This analysis uses central database data to examine two core questions about possible technology impacts within the New York City ACS: 1) Are workers with laptops more productive with respect to case closings, safety submissions, and progress note reporting? and 2) Does laptop use have an effect on the timeliness of reporting? Additionally, this section presents the findings based on an analysis of the perceived usefulness of the laptops. See Appendix A or a full description of the methods used.

Case closing is one way to assess any changes in efficiency and productivity.Figure 13 below shows the volume of timely closing of cases (in 60 days or less) increased during the test period, up from 916 in the pre-test period to 1,527 during the test period. The number of cases closed that were over 60 days old decreased from 851 to 503 during the test period.

 

Figure 14 below shows the percentage (or proportion) of timely closing of cases (in 60 days or less) out of the total increased during the test period, up from 52% to 75%. It is important to note that in this county, the total number of cases available to be worked also increased from 2,090 in the pre-test period to 2,671 during the test period—a 28% increase. Caseworkers improved their percentage of timely case closings (in 60 days or less) while absorbing a 28% increase in cases available to be worked on. This represents is a marked increase in productivity. Also, the closing of cases after 60 days dropped, indicating that the prior ‘catching up’ effect was not present. Overall, this suggests that caseworkers, overall, complete a higher percentage of cases on time. The length of the test period during the second data collection was 293 days. However, a positive trend in cases closed was also seen during the initial assessment, which lasted 82 days.⁶

 

Another important indicator of a positive productivity trend is the change in the period when the laptops were taken from caseworkers for 76 days within the test period (for technical maintenance). Figure 14 above shows the percentage of timely closing of cases (in 60 days or less) out of total cases slightly decreased during the no laptop period, from 75% down to 67%. The percentage of cases closed in over 60 days old slightly increased from 25% to 33% during the test period.

The rate of completing safety assessments is another way to assess any changes in efficiency and productivity. Figure 15 below shows the volume of timely (in seven days or less) submission of safety assessments increased during the test period, from 1,259 in the pre-test period to 1,440 during the test period. The number of safety assessments submitted that were over seven days old increased slightly from 443 to 483 during the test period.

 

Figure 16 below shows that the percentage of timely (in seven days or less) submission of safety assessments as a percent of total cases changed little during the test period. In the second data collection, caseworkers maintained their already-high level of safety submission (approximately 75 percent) despite a 28% increase in caseload. Seventy-five percent of safety assessments submitted within 7 days leaves only 25% where improvements can be made. Therefore, the overall timely submission of safety assessments is already relatively high.

 

An indicator of timeliness is elapsed time, defined as the number of days between an event and the posting of documentation regarding that event in the central database system. Figure 17 and Figure 18 below show trends in the elapsed time between progress note entry and the related event. During the pre-test period, the majority of all progress notes were entered by the fifth day following the event. Figure 17 shows that the number of progress notes entered (i.e., volume) rose significantly during the test period from 33,738 in the pre-test period to 39,474 during the test period – a 17% increase. Figure 18 shows that the rate of progress note entry increased very little during the test period however, caseworkers were able to maintain that level of entry while increasing volume of notes by 17%. Therefore, productivity increased overall. This level of entry is consistent with findings from the initial assessment.⁷

 

 

During the first data collection period, participants were surveyed for their perceptions as to whether using a laptop made any difference in their CPS work. The survey included questions on five areas: timeliness of documentation, ability to work from court, ability to access case information, communication with supervisors, and services provided to clients. Survey respondents were asked to rate the difference on a five-point scale where “1” indicated “Much worse,” “3” represented “About the same,” and “5” was indicative of being “Much better.”

Overall, respondents from NYC ACS reported some positive impacts on their work resulting from laptop use. A summary of the findings is shown in Table 7 below. As the table shows, 67% of the respondents reported improvements in timeliness of documentation, and 78% reported improved ability to access case information. Ability to work in court improved for 49% of the respondents, and 33% reported improvements in ability to communicate with supervisors. Lastly, 29% percent reported improvements in service to clients. Only a few caseworkers reported negative impacts as a result of using the laptop to conduct CPS work.

Table 7 - Perceived Change Timeliness and Work Impacts – New York City

	Much worse (n)	Somewhat worse (n)	About the same (n)	Somewhat better (n)	Much better (n)
Timeliness of documentation	1 % (1)	0 % (0)	32 % (30)	48 % (45)	19 % (18)
Ability to access case information	2 % (2)	1 % (1)	19 % (18)	45 % (42)	33 % (31)
Communication with supervisors	0 % (0)	1 % (1)	66 % (61)	20 % (19)	13 % (12)
Service to clients	2 % (2)	0 % (0)	69 % (65)	17 % (16)	12 % (11)
Ability to do work in court	3 % (3)	3 % (3)	44 % (40)	28 % (25)	21 % (19)

Data gathered from the videoconferences during the second data collection support the general findings from the first data collection. While few caseworkers reported changes in the quality of service they provide to their clients, one caseworker stressed that the benefit of the laptop is to directly assist the caseworkers, not families. Many of the interviewed caseworkers valued the ability to lookup case histories regardless of time of day and location. One caseworker described their ability to do so as “a luxury”. Other caseworkers indicated the laptop is useful for catching up on progress notes and entering information in a timely manner. And one of the caseworkers from the first data collection period stated, “If I can't sleep at night because of all the stress that results from a build up of casework activities that are not completed, I can complete case documentation at home during the evening to reduce some of the work I will have to do the following day.”

Personal preference was a consistent theme during the first data collection period. For example, some caseworkers preferred to use the laptop at home after normal business hours, while others preferred to use the laptop to enter notes immediately following a visit. Caseworkers interviewed during the second data collection period reported no change in the way they communicate with their supervisors.

In the second data collection, caseworkers reported the laptop was valuable for entering notes into CONNECTIONS, as well as accessing information from CONNECTIONS while out of the office. To highlight the benefits of the laptops, one of the interviewed caseworkers conveyed a story about preparing for a court appearance at home the night before, then going to the office the next morning, printing the court report, and being ready.