This analysis uses central database data to examine two core questions about possible technology impacts within the Onondaga 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 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 for a full description of the methods used.

Case closing is one way to assess any changes in efficiency and productivity. Figure 7 below shows that the volume of timely closing of cases (in 60 days or less) increased during the test period, up from 1,197 in the pre-test period to 1,422 during the test period. The number of cases closed that were over 60 days old increased from 833 to 954 during the test period.

 

Figure 8 below shows that the percentage of timely closing of cases (in 60 days or less) out of the total did not change during the test period. It is important to note that, in Onondaga County, the total number of cases available to be worked increased from 2,674 in the pre-test to 2,819 during the test period—a 5% 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 was 256 days. However, a positive trend in cases closed was also seen during the initial assessment, which lasted 51 days. ⁴

 

The rate of completion of safety assessments is one way to assess changes in efficiency and productivity. Figure 9 below shows the volume of timely (within seven days or less) submission of safety assessments increased during the test period, up from 859 in the pre-test period to 1,020 during the test period. The number of safety assessments submitted that were over seven days old increased from 1,143 to 1,328 during the test period.

Figure 9 - Number of Onondaga County LSSD Safety Assessments Submitted Pre-Pilot and During Pilot

Figure 10 below shows that the percentage of timely submission of safety assessments (in seven days or less) as a percent of total cases changed very little during the test period. However, again in this county, the total number of cases available to be worked on increased from 2,674 in the pre-test to 2,819 during the test period—a 5% increase. In the second data collection, caseworkers maintained their level of submission (approximately 43%) despite a 5% increase in cases available to be worked on.

Figure 10 - Percentage of Onondaga County LDSS Safety Assessments Submitted Pre-Pilot and During Pilot

 

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 11 and Figure 12 below show trends in the elapsed time between progress note entry and the related event. Figure 11 shows that the number (or volume) of progress notes entered rose slightly during the test period from 40,876 in the pre-test period to 42,858 during the test period – a 5% increase. Figure 12shows that the rate of progress note entry changed very little during the test period but remained high overall. During both periods close to 80% of all progress notes were entered by the fifth day following the event. In the first data collection period, timeliness (or the rate of entry) slightly decreased during the test period, but was high overall.⁵

 

 

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, nearly 90% of survey respondents reported improvements in timeliness of documentation and 92% reported increased ability to access case information from the field. There were smaller proportions of respondents reporting improvements in their ability to work in court (25%), communicating with supervisors (23%), and providing service to clients (31%). None reported a negative impact.

Table 5 - Perceived Change Timeliness and Work Impacts – Onondaga County

	Much worse (n)	Somewhat worse (n)	About the same (n)	Somewhat better (n)	Much better (n)
Timeliness of documentation	0% (0)	0% (0)	11% (3)	52% (14)	37% (10)
Ability to do work in court	0% (0)	0% (0)	75% (18)	17% (4)	8% (2)
Ability to access case information	0% (0)	0% (0)	7% (2)	44% (12)	48% (13)
Communication with supervisors	0% (0)	0% (0)	77% (20)	23% (6)	0% (0)
Service to clients	0% (0)	0% (0)	69% (18)	27% (7)	4% (1)

This is somewhat inconsistent with the timeliness of documentation results obtained from the central database. Thus the self-reported (i.e., survey responses) positive impacts may be related more to the increased rate of case closing than the timeliness of progress notes.

Data gathered from the videoconferences in the second data collection period supports the general findings from the first data collection period. The majority of the caseworkers present in the videoconference reported a change in the way they conduct their work. Almost all stated they felt more organized as a result of having the laptop. Many commented that they were more caught up on their progress notes and have either eliminated or reduced their documentation backlog. One respondent noted from the first data collection period, “It [the laptop] allows me to catch up on progress notes and related work while at home, at my own speed, instead of having to be pressured to come into the office. It will also be effective while on night service.” Similar statements were made during the second data collection period. The caseworkers attributed the reduction in backlog to the introduction of the laptops.

Personal preference was a consistent theme during the first data collection period. For example, some caseworkers expressed the preference to use the laptop at home after normal business hours, while others expressed the preference to use 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, many stated how they communicate is based on personal preference. One caseworker stated that prior to having a laptop, working after normal business hours from the office was rare, but the laptop allows the caseworker to continue working from home and also to attend to her family’s needs. Caseworkers indicated continued reliance on the use of cell-phones and in-person meetings to communicate with their supervisors. Supervisors reported using email to communicate with caseworkers while they were out of the office. Several supervisors suggested utilizing a chat-like feature as a way to enhance communication between supervisors and caseworkers.

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. For example, one caseworker spoke about the use of the laptop to begin a critical action before returning to the office. Another caseworker valued the ability to lookup case histories while they were away from the office without having to constantly call a colleague or a supervisor.