Wherefore 3-1-1?
A Strategic Plan for A Non-Emergency Telecommunications System
The California Model
by Christine A. Wilson
| Christine Wilson is a Senior Consultant at The Warner Group, a management consulting firm providing services in strategy and organizational effectiveness to public safety and general government agencies. The Warner Group can be contacted at (818) 710-8855. |
| Photographs: (select thumbnail to view detail image) |
 In Baltimore, 3-1-1 non emergency calls are answered by light-duty police officers in a special room apart from the 9-1-1 dispatch center. Randall Larson |
 9-1-1 Calltaking positions at Baltimore Police. Since launching 3-1-1 in October, 1996, Baltimore has reported a 67% reduction in 9-1-1 call answer time, a 69% reduction in abandoned 9-1-1 calls and an 82% reduction in the number of 9-1-1 calls answered by a recording. Randall Larson |
 The installation of 3-1-1 in San Jose brought with it an extensive public education campaign to define non-emergency calls as well as to outline proper use of 9-1-1. Randall Larson |
 Senior Dispatch Lisa Parkman in the San Jose, California, Police Communications Center. San Jose's solution to 3-1-1, launched last November, is part of a multi-PSAP pilot program for the State of California. Carlos Valencia |
This article can be found on
page 46 of the May/June 1998
issue of 9-1-1 Magazine.
The 9-1-1 system is the critical link between
the community and the emergency public safety services. The effectiveness
of this link, however, is being threatened by increasing call volumes and
improper use of the 9-1-1 system. The 3-1-1 Non-Emergency Telecommunications
System Strategic Plan, developed by the California Department of Justice
in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), addresses the use of a 3-1-1 non-emergency
number throughout the State of California.
The Threat to 9-1-1
In recent years, California's 9-1-1 emergency telephone system has become overloaded for some agencies. In many cases, increases in call volumes have resulted in greater numbers of 9-1-1 callers experiencing busy signals, being answered by a recording or being put on hold. Throughout California, it is estimated that nearly 9% of 9-1-1 calls are dropped prior to being answered by a call taker. The proliferation of wireless communications is also expected to have a significant impact on 9-1-1 call volumes.
Nationwide, concern about the effectiveness of 9-1-1 has been growing
among public safety agency representatives and elected officials while increasing
demands have been placed on law enforcement agencies to respond to all 9-1-1
calls, including non-emergencies. Statewide, it is estimated that 45% of
all 9-1-1 calls are non-emergencies. This translates into 5 million calls
each year to 9-1-1 lines in California. In some areas, non-emergencies make
up 85% of 9-1-1 calls. These non-emergency calls to 9-1-1 add to the increased
call volume and require call taker attention, while true emergency calls
may experience busy signals or wait in a queue before being answered.
Successful 3-1-1 Pilot Prompts State Action
In October 1996, the City of Baltimore Police Department, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office, implemented a 3-1-1 number for non-emergency calls ("Where there is an urgency, but no emergency"). The service improvements reported by the City of Baltimore after the first year of operation generated a high level of interest throughout the country in the potential benefits of a 3-1-1 number. Baltimore reported a 67% reduction in 9-1-1 call answer time, a 69% reduction in abandoned 9-1-1 calls and an 82% reduction in the number of 9-1-1 calls answered by a recording. The City of Baltimore implemented other improvement measures in conjunction with 3-1-1, which have also contributed to their improvement in 9-1-1 service.
In December 1996, the Wireless 9-1-1 Task Force, coordinated by the State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, recommended that a group be established to study the impacts of a non-emergency 3-1-1 number on California public safety service providers. To lead this effort, the California Attorney General's Office established the 3-1-1 Strategic Plan Task Force in April 1997 with the support of a grant from the COPS Office. The Task Force, which was made up of representatives from 20 federal, state and local public safety agencies, offered a wide range of perspectives and brought their unique operational environments to bear in developing the statewide plan. The Warner Group, a management consulting firm, facilitated the Task Force in developing the plan, and conducting data gathering and analysis throughout the project.
The 3-1-1 Strategic Plan Task Force used interviews and surveys of California public safety agencies, discussions with providers of technical solutions, and the experience of pilot projects across the country to evaluate the feasibility of implementing 3-1-1. The Task Force developed a vision and a set of strategies for using 3-1-1 in California, and established an action plan for piloting, assessing and implementing 3-1-1 statewide.
While the Task Force was working to develop the 3-1-1 Strategic Plan,
California Assembly Bill 1198 was signed by Governor Pete Wilson on October
11, 1997, provided $200,000 in funding for 3-1-1 pilot projects during fiscal
year 1997/98. This funding went toward the 3-1-1 pilot project in the City
of San Jose, which began on November 19, 1997 [see March/April 1998 issue,
p. 6]. Several other California public safety agencies are at different
stages of planning 3-1-1 projects, including the City of Los Angeles, the
County of Los Angeles and the County of Santa Barbara.
A Vision for 3-1-1
The Task Force determined that a system of telephone numbers that effectively
provides access to law enforcement and public safety services is needed
across the state. This system will help create a safer, healthier and more
prosperous California. Representatives from California's public safety agencies
have framed a common vision in which a complementary set of three-digit
telephone numbers (9-1-1 and 3-1-1) enhances the delivery of public safety
services, reduces the number of non-emergency calls to 9-1-1 lines, and
provides for better prioritization of all calls placed to local public safety
agencies.
A Strategy for the Future
Achieving California's vision for the use of the 3-1-1 non-emergency number will require a coordinated effort among state and local public safety agencies. The following key 3-1-1 strategies are part of the plan for using 3-1-1 in California.
- At a minimum, 3-1-1 should be used by the public to contact their
local law enforcement agency regarding non-emergency law enforcement matters.
Agencies should be allowed to expand upon the basic use of 3-1-1 and tailor
its use to satisfy the unique needs of each agency and the community it
serves.
There are currently three models of 3-1-1 use. The most basic of these is the "law enforcement" model, which uses 3-1-1 for calls regarding non-emergency law enforcement matters. The "public safety" model of 3-1-1 would allow the public to access not only local law enforcement, but also the fire department and emergency medical services providers for non-emergency needs. The even broader "public services" model would provide public access to public safety, as well as to all non-emergency services provided by the organization, including street maintenance, animal control, etc. Since public safety agencies have unique challenges due to the communities they serve, Task Force members agreed that each agency should have the flexibility to select the 3-1-1 model which will best serve the agency's needs.
- Universal, statewide access to 3-1-1 should be provided.
The success of 9-1-1 is due, in part, to its consistent availability throughout the state. While law enforcement agencies have different challenges and different levels of need for 3-1-1, there is a significant potential for creating confusion among members of the public if 3-1-1 were to be provided by some agencies and not by others. Also, the provision of 3-1-1 service in some communities creates public expectations about 3-1-1 service in all communities. After weighing these factors, Task Force members agreed that 3-1-1 should be provided by all law enforcement agencies across the state.
- Funding for statewide use of 3-1-1 should be provided by local,
State and/or Federal funding sources.
Local law enforcement agencies have been challenged in recent years by having to accommodate unfunded mandates. The Task Force determined that successful implementation of 3-1-1 will require an effective, consistent, renewable funding mechanism coordinated at the state level. The responsibility for funding, however, will need to be shared among local agencies, the State and, possibly, federal agencies.
- The need for additional staff to handle 3-1-1 calls should be accommodated
by the reallocation of existing staff or through additional funding where
required.
While 9-1-1 call volume is expected to decrease as a result of 3-1-1 implementation, overall call volume (9-1-1, seven-digit and 3-1-1 combined) is expected to increase in the 5% to 15% range. 3-1-1 calls must be answered promptly or callers will hang up and call back using 9-1-1, eliminating the potential for improved 9-1-1 service. These factors highlight the need for adequate communications center staffing. Local agencies should look for ways to redeploy existing staff to support the 3-1-1 system, and may need to consider adding staff if increased call volumes require it. While local agencies will maximize the use of existing staff, funding for 3-1-1 also should ensure that adequate staffing levels can be achieved.
- 3-1-1 calls should be local calls, just as if 3-1-1 were a seven-digit
non-emergency number.
Since the 3-1-1 number is to provide non-emergency communication to law enforcement agencies, just as would be provided by a local seven-digit telephone number, the 3-1-1 call should be treated as a local call. Calling 3-1-1 from a pay telephone will require a deposit equivalent to that needed for a local call. The cost incurred by the caller is minimal, while the impact on needed funding levels is significant. Also, a local call may help prevent 3-1-1 system abuse.
- Statewide standards for use of 3-1-1 should be broad, and should
not limit agencies in their use of 3-1-1.
Broad 3-1-1 guidelines could include statewide use of 3-1-1 for non-emergency law enforcement communication at a minimum. For those areas in which 3-1-1 implementation has not yet been achieved, an intercept recording should be used. Areas that should be left to the discretion of the local law enforcement agency include extension of the basic use of 3-1-1 to broader uses, the 3-1-1 call answering point, and the preferred technical solution.
- Automatic Number Identification (ANI) and Automatic Location Identification
(ALI) should be accessible to call takers answering 3-1-1 calls.
As some portion of calls received on 3-1-1 lines are expected to be emergency calls, or will escalate into emergencies while the caller is still on the line, ANI and ALI would help speed response to these emergency calls. The Task Force determined that the statewide use of 3-1-1 should include providing access to both ANI and ALI (when necessary) to 3-1-1 call takers.
Action Plan
To move toward coordinated, statewide implementation of 3-1-1, the California Department of Justice is planning to continue with the pilot projects, assess the pilots, report to the Governor and Legislature, develop a funding mechanism and enabling legislation, and implement 3-1-1 statewide. Statewide implementation is expected to begin during 2000.
The 3-1-1 Non-Emergency Telecommunications System Strategic Plan provides California with a clear strategy for using 3-1-1 on a statewide basis. While 3-1-1 is not without its challenges, it is expected to be used successfully in conjunction with 9-1-1 to help state and local law enforcement agencies continue providing high quality public safety services to the citizens of California.
