Analysis of Closed Out Cases

Given the aforementioned caveats, what proceeds is a summary overview of closed clients closed out of ClientComm in the first 2.5 months of use. Of the original 38 clients, only 29 were kept after data cleaning. The primary reasons for exempting clients was that multiple case managers had been sharing an account because they were unaware of how to create new accounts and had been using a single account across multiple employees. When it was explained to them how to create a new account, the extraneous client profiles were closed out. These resulted in some early redundancies. This issue is, ultimately, a casualty of the early development process when features and user experience were not as fully developed. We suspect that, moving forward, such an issue will not be a statistically significant problem to account for. Nonetheless, that means that data cleaning account for a greater-than 22+% reduction in the count of closed-out clients.

Of the 29 clients, we were able to interview case managers and receive in depth responses on a variety of aspects of 23 clients' experience through Criminal Justice Services (CJS). Looking specifically at this subset of 23, we found the following statistics:

• 30.43% were successfully closed out. This means that these clients complied with the requirements of pretrial and did not fail to appear at their assigned court date. For reference, the client success rate in Pretrial services organization-wide during this period was 66%. Again, ClientComm's results are predispositioned for failed pretrial terminations during this period because those were the only individuals that would have been closed out in such a short time frame.
• In 82.61% of the cases, case managers described ClientComm as helpful in achieving and/or maintaining communicating throughout the process, regardless of outcome.
• In 13.04% of those cases, case managers identified ClientComm as "vital" to the process. That is, without ClientComm, the client would have undoubtedly failed the requirements of pretrial. In cases where the client did ultimately fail but ClientComm was described as critical, ClientComm was described as a valuable lifeline to maintaining contact with non-compliant clients, enabling case managers to keep updated on their situation - regardless of technical compliance - which enabled case managers to communicate vital information, including relevant resources in cases of drug relapses.
• Of the successfully closed out clients, a full 28.6% of the successes were directly attributed by the case managers to ClientComm. To provide some illustration as to how ClientComm was used in these cases, the following are examples as provided by case managers interviewed:
  • Client was falling into non-compliance and not responsive to contact via voice calls. ClientComm enabled case manager to bring client back into compliance.
  • Case manager was able to work with client through a series of failed urine analysis and through regular passive check-ins, was able to budge behavior in the "right direction," such that client was moved out of non-compliance and succeeded in completing pretrial requirements.

Early Performance Summary / Additional Value-Adds