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

Case closing is one way to assess any changes in efficiency and productivity. Figure 1 below shows that the volume of timely closing of cases (in 60 days or less) increased during the test period, up from 443 in the pre-test period to 545 during the test period. The number of cases closed that were over 60 days old increased from 297 to 365 during the test period.

 

Figure 2 below shows that the percentage (or proportion) of timely closing of cases (in 60 days or less) out of total the cases did not change during the test period. It is important to note that, in this county, the total number of cases available to be worked on increased from 975 in the pre-test to 1,060 during the test period—a 9% increase. Since the proportion of timely case closings did not change despite an increase in cases, we can conclude that an increase in productivity occurred, albeit a modest one. The length of the test period during the second data collection period was 245 days. However, a positive trend in cases closed was also seen during the initial assessment, which lasted 40 days.²

 

The rate of completing safety assessments is another way to assess any changes in efficiency and productivity. Figure 3 below shows the volume of timely submission of safety assessments (in seven days or less) increased during the test period, up from 502 in the pre-test period to 615 during the test period. The number of safety assessments submitted that were over seven days old increased from 235 to 289 during the test period.

 

Figure 4 below shows that the percentage of timely (within in seven days or less) submission of safety assessments as a percent of total cases changed very little during the test period. However, again, the total number of cases available to be worked on in this county increased from 975 in the pre-test to 1,060 during the test period—a 9% increase. A safety assessment must be completed for each case. Therefore, in the second data collection, caseworkers seemed to maintain their level of submission (approximately 68 percent) despite a 9% increase in cases.

 

An indicator of timeliness is elapsed time, which is the number of days between an event and the posting of documentation regarding that event in the central database system. Figure 5 and Figure 6 below show trends in the elapsed time between progress note entry and the related event. Figure 5 shows that the number of progress notes entered (i.e., volume) slightly increased during the test period from 14,572 in the pre-test period to 16,400 during the test period – a 12.5% increase. Figure 6 shows that the rate of progress note entry decreased slightly during the test period but remained moderate overall. During both periods more than half of all progress notes were entered by the fifth day following the event. In the first data collection period, timeliness (or the rate of enry) decreased slightly during the test, but was a moderate decrease overall.³.

 

 

During the first data collection period, participants were surveyed to evaluate 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 Wayne County DSS reported perceived positive impacts on their work resulting from laptop use, shown in Table 3 below. For documentation, 73% of the respondents reported improvements in timeliness of documentation and 91% for improved ability to access case information. Ability to work in court improved for 55%, and 27% reported improvements in ability to communicate with supervisors. Forty-six percent reported improvements in service to clients. None reported a negative impact.

Table 3 - Perceived Change Timeliness and Work Impacts – Wayne County

	Much worse (n)	Somewhat worse (n)	About the same (n)	Somewhat better (n)	Much better (n)
Timeliness of documentation	0%(0)	0%(0)	27%(3)	64%(7)	9%(1)
Ability to do work in court	0%(0)	0%(0)	46%(5)	46%(5)	9%(1)
Ability to access case information	0%(0)	0%(0)	9%(1)	36%(4)	55%(6)
Communication with supervisors	0%(0)	0%(0)	73%(8)	27%(3)	0%(0)
Service to clients	0%(0)	0%(0)	55%(6)	46%(5)	0%(0)

The analysis of the first data collection highlighted the lack of reported negative impacts on timeliness and other work activities as somewhat inconsistent with the analysis of the timeliness of progress note entry results obtained from the central database. Thus, the reported positive impacts may be related more to the increased rate of case closing.

In the second data collection period, data gathered from the videoconferences supports the general findings from the first data collection. The majority of the caseworkers present in the videoconference reported a perceived change in the way they conducted their work. A few caseworkers once again commented on how having a laptop has given them freedom to conduct their work wherever they find it necessary; and particularly when they are on-call. Additionally, many caseworkers again indicated that having a laptop has been useful for catching up on their progress notes. As one of the respondents from the first data collection said, “Having a laptop when on-call during the evening and weekends takes away the need to take reports orally. [It] saves a lot of time…being on-call is much easier with a laptop. When at court, I no longer feel like I am standing around, wasting time while waiting for my case to be called. Also, I know that I can type notes whenever I want to.” Similar comments were conveyed during the second data collection period.

Personal preference was a consistent theme during the first data collection period. For example, some caseworkers expressed a preference for using the laptop at home after normal business hours, while others expressed the preference for using the laptop to enter notes immediately following a visit. Caseworkers interviewed during the second data collection period reported no significant change in the way they communicate with their supervisors. The lack of change in communication patterns with supervisors was consistent with results from the first data collection period. Caseworkers indicated continued reliance on the use of cell phones and in-person meetings to communicate with their supervisors. Regarding work while in the court, more than half of the respondents in the first data collection period indicated an improvement in the ability to work in the court. However, during the second data collection, a few caseworkers reported taking the laptops with them to court and the majority found they could not use the laptop effectively. Therefore, they stopped taking the laptops with them to court. They said there were too many distractions and little or no privacy to work,

Nearly one year after the laptops were deployed, there were mixed responses regarding the effect the laptops had on the quality of service caseworkers provide to their clients. While some caseworkers felt that they still perform the same set of tasks using the laptops, others indicated some improvements, but that was dependent on the particular case they were assigned. Many caseworkers believe using the laptop has made them more efficient in entering their progress notes; and therefore, the use of the laptop has saved them time and energy, which is perceived to be reinvested into serving their clients. One of the interviewed caseworkers commented that the value of the laptop is not necessarily appreciated on a daily basis rather, the true value is its availability in certain critical situations. Finally, caseworkers valued the ability to lookup case histories while they were away from the office without having the need to constantly call a colleague or a supervisor.