Caseflow: [Spec] How we can track co-located admin actions in Caseflow
Attorney Queue
Attorney's queue will contain in-progress and on-hold columns. In-progress column will contain attorney's tasks they are working on and on-hold column will contain admin actions they've assigned to a co-located staff member. Attorney's in-progress tasks will be pulled from VACOLS while attorney's on-hold tasks will be pulled from Caseflow.
When an attorney creates an admin action, they can select a co-located team (A or B), enter action type and instructions. On the backend, we will automatically determine which user has the least amount of assigned/in progress tasks for the selected team and assign the task to that user. This will create a Task record in Caseflow database that will contain the following information:
- appeal ID
- assigned by user
- assigned to user
- action type (e.g, Waiver of AOJ letter)
- status (will be
assignedon the initial creation) - instructions
- assigned on date
Co-located Queue
In Progress Tasks
A co-located staff member can view assigned/in-progress tasks that will be pulled from Caseflow tasks table using their Caseflow user ID number. Caseflow Task will have an appeal_id so we can get any appeal's information from VACOLS (e.g, type: AOD, Remand, etc).
On Hold Tasks
When a co-located staff member places a task on hold, on the backend we will update a status column to on-hold. If they need to add a reason and duration for putting a task on-hold, we can add additional columns to the Task table:
- on hold reason
- on hold due date
Complete Task
When a co-located staff member completes a task, on the Caseflow side we will update task status to completed and update a datetime completed_at to the current time. We will also make a request to VACOLS to update appeal location to attorney's location.
aroltsch
All 14 comments
Nice! I like this. A few thoughts—
In this approach, when an attorney creates a co-located task, what is updated in VACOLS, if anything?
On the backend, we will automatically determine which user has the least amount of assigned/in progress tasks for the selected team and assign the task to that user.
Not sure it's yet clear how we would determine who receives a task. Maybe we should leave this as an explicit open question for now, there may be a lot of process concerns.
amprokop
on 4 May 2018
I know we went back and forth on this, but I'm wondering if it is desirable to spend some time explicitly articulating how we would remain backwards compatible with VACOLS, so we can check our assumptions before deciding on a final approach, and so product and design can better understand our thinking. Thoughts, @aroltsch @laurjpeterson?
amprokop
on 4 May 2018
@laurjpeterson — is it possible to track down the productivity reports for co-located? I'm interested in:
- what they're used for (are they indispensible, as attorney reports are?)
- what information they contain (we'll need to build them eventually)
Also, can we think of any other BVA process that would break if we took co-located task assignment completely out of VACOLS?
amprokop
on 4 May 2018
👀
mkhandekar
on 4 May 2018
@amprokop yep, will schedule more time with co-located. In general, reports are for co-located to prove their productivity. I do not know how tied to performance evaluations they are, but will find out.
Here's what we have from last year so it's on this thread.
From Eugene Scott, co-located supervisor:
At the end of the day, he updates a master spread sheet that keeps track of all the types of work done. This is compiled into a weekly report for his Chief, Ty Walls. He keeps track of:
- Cases charged to location 30 (LP note: this is a location that appeals go to after a judge has signed the decision and it's ready for dispatch)
- Cases charged to location 4E, 4W, 3W (LP note: these locations are deprecated. Co-located locations are 11 and 12. 4E was reopened for the interactive decision template (IDT) pilot)
- Correspondence to OVLJ Support pending due in the next 7 days
- Mail closed in a particular day
- How much Mail is pending
- Merging pending (from email)
- He also responds to requests for reports from Lit, Team lead, and the admin section chief (Ty)
- He also runs a mail report to see if anything is assigned back to Eugene
From Tim Owens, co-located team member:
Lots of different reports to identify what needs to actually be worked.
- Mail reports
- Location reports
- Shared inbox emails
- Past due daries
- Individual charges
laurjpeterson
on 4 May 2018
Assumptions:
- We are not supporting VACOLS location 24 - abeyance for co-located putting cases on hold.
- We are not supporting VACOLS diaries for on hold reasons
Backwards compatibility options
Option 1: VACOLS is the source of truth
Field | Source of truth | VACOLS Table Field
---|---|---
appeal ID (VACOLS ID) | N/A Caseflow == VACOLS | BRIEFF.BFKEY
assigned by user | VACOLS (e.g. attorney) | PRIORLOC.LOCSTOUT
assigned to co-located user | VACOLS (e.g. location 11 - ESCOTT), Caseflow user id | BRIEFF. BFORGTIC
action type (e.g. Waiver of AOJ letter) | VACOLS | BRIEFF. BFLOT
status (will be assigned on the initial creation) | Caseflow | N/A
instructions | Caseflow | N/A
assigned on date | VACOLS | PRIORLOC.LOCDOUT
assigned back to attorney date | VACOLS | PRIORLOC.LOCDIN
on hold reason | Caseflow | N/A
on hold due date/timer | Caseflow | N/A
pros:
- most complete backwards compatibility
- other users at the Board will be able to see where the case is at all times
- no co-located reports are broken
cons:
- if another VACOLS user (non-co-located) assigns the case out of co-located user to another team, we will not know what to do with the Caseflow fields above in our DB
- this case won't be in the co-located user's queue because it's not in their VACOLS location, but what do we do with those fields on the caseflow side. should we delete?
Option 2: only backwards compatibility with VACOLS location and prior locations
Field | Source of truth
---|---
appeal ID (VACOLS ID) | N/A Caseflow == VACOLS
assigned by user | Caseflow
assigned to co-located user | Match Caseflow and VACOLS, update VACOLS location + shelf (e.g. 11 - ESCOTT)
action type (e.g. Waiver of AOJ letter) | Caseflow
status (will be assigned on the initial creation) | Caseflow
instructions | Caseflow
assigned on date | show Caseflow, update both Caseflow and VACOLS
assigned back to attorney date | show Caseflow, update both Caseflow and VACOLS
on hold reason | Caseflow
on hold due date/timer | Caseflow
pros:
- because we're updating VACOLS location, co-located users can still run their daily reports (daily reports do not rely on the admin action type)
- easier to query Caseflow backend
cons:
- if another VACOLS user (non-co-located) assigns the case out of co-located user to another team, we will not know what to do with the Caseflow fields above in our DB
- this case won't be in the co-located user's queue because it's not in their VACOLS location, but what do we do with those fields on the Caseflow side. should we delete?
- won't be able to reconcile cases assigned to co-located outside of Caseflow.
- on the initial load, if there are cases in VACOLS but not in Caseflow task table, we won't be able to see who assigned the case to co-located, action type
Option 3: Caseflow is the source of truth - no backwards compatibility with VACOLS
Field | Source of truth
---|---
appeal ID (VACOLS ID) | N/A Caseflow == VACOLS
assigned by user | Caseflow
assigned to co-located user | Caseflow
action type (e.g. Waiver of AOJ letter) | Caseflow
status (will be assigned on the initial creation) | Caseflow
instructions | Caseflow
assigned on date | Caseflow
assigned back to attorney | Caseflow
on hold reason | Caseflow
on hold due date/timer | Caseflow
pros:
- easiest for the backend
- sets us up for AMA appeals, which won't be in VACOLS anyway
cons:
- no Board users will be able to see cases at co-located
- Co-located won't be able to run their Daily Reports for DVC
Option 4: Caseflow is the source of truth - update VACOLS case location to Caseflow location
- Restrict users from moving a case in the caseflow location to another location
- Help VACOLS users understand what VACOLS location means
- Generate daily reports for tasks that are in Caseflow
Field | Source of truth
---|---
appeal ID (VACOLS ID) | N/A Caseflow == VACOLS
assigned by user | Caseflow
assigned to co-located user | Caseflow, update VACOLS location to Caseflow (BRIEFF.BFCURLOC = Caseflow)
action type (e.g. Waiver of AOJ letter) | Caseflow
status (will be assigned on the initial creation) | Caseflow
instructions | Caseflow
assigned on date | Caseflow
assigned back to attorney date | show Caseflow, update both Caseflow and VACOLS
on hold reason | Caseflow
on hold due date/timer | Caseflow
pros:
- easiest for the backend
- sets us up for AMA appeals, which won't be in VACOLS anyway
- a VACOLS user will not be able to move a case using VACOLS if a case is in the Caseflow location
- daily reports will be generated by Caseflow for tasks that are in Caseflow location
cons:
- Caseflow will be responsible for generating reports
- VACOLS users might not understand what Caseflow location means
Pilot options
If we auto-assign to co-located:
(Auto-assignment here means from attorney --> co-located user, no location 11, 12, 31, or 32 middleman)
No matter what, when we pilot with attorneys and co-located, co-located will still have to see their 31 and 32 tasks in VACOLS.
- Choose a few attorneys and ensure their admin actions are assigned only to 1-2 pilot co-located users
- pros:
- tests auto-assignment
- cons:
- these pilot users will have to work out of VACOLS + email + Caseflow in the interim
- pros:
- Pilot with 1 co-located team (11 or 12), pilot only attorneys from that team
- pros:
- less coordination with attorneys
- cons:
- have to roll out to all attorneys on team 1 or team 2 (~300+ attorneys) or co-located is still using all three Caseflow + VACOLS + email
- pros:
Auto-assignment options:
- assign from attorney straight to co-located user (e.g. with the least amount of tasks)
- pros:
- no middleman queue (location 11 or 12) - prevents delays
- might get through tasks more quickly
- a user has ownership of a case at all time. if mail comes in, for instance, co-located user is responsible for it
- don't have to reuse and refactor Caseflow Dispatch task model. could rely on status - assigned by and in progress - to show the tasks to a user
- cons:
- all users might have too many tasks
- what happens when users are out of the office? (might not be a big change from today)
- pros:
- ask users to click to retrieve a task (like Caseflow Dispatch, like Judges)
- pros:
- reuses Caseflow Dispatch task model
- cons:
- pros:
Actions:
- Anya to ask Jed a few questions about co-located user assignment, admin action field
- Lauren to add a few pilot options assuming auto-assignment to co-located users
laurjpeterson
on 7 May 2018
Under the cons in option 3:
Co-located won't be able to run their Daily Reports for DVC
Are we sure about this? It's possible that we could backfill data to VACOLS. Do we have a good sense of what those reports contain?
amprokop
on 8 May 2018
copy of VLJ Admin Spt Daily Report.xlsx
- important rows are correspondence type (which means admin actions, location 11 or 12)
- send to dispatch are activity in locations 31 and 32. when the interactive decision template is released to all attorneys and judges, judges will no longer assign finished decisions to those locations. instead, they'll go straight to location 30, to BVA dispatch
- mail is an entirely different report
Option 3 was the one where we wouldn't update VACOLS, but definitely if we can update VACOLS for those fields it would be awesome. I'm pulling some more reports from VACOLS now so we can get an idea.
laurjpeterson
on 8 May 2018
next steps from convo:
- write up option 4 (caseflow location, we would provide reporting, etc.) in the spec ticket
- ask jed about this option and how he would restrict users from moving a case in the caseflow location to another location
- ask jed / we all should think about how we might help a VACOLS user understand what caseflow location means (could there be a pop-up or link to case search? to case details? in the future)
- lauren to meet with DVC osborne to confirm her reporting requirements
laurjpeterson
on 9 May 2018
also @aroltsch I meant to bring this up earlier!
is it possible for one case to have more than one action type in this spec? we started exploring this, because it's possible a case may require more than one admin action to be done (e.g. hearing clarification and POA clarification)
laurjpeterson
on 9 May 2018
@laurjpeterson we can have more than one action type if we go with option 2 or 3.
aroltsch
on 9 May 2018
@amprokop @aroltsch - i just discovered that the report above, correspondence rows, contains just cases in location 24, abeyance. not 11 and 12 like originally thought.
I will keep you posted after my convos with Kim Osborne. I still think option 4 is viable! Will find time to chat with @nicholasholtz about it too.
From co-located:
The Correspondence received, processed and coming due are for cases in loc. 24 after they are moved from loc. 11/12. When they are in loc. 11/12, they are just pending assignment to co-located admin staff.
There is another report that is used to get those numbers which I did not go over with you. The report is accessed by going to Custom Reports ( VACOLS Reports) / Admin. Productivity/ Diary Action Summary.
This report will give a list of various actions listed in the diary drop down. Too columns are provided. They are diaries closed which is correspondence processed and diaries added which is correspondence received.
The only actions we use to get our teams numbers are Ext, HCL, IHP, OTH, POA, PRIV and TRAN. We add the total for each admin action and that is how we receive our Correspondence received and Correspondence added numbers.
To find the correspondence coming due (7 days) is found by going to Diary Reports (VACOLS 3) / Coming Due / Branch office / Law Judge Support.
Correspondence Received (VACOLS Reports>Custom Reports>Admin Productivity>Diary Action Summary (Added/Closed)>Enter Date>Run) – Column 1
- Contains all correspondence (Diaries Added) for location 24 after they are moved from loc. 11/12. (Focusing on actions that we take…i.e. EXT – Extension Request / HCL – Hearing Clarification Letter / IHP – Drafting of IHP / OTH – Other Admin Action Needed / POA – POA Clarification Letter / PRIV – Privacy Act Fulfillment).
Correspondence Processed (VACOLS Reports>Custom Reports>Admin Productivity>Diary Action Summary (Added/Closed)>Enter Date>Run) – Column 2
- I asked: Are they all cases that were assigned back to attorneys only?
- Response: Ideally yes, once the diaries are updated and closed, the admin action has been completed and charged back to the attorneys for further review. However, keep in mind, some diaries are created for tracking purposes and for follow-up., i.e. I may create an diary for the hearing branch and charge to location 57, my diary is primarily for a paper trail that contains the admin action taken….so, I may close that diary if the case will remain with the hearing branch pending scheduling of a hearing. In this instance, the diary was closed, and case not charged back to the attorney staff. Once hearing branch completes their actions, they will either charge back to the attorney or the admin staff.
Correspondence Coming Due (7 Days)? (VACOLS>Diary Reports>Coming Due>VLJ Branch>7 days>(click assignee)>Run)
- To find the correspondence coming due (7 days) is found by going to Diary Reports (VACOLS 3) / Coming Due / Branch office / Law Judge Support.
laurjpeterson
on 9 May 2018
From speaking with some folks at the Board, I think we can get rid of the co-located team (A or B) designations. Not final decision on that yet, but just wanted to post that for awareness.
nicholasholtz
on 10 May 2018
@aroltsch @amprokop @nicholasholtz - Met with DVC Osborne and Cherry Crawford today. Some actions:
- They are bought in to a Caseflow location, knowing that they can have oversight into what co-located is doing.
- When reviewing the reports, they didn't really know what the data in those reports meant, so we talked about what she'd like to know.
- In weekly, rather than daily reports, she wants to know:
- how many actions attorney assigns to co-located
- how many actions co-located puts on hold (or moves to another team)
- co-located should not be held accountable for cases that have to move off their plate (e.g. move to FOIA)
- actions should be focused around: Extension Request / HCL – Hearing Clarification Letter / IHP – Drafting of IHP / OTH – Other Admin Action Needed / POA – POA Clarification Letter / PRIV – Privacy Act Fulfillment
- She understands that mail won't be part of Caseflow with these initial releases
Next steps
- I will meet with co-located admin chiefs to let them know about the Caseflow location and ideas for reporting
- She was amenable to naming a date for when co-located will no longer be completing dispatch related tasks (location 31 and 32) and pushing forward the IDT rollout. This is helpful for us, because it reduces the types of tasks co-located has to do overall. They can just work admin actions in Caseflow and mail in VACOLS, rather than both mail and dispatch tasks in VACOLS.
- We will need to map out options for co-located when the admin action requires moving the case to another team. I think the simplest is asking them to search for these cases in VACOLS and move them using VACOLS, but open to other ideas.
- @nicholasholtz - shall we walk through this with Cheri and Jennifer next week?
laurjpeterson
on 11 May 2018
Related issues
lomky
·
3Comments
lomky
·
5Comments
amprokop
·
6Comments
laurjpeterson
·
5Comments
marvokdolor-gov
·
3Comments
Most helpful comment
From speaking with some folks at the Board, I think we can get rid of the co-located team (A or B) designations. Not final decision on that yet, but just wanted to post that for awareness.