ing out service requirements. because structured records tend to be However, structured records also have designed for management needs, learn limitations (Beinecke, 1984; Reid, 1978). ing whether they also serve the needs of They impose a fixed structure that may line workers who are the direct service not allow for the variety of case situations providers is important. Second, as com and that may result in information that pilers of the case records, line workers is superficial and inadequately detailed, are in a unique position to assess the Such records also may reduce line usefulness and quality of the information worker autonomy and flexibility, which obtained. Third, regardless of the value not only may lead to a reduction in the of the information for service and quality of the data obtained but also may managerial purposes, the monetary and engender worker frustration and resentpsychological costs of recording (such as ment. Further, workers sometimes comtime spent and dissatisfaction) are impor plain that structured records require tant factors that cannot be assessed ade them to engage in recording activities quately without input from line workers. Line social workers' assessments of one structured recording format (UCR) were examined. A format that has been used widely in child welfare agencies throughout New York state since 1981, UCR is an outgrowth of New York's Child Welfare Reform Act of 1979 (CWRA), which was a precursor to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272). UCR established recording guidelines to ensur hat practices of line social workers reflected the CWRA philosophy of prevention and permanency planning. The record for each case included eight to 10 pages of forms that required nar rative recording and several additional pages of checklists. Line social workers were required to perform specific ac tivities nd to complete various reviews and reports at intervals of 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.