Virginia

Management Methods, Staffing Levels

Description/Goal

In 1993 Virginia received a federal grant to test whether adequate staffing levels could make a significant difference in performance and productivity in a local child support office. By the end of 1998, the results in Fredericksburg, VA were clear. Increasing staff to the “optimal” level not only increased overall collections, but increased collections per employee as well. Employee satisfaction and customer happiness with the performance of Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) staff also increased during the project period.

The study design called for the study of one large and one small office of DCSE, each with a comparable control site in which staffing levels would not be changed. Fredericksburg, VA was chosen as the small office; Charlottesville, VA as the comparable control site. (The large office site, Roanoke, VA, is not discussed in this description because data analysis is not yet complete as this is written.)

The study was conducted over a three-year period in three phases: 1) a base period during which baseline performance statistics were gathered and the staffing standards analysis was conducted (7/95-5/96), 2) the staffing standards period during which 14 additional staff were added in accordance with the new standards (6/96-8/97), and 3) a post-staffing standards phase in which the new staff were terminated and additional data was gathered (9/97 - 4/98).

Virginia's contractor subcontracted to conduct a staffing standards analysis of DCSE workers using an analytical tool called the Delphi technique. This technique would allow the state to determine how many DCSE workers are needed to provide effective and efficient services at an appropriate level of quality. The accuracy and reliability of the results also could be validated statistically using this approach.

A functional team, drawn from each of the six small offices in Virginia, worked with its contractor to identify tasks done by workers in each of the following functional areas:

• Intake
• Locate
• Customer Service
• Establishment of Paternity and/or Support Obligation
• Enforcement
• Judicial Support

Questionnaires were developed for each functional area. For each task, they asked, “How much time is needed to perform this task at an acceptable level of quality (i.e., in compliance with federal regulations and state policy)?” These questionnaires were given in several rounds to experienced workers (six months or more on the job) in each area in each of DCSE's small offices.

By combining the time standards for each task with the number of times the office did each task, it was possible to calculate staffing needs by specialty. Determining optimal staffing levels for the entire office requires calculation of the numbers of managers, support staff, and fiscal staff as well. From this analysis, it was determined that the Fredericksburg office was understaffed by 33 percent. An additional 14 staff members would be needed to reach optimal staffing levels.

During the second phase of the project, 14 additional staff members were hired. The Fredericksburg office decided to use the additional staff - who were expected to be temporary only - first to assist in conducting a strategic review of the entire caseload of the office. Such a thorough caseload review had not been done since 1986. The review made it possible to eliminate many duplicate cases, to close cases which should have been closed earlier, and to ensure that all cases included in the caseload were ready to be worked.

After completion of the strategic review of the caseload, the new staff members were assigned to help experienced workers in their specialty areas. They did the more routine tasks, freeing the experienced workers to focus on more complex duties.

At the conclusion of 15 months, the new staff were terminated and the Fredericksburg office returned to its previous staffing level.

Results

Initially, as would be expected with the addition of new and inexperienced staff, collections per worker declined in the Fredericksburg office in comparison with collections per worker in Charlottesville. It took 13 months until the collections per worker in Fredericksburg began to exceed those in Charlottesville. At that point they began to exceed both prior collections per worker levels in Fredericksburg and simultaneous collections per worker in Charlottesville. Collections per worker (including the 14 new staff) increased modestly by the end of August 1997. It was expected that increase would have continued had it been possible to retain those workers.

The productivity increases were dramatic for the remaining staff after the new staff departed. These increases reflected the results of activities carried out during the optimal staffing period. Collections per remaining employee per month increased by 62 percent over the base period. Wage withholdings per remaining employee increased an average of 29 percent, locates, 72 percent, and paternity establishments, 87 percent.

Total collections increased by $1.08 million. Net dollar benefits/ dollar costs increased by $1.80 for every dollar expended.

In addition, employee satisfaction increased by 19 percent. Customer perceptions of employee performance increased as follows: perception of staff courtesy increased by 14 percent, of staff helpfulness increased by 21 percent, and of case timeliness increased by 37 percent.

Location

The small office portion of this project was conducted in Fredericksburg, VA, a small city. The control site was in Charlottesville, VA, another small city.

Funding

$935,000 was received in demonstration project grant funds from OCSE over the three year period of the study. Those funds were used as the state match for additional IV-D funds during the project.

Replication Advice

Assigning the additional personnel to strategically review cases and otherwise assist specialty workers - versus assigning them their own caseloads initially - had a powerful impact on increasing most measures of performance and productivity and is recommended to others. Had it been possible to retain those workers, managers believe they would have been prepared to move into responsibility for a full caseload at that point.

While the staffing standards analysis was both costly and time-consuming, the time standards developed in this study are available to other states, who may wish to make use of them in their own staffing decisions. (Virginia is a state-administered state which makes substantial use of administrative processes.) States should expect an eight- to twelve-month lag time before significant performance gains are experienced.