Child protective services in New York State is locally administered within Local Departments of Social Services (LDSS), usually in each county’s Department of Social Services (DSS) and in New York City. In a federated system, such as CPS work in New York State, policies and practices are developed and implemented by LDSS. This structure, common of intergovernmental programs, typically creates a diverse administrative environment across the state. While some of the variations in conditions are natural and unavoidable characteristics of locally administered programs, it also means that management has substantial leverage over the mix of strategies and adaptations to normal working policies that can positively or negatively impact how caseworkers ultimately use and take advantage of mobile technologies.

Understanding the policy, management, and organizational variation across NYS is important, as the overall productivity gain resulting from a large-scale deployment of mobile technology will need to consider the variability of conditions that exists across LDSS.

Policies and management practices were reported as issues affecting the following situations: a) mobility or non-traditional field work locations, and b) overtime and compensation while working at home. In both assessments, inconsistent policy and management practices were reported. Caseworkers noted they felt the full capability of the laptop was not being realized due to management, policy, and technical barriers.

Non-traditional field work locations: Mobility implies being able to do work while away from the office. As noted above, working at home was the most reported location for use of the laptop. In addition, caseworkers reported using the laptop while out in the field – including parks, libraries, while taking public transportation (i.e., ferry or train), while in cafes, while in parking lots, or while outside of a client’s home. Caseworkers reported that working in these non-traditional field work locations was difficult for several reasons – connectivity, their comfort level, and work place policies.

In the extended assessment, accounts pointing at the inconstancy of policies regarding how managers and supervisors treated mobility surfaced again. For example, some caseworkers reported that they were told by supervisors not to work in these locations – even though they had done so in the early months of laptop deployment, while other caseworkers reported that their supervisors encouraged working in various locations.

Overtime, compensation, and working from home: Caseworkers reported using the laptop most frequently while at home – generally after work hours. In the initial assessment, caseworkers reported using the laptops while at home in order to ‘catch-up’ on documentation. Each of the three LDSS initially stated that they would provide some type of compensation for time spent working from home after regular work hours with the mobile device. However, in the extended assessment, inconsistencies regarding overtime, compensation, and working from home policies were reported. Some respondents reported that they were provided compensation, others stated they were told they would not receive compensation. One LDSS provided up to four hours of compensatory time each week for using the laptop after work hours to catch up on documentation.