INDUSTRY NEWS
RELEASES
| Photographs: (select thumbnail to view detail image) |
|
3-1-1 Comes to San Jose...
|
The City of San Jose, California, has become the nation's second PSAP to institute 3-1-1 number for non-emergency use. Launched on November 20, 1997, the number is designed for non-emergency police use only, unlike the prior Baltimore 3-1-1 system which uses the code for all non-emergency public safety calls.
With an average 3.5 second 9-1-1 call answering time and a tiered call-taking system which routed non-emergency 9-1-1 calls to secondary answering positions, San Jose did not really have an overburdened 9-1-1 system. But a City Councilmember heard about the Baltimore system and, in January, 1997, presented it to the City Manager, who asked Police Administration to investigate 3-1-1 for San Jose.
"The City Council felt it would reduce 9-1-1 calls and improve 9-1-1 service," said Senior Dispatcher Jackie Nostaja, 3-1-1 Program Manager for San Jose Police. "Another big concern was the wireless issue. They thought 3-1-1 would help alleviate some problems when we begin receiving wireless calls."
Meanwhile, Leah Senitte, California's State 9-1-1 Program Manager, wanted to conduct a pilot project to evaluate the effectiveness of 3-1-1 in reducing 9-1-1 calls in California. A state assembly bill signed by Governor Pete Wilson in October paved the way to do so, directing the Department of General Services to conduct a 3-1-1 pilot project and providing $200,000 to fund it.
The state 9-1-1 office, San Jose Police, and Pacific Bell worked together closely to develop a workable 3-1-1 technology for San Jose. "Baltimore is using an 800-number means of transporting 3-1-1 calls, which is very expensive," said Nostaja. "They pay per call. They say that they have the ability to receive ANI/ALI, however so far they are only receiving ANI. Here, our calls are selectively routed just like a 9-1-1 call, but when they're sent to us, they're on 7-digit lines, so we don't have ANI/ALI capability."
Baltimore staffed its 3-1-1 function with 54 light-duty police officers who process 3-1-1 calls. They have the capability of transferring calls back to 9-1-1 if the report turns out to be an emergency situation. "Baltimore added staff to their operation while we did not," Nostaja said. In San Jose, the same dispatchers who answer 9-1-1 are handling 3-1-1 from the secondary (non-emergency) call-taking positions and, should the call turn out to be an emergency, can process the call accordingly without having to transfer the caller.
The new system was announced through a comprehensive public education campaign, also funded by the state. "A public education program is the key to the success of 3-1-1," said Nostaja. "Unfortunately, the Assembly Bill limited the whole project to $200,000, and the technological part of that was $177,000, which didn't leave a lot left over for public education. We were able to produce refrigerator magnets, bumper stickers for all the police cars, posters in city parks and community centers. Now we are looking at advertising on county buses, in movie theaters, and going to neighborhood groups."
In San Jose, 3-1-1 calls are routed into the same automated call management system used by the police department's 7-digit non-emergency number. Callers are given a voice menu of options, eventually being connected to the dispatcher if none of the menu options are chosen. The menu is preceded by an announcement alerting callers to hang up and dial 9-1-1 if they have an emergency or a fire or EMS situation. "We've been using a call-management system for about four years now, and we're not receiving any more complaints than we did before!" Nostaja said. "People generally prefer to talk to somebody live, but if we didn't have that system we'd have to hire at least seven more dispatchers to take those calls."
Analysis of the first 2 months of San Jose's program show a 4% decrease in 9-1-1 calls. "Overall, non-emergency calls made to the police department increased by 165%," Nostaja added.
| 1997 | 1998 | Results | |
| Total Calls | 152,797 | 138,432 | 9.4% decrease |
| Avg. Answer Time | 3.29 sec | 2.72 sec | 17% decrease |
| Lost Calls | 2.37% | 1.91% | 19% decrease |
| Abandoned Calls | 23,510 | 21,286 | 9.5 increase |
| Non-Emergency Calls | 174,633 | 358,816 | 51% increase (Call mgmt) |
The State of California 9-1-1 office is also instituting comparative pilot projects to compare with San Jose's system. Early in March, the State agreed to fund a heavy public education campaign promoting a 7-digit, non-emergency number in San Diego; Santa Barbara was also granted funding for an alternate 3-1-1 program using a 9-1-1-like interface through GTE.
Nationally, the city of Dallas, Texas has announced an imminent 3-1-1 system. Unveiled in December, the city's 3-1-1 non-emergency response system will be unlike either those in place in Baltimore (police/fire non-emergency) or San Jose (police non-emergency). Citizens will be able to reach any city service via 3-1-1. Using an 800-number technology, the 3-1-1 system is being developed by South Atlantic Bell and Plant Equipment, Inc., as a Windows NT application.
There will undoubtedly be more such systems installed as interest in 3-1-1 and other alternate numbers continues. Despite the fact that San Jose had no real 9-1-1 bottleneck when they installed 3-1-1, the police department sees it as a great benefit for community relations. "I think that 3-1-1 is going to prove to be a improved community policing and customer service system for the police department," said Nostaja.
For more information on San Jose's 3-1-1, see the department's web site at: http://www.sjpd.org/311.html
The following commentary was received from four SFPD dispatchers who have requested anonymity:
Nationwide, Public Safety Dispatchers are seeking professional recognition for a tough job well done. Workers still referred to as "the girls in dispatch" by some older citizens are now a mixture of old school employees and younger workers entering a field with the belief that they can combine their computer and interpersonal skills with a satisfying career. These workers are male and female, some with college degrees and work experience in the private sector, answering calls from the public and emergency personnel, and playing beat the clock - and watch your back - in a field mined with liability and visibility to the public. They are not just "the girls" anymore.
The cause of recognition as a professional class was dealt a blow recently in San Francisco when Mayor Willie Brown, approached with evidence of mismanagement and possible fraudulent use of City funds in the Communications Division of the San Francisco Police Department, told a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who brought this news, "They should file a grievance."
Employees at San Francisco's dispatch center had recently filed a "Vote of No Confidence" in their first Civilian Director, asking that he be removed from his position due to failure to lead and effectively manage the unit. The petition was signed by over 50% of dispatchers and supervisors.
Elected representatives of these workers brought problems of understaffing and management ineptitude to the attention of S.F. Supervisor Sue Bierman during a meeting on February 25th. During this meeting, the problems were framed as public safety issues. Supervisor Bierman and her associate heard and saw evidence which led her to believe that the problems were serious enough that intervention by the Mayor should be solicited due to failure of Management in general, from the Director of Communications, the Deputy Chief of Administration, and the Chief of Police, to respond to numerous and continued requests for aid in resolving problems plaguing the Division.
A San Francisco voter mandate supported by now Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, formerly of the S.F. Board of Supervisors, called for construction of a new combined dispatch center and voters approved bond issues to support this. Nearly two years remain before such a center will be operational. Still, residents believe that it is important for someone to be available to answer their calls for emergency service promptly and in person. In a way, the mandate for the new center validates the professional position dispatchers occupy. This is not a position the public wants entrusted to officers on disability, phone-tree systems, or `operators' working under time constraints which often result in transmission of incorrect data. Based on the level of help required by citizens in the sometimes foreign and impersonal field of law enforcement, and their mental and emotional states when they do so, the level of service provided by telephone company personnel in directory assistance is not appropriate or responsive to citizens' needs." Still, the trend seems to be towards more quantity and less quality.
San Francisco's citizens might be shocked to hear that Dispatch personnel do not receive any ongoing training in their jobs. After purchase of a very expensive computer system which did not live up to its promises, the Department still lacks something as elementary, in this age, as e-mail communication or easily retrievable on-line bulletins or access to work related information by computer. In a recent budget coup, credit for which was claimed by the current Director, the training budget was inflated to about $50 per person per year. One seminar may cost hundreds of dollars, and workers must use their own money and vacation time in order to attend. The Department offers no incentive to participate in such training. Some dispatchers have received no advanced or update training since they were hired, including some of those who are training new employees.
In an age where Community Policing is embraced, even demanded by citizens, shouldn't the picture of the dispatcher, the first contact a person may have with law enforcement or city personnel, be a positive one? Instead, the Mayor of San Francisco, through his disregard for allegations of mismanagement in the Department brought by these employees, is telling the nation that the role a dispatcher plays is a small one in the scheme of things, not worthy of attention. Three of the members of the delegation to Supervisor Sue Bierman are City residents, and one is a San Francisco homeowner. They made it clear that their concerns reflected this as well as the fact that they were present to represent co-workers' concerns.
The ACLU recently issued an opinion stating that people have a right to hear from government workers regarding how their money is being spent and their government operated because these people are the ones who know what's going on. These rights have been tested in the Federal Courts.
Shouldn't visitors to San Francisco, a tourist city, be assured that they will get among the best emergency service in the world when they visit? If the Mayor does not listen to city workers who are also homeowners, employees and voters, what does this mean?
