Overview
During our audit period, the Department of Youth Services (DYS) had not established a maximum caseworker caseload threshold to use to monitor caseworkers’ caseloads to ensure that caseworkers could meet all of their responsibilities for supervising youths. As a result, 28 of the 93 caseworkers who worked at DYS during the audit period were at times assigned numbers of cases that exceeded the maximum 15 cases caseworkers should manage. Twenty-six of these 28 caseworkers each managed more than 15 cases for 1 to 12 months, and 2 caseworkers each managed more than 15 cases for 13 to 24 months. One of the 28 caseworkers was assigned to many as 33 cases at one time during the audit period. Excessive caseworker caseloads can result in poor-quality services.
Authoritative Guidance
DYS officials told us that 12 to 15 cases per caseworker was a reasonable caseload for its caseworkers.
Reasons for Issue
DYS did not have any written policies or procedures including a monitoring component for caseworker caseloads.
Recommendation
DYS should establish written policies and procedures for assigning, managing, and monitoring caseworker caseloads that ensure that, to the extent possible, its caseworkers manage 12 to 15 cases at a time.
Auditee’s Response
DYS does not agree with this finding. DYS prioritizes ensuring manageable caseloads for its caseworkers. DYS recognizes that manageable caseloads allow caseworkers to effectively support each youth on their caseload, connect them with necessary services and manage their risks and needs to allow for both a smooth transition into the community and effective support and supervision of the youth while in the community.
Currently, DYS caseworkers have an average caseload of 8 youth. During the Audit period, DYS caseworkers had an average caseload of 5–7 youth. While there were times during the Audit period where 18 of 93 DYS caseworkers did have a caseload of more than 15 youths, this was generally due to short periods of case reassignments where a caseworker was covering for another caseworker during vacation. [DYS data shows only 18 caseworkers had caseloads of more than 15 youth during the audit period, not 28. DYS was unable to verify the data the Auditor believes shows 28 caseworkers had caseloads over 15 youth. DYS has requested the data on multiple occasions to support the Office of the State Auditor’s findings, but it has not been provided.] This accounts for fewer than 20% of caseworkers for a temporary period of time. DYS has determined this is the most effective approach to cover for staff vacations and maintain continuous access to case management for all DYS youth who receive case management.
The Auditor maintains that DYS caseworkers should have a caseload of no more than 15:1. Although DYS generally meets—and indeed generally exceeds this standard—DYS wants to point out that there is no recognized best practice standard for juvenile justice caseworker caseloads.
Auditor’s Reply
DYS states that it “prioritizes ensuring manageable caseloads for its caseworkers.” However, we question this assertion because, during our audit, we found that DYS did not routinely monitor all caseworker caseloads and had not established a maximum caseload threshold for its caseworkers. In the Office of the State Auditor’s (OSA’s) opinion, these actions would be essential components of ensuring manageable caseloads for its caseworkers.
DYS asserts in its response that during the audit period its “caseworkers had an average caseload of 5–7 youth.” However, DYS also states that during the audit period, 18 of its 93 caseworkers had caseloads of more than 15 youths, generally for short periods while one caseworker covered for another. OSA cannot comment on the accuracy of DYS’s calculation because our testing in this area did not involve calculating an average caseload for caseworkers. Simply calculating an average caseload amount for all caseworkers during the audit period would not have been useful to OSA in assessing DYS’s caseworker caseload management, because it would not enable us to identify any issues (e.g., significant increases in caseloads for extended periods) that might have occurred during the audit period. Our analysis involved determining the actual number of youths assigned to each caseworker during each month of our audit period. In performing our analysis, we excluded all instances where we determined that a youth was temporarily reassigned from one caseworker to another, or assigned to a caseworker for two weeks or less, during any month of the audit period. As noted above, 26 caseworkers each managed more than 15 cases for 1 to 12 months, and 2 caseworkers each managed more than 15 cases for 13 to 24 months.
In its response, DYS asserts that OSA did not give it the data we used to support our audit findings. This is inaccurate. During our audit, we gave DYS the list of caseworkers who exceeded the recommended caseload amounts, as well as the methodology for our analysis.
As mentioned above, DYS had not established any caseload standards for its caseworkers that we could use in our testing; therefore, we asked DYS officials what they believed was a reasonable caseload for its caseworkers. In response, they told us that 12 to 15 cases per caseworker was a reasonable range. This is the range we used in our analysis.
| Date published: | March 14, 2022 |
|---|