Hello,
I’m a welfare rights worker with the Action Group in Edinburgh. We are going through the Scottish National Standards for Information and Advice Providers at the moment, and are trying to decide on what would constitute a reasonable caseload (ie number of active cases per worker) for our welfare rights workers. We work with people with learning disabilities and support needs, and a high proportion of our enquiries result in representation at tribunal level. We also do a lot of home visits, within a wide geographical area.
Does anyone have any information regarding how to calculate this (as there is for Money Advice) or any example of how you have worked it out within your own agency?
Thanks for your time
Jon Shaw

Hi Jon

We are currently working to 60 live cases per full time worker and 30 per time worker, this seems to be working well. We carry out a lot of appeals do homevisits, advice line, attend local and national forums etc. This was bought in as a trial by management and is working well.

60.... nice. Means I can ask my manager to recruit another 1/2 a worker to deal with the other half of my caseload.

It is very difficult to come up with a number (although 60 does sound reasonable to me) because there are so many variables. These include case type, client profile, and office/admin procdures. For example, a caseworker who closes files promptly might appear to have a lighter caseload that someone who doesn't. Likewise, caseloads can "snowball" if a caseworker doesn't have the time to close files. A debt caseworker from another organisation told me some years ago that she had 300 open files - in reality maybe 200 that were dormant but hadn't been formally closed(?) Like I say 60 complex/ongoing cases (i.e. appeals, revisions, TC overpayments etc) sounds about right to me. Matthew (a manager!)

Thanks for the replies, all.
I'll feed it back to the team, and see where we get to.
Jon.

60???? I take it you only work Monday and Tuesday??

Well put Neil - subtle but to the point ...these youngsters don't know how good they've got it - computers and Rightnet - and they even get paid for swanning off to the sin pots of Bridlington or where-ever - ahhhh, the days of the quill pen, scratching away from dawn to dusk, (and it's owner as likely as not)- when the air was heavily scented with the smell of the tallow candle, and when the serfs knew their place: they also knew their place in the pecking order and what a forelock was and when to touch it in deference - all this equality and fraternity etc... that's what ruined Rome in the end - they let in all those Vandels and Goths and lord knows what else.......

I agree with dbcwru - it depends on a number of factors. The original poster mentioned a lof of home visits, and this would probably significantly reduce the available casework time - especially if a lot of clients live in rural areas.

It also depends on the type of cases you're predominantly involved in. A high caseload of, say 60, might be OK if your office bound and have mostly DLA/PCA type cases where the work comes in predictable 'chunks' with long gaps between them. If however, you deal mostly with client's with multiple complex problems (e.g. CTC/WTC/HB+CTB) and who are in immediate poverty, the drain of each case on a caseworkers time will be much greater thereby reducing the overall caseload.

Similarly, if your caseworkers also do generalist type advice, this will reduce the available case work time.

Previous comments about the efficiency of caseworkers are also highly relevant (in terms of when cases are closed) as are the extent of each caseworkers knowledge and experience and their approach to client (e.g. those who tend towards empowering clients will, IMO, have a smaller live caseload, whilst still producing the same output).

For us, we have an ideal number of 30 cases per caseworker for benefit cases - although its usually more, and 60 is not unheard of.

I also think that the health and safety of WRW is often forgotten in these issues and many advisers are not provided with an adequate level of support. I have known of several caseworkers that have, for example, received Occupational health assessments due to stress-related time off work. Stress factors include the fact that we deal with very significantly disadvangtaged people who are very often victims of injustice and suffering from worsening health problems, mental illness and poverty. Add to that those who are suffering from life threatening illness and are dying, and you create recipe for stress at work. This is even before you add on the stress of dealing with the social policy side of things (repeatedly slamming one's head against the same brick wall!).

For what it's worth - I think 60 is far too many for a live caseload unless you spend your 37 weekly working hours at your desk or seeing existing clients or new ones that have been referred only. If time is spent away from the desk on other activities such as open door advice sessions or home visits, the live caseload should be reduced proportionately.

Finally, the question of quality versus quantity creeps in. Those caseworkers who manage cases much more thoroughly than others and also deal with related issues, such as debt and housing, will tend to have smaller live caseloads. But those same caseworkers will perhaps contribute significantly more to the benefits for clients and the financial gains statistics.

Tony,

not a manager!