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

1. “MEASURING WORKLOAD IN CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES”Tools That Work ConferenceCWLANovember 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 children’s aid societies (CASs) • Child Welfare Budget= $974 million (59%+) • # of children in care=18,040 (47%+) • # of child protection staff=7,401 (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: where benchmarks existed, indicated actual amounts of time required is higher than funding formulai.e. Report Received No Further Investigation Required Investigation Protection Services Results: provided time required in areas where no benchmarks existede.g. Admission to Care Foster Care Evaluation Adoption Matching / Placement RESULTSProtection, Children in Care, Resources

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 (gov’t) 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. Example:Court 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@jfandcs.com) Deborah Goodman, MSW,PH.D. (dgoodman@TorontoCAS.ca)