The evidence obtained from the previous evaluations has shown that mobile technology, most notably the use of laptop PCs in tandem with wireless connectivity, provide CPS caseworkers with increased capacity to enter documentation and access information from the state central database while out in the field, as well as assist caseworkers during investigation tasks. The multiple assessments also found evidence of improved but modest productivity gains including increased timeliness of documentation and case closings with the use of laptops.

One fundamental question in this extended assessment is whether or not its findings concur with or are different from the previous findings. The following categories present themes that emerged in this study with a description of any differences from the previous assessment.

The laptops provided caseworkers with opportunities to work outside the office environment in new ways. To understand what mobility meant for caseworkers in CPS, we examined how caseworkers were using laptops, where use occurred, shifts in work opportunities, and changes in communication patterns. Our goal was to gauge to what degree the laptops have become integrated within the daily work practices of CPS caseworkers.

How the laptops were used did not seem to change significantly over time. As in previous assessments, the full range of CPS-related work was completed using the laptops. The laptops were used for case investigations and interventions, documentation and reporting activities, as well as court-related activities. Case documentation was the most frequently mentioned use in both periods, including inputting and updating notes. Other work included court-related documents, safety assessments, reading and reviewing case histories, opening new cases, doing person searches, checking client histories, email, and accessing the Welfare Management System (WMS). In the second data collection period, one caseworker mentioned she no longer uses the laptop to look up driving directions because she received a GPS system.

Accessing and entering information while out of the office was an important feature of connected laptops. This enhanced capability was reported positively by participants in both data collection periods. For example, caseworkers reported enhanced information access and retrieval capability as well as increased data entry capability. However, it appears that accessing case information from the field is not a daily need for most caseworkers. Caseworkers did express that the laptop was very helpful in times ‘when they need it.’ The nature of casework in child protection work means that emergencies may not happen everyday, but when they do arise, the laptops are very beneficial. For example, caseworkers reported using the laptop to access information on the Sex Offender Registry and to make decisions as to whether or not a child could be placed at the suggested residence. This type of scenario may happen about once a month.

There are two main benefits of mobility: 1) increased flexibility regarding where and when CPS work is done, and 2) increased access to information while out of the office. Together, these two benefits potentially allow CPS caseworkers to shift when and where they work. In fact, in both data collection periods respondents in the three LDSS reported using the laptop during normal work hours, after work, on-call, and when working overtime. In the first data collection period, caseworkers alluded to patterns of use and shifts in work opportunities. However, in the extended assessment, the patterns and changes that emerged were clearer:

Non-traditional field locations. Caseworkers reported experimenting with non-traditional work locations away from the office. For example, in both data collection periods, caseworkers reported using their laptops in libraries, parks, hospitals, schools, and commercial coffee shops. In all three LDSS, during both data collection periods, respondents stated that they do not and will not bring laptops into clients’ homes. Some caseworkers said it was a formal policy, and others suggested it was an informal policy but suggested by supervisors or management. The reasons mentioned included that it interfered with relationship building or it was seen as a barrier between the caseworker and the client.

Shifts in when work is done. Laptops were originally conceived as enabling opportunities to do work in situations where caseworkers were previously unable to access the state central database. These situations included waiting times in court and in between field visits (i.e., client visits, schools, hospitals, etc.). However, the opportunities to do work during waiting times in court proved less attainable than anticipated. Many obstacles to working in court were identified, including poor connectivity, lack of confidential work areas, and overcrowding. Several caseworkers reported using the laptop while sitting in their cars, although it was noted that cold weather and location are important factors concerning the extent to which the laptop is used in a car.

Caseworkers, especially in a rural or geographically large LDSS, suggested travel time to and from the office was significantly reduced as a result of using the laptop. Many participants reported that they experimented with staying in the field instead of returning to the office between appointments, saving time and travel expenses. However, some caseworkers reported that they still return to the office, because they feel pressure to ‘be seen’ by supervisors.

On-call practices. On-call caseworkers usually remain at home while they wait for new cases or issues to happen during their shift. In both data collection periods, on-call caseworkers reported increased productivity and satisfaction using the laptops while on-call. Almost all reported saving time by not having to travel to the office to examine case records while on-call, as well as increased opportunities to complete documentation.

Using the laptop at home after work hours. During both data collection periods, using the laptop at home, mostly after work hours, was reported most frequently. Many caseworkers reported fewer interruptions at home than when working in the office and reported more satisfaction in their ability to get work done. Others reported they used the laptop at home to catch-up on casework, thus affording them ‘peace of mind.’ However, not all caseworkers used the laptops at home. Many cited personal reasons such as infringement on family time while others stated they stopped taking the laptop home after they were told by management not to use it while at home.

The laptop creates new communication channels. Prior to laptops being introduced, most caseworkers relied on cell phones while in the field (either personal cell phones or district issued cell phones). Laptops, however, enable the use of email while out of the office. Our findings from the first data collection period revealed that laptops modestly changed the way caseworkers communicated with supervisors or other caseworkers. Caseworkers reported calling supervisors about cases more frequently than emailing supervisors about new or existing cases while in the field. Some caseworkers did use email pretty regularly, just not for discussing cases with supervisors. In both data collection periods, caseworkers reported initiating cases while out in the field by accessing CONNECTIONS; still others reported that it was still necessary to call a supervisor to initiate an assigned case while not in the office.

Changes in communication channels were most apparent for on-call caseworkers. Prior practice before laptops involved on-call caseworkers receiving cases from the State Central Registry (SCR) by phone. For example, caseworkers would have to talk with a SCR caseworker by telephone and then write down the details of the case as it was read over the phone by the SCR caseworker. Overwhelmingly, in both data collection periods, caseworkers reported that this practice had largely changed, and on-call workers were now able to receive cases from the SCR through their laptops. Caseworkers reported time savings and satisfaction that this time consuming practice of listening to and writing down case information by SCR caseworkers had changed.

Any social, procedural, or management change in work environments may take a period of adjustment before employees are really able to change their habits and routines to match new working conditions. Therefore, it was expected that integrating laptops into CPS casework may take some time. In the second data collection period, we asked participants how long it took for the laptops to become a normal part of their daily routines. A significant number of respondents suggested the transformation was almost immediate, citing that laptops are very similar to their existing office workstations. Other respondents suggested it took them on average up to three months to feel comfortable with the technology, citing not being computer savvy and the difficulty of changing habits. However, several mentioned that once one became familiar with the technology, there was an additional learning curve with respect to using the laptops in the field: knowing when, where, and at what times one may need the laptop and how to incorporate the laptop into one’s daily work.

Mobility also implies integrating laptop use into normal work routines. For example, caseworkers reported using laptops while in the field. However, the majority of caseworkers carried the laptop in the field only when they knew they were going to use it. In areas where cars are used for field visits, laptops were often kept in the car. Other caseworkers reported that they leave their laptops at home, however those with docking stations stated that the need to bring the laptop back and forth from home to the office is frustrating. A very small number of caseworkers reported carrying the laptops with them at all times.