The overall objective of the laptops was to provide caseworkers with opportunities to work outside the office environment in new ways. This section reports on how participants used those opportunities in terms of 1) the type of work done, 2) locations of use, and 3) factors influencing their use. Additionally, this section reports on the major technical problems reported by the caseworkers. The data used in this analysis was collected soon after the laptops were deployed, as well as after an extended period of use. See Appendix A for a full description of the methods used.

During the first data collection period, survey respondents reported using the laptop during normal work hours, after hours, during commute times, and while working overtime. The laptops were used in case investigation and interventions, documentation and reporting, and court-related activities. Case documentation was the most frequent use, including inputting and updating notes, and completing safety assessments. Other work included reading and reviewing case histories or new cases, doing person searches or checking client histories, conducting clearances, email, accessing government or other Web sites, and looking up services for clients. During the second data collection period, respondents reported using the laptops in similar ways.

In the first data collection period, caseworkers reported the following benefits to laptop use: 1) access to information in the field, and 2) less frequent need to return to the office to access case information. For example, one caseworker stated, “It increases caseworkers’ opportunities to access services while in the field and affords the CPS worker more independence in acquiring clearances.” Similar trends were reported nearly one year after the laptops were deployed.

As part of the first data collection period, caseworkers were surveyed on where they used their laptop, as well as the average length of time they used it. Table 6 below represents findings from the first data collection period.

Table 6 – Location and Hours of Use per Week

	Overall (n)	Average length of use per week	Manhattan (n)	Staten Island (n)
Home	86 % (82)	4.47 hours	89 % (41)	84 % (41)
Court	44 % (42)	2.34 hours	44 % (20)	45 % (22)
Field	42 % (40)	2.33 hours	35 % (16)	49 % (24)
Office	6 % (6)	0.30 hours	0 % (0)	12 % (6)
Do not use at all	4 % (4)	--	2 % (1)	6 % (3)

As noted from the table above, the majority of caseworkers used the laptops from their home, followed by use in court and the field. The data gathered also indicate that caseworkers used the laptops from home for approximately four and a half hours a week. Several stated they were more productive at home due to fewer interruptions from their colleagues, while others stated that technical problems deemed them less effective than at the office as it took them longer to do the same amount of work. While no survey was used in the second data collection, teleconference participants reported using the laptops primarily from their homes after normal business hours. Supervisors also indicated that they use the laptops at home to review their cases on an as-needed basis (e.g., depending on workload).

In the first data collection, technical problems (i.e., connection problems) and work environment issues (i.e., privacy or perceived physical danger) were important factors that shaped the use of laptops in the field, particularly in clients’ homes. During the second data collection, caseworkers again reported using the laptops from the field and similar technical difficulties were reported. As well, many caseworkers noted it was nearly impossible to use the laptops when in clients’ homes or in client meetings. Several concerns were noted: slowness of connection, delayed connection, and impersonal interaction. Caseworkers explained the nature of casework documentation requires quick notes when visiting clients and using a laptop generally interferes with communication.

In the first data collection period, the amount of time caseworkers spent in court suggested that it was possibly an important location for mobile work. However, caseworkers reported privacy and connection problems at court as barriers to use. The second data collection indicates that caseworkers still have similar barriers when using the laptops in court. One caseworker stated their preference would be to have a dedicated area for caseworkers to use laptops while waiting to be called for cases. Respondents noted a dedicated area in family court in Manhattan, but reported difficulty hearing cases being called and therefore, did not feel comfortable using that area. Most caseworkers reported using the court computers instead (i.e., they are considered faster than the laptops). Family courts in Staten Island do not have dedicated areas and barriers such as inadequate privacy and confidentiality were reported.

In the first data collection, it was suggested that caseworkers will be able to use their laptops during their commutes to and from work, but it seemed that the nature of the commute (i.e., using various forms of public transportation or dealing with traffic) may not allow optimal conditions for laptop use. During the second data collection, some caseworkers reported using laptops successfully during their commutes. One caseworker mentioned the laptop was convenient for working on progress notes when on an above-ground train. The caseworker’s commute to and from work was about 45 minutes and this time frame allowed the laptop to be used to catch up on work.

During the second data collection period, caseworkers stated that having the laptop allows them to shift the time and place of where they work and to do work in non-traditional work locations. For example, one caseworker used the laptop in the park and in a coffee shop. The caseworker commented on doing this about once a week and self reported being mostly caught up on cases.

In the first data collection period, the most common noted technical problems were related to the wireless connection. Specifically caseworkers reported problems establishing and maintaining a wireless connection. The speed of the wireless connection was also reported as problematic. Additionally, a number of caseworkers reported problems related to the lack of privacy and confidentiality when using the laptop in the field. .

Participants in the first data collection were surveyed and 48% of participants rated the log-on process as “Very difficult” to “Extremely difficult,” compared to only 20% who described it as “Easy.” An additional 28% of the participants rated the log-on process as “Neither difficult nor easy.” While no surveys were used in the second data collection, interviewed caseworkers reported continued programs with the log-on process and described it as cumbersome and time consuming.

Overall, nearly a year after the laptops were deployed, caseworkers reported relatively few new technical challenges using the laptop in the field. The same issues were reported in the second data collection period, but were not considered major barriers to use. Most commonly, caseworkers continued to experience lengthy system boot up times, continuous disconnection from CONNECTIONS, and lagging wireless connection speeds. Several caseworkers from Staten Island reported wireless difficulties, but attributed this mostly to the lack of coverage in the court. One caseworker recommended experimenting with the use of printers in the field.