ATTORNEY

GENERAL

GREG

ABBOTT

needs your help
locating Child Sup-
port Evader Stephen
Zygaj, one of the
Most Wanted Child
Support Evaders in
Texas. Zygaj, who
was added to the
Child Support Evader list in September
2007, owes $40,930 for the care of a
9-year-old son in Michigan.
In 2002, Zygaj was ordered to pay
$181 a week in child support. Zygaj did
not follow the court’s order to support
his child fi nancially. By 2004, he owed
more than $10,000.
After being given many opportunities
to catch up on his payments, an arrest
warrant was issued in April 2006 when
Zygaj failed to appear at a court hearing
to address his noncompliance.
Zygaj was released after serving fi ve
days in jail on the condition that he
participate in a Bexar County program
that provides job assistance and training
to parents who are delinquent in their
child support payments. Zygaj, who
by this time owed more than $30,000,
did not show up for his scheduled
appointment or appear at subsequent
enforcement hearings. He now is
wanted on a $6,000 cash bond that
when paid will go to the mother and
child who are owed the support.
Zygaj has not made a child support
payment in two years. By refusing
to provide the fi nancial resources his
son needs, Zygaj has turned his back
on his child and violated the law.
A combination of missed payments
and interest that accrues on unpaid
child support adds up to more that
$40,000 in unpaid child support that
Zygaj owes.
Investigators from the Attorney
General’s Offi ce have searched the
state for Zygaj. He is believed to be
living in the San Antonio area. He may
be working for cash or self-employed
to avoid garnishment of wages to pay
child support. Contact the Attorney
General’s Offi ce at 866-EVADERS
(382-3377) to report information that
may lead to the arrest of Stephen
Zygaj.
Last Address ……. San Antonio, TX
Occupation ………. General Laborer
Born …………………. 1/3/69
Height ………………. 5’8”
Weight ……………… 140 lbs.
Color of Eyes …….. Brown
Color of Hair …….. Brown
Race …………………. Caucasian
Tatoos ……………… Wolf, Pink
Panther, and Tazmanian Devil
holding a beer mug on arms
The Child Support Evaders are
selected because they have the ability
to take responsibility for their chil-
dren, but refuse to do so. Incarceration
is the only option for parents who
fl agrantly ignore a court’s order to pay
child support. The Attorney General’s
Offi ce helps parents who lack the
ability to pay child support by referring
them to job training and employment
services. Visit the agency’s Web site
www.oag.state.tx.us to fi nd out about
other Child Support Evaders, and to
obtain information about the Attorney
General’s Child Support Division.

MOST WANTED

EVADERS
For a parent to be named as a Most Wanted
Child Support Evader:
• Court-ordered delinquent support
must be in excess of $5,000
• Arrest warrant must have been issued
for
non-support
• Location of non-custodial parent
is
unknown
• Parent has not made any payments
in the last six months
• Non-custodial parent must not be
involved in bankruptcy proceedings
• Non-custodial parent must not be
receiving welfare benefi ts
In order to make child support information
public, the custodial parent must sign a
confi dentiality waiver.
(866)-EVADERS (382-3377)
www.oag.state.tx.us

POINTS

TO

REMEMBER
CHILD

SUPPORT

EVADER
STEPHEN

ZYGAJ
by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott

Education, Training & Licenses:
After graduation from Southwest High School in Fort Worth,
Mark attended Louisiana Tech University on a baseball
scholarship. He holds the following licenses: Master
TCLEOSE, TCLEOSE Instructor, National Academy for
Professional Drivers Instructor, and is certified by the Drug
Enforcement Administration as an undercover Narcotics Officer.

Employment Background & Experience:
During his tenure with the City of Euless, Mark has worked in
the patrol division serving as a patrol officer, bike officer, and a
field training officer. He served three years in the Drug
Enforcement Administration task force as an undercover
narcotics officer and three years in the criminal investigations
unit as a financial crimes detective. The last four years, Mark
has been a patrol supervisor and currently works in the Criminal
Investigations Division in the Special Crimes Unit.

Awards, Recognition, Associations, & Personal Data:
Mark is a member of the Fraud Investigators Association of
Texas. He is Ex-Vice President of the Euless Peace Officer
Association and is the Co-Founder and President of “The
Richard Martinez Cancer Fund”, a 501(c)(3)

non-profit
organization who assists Law Enforcement Officers financially
while they are battling cancer. In two years, they have raised
over $75,000. In his fifteen years with the Euless Police
Department, Mark has received the Officer of the Year award,
Blackie Sustaire award, and a Life-Saving award. Mark spends
all his spare time with his family.

FIFTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE
MARK HARRIS – January 1997
Senior Corporal – Police Department

Texas Direct Service Workforce Initiative

Stakeholder Recommendations to
Improve Recruitment, Retention, and the
Perceived Status of Paraprofessional
Direct Service Workers in Texas

Prepared by

Elyse L. Luke, MSPH
Research Specialist
Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services

On Behalf of
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
June 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………. iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………………. v

BACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Who are direct service workers and what do they do?………………………………………………………………………….. 1

Overview of the DSW……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Why is there concern regarding the paraprofessional DSW? ………………………………………………………………… 3

Demographic changes in the United States and the impact on recruiting direct service workers ……………….. 4

DSW vacancy and turnover rates ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

DSW turnover impacts paraprofessional direct service workers, LTSS consumers, and provider agencies….. 5

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

What Texas is doing to address challenges to recruit and retain a paraprofessional DSW………………………… 5

The Texas DSW Initiative………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Goal of the Texas DSW Initiative……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Scope of the Texas DSW Initiative ……………………………………………………………………………………… 6

DATA COLLECTION …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

Texas DSW Stakeholder Forum – November 2006……………………………………………………………………………….. 7

Texas DSW Stakeholder Focus Group Discussions – July 2007 …………………………………………………………….. 8

DATA ANALYSIS …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9

FINDINGS – STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………….. 9

SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

Stakeholders recommend creating a quality job for direct service workers……………………………………………. 26

OUTCOMES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

NEXT STEPS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27

ACRONYMS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29

ENDNOTES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30

APPENDIX A. EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE ESTIMATES FOR DIRECT
SERVICE WORKERS, AND ALL OCCUPATIONS IN TEXAS AND THE
UNITED STATES, MAY 2006 ……………………………………………………………………………….. 32

APPENDIX B. WAGE INFORMATION FOR TEXAS ………………………………………….. 33

APPENDIX C. DSW FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS……………………………………………… 34

APPENDIX D. COMPARISON OF TEXAS STAKEHOLDER
RECOMMENDATIONS WITH “THE NINE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A
QUALITY JOB.”
12
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Stakeholder recommendations to improve recruitment, retention, and the
perceived status of paraprofessional direct service workers in Texas ………………. vi
Table 2. Focus group participants by stakeholder group ………………………………………………… 9
Table 3-1. Compensation – Offer direct service workers a livable wage and adopt
measures to ensure investment in the DSW………………………………………………… 11
Table 3-2. Compensation – Offer direct service workers benefits………………………………….. 12
Table 3-3. Compensation – Offer direct service workers 40 hours work per week…………… 13
Table 4-1. Opportunity – Offer direct service workers training……………………………………… 14
Table 4-2. Opportunity – Make training accessible to direct service workers………………….. 15
Table 4-3. Opportunity – Employ effective recruitment strategies including involving
direct service workers in the development of Best Practices and targeted
recruitment …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
Table 4-4. Opportunity – Improve stakeholder collaboration to address DSW issues……….. 17
Table 4-5. Opportunity – Offer direct service workers a career ladder…………………………… 18
Table 5-1. Support – Create networking and mentor opportunities for direct service
workers………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Table 5-2. Support – Establish direct service worker job standards ……………………………….. 20
Table 5-3. Support – Provide realistic job preview for potential direct service workers……. 21
Table 5-4. Support – Recognize and reward the contributions of paraprofessional direct
service workers ………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
Table 5-5. Support – Improve direct service worker-consumer match ……………………………. 24
Table 5-6. Support – Improve oversight of the DSW……………………………………………………. 25

iii

Acknowledgements

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) would like to thank everyone
who helped with the Texas Direct Service Workforce (DSW) Initiative. In addition to state
agency partners including the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Department of
Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, and the Texas Workforce Commission, DADS would also
like to thank our community partners and consumers who helped to plan and carry out the 5
stakeholder meetings we held for this Initiative. DADS would especially like to thank each
stakeholder who participated in the November 2006 DSW Forum or one of the focus group
discussions which were held in El Paso, Houston, Progreso, and San Angelo. This report would
not have been possible without you.

This initiative and report were developed with the support of technical assistance provided to the
Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) through the Direct Service Workforce Resource Center. However,
this report is not a product of CMS and should not be interpreted as representing its views or
policies. The contents of this report also do not necessarily represent the policy of or
endorsement by the Texas HHSC or the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services.
Please include this disclaimer whenever copying or using any part of this documentation in
dissemination activities.

iv

Executive Summary

Background of the Paraprofessional Direct Service Workforce

The Direct Service Workforce (DSW) plays a critical role in the lives of older Americans and
Americans who have disabilities because these workers provide the hands-on long-term services
and supports (LTSS) older individuals and individuals with disabilities rely on each day.
However, low wages, part-time hours, and lack of benefits, training opportunities, supervision,
recognition, and respect have made recruiting and retaining a stable DSW in the United States
and Texas a challenge. Already high DSW vacancy and turnover rates coupled with America’s
aging population will further increase demand for a stable paraprofessional DSW.

Introduction to the Texas DSW Initiative

To address DSW issues in Texas, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC)
applied for and received an individualized intensive technical assistance grant from the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National DSW Resource Center in Fiscal Year (FY)
2006. Texas was one of five states to receive the first group of grants the newly-formed National
DSW Resource Center awarded. The one-year grant was for technical assistance only; no funds
accompanied the grant. HHSC delegated daily management and completion of the Initiative to
the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS).

The National DSW Resource Center provided technical assistance to help DADS develop and
complete the Texas DSW Initiative. The purpose of the Initiative was to identify both barriers
and potential solutions to improving turnover of the paraprofessional DSW in Texas. The Texas
Promoting Independence Advisory Committee (PIAC) appointed a subcommittee – the DSW
Advisory Committee (DSWAC) – to advise the DSW Initiative and charged DSWAC to bring
back to PIAC recommendations for reducing turnover and improving recruitment and retention.

Methods

Data Collection

In FY 2006, DADS undertook two major data collection activities to obtain stakeholder input on
DSW issues. DADS prepared a series of questions, assembled key stakeholder groups, and
asked them to respond and comment on issues related to recruitment, training, retention, and the
perceived status of paraprofessional direct service workers in Texas.

The first data collection activity was a DSW Stakeholder Forum which was held in Austin, Texas
in November 2006. The Forum brought together national DSW experts, lead state agency
representatives, service providers/employers, community groups, advocates, direct service
workers, and consumers. Approximately 130 stakeholders participated in the Forum.

Following the 2006 meeting, DADS sent participants a survey and asked for feedback regarding
the DSW forum and recommendations regarding potential next steps. Participants suggested that

v

DADS conduct additional DSW forums and obtain input from stakeholders across the state, not
just the Austin-metro area. DSWAC agreed.

Therefore, the second activity was a series of four small focus group discussions which were
held across the state in July 2007 – one each in El Paso, Houston, Progreso, and San Angelo. To
ensure that different stakeholder perspectives were represented, DADS invited at least one (or at
most two) individuals from each stakeholder group listed above. One state legislator and a staff
member of another state legislator also participated in one of the focus group discussions. Fifty-
four stakeholders participated in the series of focus group discussions.

Data Analysis

Since DADS recorded and took detailed notes during the series of focus group discussions,
DADS decided to analyze the focus group data first. Qualitative analysis involved reviewing
notes and direct stakeholder quotes from each discussion group. Analysis of the data revealed
several common themes. Representative quotes from stakeholders were used as evidence to
support each theme. Review of the notes from the 2006 DSW Stakeholder Forum did not yield
additional themes but did yield additional quotes stakeholders made to support each theme.

Findings

Analysis of the data resulted in three major themes; stakeholders recommended offering direct
service workers: (1) compensation, (2) opportunity, and (3) support. These three broad themes
were further categorized into 14 key recommendations to improve recruitment, retention, and the
perceived status of paraprofessional direct service workers in Texas. Specific stakeholder
recommendations address wages, benefits, work schedules, training, targeted recruitment,
stakeholder collaboration, a career ladder for workers, networking and mentor opportunities, job
standards, a realistic job preview for potential workers, recognition, improved worker-consumer
matches, and oversight of the workforce (
Table 1
).

Table 1 – Stakeholder recommendations to improve recruitment, retention, and the
perceived status of paraprofessional direct service workers in Texas

Compensation

1.

Offer direct service workers a livable wage and adopt measures to ensure investment
in the DSW
2.

Offer direct service workers benefits
3.

Offer direct service workers 40 hours work per week

Opportunity

4.

Offer direct service workers training
5.

Make training accessible to direct service workers
6.

Employ effective recruitment strategies including involving direct service workers in
the development of Best Practices and targeted recruitment

vi

7.

Improve stakeholder collaboration to address DSW issues
8.

Offer direct service workers a career ladder

Support

9.

Create networking and mentor opportunities for direct service workers
10.

Establish direct service worker job standards
11.

Provide realistic job preview for potential direct service workers
12.

Recognize and reward the contributions of paraprofessional direct service workers
13.

Improve direct service worker-consumer match
14.

Improve oversight of the DSW

Summary

To address DSW issues in Texas, stakeholders recommend offering paraprofessional direct
service workers compensation, opportunity, and support. Specifically, stakeholders
recommend improving wages, benefits, work schedules, recruitment strategies, stakeholder
collaboration, realistic job previews, worker recognition, worker-consumer matches, and
oversight of the workforce. They also recommend offering workers training, a career ladder,
networking and mentor opportunities, and suggest that job standards be developed. In
summary, to improve recruitment, retention, and the perceived status of the paraprofessional
DSW in Texas, stakeholders recommend improving job quality for paraprofessional direct
service workers.

Outcomes

Carrying out the Texas DSW Initiative resulted in a number of beneficial outcomes including
but not limited to the following:

1.

The Texas Initiative raised awareness of DSW issues at the state, regional, and local
level
;

2.

Since various stakeholder groups participated in the Initiative, many different
stakeholder perspectives are represented
;

3.

Stakeholders made specific, actionable recommendations
to address DSW issues in
Texas;

4.

Since stakeholders identified potential solutions which are already described in the
literature, Texas will benefit by learning from best practices and strategies which
have already been tried and described
by other states;

5.

Since focus group discussions were held with various geographic, socioeconomic, and
cultural population groups across the state, stakeholder recommendations can be
generalized to the areas included in the Initiative, not just to the Austin-metro area
;

vii

viii
6.

The Texas DSW Initiative helped bring stakeholder groups together, in some cases for
the first time, not only to discuss DSW issues but also to talk about ways they could work
together. During the course of carrying out this Initiative, DADS observed stakeholders
unanimously acknowledge the need to work together to address DSW issues in
Texas
.

Next Steps

The Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute (PHI) suggests that the challenge and crisis to
recruit LTSS workers will be present for the next 20 years.
1
In general, with respect to next
steps, PHI emphasizes the importance of finding one critical place to start – a place where
some real and immediate gain can be anticipated and a place from which a long-term strategy
can be built. PHI suggests not being discouraged if first attempts do not entirely fix the
problem and instead recommends that those efforts be strengthened before moving to the
next level of interventions. They further suggest that first-stage interventions be targeted at
improving jobs for direct care workers, recognizing and rewarding workers, and building
support mechanisms for low-wage workers.
1

DADS presented the recommendations stakeholders made to DSWAC in January 2008.
DSWAC prioritized and then selected six of the 14 stakeholder recommendations and
submitted them to PIAC for consideration. PIAC committed to reviewing the remaining
eight stakeholder recommendations in addition to the six priority recommendations in
PIAC’s report to HHSC Executive Commissioner, Albert Hawkins.

In September 2007, at the conclusion of the one-year technical assistance award, DADS
asked the National DSW Resource Center and PHI to: (1) examine the recommendations
stakeholders made from the Texas DSW Initiative; (2) search PHI’s database and identify
strategies and best practices relevant to the recommendations made by stakeholders; and (3)
develop a report with details regarding interventions, strategies, and best practices relevant to
recommendations from the Texas DSW Initiative.

In November 2007, PHI sent DADS a Resource Guide which included information regarding
strategies and interventions to address DSW issues. The guide included specific information
regarding in which state the intervention was being implemented; a brief description of the
intervention; allocated resources (if known); outcomes (if known); and contact information
for staff associated with each intervention. DADS plans to review each intervention included
in the Resource Guide, determine its relevance to the Texas DSW Initiative, and report its
findings in a future report.

Texas Direct Service Workforce Initiative

Background

Who are direct service workers and what do they do?

Paraprofessional direct service workers provide an estimated 70 to 80 percent of the paid hands-
on LTSS received by Americans who are elderly or living with disabilities or other chronic
conditions.
2
Among other daily tasks, these workers help consumers bathe, dress, and eat.
Direct service workers are critically important to older Texans and Texans with disabilities who
want to live at home or in their community.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that there are 269,950 paraprofessional direct
service workers in Texas and nearly 2.9 million paraprofessional direct service workers in the
United States (
Appendix A
). They work with some of the most vulnerable members of the
community and their work is physically, mentally, and emotionally demanding.
3

Paraprofessional direct service workers fall into one of three categories, nursing assistants, home
health aides, and personal and home care aides
4
:

•

Nursing Assistants (usually known as certified nursing assistants or CNAs), most often work
in nursing homes but are also employed in assisted living facilities, other community-based
settings, and hospitals. They assist residents with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as
bathing, dressing, transferring, toileting, eating, and walking. They also perform clinical
tasks such as range-of-motion exercises and blood pressure readings, and in some states may
administer oral medications.

•

Home Health Aides also provide assistance with ADLs, but they assist people in their own
homes or in other community-based settings. They may also perform instrumental activities
of daily living (IADL) which include light housekeeping tasks, preparing food, taking
medications, shopping, using the telephone, and money management.

•

Personal and Home Care Aides may work in a consumer’s home or a group home setting.
This category of workers has many titles including Personal Care Attendant, Personal
Assistant, and Direct Support Professional (the latter work with people who have
intellectual/developmental disabilities [ID/DD]). In addition to providing assistance with
ADLs and IADLs, these workers also help individuals in home- and other community-based
settings (HCBS) with employment and transportation support. Because of the consumer-
directed services (CDS) option, a growing number of personal assistance workers are
employed and supervised directly by consumers rather than being employed by a service
provider agency.

1

Overview of the DSW

The Direct Care Worker at a Glance – A National Perspective

Gender

9 out of 10 direct-care workers are women.
4, 5

Age The average age of workers in nursing homes is 37. The average age of
workers in home care is 41.
4, 5

Race/Ethnicity Slightly more than 50% of direct care workers are white and non-Hispanic.
About 33% are African American; the remainder are Hispanic and other
ethnicities.
4, 5

Marital Status
and Children
25% of direct care workers in home care and nearly 33% of those in
nursing homes are unmarried and living with children, compared to 11%
of the total United States workforce.
4, 5

Education 41% of direct care workers in home care and 50% of those in nursing
homes completed their formal education with a high school diploma or a
GED. Another 38% of those in home care and 27% of those in nursing
homes attended college.
4, 5

Immigration While the vast majority of direct care workers are United States natives,
24% of home care aides and 14% of aides working in nursing homes are
foreign-born.
5, 6

Income Median hourly wage estimates vary by category; in general, the estimated
median hourly wage for direct service workers in the United States is
higher than for direct service workers in Texas (
Appendix A
).

The median
hourly wage for Personal and Home Care Aides ($6.41) and Home Health
Aides ($7.17) in Texas is lower than the living wage for one adult in Texas
($7.45) (
Appendix B
).

2

Why is there concern regarding the paraprofessional DSW?

A 2005 national survey reported that since its first national survey in 1999, vacancies of direct
care workers continues to be a serious workforce issue for most states.
7
The concern regarding
the DSW is that in addition to current vacancy and turnover rates, as America’s population ages,
the demand for direct service workers will outpace the available supply of workers. And,
without an adequate workforce of direct service workers, aging Americans and Americans with
disabilities will not have the LTSS they need to live at home or in their community. According
to The Aspen Institute (2001), three key reasons for high vacancy and turnover rates among
direct-service positions include
2
:

1.

“The quality of direct-care jobs tends to be extremely poor”
– low wages, few
benefits, part-time hours, poor supportive supervision, and not being recognized as part
of the health care team.

2.

“The full employment economy offers better job alternatives”
– Clerical and food-
counter positions offer jobs that have less risk for injury, are less demanding than direct-
care health positions are, and pay as well or better than direct-care jobs.

3.

“Post-Baby Boom demographics in the United States have created a ‘care gap’ that
will worsen over the next 30 years”
– The “care gap” is the result of post-Baby Boom
demographics in the United States. While the number of people requiring
paraprofessional care is growing, the population of people who traditionally provide
LTSS – primarily women between the ages of 25 and 54 – will not be able to keep pace
(
Figure 1
).

The ever-expanding demand for greater health and personal care services is associated with
several factors, including medical advances that allow people with chronic illnesses and
disabilities to live longer, technology that helps individuals with complex needs to live in HCBS,
and most of all, a growing elderly population. At the same time, a smaller cohort following the
Baby Boom cohort will yield relatively fewer workers available for care giving tasks.
1, 8

The “care gap” will not only place pressure on the formal, paid health care delivery system but
will also place pressure on family caregivers. And, since women provide the majority of both
paid direct care services and (informal) family care, when families turn to the formal system for
services and supports for their loved one they will find relatively fewer paid staff available,
because women who could provide paid care services will likely be caring for their own aging
family member.
2

3

Demographic changes in the United States and the impact on recruiting direct
service workers

Demographic changes in the United
States will contribute to the already
difficult challenge of recruiting and
retaining direct service workers.
Figure 1 illustrates the number of
women in the civilian work force
between the ages of 25 and 44 from
1968 to 2000.
1
This work force
constituted the traditional source of
entry-level direct care staff which
tripled from 10 million women in
1968 to more than 30 million women
in 2000. In the 1980s, nearly 10
million workers from this cohort
entered the labor force. However,
the United States Department of
Labor predicts that from 2000-2010,
this traditional source of workers will
only grow by 1.25 percent or 400,000
new workers.
8

The expected labor shortage can be explained by the sharply increasing number of Baby Boom-
generation women who aged into adulthood and entered the workforce for the first time in the
late 1960s but who are now aging out of the workforce leaving behind a significantly smaller
post-Baby Boom workforce. When the 9,857,000 workers from the Baby Boom cohort who
entered the labor force in the 1980s is compared to the 400,000 anticipated new workers from
2000-2010, the expected decline in the work force is striking indeed.
8

D

SW vacancy and turnover rates
esults from the 2002 American Health Care Association Survey of Nursing Staff Vacancy and
R
Turnover in Nursing Homes reported the turnover rate of CNAs in Texas as 105.2% – the 7
th

highest in the United States.
9

Even though the turnover rate was reported for CNAs who prov
care in nursing homes and not in HCBS, anecdotal evidence suggests that the turnover rate of
paraprofessional direct service workers who provide care in HCBS is also more than 100%.
However, precise vacancy and turnover rates of the paraprofessional DSW – including nursin
assistants (i.e., CNAs), home health aides, and personal home care aides – are not available
because neither vacancy nor turnover rates are routinely collected in Texas or the United Sta

ide
g
tes.

4

DSW turnover impacts paraprofessional direct service workers, LTSS
consumers, and provider agencies

The three key stakeholder groups whose lives are
touched each day within the LTSS system include
paraprofessional direct service workers, LTSS
consumers, and provider agencies. According to
The Aspen Institute (2001), already high vacancy
and turnover rates coupled with the impact of the
“care gap” have negative consequences for all three
stakeholder groups.
2

In 2005, 29 of 38 states (76%)
surveyed – Texas included –
reported that direct care worker
vacancies and turnover
continues to be a serious or very
serious problem in their state.
Only four states reported that
vacancies and turnover did not
pose a serious problem.
7

•

For direct service paraprofessional
workers, “…high DSW turnover rates
and high workloads can mean an
increased risk of on-the-job injuries,
more stress and frustration, and less
opportunity for training and mentoring –
all of which can further increase DSW
turnover.”

•

For consumers and their families, “…high turnover and understaffing can lead to an
increased risk of care without continuity, inadequate and unsafe care, poorer quality
of life, and reduced access or in some cases, denial of care.”

•

For provider agencies, the direct cost of turnover – the costs of separation, vacancy,
replacement, training, and increased worker injuries – is estimated to be at least
$2,500 per separated employee.
10
DSW turnover may also include important indirect
costs for providers, such as costs associated with lost productivity, reduced service
quality, and deterioration of employee morale.

Introduction

What Texas is doing to address challenges to recruit and retain a
paraprofessional DSW
The Texas DSW Initiative

The DSW Initiative was undertaken to address paraprofessional DSW issues in Texas. PIAC
made workforce issues a top priority for FY 2007 and the 2008-2009 state fiscal biennium. The
State of Texas recognizes that addressing workforce issues is critical to successful compliance
with the Olmstead decision and response to the Promoting Independence Initiative because a
stable DSW is necessary for providing LTSS to individuals who choose to live in the
community.

5

In FY2006, Texas was awarded a one-year grant from CMS’ National DSW Resource Center to
address paraprofessional DSW issues in HCBS in Texas. The award was for technical assistance
only; no funds accompanied the grant. The award provided access to valuable resources,
information, and assistance with carrying out the Texas DSW Initiative. Texas was one of five
states selected to receive the first group of technical assistance awards from the National DSW
Center. The grant was awarded to HHSC in September 2006 and HHSC subsequently delegated
daily management and completion of the Initiative to DADS.

The Texas DSW Initiative involved two major data collection efforts: (1) a DSW Stakeholder
Forum in Austin, TX in November 2006 and (2) a series of four small focus group discussions
with stakeholders across the state in July 2007. The outcome of the Texas DSW Initiative is the
list of 14 overarching stakeholder recommendations to improve recruitment, retention, and the
perceived paraprofessional status of direct service workers in Texas described in this report.
Goal of the Texas DSW Initiative

The goal of the Texas DSW Initiative was to identify both barriers and possible solutions to
improve recruitment, retention, and the perceived paraprofessional status of direct service
workers who provide LTSS in HCBS in Texas.
Scope of the Texas DSW Initiative

The National DSW Resource Center was
created by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services in 2006 to respond to the
large and growing shortage of
paraprofessional workers who provide
direct care and personal assistance to
individuals who need LTSS in the United
States
http://www.dswresourcecenter.org

While this report includes
suggestions stakeholders made to
address issues regarding turnover of
the direct service workforce (DSW)
and briefly mentions the impact those
issues have on relevant stakeholder
groups, it is important to note that the
content and application of the
recommendations in this report are
limited. The scope of this report is
limited in the following ways: 1) this
report only addresses the
paraprofessional DSW, not the
professional DSW; 2) the content of
the report is limited to the aging and
disability consumer populations; 3) the grant to carry out this report was meant to address
services provided in HCBS, not facility-based settings; 4) stakeholder input is limited to views,
opinions, comments, and perspectives shared by the individual stakeholders who participated in
the Texas DSW Initiative in FY 2006; and 5) while issues, concerns, and recommendations apply
to direct service workers across the United States, the intent of this report is to address only
direct service workers in Texas.

6

However, while the focus of this paper is on the paraprofessional DSW, it is important to note
that the professional DSW – which primarily includes Registered Nurses and Licensed Practical
Nurses – plays a major role in the coordination and delivery of LTSS and that issues related to
vacancy and turnover rates also apply to the professional DSW. Moreover, even though
approaches to recruiting paraprofessionals and professionals into the DSW differ, public policy
actions to address DSW issues between the two are similar.
9, 11

Data Collection

Methodology

Texas DSW Stakeholder Forum – November 2006

The first of two major data collection efforts was a DSW Stakeholder Forum which was held in
Austin, TX in November 2006. DADS invited individuals from key stakeholder groups and
national DSW experts to the Forum. National experts included representatives from PHI, the
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, and the Institute for Community Integration.
Discussion included workforce issues and potential solutions for improving recruitment and
retention of direct service paraprofessional workers across the state. The Forum helped
participants learn what the issues were and what initiatives had been tried in Texas and other
states. The Forum also generated stakeholder recommendations to address DSW issues in Texas.
Approximately 130 stakeholders participated in the Forum.

Following the Stakeholder Forum, DADS sent
participants a survey requesting feedback on the
Forum and asked for recommendations regarding
potential next steps. Nearly half of those of those
who responded suggested that DADS compile
consensus recommendations and submit them to
PIAC for consideration. Participants also said
they expected possible solutions to be “actionable”
and “specific.”

DADS sent post-Forum surveys
to 116 participants. 35
responded for a response rate
of 30%.

80% rated the forum as being
“very good” or “excellent.”

No one rated the forum as
being “poor.”

With respect to next steps, stakeholders suggested
that DADS conduct additional DSW forums to
obtain input from stakeholders from across the
state, not just the Austin-metro area. Survey responders specifically recommended that like the
DSW Stakeholder Forum, future stakeholder forums include key stakeholder groups including
direct service workers, consumers, and provider agencies/employers.

DADS subsequently compiled post-Forum feedback and consensus stakeholder
recommendations to address DSW issues and submitted the information to DSWAC. DSWAC is
a subcommittee of the PIAC and its members include representatives of people who have
disabilities, people who are aging, provider agencies, community groups, advocates, HCBS
consumers, direct service workers, and several PIAC members. DSWAC agreed with Forum

7

participants and recommended that DADS proceed with a series of small, focused group
discussions with DSW stakeholders across Texas.

Texas DSW Stakeholder Focus Group Discussions – July 2007

In July 2007, DADS held a single focus group discussion with stakeholders in each of four cities:
El Paso, Houston, Progreso, and San Angelo. These cities were purposefully selected so that
data collected would be representative of the state’s diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and
regional populations. Twenty-eight individuals representing various state agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and consumer groups helped DADS plan the series of stakeholder
focus groups. These individuals were instrumental in identifying potential focus group
participants and provided DADS with invaluable logistical support.

To ensure that a variety of stakeholder perspectives were included, DADS invited at least one, or
at most two, representatives from each of the following stakeholder groups: DADS, Department
of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (DARS), HHSC, Texas Workforce Commission (TWC),
local Mental Retardation Authorities (MRAs), non-profit groups, service providers, HCBS direct
service workers, and HCBS consumers. DADS also notified the State Senator and State
Representative who represented the physical location where each focus group was held (i.e., El
Paso, Houston, Progreso, and San Angelo). Monetary incentives were not offered; participants
volunteered their time.

The same DADS staff member facilitated each focus group discussion to ensure consistent
administration of questions and data collection between groups. The facilitator encouraged
participation from each individual so that input was heard from every stakeholder group
representative. Focus group participants were asked to respond to the same set of questions at
each focus group meeting (Appendix C). At the end of each of the four focus group meetings,
the facilitator gave a verbal summary of what was discussed to verify that DADS accurately
captured what stakeholders said.

Another DADS staff member took comprehensive notes at each of the four sessions. Each focus
group discussion was also audio taped. Names of individuals were not recorded and DADS
assured participants anonymity in both the focus group notes and the audiotape of each session.

Sample

Fifty-four individual stakeholders participated in one of four focus group discussions.
Participation by location was as follows: nine stakeholders from San Angelo, eight from
Progreso, 14 from Houston, and 23 from El Paso. Fifteen men (28%) and 39 women (72%)
participated in the focus group discussions. The distribution of individuals by stakeholder
groups is shown in Table 2.

8

Table 2. Focus group participants by stakeholder group

Stakeholder Group
# of Individuals
Paraprofessional Direct Service Worker
8
Provider agency/Employer
7
DADS Consumer
6
Advocate
6
DADS
6
Local MRA
5
DARS
4
TWC
4
Non-profit service agency/Employer
4
HHSC
2
State Representative
1
State Senator’s staff member
1
Total
54

Data Analysis

Focus group data was analyzed first and data from the DSW Forum was analyzed second. Since
the DADS staff member who took detailed notes during each focus group discussion also
analyzed the data, memory recall and detailed focus group notes were used as the primary source
of data. The notes were used to identify key themes and selected stakeholder quotes were used
as evidence to support each theme.

Several factors were analyzed to determine how much weight to assign to stakeholder input.
Frequency (the number of times something was said) was one of the factors measured.
Specificity (the level of detail provided), emotion (strong feelings regarding a specific issue), and
extensiveness (how many different individuals commented on the same issue) were also weighed
and analyzed.

After key themes were identified from the focus group data, those themes were compared to data
from the 2006 DSW Forum (i.e., the forum held in Austin, Texas). Analysis of the 2006 DSW
Forum data did not yield additional themes but did provide additional evidence (e.g., stakeholder
quotes) to support each theme and validated focus group data.

Findings – Stakeholder Comments and
Recommendations

Systematic, qualitative analysis of focus group data and data from the 2006 DSW Forum resulted
in key themes which were used as the basis of stakeholder recommendations to address DSW
issues in Texas. Fourteen overarching recommendations to improve recruitment, retention, and
the perceived status of paraprofessional direct service workers in Texas were identified and then

9

grouped into three major categories: Compensation, Opportunity, and Support. Stakeholder
recommendations are described in Tables 3-1 thru 3-3 (Compensation), Tables 4-1 thru 4-5
(Opportunity), and Tables 5-1 thru 5-6 (Support).

10

Table 3-1.
Compensation – Offer direct service workers a livable wage and
adopt measures to ensure investment in the DSW

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“Worker and consumer are in the same boat, living
paycheck to paycheck.”

•

“I’m glad minimum wage went up but right now, milk
is not going down, gasoline is not going down and I
doubt our tax is going down. Our City Manager
increases the taxes and so I’m looking at all of that
going up and my take home pay once I get done
paying everything, I have $81/month leftover for
everything. Minimum wage is going up but
everything else is going up too!”

•

“I was told I wasn’t supposed to lift people and now I
need physical therapy myself but I can’t get light-
duty. I was out with no pay because of no insurance
and no sick leave…I was never there for graduation,
birthdays, nothing…as far as workers, we would like
to have a life too but the pay is not there.”

•

“There are good providers that have company 401(k)
plans and pay for holiday work…we need regulations
since many competitors only pay minimum wage and
keep the state reimbursement money that could go to
the direct service worker.”

#1: Offer direct service
workers a livable wage and
adopt measures to ensure
investment in the DSW.

Stakeholders across the state
consistently identified low
wages as a significant barrier
to recruiting and retaining
direct care paraprofessional
workers in Texas.

In addition to implementing
livable wages, stakeholders
suggested that adopting
measures to ensure that
service providers pass wage
increases along to direct
service workers (e.g., by
supporting wage pass-
through) would help with
recruitment and reducing
DSW turnover.

11

Table 3-2.
Compensation – Offer direct service workers benefits

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“The fact that Personal Care Attendants are
doing repetitive tasks, for example, lifting a
patient or scrubbing a surface, can lead to
injury of the back and shoulders. That’s why
health insurance is so important…it is very
expensive for Personal Care Attendants to
pay for an insurance plan of their own. A
healthy Personal Care Attendant means less
missed workdays and happier patients.”

•

“If you sacrifice your own well-being then
you risk your own health and can’t take care
of the client.”

•

“Just yesterday my son’s caregiver quit…she
couldn’t provide care for my son because she
didn’t have care for her own children. It’s a
vicious cycle.”

•

“Some providers lose to fast food places
because they offer fringe benefits and income
and options available to them where a person
can work at McDonalds close to home, as
opposed to working with private (service
provider) agencies that scatter them around
town…”

•

“Car insurance is another thing too, not just
the mileage. If they need somebody who
needed a lift and I drive, who’s covering me?
My insurance goes high because I was high
risk.”

#2: Offer direct service workers
benefits.

In addition to increasing wages,
stakeholders consistently said that
offering benefits would help reduce
DSW turnover.

Stakeholders suggested direct
service workers be offered benefits
to include:

•

Health insurance

•

Life insurance

•

Transportation options

•

Paid vacation, sick leave,
holidays, and medical leave

•

Mileage and auto insurance
reimbursement

•

Workers compensation

•

Childcare options

•

Retirement benefits

•

Longevity/retention bonuses

12

Table 3-3.
Compensation – Offer direct service workers 40 hours work per
week

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“Not enough hours are offered and
with low wages…not enough incentive
to work.”

•

“Increasing hours will contribute to
continuity of care. Every time a
different worker goes in to the home,
the quality of care goes down.”

•

“People wouldn’t be willing to give
up their jobs so quickly if they knew
they had a full-time job.”

•

“Agencies are not giving us enough
hours. They keep us below 40 hours a
week so they don’t have to offer us
benefits.”

•

“Increasing wages and hours per
week will help prevent workers from
having to work multiple low-paying
jobs and (will) cut down travel
expenses between those multiple
jobs.”

#3: Offer direct service workers 40 hours
work per week.

The recommendation to offer direct service
workers 40 hours work per week was
consistently suggested by stakeholders
across the state. 2006 DSW Forum and
focus group participants said the lack of
guaranteed full-time hours was a major
cause of DSW turnover across the state.

Stakeholders said that not having 40 hours
of work per week:

•

Prevents a direct service worker from
being a full-time employee which in turn
prevents the worker from accessing
benefits to full-time employees, if
offered

•

Means that a worker must work
multiple, low-paying part-time jobs
which are often located far apart from
each other. And, when the worker has to
travel between multiple jobs, the worker
must weigh the cost to travel to each job
against the relatively low wage the
worker would earn from each job

•

Decreases the quality of care the
consumer receives because a worker
who travels between multiple part-time
jobs becomes tired from traveling from
job to job

13

Table 4-1.
Opportunity – Offer direct service workers training

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“I wasn’t given training…the
person I was working with
trained me.”

•

“We need to be trained
because I need you and you
need me.”

•

“As a parent, one of my
greatest frustrations with
caregivers is their lack of
training. They aren’t familiar
with how to communicate with
a non-verbal person, how to
motivate the consumer to do
more than lay in bed. The
caregivers who have worked
with my child have been
trained in CPR and taking
vitals. That is it! My child is
non-verbal and non-
ambulatory, but he is very
smart and does more than sit
in bed. The workers who have
been assigned to my child have
lacked ingenuity when working
with my child. They fail to
realize the trust that has to be
established between caregiver
and consumer. Again, you’re
asking these people to be the
mind and body for a human
being. Enhancing training for
consumer interaction and
addressing the personal side of
care giving is important.”

#4: Offer direct service workers training.

Stakeholders across the state and national experts
who participated in the 2006 DSW Forum
consistently said that lack of training plays a
significant factor in both DSW turnover and
decreased quality of care. Stakeholders also
consistently said that consumers are the ones who
provide training, not provider agencies.

To reduce workforce turnover, stakeholders
recommended the following specific training
interventions for direct service workers:

•

“Soft skills” training
including people skills
(e.g., sensitivity and respect for consumer);
and disability culture (e.g., People First
Language, consumer rights)

•

Skills-based training
including
professionalism, work ethics, and problem-
solving skills; Basic and advanced
communication skills (e.g., working with
consumers who are non-verbal, or who use
sign language); Behavioral management (e.g.,
when working with children); Diet and
nutrition training; Training regarding
medications; and bowel and bladder programs

•

Basic clinical training:
including blood
pressure, CPR and first aid training; and
Universal precautions and infection control

•

Body mechanics training:
including transfer
and lifting skills, fall prevention and
appropriate exercises

14

Table 4-2.
Opportunity – Make training accessible to direct service workers

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“I was an attendant and it was out
of necessity that I wound up there
and I was glad to have the job. I
didn’t get any schooling because
there’s not enough time to get
training to better myself and get
out of attendant care services.”

•

“If attendants have to get training
on their own time, when do they do
it? On weekdays they need to
work to get money and on
weekends they need childcare so
they can’t go for training.”

•

“Some (provider) agencies require
CPR training but CPR training is
$25 and we have to pay for the
training ourselves…at $5 per
hour, it would take me 5 hours just
to pay for CPR training and that’s
a barrier.”

•

“Offer training at different times
so people on different shifts can
attend the training.”

•

“Anytime you’re dealing with
people and you’re getting paid for
it, that training should be
mandatory.”

•

“Employers can’t let their
employees attend training because
then they have to cover for the
staff that’s attending training by
bringing in another employee.”

#5: Make training accessible to direct
service workers.

Stakeholders identified a number of barriers
related to access to training and said that
barriers existed for both workers and their
employers.

Specific recommendations included:
•

Offer direct service worker paid time off
to attend training
•

Ask employer to pay for initial training
for each employee and re-certification
fees only for long-term employees (e.g.,
CPR training)
•

Offer training at various times of the day
•

Create a central database of available
training opportunities across the state
•

Ask employer to advertise training
opportunities in a place the direct service
worker is likely to look (e.g., provider
newsletter, with pay stub, etc.)
•

Modify training notices and training
materials for use by the DSW (i.e.,
modify for literacy and translate
materials into Spanish)
•

If online training is offered, identify
options for computer access

With respect to employers (providers),
stakeholders recommend:
•

Taking training to the worker to avoid
paying one employee to cover another
employee
•

Creating a central database with grants
opportunities, speaker resources and
opportunities to share resources

15

Table 4-3.
Opportunity – Employ effective recruitment strategies including
involving direct service workers in the development of Best
Practices and targeted recruitment

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“In exit interviews,
sometimes we don’t get
the real information but
what we need is to find out
from the people who
stay…Why do they stay?…
so we can find out the best
practices to help retain
workers.”

•

“People who do this job
do it because it’s a
calling.”

•

“The place to get the best
care is to recruit from the
churches because it is a
calling and it is service-
oriented work where you
do work of love and
caring and that’s what’s
promoted in churches.”

•

“There’s no unified
system for people to look
for jobs. There’s no direct
link that links all the
people that need care to
all the people that provide
care. There’s no one-stop
shop. You have to keep
jumping from site to site.
There is no (unified)
system to make sure that
all jobs are in one place.”

#6: Employ effective recruitment strategies including
involving direct service workers in the development of
Best Practices and targeted recruitment.

Suggested recruitment strategies include the following:
•

Asking tenured caregivers to help develop best
practices for recruiting workers – Stakeholders
suggested that long-time caregivers could provide
insight into reasons why workers remain on the job.
Those reasons could then be used to develop best
practices to recruit workers in Texas

•

Appeal to candidates for whom being a direct service
worker is “a calling”

•

Partner with other agencies and community groups to
identify a potential pool of direct service workers
across the state

•

Use retention specialists to address high DSW turnover
rates

•

Create a one-stop shop where potential workforce
candidates can search for jobs. Stakeholders said that
not knowing where to search for a job as a direct
service worker is a barrier for potential new workers.
They suggested a single source for posting available
DSW jobs and training.

During statewide focus group discussions, only a few had
ever heard of the Attendant Network Registry
(http://www.attendantnetwork.org/attnet/index.jsp) and
none had actually used it.

16

Table 4-4.
Opportunity – Improve stakeholder collaboration to address DSW
issues

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“No one person, agency, or sector of the health care
industry can resolve this issue alone. We must all work
together if we are to resolve the workforce shortage.”

•

“Systems don’t talk to one another…we need to build a
system that encompasses the efforts of all involved to
recruit, train, and retain workers.”

•

“We must all come together to help resolve recruitment
and retention of direct service workers. If you believe
that someone else will deal with the issue, it will never
be resolved.”

•

“Don’t let what you started today stop…keep the
conversation going and work in parallel to one
another.”

•

“Some of the DARS consumers can benefit (from
training). It’s just a matter of us knowing what the
needs are in the community. We pay for on-the-job
training of the DARS consumer and that’s a win-win
situation for the DARS consumer and the person who
needs an attendant care worker.”

•

“We (DARS) would want HHSC to be involved too.
TWC also has to be involved to match and screen
employers and we can help them with hiring.”

#7: Improve stakeholder
collaboration to address
DSW issues.

Stakeholders uniformly
agreed that improved
collaboration between
them was necessary to
address DSW issues.
Many stakeholders
suggested that workforce
boards, agency networks
and community groups
work together to identify
opportunities for
collaboration and resource
sharing.

Stakeholders also said that
if many groups could share
recruitment and training
resources and materials
then it would prevent each
individual group from
having to obtain its own
resources and create its
own materials.

17

Table 4-5.
Opportunity – Offer direct service workers a career ladder

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“Even though the
salary increase may
be minimal, creating
increasing levels will
help workers perceive
themselves as
advancing.”

•

“When they go for a
Certified Nursing
Assistant (CNA), it’s
gonna increase
turnover because
after they get their
CNA, they leave.”

#8: Offer direct service workers a career ladder.

“Lack of opportunities for advancement” was a consistent
theme heard statewide. Long-time direct service workers said
they had worked for years without a raise.

To reduce DSW turnover, stakeholders suggested that workers
be offered a career ladder that is balanced with incentives to
remain on the job. They also suggested that workers who have
more training and experience be paid a higher wage than entry-
level direct service workers.

However, while some stakeholders said that direct service
workers should be offered advancement via a career ladder,
other stakeholders disagreed and said that a career ladder may
actually increase turnover because workers would leave for an
advanced position/higher paying job once they attained a higher
level of skill and training.

18

Table 5-1.
Support – Create networking and mentor opportunities for direct
service workers

Stakeholder Comments Stakeholder Recommendations

•

“I got my jobs from word of
mouth.”

•

“I need to talk to another
attendant so I know how we
can help each other. I don’t
know why I can’t talk to
another attendant. Together
we can do a better job. I want
to be able to talk to my co-
workers.”

•

“The first 12 months, people
were dropping out so we
assigned mentors so people
would not get lost. With a
mentor, they had someone to
ask. That helps retain
counselors so workers don’t
become frustrated because
they don’t know what to do.
That costs time but not
money.”

#9: Create networking and mentor opportunities
for direct service workers.

Stakeholders said that networking direct service
workers would be beneficial because:

•

Being networked helps workers feel less
isolated which in turn increases job satisfaction
and influences them to remain on the job

•

Direct service workers could help recruit other
direct service workers since workers tend to
find their jobs by word of mouth

Stakeholders said that having a mentor would be
beneficial for direct service workers because:

•

Direct service workers could learn from each
other, which in turn helps to improve the
quality of care consumers receive

•

Having a mentor would increase a worker’s
confidence in their skills which in turn
increases the chance that the worker will stay
with the job

19

Table 5-2.
Support – Establish direct service worker job standards

Stakeholder Comments Stakeholder Recommendations

•

“Maybe there’s a high
turnover because there’s no
guidelines, no job
description…that’s the
consumer’s responsibility. The
worker doesn’t know what to
expect. They need guidelines
from the employer.”

•

“Sometimes, families think the
caregiver is the caregiver for
the entire family and that’s not
the case!”

•

“You get a broom and you get
a blood pressure cuff and you
say, ‘I’m a caregiver not a
housekeeper’. Make the
guidelines up front. You have
the list of what the caregiver
provides so the family
knows…”

•

“The agency doesn’t want to
be sued but they never talk
about how the consumer treats
the worker. The consumer
needs to be trained too.”

•

“The state has a budgeted line
item for nurses, why not direct
service workers? This lack of
funding substantiates the lack
of identity. Build an identity
for the direct service worker
and provide structure.”

#10: Establish direct service worker job
standards.

Stakeholders cited a lack of standardized job
descriptions and required training as a barrier to
both recruiting and retaining a DSW in Texas.
Focus group participants said that lack of a job
description and training standards create
confusion regarding the direct service worker’s
role and consumer expectations. They said that
having state-level work and training standards
which describe essential tasks involved and
qualifications and skills required would help to
clarify expectations for both the worker and
consumer. They also said that some consumers
mistakenly expect the direct service worker to
help with cooking and cleaning even when the
worker is only supposed to provide direct care.

Stakeholders further said that training should not
be limited to direct service workers but should
also be extended to consumers. Focus group
participants said that like the consumer, a direct
care worker should have certain rights too. As an
example, stakeholders said that too often, families
incorrectly perceive the direct service worker as
being available to help the entire family, not just
the consumer.

Stakeholders said that creating a DSW “book of
rights” would help to clarify the direct service
worker’s role and consumer expectations.

Stakeholders agreed that creating both state-level
job and training standards and a DSW Book of
Rights would help to clarify the direct service
worker’s role and improve the paraprofessional
status of direct service workers across the state.

20

Table 5-3.
Support – Provide realistic job preview for potential direct service
workers

Stakeholder
Comments

Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“People don’t know what an
attendant care person really is and
what they do.”

•

“People need to know what to
expect to avoid having people quit
on the first day of work.”

#11: Provide realistic job preview for
potential direct service workers.

Stakeholders unanimously agreed that
disparity between job expectation and reality
is a barrier to DSW retention. Focus group
participants said that providers are constantly
looking for new workers to recruit because a
lot of direct service workers quit when they
find out what the job actually involves. They
said it was common for a worker to quit on
the first day of work. Stakeholders suggested
that turnover could be reduced if potential
direct service workers could watch a video or
CD of what the job actually involves before
accepting it.

21

Table 5-4.
Support – Recognize and reward the contributions of
paraprofessional direct service workers

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder Recommendations

•

“We need to change the dialog from how this
issue is a financial burden to how direct
service workers contribute to their local
economy, reduce health care expenses in
institutions, etc.”

•

“A name tag would make all the difference.”

•

“Say, ‘Thank You’.”

•

“When you have your meetings, just include
them in what’s going on with the agency
(provider) so the workers feel a part of
something. People are out there on their
own but (they) need to feel a part of
something.”

•

“Some (provider) agencies can get together
and pay for a worker appreciation day!”

•

“Make sure every worker is recognized.”

•

“I never got a raise. When it came to
bonuses, bonuses were thought of for the
case managers but not once do they think of
a bonus for the worker. Many times, not
once did I get a thank you from the agency
and yet I couldn’t get a letter of reference
regarding my work so I could get another
job. They said it was not allowed to get a
letter of recommendation.”

#12: Recognize and reward the contributions
of paraprofessional direct service workers.

Stakeholders suggested that acknowledging the
DSW for their work and the important role they
play in helping people live in the community
would help to reduce DSW turnover. They
suggested a list of specific strategies to
recognize and reward the contributions of
paraprofessional direct service workers:

•

Acknowledgement of the DSW and the
important role they play in providing LTSS
in HCBS so people who are aging and those
with disabilities can live in their community
•

Acknowledging the direct service worker as
part of the provider agency (e.g., give
worker a name tag or t-shirt which identifies
the worker as an employee of the provider’s
group)
•

Creating an employee of the month or year
award
•

Recognizing workers for their years of
service (e.g., 5, 10, or 15 years) with a
certificate or lapel pin
•

Grandfathering long-time workers in
recognition strategies
•

Organizing public recognition for workers
with outstanding performance and years of
service (e.g., publicly recognize worker in
newsletters)
•

Including workers in provider meetings so
workers feel less isolated
•

Giving every worker a small token of
appreciation (e.g., hat, shirt) for reaching
service milestones

22

Table 5-4 (continued).
Support – Recognize and reward the contributions of
paraprofessional direct service workers

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“Attendants don’t do this work because
they want recognition or because the
pay is great. They do it because they
want to make a difference in someone’s
life. I think that with any job, a person
wants to be thanked for their efforts but
also compensated. Both of these reflect
the value of the work being done.
Perhaps the state can initiate an Annual
Award which recognized the jobs of
many.”

#12: Recognize and reward the
contributions of paraprofessional
direct service workers.

•

Acknowledging special occasions
(e.g., workers birthdays, anniversary
of start date, etc.)
•

Acknowledging skill and level of
effort to potential employers (e.g.,
provide letters of reference)
•

Awarding top performers (e.g.,
invite worker to a relevant
conference, provide special parking
space, etc.)

23

Table 5-5.
Support – Improve direct service worker-consumer match

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“Sometimes the worker
has a consumer far from
home and they won’t
travel for $5.15/hour so
they look for another
job.”

•

“Match people who live
closer together and you
get better services
because you’re not as
tired when you get to the
job.”

•

“Family members should
not be caregivers
because the emotional
relationship hinders the
professional relationship.
When you’re in a crisis
situation, you have to be
level-headed, and you
have to do what needs to
be done but sometimes
when you’re too
emotionally involved, it
hinders the caregiver’s
judgment.”

•

“In my case, I prefer
attendants who didn’t
work in a nursing home
because… they come
with certain ways of
doing things and when I
tell them what and how
to do it, they don’t like
it.”

#13: Improve direct service worker-consumer
match.

Stakeholders said that mismatch between direct
service workers and consumers contributes to
DSW turnover. They recommended improved
matching on the following specific characteristics:
•

Worker proximity to the job(s)
•

Worker relationship to the consumer (i.e., family
vs. non-family member as caregiver)
•

Primary language
•

Personality traits
•

Consumer expectation
•

Worker skills and experience

Stakeholders unanimously agreed that the worker’s
distance to the job played a major role in DSW
turnover. They said that if the job was too far away
then the worker would be less inclined to take the job
because the amount of pay would not be enough to
cover travel expenses to get to the job. Therefore,
stakeholders suggested that closer proximity to the job
would help reduce DSW vacancy and turnover and
improve the quality of care the consumer receives.

Stakeholders were split regarding having a family
member as the caregiver – some said they prefer family
members while others disagreed. Stakeholders who
disagreed said that when family members get too
emotionally involved, they’re not able to make sound
decisions for the consumer. They also said that when a
family member takes advantage of the consumer, the
quality of care decreases because the consumer may be
less likely to report a family member to an authority.

Consumers often said that they want direct service
workers to perform tasks the way the consumer wants
it done, not the way the worker wants to do it or has
done it in the past for other consumers.

24

Table 5-6.
Support – Improve oversight of the DSW

Stakeholder
Comments
Stakeholder
Recommendations

•

“Who ever you choose as your
attendant, you have to make sure they
keep up with the tasks and the hours
they’re supposed to be there. The
agency and providers need to make sure
the attendant is doing the tasks they’re
supposed to do.”

•

“The majority of the people who are
attracted to this type of job are people in
transition. Some of them don’t have
good work ethics…you don’t know if
you can trust them. They should be
checked up on often…”

•

“Physically challenged people already
have to deal with the stress of having a
disability, especially the ones who are
totally dependent on others for their
survival. They constantly worry if the
attendant will show up every day so they
can get out of bed, be given a shower, or
something to eat.”

•

“We need to have better monitoring to
make sure the worker shows up on the
job…you should have a coded, time
system so you can tell if the worker
shows up for work. Maybe you can
match the phone number to the client’s
phone number so that you know the
worker is at the client’s home.”

#14: Improve oversight of the DSW.

Stakeholders across the state described the
DSW and potential workforce pool as
people who are in transition,
inexperienced, and unskilled. Many
stakeholders said that a workforce pool
which includes less than ideal candidates
lowers consumer satisfaction, potentially
reduces the quality of care consumers
receive, and decreases the perceived status
of paraprofessional direct service workers
in Texas.

Stakeholders also said that direct service
workers should be monitored for
attendance and performance. They said
this was particularly important for
consumers who live in rural areas across
the state. They further said that there
should be a system to ensure that all
consumer complaints are investigated.

While this stakeholder recommendation
does not necessarily suggest a strategy to
improve DSW recruitment or retention, it
does suggest a strategy to improve
consumer satisfaction, quality of care,
workforce standards and the perceived
status of direct service paraprofessional
workers in Texas.

25

Summary

Stakeholders recommend creating a quality job for direct service workers

Paraprofessional direct service workers include an estimated 269,950 Nursing Assistants, Home
Health Aides, and Personal and Home Care Aides who provide LTSS in HCBS in Texas. These
workers play a critical role in the lives of older Texans and Texans with disabilities who choose
to live in their community.

In order to address the anticipated “care gap” and vacancy and turnover rates of the
paraprofessional DSW in Texas, stakeholders recommend offering direct service workers
improved wages, benefits, hours, training, networking and mentor opportunities, worker-
consumer matches, recognition, a realistic job preview, and a career ladder. Stakeholders also
recommended improved access to training and job opportunities, oversight of the workforce, job
standards, and improved collaboration among DSW stakeholders. In making these
recommendations, stakeholders identified every element PHI recommends for creating a quality
job for paraprofessional caregivers including: compensation, opportunity, and support
(
Appendix D
).
12
In summary, to improve recruitment, retention, and the perceived status of the
paraprofessional DSW in Texas, stakeholders recommend creating a quality job for direct service
workers.

Outcomes

During FY 2006, DADS carried out the Texas DSW Initiative in response to concerns regarding
the paraprofessional DSW in Texas. The goal of the Initiative was to identify both barriers and
potential solutions to improving turnover of the paraprofessional DSW in Texas. DADS invited
national-, state-, and local-level stakeholders to participate in the Initiative. Stakeholders
addressed the goal of the initiative by making 14 overarching recommendations to improve
recruitment, retention, and the perceived paraprofessional status of direct service workers who
provide LTSS to people who live in HCBS (
Table 1
). Results of the Initiative are significant
because in addition to obtaining recommendations to address DSW issues, this initiative resulted
in the following noteworthy outcomes:

1.

Perhaps the most important outcome is that the Texas DSW Initiative raised awareness
of DSW issues at the state, regional, and local level.

2.

Input was provided by many different stakeholder groups
including national experts,
lead agency representatives, community groups, service providers, advocates, direct
service workers, consumers, and state legislative representatives. Bringing various
stakeholder groups together for the first time at the local-level was an unintended
beneficial outcome of carrying out this initiative.

26

3.

Stakeholders made very specific, actionable recommendations to address DSW
issues in Texas.

4.

Because stakeholders validated DSW issues and made recommendations that mirror
recommendations adopted by other states, Texas will be able to examine the literature
and identify best practices that are relevant to the 14 overarching stakeholder
recommendations
from this initiative.

5.

Since data collection included focus group discussions which were held in various
geographic, socioeconomic, and cultural populations across the state, stakeholder input is
representative of various areas across the state, not just the Austin-metro area. Therefore,
stakeholder recommendations can be generalized to the population groups included
in this initiative and are not just limited to the Austin-metro area
.

6.

Stakeholders unanimously recognized that addressing DSW issues will require
improved stakeholder collaboration
. Another unintended beneficial outcome of the
focus group discussions was that stakeholders in the various areas – El Paso, Houston,
Progreso, and San Angelo – began networking and talking about ways to work together
to address DSW issues in their local area.

Next steps

In general, with respect to next steps, PHI recommends improving recruitment and retention by
starting at a place where real and immediate gains can be anticipated and a long-term strategy
can be built. PHI suggests that first-stage interventions target improving jobs for
paraprofessional direct care workers, recognizing and rewarding workers, and building support
mechanisms for low-wage workers. PHI cautions that rather than be discouraged if first attempts
do not entirely fix the problem, that first-level interventions be strengthened before moving on to
the next level of interventions.
1

More specifically, with respect to the Texas DSW Initiative, after DADS presented the 14
stakeholder recommendations to the DSWAC in January 2008, DSWAC prioritized them and
then submitted six of the recommendations to PIAC. The six stakeholder recommendations
DSWAC selected were:

(1)

Recommendation #1: Offer direct service workers a livable wage and adopt measures to
ensure investment in the DSW
(2)

Recommendation #2: Offer direct service workers benefits
(3)

Recommendation #5: Make training accessible to direct service workers
(4)

Recommendation #6: Employ effective recruitment strategies including involving direct
service workers in the development of Best Practices and targeted recruitment
(5)

Recommendation #10: Establish direct service worker job standards
(6)

Recommendation #12: Recognize and reward the contributions of paraprofessional direct
service workers

27

Even though DSWAC submitted only six stakeholder recommendations to PIAC, PIAC
committed to reviewing all 14 stakeholder recommendations for consideration of its own
workforce recommendations to HHSC Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins.

Further still, in September 2007, at the conclusion of the one-year technical assistance award,
DADS asked the National DSW Resource Center and PHI to: (1) Examine the recommendations
made by stakeholders who participated in the Texas DSW Initiative ; (2) Search PHI’s database
and identify strategies and Best Practices across the United States which are relevant to
stakeholder recommendations from the Texas DSW Initiative; and (3) Develop a report with the
list of strategies identified in PHI’s database.

In November 2007, PHI sent DADS a Resource Guide which stratified DSW strategies and
interventions by Texas stakeholder recommendations (i.e., Compensation, Opportunity, and
Support). The guide included information regarding the state where the strategy was
implemented, a brief description of the intervention, allocated resources (if known), the outcome
of the intervention (if known), and contact information for staff associated with each
intervention. DADS plans to review each intervention included in the Resource Guide,
determine its relevance to recommendations stakeholders from the Texas DSW Initiative made,
and report its findings in a future report.

28

29
Acronyms

ADL Activities of daily living

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CDS Consumer-directed services

CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

CNA Certified Nursing Assistant

DADS Department of Aging and Disability Services

DARS Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services

DSW Direct Service Workforce

DSWAC Direct Service Workforce Advisory Committee

HCBS Home- and other-community based settings

HHSC Health and Human Services Commission

IADL Instrumental activities of daily living

ID/DD Intellectual Disability/Developmental Disability

LTSS Long-term services and supports

MRA Mental Retardation Authority

PHI Professional Healthcare Institute

PIAC Promoting Independence Advisory Committee

TWC Texas Workforce Commission

Endnotes

1.

Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute and Catholic Health Association of the United States
(2003). Finding and keeping direct care staff.
http://www.phinational.org/publications/findkeep.pdf.

2.

Steven L. Dawson and Rick Surpin, Direct-care health workers: The unnecessary crisis in
long-term care (Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, May 2001).
http://www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/Aspen.pdf).

3.

Gretchen Gemeinhardt and Christa Atkinson, Ensuring older Texans can age at home
through direct care initiatives (Care for Elders Quality and Workforce Initiative results).
http://careforelders.org/files/DDF/Ensuring%255FOlder%255FTexans%255FIssue%255FPa
per.pdf

4.

National Clearinghouse on the Direct Care Workforce: Who are direct-care workers? (New
York: Professional Healthcare Institute, November 2006).
http://www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/NCDCW%20Fact%20Sheet-1.pdf

5.

William J. Scanlon, GAO Testimony: Nursing workforce: Recruitment and retention of
nurses and nurse aides is a growing concern (Washington, DC: General Accounting Office,
May 2001). http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01750t.pdf.

6.

Rhonda J. V Montgomery et al., A Profile of Home Care Workers from the 2000 Census:
How It Changes What We Know.” Gerontologist (2005) 45: 593-600.
http://gerontologist.gerontologyjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/5/593.

7.

National Clearinghouse on the Direct Care Workforce and Direct Care Workers Association
of North Carolina, “Results of the 2005 National Survey of State Initiatives on the Long-
Term Care Direct-Care Workforce,” September 2005.
http://www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/2005_Nat_Survey_State_Initiatives.pdf

8.

Howard N. Fullerton, Jr., and Mitra Toosi, “Labor Force Projections to 2010: Steady Growth
and Changing Composition,” Monthly Labor Review, November 2001, Table 8, “Civilian
Labor Force by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1980, 1990, 2000 and projected 2010.”
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/11/art2full.pdf

9.

American Heath Care Association, “Results of the 2002 AHCA Survey of Nursing Staff
Vacancy and Turnover in Nursing Homes,” February 14, 2003.
http://www.ahca.org/research/rpt_vts2002_final.pdf

10.

Dorie Seavey, The Cost of Frontline Turnover in Long-Term Care, Better Jobs Better Care,
October 2004. http://www.betterjobsbettercare.org/content/docs/TOCostReport.pdf

30

11.

Harmuth, S., The Direct Care Workforce Crisis in Long-Term Care, NCMJ March/April
2002, Volume 63 Number 2. http://www.ncmedicaljournal.com/mar-apr-02/ar030205.pdf

12.

Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute (2007). Elements of a quality job for caregivers: Key
research findings. Quality Care Through Quality Jobs. http://www.phi-
qcqj.org/essentialelements.htm.

31

Appendix A. Employment and wage estimates for direct service workers, and all
occupations in Texas and the United States, May 2006

Employment Estimates
(not including self-
employed workers)
Median Hourly
Wage Estimates
Occupation Title
(Occupation Code)
US*
TX**
US*
TX**
Personal and Home Care
Aides (39-9021)
578,290
122,300
$8.54 $6.41
Home Health Aides
(31-1011)
751,480
49,850
$9.34 $7.17
Nursing Aides, Orderlies,
and Attendants (31-1012)
1,376,660
89,840
$10.67 $9.43
Healthcare Support Workers,
All Others (31-9099)
185,580
7,960
$12.98 $11.97
TOTAL***
2,892,010
269,950 $10.01 $8.30
All Occupations (00-0000) 132,604,980 9,760,960 $14.61 $13.26
* http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b31-0000
** http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_tx.htm#b00-0000
*** Total of direct service worker occupational codes including: 39-9021, 31-1011, 31-1012, and 31-9099

32

Appendix B. Wage Information for Texas

Wage
Information
for Texas
One
Adult
One
Adult,
One
Child
Two Adults
Two
Adults,
One
Child
Two Adults,
Two Children
Living wage
for Texas (per
hour)
$7.45
$13.63
$10.72
$15.52
$19.22
Minimum
wage
(per hour)
$5.85
$5.85
$5.85
$5.85
$5.85
Poverty wage
(per hour) $4.73
$6.38
$6.03
$7.43
$9.39

Wages that are less than the living wage are underlined.
Source: Living Wage Calculator, http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/results.php?location=43

33

Appendix C. DSW Focus Group Questions

Recruiting direct service workers:
.

What efforts have been successful in recruiting direct service workers? How can we expand
hat current barriers exist to connecting potential direct service worker employees to
a.

To what extent can the Attendant Network registry address these barriers?
hat can be done to increase use of the Attendant Network registry by workers? By
esides the Attendant Network registry, are there other ways of connecting

raining opportunities for direct service workers:

1
or build upon these promising practices?

2.

W
employers?

b.

W
employers?

c.

B
prospective workers with potential employers?
T

.

What is the role of training in promoting the skills and qualities you want to see in the direct
we were to develop a formal training program for direct service workers, what skills and
a.

Should training be mandatory?
ho should provide training?
there a role for advanced specialty training? If so, in what subject areas?
5.

h t
riers do direct service workers face in accessing training (not on the job training)
ow can we ensure linkages between training programs and employers?
hat specific ways would you recommend direct service workers be notified that training is
consumer directed programs, how do you strike an appropriate balance between consumer

3
service workforce?

4.

If
competencies should it teach?

b.

W

c.

Is

W a bar
and how can we overcome or lessen them?

6.

H

7.

W
available?

8.

In
control and worker competency and skill development? Is there a way to create a partnership
between consumers, workers, and training programs?

34

Appendix C (continued). DSW Focus Group Questions

Retaining direct service workers:
9.

What types of professional supports would you like to be made available to you?

a.

What specific benefits would you like to be made available to you?

i.

How much would you be willing to pay for those benefits?

b.

Full-time work?

c.

Peer mentoring? Connection to other Direct Service Workers?

d.

What other supports would you like? (e.g., childcare, transportation, affordable
housing)

10.

What specific kinds of recognition would be meaningful to help enhance the perception of
direct service workers as a professional career choice?

a.

Professional credentialing? National certification? Other?
b.

What would opportunities for advancement look like? Training?

35

36
Appendix D. Comparison of Texas stakeholder recommendations with “The
Nine Essential Elements of a Quality Job.”
12

Texas DSW Initiative: Stakeholder
Recommendations to Improve Recruitment,
Retention, and the Perceived Status of
Paraprofessional Direct Service Workers in
Texas
The Nine Essential Elements of a Quality Job:
“To ensure that all paraprofessional workers
are able to provide the highest-quality care to
all long-term care consumers”
12

COMPENSATION COMPENSATION
1. Offer livable wage and adopt measures
to ensure investment in the DSW
1. Family-sustaining wages
*

2. Offer direct service worker benefits
2. Affordable health insurance and other
family-supportive benefits
3. Offer direct service worker 40 hours
work per week
3. Full-time hours, if desired, stable work
schedules, balanced workloads, and no
mandatory overtime
OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY
4. Offer DSW training
5. Make training accessible to the DSW
4. Excellent training that helps the worker
develop and hone all skills – both technical
and relational – necessary to support long-
term care consumers
6. Ask long-time workers to help develop
best practices to recruit and retain direct
service workers
7. Improve stakeholder collaboration to
address DSW issues
5. Participation in decision making,
acknowledging the expertise that
paraprofessional workers contribute, not
only to workplace organization and care
planning, but also to public advocacy
8. Offer DSW career ladder
6. Career advancement opportunities
SUPPORT SUPPORT
9. Create DSW networking and mentor
opportunities
7. Linkages to both organizational and
community services, as well as to public
benefits, in order to resolve barriers to work
10. Establish DSW job standards
11. Provide realistic job preview for
potential DSW candidates
12. Recognize and reward the contributions
of paraprofessional direct service
workers
8. Supervisors who set clear expectations and
require accountability, and at the same time
encourage, support and guide each
paraprofessional worker
13. Improve direct service worker-
consumer match
14. Improve oversight of the DSW
9. Owners and managers willing to lead a
participative, on-going “quality
improvement” management system-
strengthening the core care giving
relationship between the long-term care
consumer and the paraprofessional worker
*"Family Economic Self-Security" standard, authored by Wider Opportunities for Women, at
http://www.sixstrategies.org/sixstrategies/selfsufficiencystandard.cfm

THE CITY OF ENNIS, TEXAS
P.O. Box 220
•
Ennis, Texas
•
75120
•
Tel (972) 878-1234
•
Fax (972) 875-9086
http://www.ennis-texas.com

ENNIS, TEXAS: SUCCESSFUL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSIONS
Today, more than forty (40) industries and industrial support businesses call Ennis, Texas their home. Since 1999, these
industries have created more than 2,089 new industrial jobs (currently, Ennis industries employ over 4,000 workers).
Between 1990 and 2010, the City of Ennis has authorized fifty-two (52) tax abatements to corporations generating an
investment of $636,187,398 in the City of Ennis, Texas.

CVS/pharmacy
R

CVS/pharmacy D
ISTRIBUTION
C
ENTER
E
NNIS,
T
EXAS

“We found everyone to be very professional, very helpful… we’re looking forward to getting started with this,” Smith said.
- Kevin Smith, Senior Vice President for Supply Chain and Logistics, CVS/Pharmacy, Inc.
(Ennis Journal, December 18, 2002)
ENNIS, TEXAS: A REPUTATION FOR PROFESSIONALISM
CVS Corporation of Woonsocket, Rhode Island has constructed a 381,451 square foot distribution facility in Ennis, Texas.
The distribution center, located on a 71.440 acre tract in the Ennis Industrial Park employs approximately 170 direct
employees and approximately 50 drivers. The new distribution center was the first distribution center west of the
Mississippi River for the retail giant.
ENNIS, TEXAS SUCCESS STORIES: CVS/pharmacy DISTRIBUTION CENTER

ENNIS, TEXAS SUCCESS STORIES: CVS/pharmacy DISTRIBUTION CENTER

Ennis Mayor Russell Thomas welcomed the announcement and expressed his appreciation for the investment that CVS is
making in Ennis. “We are extremely proud that CVS has chosen to make Ennis, Texas their home”, Thomas said.
In response to the CVS announcement, Ennis City Manager Steve Howerton commented that, “Ennis is fast becoming a
major distribution hub for Texas and Southwest Regional markets and that the CVS Distribution Center will prove to be
one of many new distribution facilities that are expected to locate in Ennis over the coming years.”

Ennis City Manager Steve Howerton stated that “the CVS Distribution Center along with the other major development
projects such as the Lowe’s Distribution Center, Tractebel Power, Inc. and Sterilite Corporation mark the beginning of a
new era of growth and prosperity for our community. City officials are thrilled by these new developments and the positive
opportunities they will create for our City and Citizens.”

ENNIS, TEXAS: AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC PARTNER
Recognizing the advantage of strategic alliances, the City of Ennis has formed effective strategic partnerships with the
Texas Economic Development Department (TxED), the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the
Greater Dallas Chamber of Commerce (GDC), Ellis County, the Ennis Economic Development Corporation (EEDC), the
Ennis Independent School District (EISD), ONCOR Electric Delivery Company, and the Ennis Chamber of Commerce.
These integral affiliations have allowed the City of Ennis to position itself at the forefront of the competition for continued
industrial and economic growth well into the new millennium.

The City presently owns approximately 176 acres of fully developed industrial property and is the home to more than 40
industries and industrial support businesses that employ more than 4,000 workers. During the past ten years more than
$506.6 million in capital investment has been made by industries in the city and more than 2,089 new industrial jobs have
been created.

ENNIS, TEXAS: PROVEN TO BE
A SUPERIOR LOCATION!
The City of Ennis has consistently demonstrated a long-term, proven record of success in industrial retention and
recruitment. With fifty-two (52) industrial expansion projects successfully completed since 1990, the City of Ennis has
established its ability to form strategic partnerships and to achieve common objectives with its industrial partners.

… Our
future is bright,
your
choice is clear:
√
√

THE

ENNI
I
S

ADVANTAGE!
!
THE
ENN S
ADVANTAGE

0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
400,000,000
450,000,000
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
Oi
l
P
ro
ducti
o
n
fo
r
Enti
re
P
erm
ia
n Bas
in
(BBL)

Oi
l
P
ro
ducti
o
n
fr
o
m
Indi
v
idua
l
F
iel
ds
(BBL)

Year
Yearly Production for Top 10 Current Largest Permian Basin Fields
Part 2/2, Ranking 6–10
SEMINOLE (SAN ANDRES) (on left axis)
KELLY-SNYDER (on left axis)
COWDEN, NORTH (on left axis)
MCELROY (on left axis)
SALT CREEK (on left axis)
ENTIRE PERMIAN BASIN (on right axis)

Page 1

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
Updated 05/05/10

O
FFICE OF
C
OURT
A
DMINISTRATION

Trial Court Judicial Data Management System
File Specification – District Courts

The XML file for the District court report is detailed below. (Note: This is not a correction file so the correction tags will
be blanks). Sample contents are included within the XML tag, and explanatory information is shown outside each set
of brackets <> as applicable. The sample contents of the fields in this document do not create an in-balance report
when loaded. The numbers in this example are merely examples.

File Description: The file is broken down into Record Header, Number of Reported Lines and Line Details.

Record Header information relates to the header of the data reported to uniquely identify the submitted file and will
be committed to Records Header Table in the database.

NumofLinesReported will identify total lines reported on this xml file.

LineDetails identifies the actual data conveyed through this file transfer. The descriptive information relates the line
details and data elements to the actual report completed either on paper or on line.

Note: The

xsi:nil
="
true
"
attribute is listed on a few optional fields. Only use that attribute when the field is
left blank. If the field will contain a value, then do not include the

xsi:nil
="
true
">
attribute.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<
ROOT

xmlns="urn:oca-district-schema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>

-
<
DISTRICTIMPORTFILE
>
-
<
RECORDHEADER
>
<
COURTIDENTIFIER
>
321510005
</
COURTIDENTIFIER
>
Court ID Number—unique
identifier
<
REPORTINGMONTH
>
09
</
REPORTINGMONTH
>
Calendar month applicable for the report
<
REPORTINGYEAR
>
2003
</
REPORTINGYEAR
>
Calendar year applicable to the report
<
PREPAREDBY
>
frankp
</
PREPAREDBY
>
Identifier for person preparing the report
<
PREPAREDDATE
>
2004-03-01
</
PREPAREDDATE
>
Date prepared, expressed as YYYYMM-
DD
<PREPAREDPHONE >
512-898-9090
</PREPAREDPHONE>
Phone Number of Person Preparing Report
Format AAA-PPP-NNNN
<
CORRECTEDFLAG
>
N
</
CORRECTEDFLAG
>
Denotes whether this is a corrected (Y)
report or a new (N) report This one is flagged as new. If it were a correction, the
following two data items would contain data.
<
CORRECTEDDATE

xsi:nil
="
true
"> </
CORRECTEDDATE
>

Format for the correction date is YYYY-MM-DD if
used.
<
CORRECTEDBY

xsi:nil
="
true
"> </
CORRECTEDBY
>

Identifier for person correcting the report.
</
RECORDHEADER
>
-
<
SECTIONS
>
-
<
CIVIL
>
This is the beginning of the civil section data
<
NUMOFLINESREPORTED
>
27
</
NUMOFLINESREPORTED
>
-
<
LINEDETAILS
>

Page 2

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
LINE
>
1
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
400
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending First of Month
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
-
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
2
</
LINE
>

<
LINENUMBER
>
401
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending First of the Month – Active Cases
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
-
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
3
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
402
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending First of the Month – Inactive Cases
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage

Page 3

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>

-
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
4
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
403
</
LINENUMBER
>
New Cases Filed
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
-
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
5
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
404
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Reactivated
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases

Page 4

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
6
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
405
</
LINENUMBER
>
All Other Cases Added
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
7
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
406
</
LINENUMBER
>
Total Cases On Docket
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
8
</
LINE
>

Page 5

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
LINENUMBER
>
407
</
LINENUMBER
>
Change of Venue Transfers
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
9
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
408
</
LINENUMBER
>
Default Judgments
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
10
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
409
</
LINENUMBER
>
Agreed Judgments
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain

Page 6

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
11
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
410
</
LINENUMBER
>
Summary Judgments Disposing of Cases
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
12
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
411
</
LINENUMBER
>
Final Judgment After Non-Jury Trial
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used

Page 7

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
13
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
412
</
LINENUMBER
>
Final Judgment by Jury Verdict
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used

</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
14
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
413
</
LINENUMBER
>
Final Judgment by Directed Verdicts or J.N.O.V.
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
15
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
414
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Page 8

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
16
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
415
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Non-Suited or Dismissed by Plaintiff
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
17
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
416
</
LINENUMBER
>
All Other Dispositions
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property

Page 9

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
18
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
417
</
LINENUMBER
>
Total Dispositions
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
19
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
418
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Placed on Inactive Cases
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used

Page 10

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>

<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
20
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
419
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending End of Month
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
21
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
420
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending End of Month – Active Cases
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
22
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
421
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending End of Month – Inactive Cases
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>

Page 11

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Motor Vehicle
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Medical Malpractice
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Other Professional Malpractice
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Product Liability – Asbestos / Silica
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Other Product Liability
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Other Injury or Damage
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Eminent Domain
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Other Real Property
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Consumer / Commercial / Debt
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Other Contract
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
Civil Cases Relating to Criminal Matters
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
All Other Civil Cases
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Tax Cases
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
23
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
103
</
LINENUMBER
>
Age of Cases Disposed
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>0</
DATA01
>
Not Used
<
DATA02
>0</
DATA02
>
Not Used
<
DATA03
>0</
DATA03
>
Not Used
<
DATA04
>0</
DATA04
>
Not Used
<
DATA05
>0</
DATA05
>
Not Used
<
DATA06
>0</
DATA06
>
Not Used
<
DATA07
>0</
DATA07
>
Not Used
<
DATA08
>0</
DATA08
>
Not Used
<
DATA09
>0</
DATA09
>
Not Used
<
DATA10
>0</
DATA10
>
Not Used
<
DATA11
>0</
DATA11
>
Not Used
<
DATA12
>0</
DATA12
>
Not Used
<
DATA13
>0</
DATA13
>
Not Used
<
DATA14
>0</
DATA14
>
Not Used
<
DATA15
>
0
</
DATA15
>
3 Months or Less
<
DATA16
>
0
</
DATA16
>
Over 3 to 6 Months
<
DATA17
>
0
</
DATA17
>
Over 6 to 12 Months
<
DATA18>
0
</
DATA18
>
Over 12 to 18 Months
<
DATA19
>
0
</
DATA19
>
Over 18 Months
<
DATA20
>
0
</
DATA20
>
Total Cases
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
24
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
54
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Where Jury Selected
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>0</
DATA01
>
Not Used
<
DATA02
>0</
DATA02
>
Not Used
<
DATA03
>0</
DATA03
>
Not Used
<
DATA04
>0</
DATA04
>
Not Used
<
DATA05
>0</
DATA05
>
Not Used
<
DATA06
>0</
DATA06
>
Not Used
<
DATA07
>0</
DATA07
>
Not Used
<
DATA08
>0</
DATA08
>
Not Used
<
DATA09
>0</
DATA09
>
Not Used

Page 12

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA10
>0</
DATA10
>
Not Used
<
DATA11
>0</
DATA11
>
Not Used
<
DATA12
>0</
DATA12
>
Not Used
<
DATA13
>0</
DATA13
>
Not Used
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
25
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
55
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases in which Mistrial Declared
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>0</
DATA01
>
Not Used
<
DATA02
>0</
DATA02
>
Not Used
<
DATA03
>0</
DATA03
>
Not Used
<
DATA04
>0</
DATA04
>
Not Used
<
DATA05
>0</
DATA05
>
Not Used
<
DATA06
>0</
DATA06
>
Not Used
<
DATA07
>0</
DATA07
>
Not Used
<
DATA08
>0</
DATA08
>
Not Used
<
DATA09
>0</
DATA09
>
Not Used
<
DATA10
>0</
DATA10
>
Not Used
<
DATA11
>0</
DATA11
>
Not Used
<
DATA12
>0</
DATA12
>
Not Used
<
DATA13
>0</
DATA13
>
Not Used
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
26
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
56
</
LINENUMBER
>
Injunction or Show Cause Order Issued
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>0</
DATA01
>
Not Used
<
DATA02
>0</
DATA02
>
Not Used
<
DATA03
>0</
DATA03
>
Not Used
<
DATA04
>0</
DATA04
>
Not Used
<
DATA05
>0</
DATA05
>
Not Used
<
DATA06
>0</
DATA06
>
Not Used
<
DATA07
>0</
DATA07
>
Not Used
<
DATA08
>0</
DATA08
>
Not Used
<
DATA09
>0</
DATA09
>
Not Used
<
DATA10
>0</
DATA10
>
Not Used
<
DATA11
>0</
DATA11
>
Not Used
<
DATA12
>0</
DATA12
>
Not Used
<
DATA13
>0</
DATA13
>
Not Used
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used

Page 13

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
27
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
62
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases in Which Plaintiff/Petitioner Represented Self
<
LINEITEMS
>
20
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>0</
DATA01
>
Not Used
<
DATA02
>0</
DATA02
>
Not Used
<
DATA03
>0</
DATA03
>
Not Used
<
DATA04
>0</
DATA04
>
Not Used
<
DATA05
>0</
DATA05
>
Not Used
<
DATA06
>0</
DATA06
>
Not Used
<
DATA07
>0</
DATA07
>
Not Used
<
DATA08
>0</
DATA08
>
Not Used
<
DATA09
>0</
DATA09
>
Not Used
<
DATA10
>0</
DATA10
>
Not Used
<
DATA11
>0</
DATA11
>
Not Used
<
DATA12
>0</
DATA12
>
Not Used
<
DATA13
>0</
DATA13
>
Not Used
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Total Cases
<
DATA15
>0</
DATA15
>
Not Used
<
DATA16
>0</
DATA16
>
Not Used
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
</
CIVIL
>
Civil section ends here.
<
FAMILY
>
This is the beginning of the family section data
<
NUMOFLINESREPORTED
>
29
</
NUMOFLINESREPORTED
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
1
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
300
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending First of Month
<
LINEITEMS
>
22
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Divorce – Children
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Divorce – No Children
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Parent – Child – No Divorce
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Child Protective Services
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Termination of Parental Rights
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Adoption
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Protective Orders – No Divorce
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Title IV-D – Paternity
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Title IV-D – Support Orders
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Title IV-D – UIFSA
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
All Other Family Law Cases
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Modification – Custody
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Modification – Other
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Enforcement
<
DATA15
>
0
</
DATA15
>
Post-Judgment Actions –Title-IV-D
<
DATA16
>
0
</
DATA16
>
Total Cases
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
<
DATA21
>0</
DATA21
>
Not Used
<
DATA22
>0</
DATA22
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>

Page 14

5/6/2010 6:18:00
PM
<
LINE
>
2
</
LINE
>

<
LINENUMBER
>
301
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending First of the Month – Active Cases
<
LINEITEMS
>
22
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Divorce – Children
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Divorce – No Children
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Parent – Child – No Divorce
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Child Protective Services
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Termination of Parental Rights
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Adoption
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Protective Orders – No Divorce
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Title IV-D – Paternity
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Title IV-D – Support Orders
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Title IV-D – UIFSA
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
All Other Family Law Cases
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Modification – Custody
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Modification – Other
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Enforcement
<
DATA15
>
0
</
DATA15
>
Post-Judgment Actions –Title-IV-D
<
DATA16
>
0
</
DATA16
>
Total Cases
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
<
DATA21
>0</
DATA21
>
Not Used
<
DATA22
>0</
DATA22
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
3
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
302
</
LINENUMBER
>
Cases Pending First of the Month – Inactive Cases
<
LINEITEMS
>
22
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Divorce – Children
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Divorce – No Children
<
DATA03
>
0
</
DATA03
>
Parent – Child – No Divorce
<
DATA04
>
0
</
DATA04
>
Child Protective Services
<
DATA05
>
0
</
DATA05
>
Termination of Parental Rights
<
DATA06
>
0
</
DATA06
>
Adoption
<
DATA07
>
0
</
DATA07
>
Protective Orders – No Divorce
<
DATA08
>
0
</
DATA08
>
Title IV-D – Paternity
<
DATA09
>
0
</
DATA09
>
Title IV-D – Support Orders
<
DATA10
>
0
</
DATA10
>
Title IV-D – UIFSA
<
DATA11
>
0
</
DATA11
>
All Other Family Law Cases
<
DATA12
>
0
</
DATA12
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Modification – Custody
<
DATA13
>
0
</
DATA13
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Modification – Other
<
DATA14
>
0
</
DATA14
>
Post-Judgment Actions – Enforcement
<
DATA15
>
0
</
DATA15
>
Post-Judgment Actions –Title-IV-D
<
DATA16
>
0
</
DATA16
>
Total Cases
<
DATA17
>0</
DATA17
>
Not Used
<
DATA18
>0</
DATA18
>
Not Used
<
DATA19
>0</
DATA19
>
Not Used
<
DATA20
>0</
DATA20
>
Not Used
<
DATA21
>0</
DATA21
>
Not Used
<
DATA22
>0</
DATA22
>
Not Used
</
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINEDETAILS
>
<
LINE
>
4
</
LINE
>
<
LINENUMBER
>
303
</
LINENUMBER
>
New Cases Filed
<
LINEITEMS
>
22
</
LINEITEMS
>
<
DATA01
>
0
</
DATA01
>
Divorce – Children
<
DATA02
>
0
</
DATA02
>
Divorce – No Children