The findings presented in this section are based on the analysis of data extracted from CONNECTIONS. The data examined were separated into a pre-test period and a test period (see Appendix A for more information). In order to support comparisons of productivity that reflect as much as possible the effect of mobile technology, the pre-test and the test performance periods were conducted with as much similarity as possible. Therefore, the productivity data was collected for the same caseworkers, doing the same kinds of work as in the test period, and for the same number of days. There was, however, some caseworker turnover between the first data collection period and the second, as well as for both the pre-test and test periods.

During the first data collection period, an assessment of productivity was completed and subsequently, showed modest gains. Additionally, caseworkers had relatively high levels of satisfaction with the use of laptops in CPS work – generally between 65 and 80 percent of respondents were satisfied and 80 percent would recommend the use of laptops to colleagues. Those who reported less satisfaction with laptop use in the first data collection period, tended to do so because of connectivity issues and inconsistencies in some management and policy issues (i.e., working from home and compensation questions).

This assessment focuses on productivity improvements in the timeliness of documentation, including case closings, safety assessments, and progress notes:

• Timeliness of case closing: CPS workers are mandated to complete the investigation of a case within 60 days from its opening. Our measure of improvement in timeliness of case closing was therefore the number of cases closed within 60 days during the pre-test period compared to the test period.


• Timeliness of safety assessments: These assessments are to be completed (i.e., approved by a supervisor) within seven days of the opening of an investigation. Our measure of improvement in timeliness of safety assessments was the number of assessments completed within seven days in the pre-test period compared to the test period.


• Timeliness of progress notes: These notes are to be entered into the system as soon as possible following the event or activity to be documented. Timeliness would therefore be reflected in how many days elapse between a particular event date and the date the progress note conveying that event was entered. We examined the proportion of progress notes entered each day following the related event. This yielded a productivity improvement measure based on the proportion of notes entered closer to the event date.

Productivity could be affected by possible variation in the volume of open cases between the pre-test period and the test period, a factor which would be outside of the control of either the workers or the evaluators. Case volume is defined as the total number of cases available to be worked on during the pre-test period and the test period. Fortunately, there was very little change in overall case volume in two LDSS from pre-test to test periods. Onondaga experienced a 5% increase in the test period (from 2,674 cases pre-test to 2, 819 test) and Wayne experienced an 8% increase (975 cases pre-test to 1,060 test). However, in New York City, there was approximately a 28% increase (2,090 cases pre-test to 2,671 test).

The data extracted from CONNECTIONS during the extended assessment shows that each LDSS increased its rate of case closings in the first 60 days. New York City ACS experienced the largest increase in cases closed within the first 60 days and a reduction in cases closed after 60 days. Wayne and Onondaga experienced an increase in case closings in the first 60 days, but also reported increases in case closings after the first 60 days. However, since this pattern resulted with a simultaneous improvement in case closings within the first 60 days, these results can indicate improvements in both volume and timeliness of work. Another way to interpret this is by suggesting the increase in case closings after 60 days represents backlog reduction. Many caseworkers from both LDSS stated that they often used the laptop after hours at home, and on weekends to ‘catch-up’ on cases. New York City, in contrast, did not present evidence of backlog reduction. It appears, based on an increase in case closings for the first 60 days and a decrease of case closings after 60 days, that NYC ACS increased both timeliness and volume.

Improving the timeliness of safety assessments is another area where mobile technology may support improved performance. Therefore, the assessment includes an examination of the timeliness of safety assessments during the pre-test period and the test period. A safety assessment is considered timely if completed (i.e., approved by a supervisor) within seven days of opening of a case. In all three LDSS, the volume of safety assessments submitted within seven days increased. During the test period, safety assessments submitted past seven days increased for Wayne and Onondaga. This suggests that timeliness of safety assessment submissions closely follows patterns in case closings and that the same ‘catching up’ effect seen in the case closings is impacting safety assessment submissions. The catching up effect may be directing limited attention and resources toward case closings, instead of safety assessments.

Progress notes represent the narrative updates about case work, completed tasks, and communications throughout the course of an investigation. Progress notes, as a matter of good practice, are encouraged to be entered into the CONNECTIONS system as contemporaneously as possible (i.e., following the actual event date). Therefore, we looked at the lapsed time between the related event and the progress note entry into CONNECTIONS. Onondaga and New York City entered approximately 45-50 percent of all progress notes on the same day as the event and about 70 percent by the third day. Both LDSS entered approximately 80 percent of progress by the fifth day after an event. These patterns were almost identical (i.e., no shifts occurred) for the pre-test period and the test period. Wayne County participants entered approximately 26 percent of progress notes on the same day as the event and about 48-52 percent by the third day. About 55-59 percent of all progress notes were entered by the fifth day. Again, these patterns were almost identical for pre-test period and the test period. All three LDSS showed no overall increases in the proportion or progress notes entered within the first five days, nor any shifts in the timeliness of progress notes submitted across those five days. However, if entering progress notes by the third day is considered contemporaneous, then New York City and Onondaga only have approximately 30 percent of all notes where improvement can be made. Wayne County would have approximately 50 percent of all notes where improvement could be made.