Committee hears calls to cap foster‑care caseloads to reduce burnout and improve outcomes

Senate Bill 183, which would limit the number of child welfare cases assigned to a single caseworker, drew hours of testimony from foster parents, former caseworkers, union representatives and county officials at a Senate Health and Human Services hearing.

Senator Melanie Scheibel, sponsor of SB 183, described the bill’s purpose as reducing caseworker burnout and ensuring children in foster care receive adequate attention and services. The bill and its conceptual amendment propose a phased approach that would limit caseloads for new hires and incrementally allow more cases for experienced staff, with a target statutory cap referenced in testimony of 30 children per worker for certain permanency caseloads.

Former Clark County Family Services caseworkers and current foster parents detailed the operational consequences of heavy caseloads. Rhonda Martinez, a former Clark County caseworker and current foster parent, recounted a foster child who sustained injuries during a period a caseworker later described as overloaded; Martinez said "a decreased caseload and increased casework experience and training will help" prevent such outcomes. Heather Richardson, a former permanency supervisor, cited research and national recommendations that suggest much lower caseloads (Child Welfare League of America guidance cited 12–15 children per worker for ongoing services) and said high turnover and delayed services have direct costs.

Union representatives and Clark County workers testified that the agency has lost staff rapidly and that turnover has shortened average experience levels. SEIU and workers described training academies for new hires (testimony estimated academy duration at roughly six to eight weeks for new Clark County hires) and said many workers leave within months. Supporters argued that lower caseloads can reduce turnover, speed permanency decisions and reduce reliance on expensive congregate care placements.

County officials said they support the policy intention but urged caution about implementation and funding. Joanna Jacob, government affairs manager for Clark County, told the committee she supports the bill’s goal but opposed the conceptual amendment as drafted; she and Washoe County staff said the counties need sustainable resources and operational flexibility. Washoe County representatives said their county is already meeting lower caseload standards in many units but warned the bill’s prescriptive language could be difficult to implement statewide without funding.

Supporters pointed to examples from other states that reported improved permanency and reduced recidivism after caseload reductions. Proponents and union leaders framed the measure as both a child‑safety and workforce‑stability reform and asked the committee to work with counties to identify funding and implementation timelines.

The committee did not vote. The sponsor said she would continue to work with counties and stakeholders to refine implementation timing, phased approaches and language about how to treat existing caseloads and sibling placements.

Why it matters: Caseworker capacity is closely linked to child welfare outcomes. Supporters argue statutory limits would improve child safety, reduce churn and save long‑term costs; counties say the policy intent is valid but that implementation requires funding and operational planning to avoid disrupting services.