Call Management and Community Policing

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services

Call Management and Community Policing:A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Off

ice

of

Co

mm

un

ity

Ori

ente

d P

oli

cin

g S

ervi

ces

COPSCOMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICESU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ReportContributors:

Tom McEwen

Deborah Spence

Russell Wolff

Julie Wartell

Barbara Webster

Call Management and Community Policing:A Guidebook for Law EnforcementFebruary 2003

Report Contributors:Tom McEwenDeborah SpenceRussell WolffJulie WartellBarbara Webster

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 1999-CK-WX-K007awarded to the Institute for Law and Justice by the Office of Community OrientedPolicing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein arethose of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position orpolicies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ISBN: 1-932582-21-5

iiiForeword

ForewordCommunity policing has shifted police departments'attention toward new policing goals, such as working moreclosely with community members to solve problems andprevent crime. Although it seems obvious that officers musthave blocks of time available to do the work of communitypolicing, this reality often is not fully acknowledged oraddressed. Innovative call management strategies can aid infreeing up officer time, yet it is not always easy to see howthose strategies fit with community policing. In fact, manyalternatives for handling citizen calls to the police�forexample, telephone reporting units, responses by civiliancommunity service officers, and more recently, 3-1-1systems�were not necessarily introduced to furthercommunity policing goals, but to contain operating costs orto handle an overload of non-emergency calls coming in on9-1-1 emergency lines. As police departments continue toaddress those needs, they are also seeking ways toaccomplish additional goals under community policing andto measure the success of their community policing efforts.

A primary concern in preparing this Guidebook was tobalance ideas about "what could be" with a clear picture ofwhat currently exists. To begin addressing this concern, anational survey of police departments was conducted. Thesurvey focused on identifying existing call managementstrategies, the types of community policing activitiesactually being implemented, and the data currently availableto police from their computer aided dispatch (CAD)systems and other sources. We discovered that departmentsdo in fact capture a significant amount of data that can helpthem plan for and evaluate their community policing

iv Call Management and Community Policing: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

efforts. We also discovered various differences andsimilarities based on jurisdiction population, which wereparticularly valuable in preparing the Guidebook.

Research for the Guidebook also involved conducting casestudies, interviews, and document reviews to betterunderstand how individual departments are making directlinks between their call management strategies andcommunity policing. As a result of these efforts, theGuidebook is able to provide specific examples of howcurrent call management practices throughout the countrysupport community policing, as well as discuss the potentialof various strategies for improving community policingefforts in the future.

vTable of Contents

Table of ContentsChapter 1. Introduction and Overview of Key Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose of the Guidebook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Overview of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Community Policing Concepts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Call Management Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7State of Call Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chapter 2. Call Intake Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Call Priorities and Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Overview of Intake Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193-1-1 Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Telephone Reporting Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Mail-in Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Internet Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Walk-Ins to Police Stations and Storefronts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Appointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Chapter 3. Managing Call Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Call Stacking and Delayed Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Transferring and Referring Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Alternative Responders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Managing Call Response from the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Chapter 4. Considerations for Successful Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Planning and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Policy and Procedure Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Call Types: Classifications and Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Acquiring Technology and Other Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Information and Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Getting Buy-In . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Challenges to Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Policies and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Citizen and Police Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Special Challenges for Different Service Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Chapter 5. Using the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Types of Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Data on Source of Call and Responder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Definitions of Call Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Integrated Information Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Crime and Problem Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Measuring the Success of Call Management Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Officer Access to Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Problem-Solving in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Resource Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Management Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Interacting with the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter 6. Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Call Management Steps to Enhance Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Additional Resources and References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

vi Call Management and Community Policing: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement

Introduction and Overview of Key Concepts

1Chapter

1

1Introduction and Overview of Key Concepts

Introduction and Overview of Key Concepts

Purpose oof tthe GGuidebookCall Management and Community Policing: A Guidebookfor Law Enforcement focuses on police call managementstrategies and how they affect the practice of communitypolicing. In preparing the guidebook, the Office ofCommunity Oriented Policing Services (COPS) workedwith the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) to address thesequestions:

ÊHow are police departments around the countrycurrently managing calls for service? How are theyhandling non-emergency calls?

ÊWhat are some specific examples of callmanagement strategies that police departmentsconsider successful?

ÊWhat issues and challenges should be addressed tosuccessfully implement various call managementstrategies?

ÊHow can police departments make better use ofdata on calls received and call responses?

ÊWhat key steps should departments take to plan callmanagement strategies that enhance communitypolicing?

Chapter 1

All police departments manage calls for service by makingimportant decisions on call handling and dispatching. Overthe past 30 years, most departments have come to relyheavily on computer aided dispatch (CAD) systems toensure that officers are dispatched quickly to emergencies,and to help manage the tremendous volume of non-emergency calls and requests for information that come intotheir communications centers. In addition, CAD and othertechnology improvements have made it much more feasibleto capture and analyze data on calls for service.Community policing does not change this, but it does shiftattention toward new policing goals. For example, policeofficers are expected to be more proactive, working withthe community to solve problems and prevent crime.Officers must have blocks of time available to do this work.The introduction of innovative call management strategieshas become increasingly important to free up officer time,meet other goals for responding effectively to citizens'requests for service, and still respond to life-threatening andother emergencies in the shortest possible time. This guidebook focuses on the direct relationship betweencommunity policing and managing calls for serviceeffectively, and includes practical examples from policedepartments around the country. The goals of the guidebookare to (1) provide information on innovative callmanagement practices; (2) address key issues involved inimplementing call management strategies in a communitypolicing organization; (3) offer ideas for obtaining andmanaging data on calls for service; and (4) provide resourceinformation for departments that want to learn aboutpromising call management practices.

2 Call Management and Community Policing: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement


Overview oof CContentsThis section offers a brief overview of major topics coveredin the guidebook.

ÊKey Concepts. The next sections of this chapterdiscuss the two key concepts of call managementand community policing. These sections providebackground information and context for the moredetailed information contained in later chapters.

ÊNational Survey. One of the first steps in preparingthe guidebook was to obtain a clear picture of the"state of call management" in the country byconducting a survey of police departments, as wellas interviews and site visits to selected departments.Highlights of the survey findings are noted at theend of this chapter, with other results and examplesof promising strategies presented throughout theguidebook. The appendix contains a completereport on the survey methodology and results.

ÊCall Intake Strategies. Call intake strategies arediscussed in greater detail in Chapter 2. In additionto 7-digit numbers and 9-1-1, intake strategiesinclude walk-in reporting to police stations andstorefronts, 3-1-1 as a non-emergency telephonenumber, mail-in reports, and the Internet forreporting. The chapter describes how each strategyworks and the benefits of each strategy forcommunity policing.

ÊManaging Call Response. Chapter 3 coversresponse strategies such as call stacking anddelayed response, and transferring and referringcalls to other agencies. It also discusses specialteams, civilian personnel, and volunteers to handlecertain types of calls; management of calls from thefield; and examples of innovative call responses.

ÊConsiderations for Successful Implementation.Chapter 4 discusses policy and procedure changes,getting buy-in for new call management strategies,and challenges associated with implementingvarious call intake and response strategies.

ÊUsing the Data. Chapter 5 discusses using the dataon calls for service�regardless of how they come into the department�to enhance community policingefforts.

Ê Summary of Recommendations. Chapter 6reviews important steps agencies should take whenimplementing new call management strategies.

ÊReferences. At the end of the guidebook is a list ofselected websites and other references on callmanagement and community policing.



1 J. Roth, et al. National Evaluation of theCOPS Program - Title I of the 1994 CrimeAct. U. S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, August 2000.

2 For background information on problemoriented policing, see Herman Goldstein,Problem-Oriented Policing. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1990; John Eck and WilliamSpelman, Problem-Solving: Problem-OrientedPolicing in Newport News. Washington, D.C.:Police Executive Research Forum, 1987; andMichael Scott, Problem-Oriented Policing:Reflections on the First 20 Years. U. S.Department of Justice, Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services, 2001.

3 The Community Policing Consortium is afederally-funded organization composed of theInternational Association of Chiefs of Police(IACP), National Organization of Black LawEnforcement Executives (NOBLE), NationalSheriffs'Association (NSA), Police ExecutiveResearch Forum (PERF), and PoliceFoundation.

4 Community Policing Consortium,Understanding Community Policing: AFramework for Action. U. S. Department ofJustice, 1994.

5 www.communitypolicing.org/about2.html (November 20, 2001).

Community PPolicing CConceptsProviding a concise definition of community policing is achallenge, since local law enforcement agencies describe avariety of activities as community policing. Many agreewith the COPS program evaluators who said "communitypolicing should look different from city to city and within acity, from neighborhood to neighborhood, as police respondto local needs and desires."1 Because cities and countiesdiffer substantially in a variety of ways, there is nouniversal way in which police departments envision andpractice community policing. However, most peopleworking in law enforcement do agree on two broadprinciples that represent the foundation of communitypolicing:

ÊAn emphasis on problem-solving, as envisioned inproblem-oriented policing2

ÊCommunity involvement and building partnershipsamong police, citizens, community-basedorganizations, local government, and others

The Community Policing Consortium, an organization ofnational policing associations,3 emphasized these twoprinciples in 1994 when it stated: "Community policing is,in essence, a collaboration between the police and thecommunity that identifies and solves communityproblems."4 More recently, the Consortium has added"change management" as a third core component ofcommunity policing, along with problem-solving andcommunity partnership.5 This addition recognizes theimportance of organization-wide support for communitypolicing, including support in terms of how calls for serviceare managed.

The national call management survey conducted for thisguidebook showed that police departments around thecountry are putting these principles into practice. Forexample, more than three-fourths of departments (77percent) assign patrol officers to specific geographic areas,and more than half (55 percent) have adopted problem-solving techniques. Only about one-third report havingchanged communications procedures for call handling aspart of community policing, although many indicate thatthey plan to adopt new call management strategies in thefuture.



Call MManagement CConceptsPolice departments' ability to manage and analyze calls forservice has been steadily improving ever since the firstcomputeraided dispatch (CAD) system came on line in1966. A primary objective for CAD was to helpdepartments get officers to the scene of life-threatening andother emergencies in the shortest possible time. CADbecame increasingly important with the advent of the 9-1-1national emergency number, which was first introduced in1968 (see sidebar, "Calling the Police"). This 3-digitnumber was selected for three simple reasons: it was not anarea code, it was easy to remember, and it was easy to findon the dial.

In one sense, 9-1-1 became too successful. It resulted in adramatic increase in the number of non-emergency callscoming in to the police. To manage the overload,departments assigned priorities to incoming calls based onthe seriousness of the problem and the need for animmediate response. Aided by CAD's call stackingcapabilities, police were able to more efficiently managedelayed responses to certain non-emergency calls.

CAD also gave police a quick way to systematicallyanalyze the calls they received, for example by type of call,location, day, and time. In addition, CAD's time stampfunction made it relatively easy to calculate response timesand the time officers spent on each call. When officerscalled the communications center and reported self initiatedactivities such as court duty and lunch, CAD captured thattime as well.

Calling the Police

Ê 1938. Great Britain began "9-9-9"service, providing residents with anemergency number that was easyto remember and easy to find onthe dial.

Ê 1968. The first 9-1-1 system in theU.S. became operational inHaleyville, Alabama. Before that, residents called thepolice by dialing a seven digitnumber (or "O" to have atelephone company operatorconnect them).

ÊMid-1980s to present. Enhanced 9-1-1 has been installed in anincreasing number of departments,giving police instant access to acaller's telephone number andaddress.

Ê 1997. The U. S. FederalCommunications Commission(FCC) designated 3-1-1 as anational, voluntary, non-tollnumber for non-emergencies.

Ê 2005. FCC regulations call forwireless services to maketechnologies available by 2005 that allow police to identity thenumber and location of cell phonecalls to 9-1-1.

By analyzing CAD data, police departments were able toconfirm what patrol officers and communications personnelknew from their daily experience. First, certain days, times,and geographic areas needed more coverage than others tohandle the volume of calls and still provide rapid responsesto emergencies. Resource allocation planning becamecritical for anticipating staffing needs and for ensuring thatenough officers were on duty at the right times and in theright areas. Second, a high percentage of 9-1-1 calls�whilethey were of great concern to the caller�were not trueemergencies. The police response to many of these callscould be delayed without compromising either citizen safetyor officers' ability to solve the crime. In fact, many non-emergency calls to 9-1-1 did not require an in-person policeresponse at all. Instead of dialing a 7-digit police numbersfor such questions as, "Is my husband in jail?" or "When isthe power coming back on in my neighborhood?" manycitizens were dialing the more convenient 9-1-1 number.

Differential PPolice RResponsePolice departments were faced with a dilemma. Manydepartments saw advantages to providing an in-person,sworn response to as many crime-related calls as possible.In fact, a significant number of departments today are stillattempting to do this. But by the 1970s and 1980s, the taxreform movement resulted in reductions in traditionalfunding sources for many police departments, as well as anew emphasis on cutting costs throughout municipalgovernment. Police were under pressure to "do more withless" and adopt "cutback management" strategies. Thesemandates to cut costs influenced police departments toexamine how calls for service could be managed moreefficiently without compromising citizen safety. In addition, research had shown that rapid response hadlittle effect on the ability of police to solve "cold" crimes,



6 For a summary of this research, see L.W.Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, etal. Preventing Crime: What Works, WhatDoesn't, What's Promising, Research Report,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, 1996.

7 M. Cohen and J.T. McEwen. "Handling Callsfor Service�Alternatives to TraditionalPolicing." Research in Action, NIJ Report,September 1984; J.T. McEwen, E.F. Connors,and M.I. Cohen. Evaluation of the DifferentialPolice Response Field Test. Alexandria,Virginia: Research Management Associates,1986.

and that random patrol did little to deter crime.6 Manydepartments started experimenting with alternative callhandling strategies, collectively referred to as "differentialpolice response" (DPR).

In addition to having call takers answer certain questionsthemselves or refer callers to more appropriate agencies,DPR included delaying patrol officers' responses, havingtrained civilians handle certain calls, taking reports bytelephone, asking callers to file reports at police stations,and sending report forms (for initial reports, addenda, orproperty lists) to be returned by mail. Evaluations of DPRin the mid-1980s found that

ÊMost call handling alternatives helped police bettermanage their patrol resources and in turn reduce theresponse time to true emergencies, and

ÊCitizens were satisfied with the alternativeresponses if certain conditions were met: the calltaker was courteous, explained why a patrol unitwould not be sent right away, and providedinformation about the alternative response and howlong it would take.7

Police continue to balance sometimes competing goals torespond quickly to emergencies, manage limited resourcesefficiently, solve crimes and problems, and moreimportantly, prevent crimes. At the same time, severalmajor changes have had a profound effect on police work,including call management. One is the organizational shifttoward community policing. This has gone hand-in-handwith an increased emphasis in policing and throughoutgovernment on accountability and such concepts as"seamless customer service." Finally, rapid changes in

information technologies, with advances such as Enhanced9-1-1, cell phones, 3-1-1 non-emergency numbers, and theInternet have created new options as well as challenges forcall management.

Linking CCall IIntake aand RResponseto CCommunity PPolicingCommunity policing retains many of the same goals as inthe past for managing police resources efficiently. Thesegoals include controlling the time officers spend handlingcalls for service and other activities, as well as managing"available" time (officers are in service but not on a call).But community policing includes additional goals forinvolving officers in problem-solving and other pro-activework with community members. These goals underscore theimportance of

Ê Freeing up significant blocks of officers' time, and

ÊUsing that available time for problem-solving and other work that fosters police-communitypartnerships.

Police departments around the country are nowexperimenting with ways to better manage calls to promoteproblem-solving and support other community policingactivities. They continue to identify two practical reasonsfor developing innovative call management strategies. First,a significant number of calls are related to crimes that werecommitted hours or days earlier, with little chance ofidentifying a suspect by responding in person right away.Second, other city agencies or community organizationssometimes are better suited for handling the matter. In thesecases, law enforcement is helping to meet community needsby making referrals or transferring the call. The problem



comes when these needs are not true police matters to beginwith and are also coming to police attention via the 9-1-1emergency number.

Call IIntake aand RResponse SStrategiesThis guidebook discusses call management in terms of twomain elements, as illustrated in the graph that follows. First,intake strategies are the methods by which departmentsenable the public to contact or report a crime to the police.These methods include 3-1-1, telephone reporting, Internet,mail, and walk-in reporting at police stations or storefrontoperations, as well as calls to emergency 9-1-1 and 7-digitnumbers.

Second, response strategies involve the methods,personnel, and other resources needed to respond to callsreceived through the department's intake strategies. Asdiscussed in Chapter 3, response strategies include varioustypes of delayed responses by sworn officers, as well asinnovations such as community service officers and 3-1-1systems for referral and call tracking. Several examples inChapter 3 illustrate how departments have acceptedadditional challenges to help free up more time forproblem-solving and other community policing activities.

State oof CCall MManagementIn July 2000, ILJ conducted a nationwide survey todocument the extent of various call intake and responsestrategies by police agencies. The survey also asked aboutcommunity policing practices and about applications of callfor service data�particularly data captured by CADsystems�to identify and analyze problems and help measurethe success of community policing activities. Surveyfollow-up included telephone interviews and site visits toseveral departments.


Figure 1


Survey results provided insight on the extent to whichpolice departments currently have various types of callmanagement strategies (see Chapters 2 and 3). In addition,the survey showed that most departments were consideringthe implementation of at least one additional callmanagement strategy in the future. The survey was alsohelpful in identifying specific departments that haveimplemented several different call management strategiesand are also involved in many different community policingactivities. Some of these departments are highlighted inexamples throughout the guidebook.

While some call handling options were similar fordepartments in jurisdictions of all sizes, other results variedgreatly. For example, most police departments injurisdictions with populations of 50,000 or more hadtelephone report units (TRUs) but were unlikely to makeuse of scheduled appointments, while the majority ofdepartments in jurisdictions of less than 50,000 offeredscheduled appointments with officers but did not haveTRUs. The introduction of mail-in, walk-in, and Internetreporting was not related to jurisdiction size. The remainder of the guidebook describes various callmanagement strategies, provides illustrations of currentpractices, and offers ideas and recommendations on howcall management strategies can enhance communitypolicing.

Call Management Survey Sample

For the ILJ call managementsurvey in 2000, questionnaireswere sent to 695 policedepartments, including alldepartments in jurisdictions withpopulations of 250,000 or moreand a sample of departments injurisdictions with populations lessthan 250,000. Nearly 70 percent ofthese departments completed thesurvey.

Respondents were grouped intofour categories based on thejurisdictions' population: less than25,000 (27 percent of respondents);25,000 to 50,000 (33 percent ofrespondents); 50,000 to 250,000(27 percent of respondents); and250,000 or more (13 percent ofrespondents).

Call Intake Strategies

2Chapter

2

17Call Intake Strategies

Call Intake StrategiesEffective policing would not be possible without somemeans to prioritize calls for service and handle differenttypes of calls in different ways. Although officers must bedispatched immediately to certain calls, events requiring anemergency response are only a small percentage of totalcalls for service. For many departments, the overuse of 9-1-1 for non-emergencies and routine inquiries has been adriving force behind the development of new call intakestrategies.

This chapter first provides background information andfindings on call priorities and classifications from thenational survey, then focuses on specific call intakestrategies and how they can enhance community policing.Response strategies are covered in Chapter 3, and Chapter 4discusses factors to consider when planning to implementvarious call handling options, including challenges thatpolice departments have had to overcome.

Call PPriorities aand CClassificationsIn the call management survey, departments were asked toprovide the total number of calls received in 1999 and abreakdown of those calls by priority level. As a first step inanalyzing these responses, we took a closer look at sixdepartments that reported handling between about 294,000and 607,300 calls annually. These departments did notrepresent the total number of survey respondents with callvolumes in this range, but they provided documentsdetailing call classifications, definitions of call types, andpolicies. Just within this small "snapshot" of departments,there was significant variation in the percent of callsclassified as highest priority, ranging from a low of 0.2

Chapter 2

18

8 ILJ bases this finding on its own experienceconducting more than 60 comprehensivepolice management, staffing, and resourceallocation studies for local jurisdictions.

percent to a high of 19.1 percent. Similarly, in four of thesedepartments, fewer than 20 call types were included in thehighest priority code, while two departments had over 35call types under priority one. The main point is that policiesclassifying calls as priority 1, priority 2, etc., can beexpected to greatly influence patrol officers' workload andthe time they have available for self-initiated activities.

The six departments illustrate how call classificationpolicies differ among police departments but are not arepresentative sample. In fact, great care must be taken inmaking comparisons across jurisdictions because ofvariations in priority code definitions, associated responseoptions, call classifications, and state laws defining crimetypes. (Call priorities and classifications are discussed ingreater detail in Chapter 4). Over the years, the guidebookauthors have found that on average, emergency callscomprise only about 10 percent of the total calls adepartment receives.8

Although cross-site comparisons are difficult, departments'ability to analyze their own CAD data has steadilyimproved. The survey showed that 83 percent ofdepartments routinely analyze CAD data by types of callsand 75 percent analyze CAD data by beats or service areas.

Call Management and Community Policing: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement


9 The Baltimore Police Department 3-1-1service was included in a recent evaluation(Lorraine Mazerolle, et al., Managing CitizensCalls to the Police: An Assessment of Non-Emergency Call Systems, draft report to theNational Institute of Justice, 2001). Baltimorenow offers a more comprehensive system thatintegrates most city services.

Overview oof IIntake SStrategiesThe national survey showed that virtually every respondingpolice department has implemented at least one call intakestrategy in addition to 9-1-1 and 7-digit police numbers.Walk-in reporting at police stations or storefronts is themost frequent alternative (see survey results in sidebar).Although police departments have implemented these callintake strategies for a variety of reasons, many agenciesnow take advantage of them to support community policing.The sections that follow discuss how different call intakestrategies have been applied and how they can enhancecommunity policing (challenges associated withimplementing these strategies are discussed in Chapter 4).

3-11-11 SSystemsBy the 1990s, an overload of non-emergency and non-police related calls on 9-1-1 had created serious problems,with 9-1-1 callers receiving busy signals or getting placedon hold at peak times in some cities. One solution has beento establish 3-1-1 as an easy-to-remember telephone numberfor contracting police about non-emergency situations. InOctober 1996, the first 3-1-1 system was launched as a pilotproject in Baltimore, Maryland,9 and in February 1997, theFederal Communications Commission (FCC) designated 3-1-1 as a national, voluntary, non-toll phone number fornon-emergencies.

Percent of Departments UsingAlternative Call Intake Strategies

Strategies* PercentWalk-ins/storefront reporting 95Telephone reporting 56Appointments with officers 42Mail-in 23Internet reporting 63-1-1 3

* On the survey, all strategies listed,with the exception of 3-1-1, werereferred to as methods for filing police reports.

20

10 Between 1996 and 1999, COPS 3-1-1grants were awarded in Baltimore, San Jose,Birmingham, Dukes County (Massachusetts),Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Rochester, andSouth Pasadena (California). In 2000, Austin,Framingham (Massachusetts), and OrangeCounty (Florida) received COPS start-upgrants for "public service model" 3-1-1systems.

11 Baltimore publicized the "urgency but noemergency" slogan as well when it began 3-1-1, but with the expanded service, the city'sweb site states that "3-1-1 is now Baltimore'scall to City Hall."

The national call management survey showed that in mid-2000, only 3 percent of police departments had 3-1-1systems for non-emergency calls. Half of these werejurisdictions with populations greater than 1 million.However, another 31 percent of responding policedepartments, mostly large agencies, said they wereconsidering the possibility. Between 1996 and 2001, COPSOffice start-up funding helped launch 3-1-1 systems in 12jurisdictions.10

The two most common types of 3-1-1 systems are policeoperated systems, where 3-1-1 is promoted as a number tocall for non-emergency police matters; and 3-1-1 systemsoperated by another city or county agency, where 3-1-1 isintended as a number to call for all city or county services(including non-emergency police matters). For example,Chicago and Dallas implemented 3-1-1 for citywideservices, with Chicago describing the number as "your callto city hall." The police department in Las Vegas, whichestablished 3-1-1 for non-emergency police services,encourages citizens to call 3-1-1 "when there's an urgencybut no emergency."11

Within these two types of 3-1-1 services, there isconsiderable variation in terms of staffing, recordsmanagement, and follow-up. The advantage of the 3-1-1number for citizens is the convenience of having only a 3-digit number to remember, rather than the 7-digit non-emergency police telephone number (or the 7-digitnumbers of other local agencies).



12 In Chicago, the service center for 3-1-1 (acitywide service) is housed separately from theemergency communications center, but 3-1-1staff includes police officers on light duty aswell as civilians.

Operationally, the telephone company converts the 3-1-1number to a 7-digit number. For police managed systems,this would usually be the non-emergency 7-digit numbernormally dialed to reach the police department. Dependingon how and why the jurisdiction implemented 3-1-1, theintake strategies vary.

Police departments with 3-1-1 numbers usually have adesignated group of call takers to receive 3-1-1 calls whileanother group is devoted to 9-1-1 calls.12 An alternative is tohave the same call takers handle both types of calls andidentify the emergency line with a distinctive ring or lighton the phone. The introduction of 3-1-1 has no effect on theCAD system. Call takers enter the same information intothe CAD system as before, and the system then takesappropriate actions for handling the non-emergency event,such as assigning a lower priority to the dispatch or routingthe call to a telephone report unit. If the 3-1-1 call, such asa stray dog, might be more appropriately handled byanother agency, such as animal control, the caller can betransferred directly or referred to the appropriate agency.

22

13 The Dallas 3-1-1 system is operated by theFire Division.

Enhancing CCommunity PPolicingThe primary reason most jurisdictions implement a 3-1-1strategy is to reduce the number of non-emergency calls andinformation requests coming in to 9-1-1. Another goal of 3-1-1 is to quickly connect citizens with appropriate agenciesto serve their needs. The 3-1-1 number also has thepotential to benefit community policing in other ways. For example,

Ê It can alert other agencies to citizen problems forwhich they, rather than the police, have mandates toassume primary responsibility. Ê It eases the burden on police personnel who answer

emergency calls.Ê It can facilitate communication between community

members and agencies by attempting to connectcitizens with the right agency, department, orperson the first time. Ê It can improve accountability for follow-up. Some

3-1-1 systems provide callers with a "trackingnumber" so they can check on the status of theirservice requests.Ê It can promote coordination of city services.

Regardless of which agency staffs the 3-1-1 line,planning the service and operating it effectivelyrequires significant police involvement.

In Dallas, where 3-1-1 is a city service,13 call takers notedthat 3-1-1 reduced the number of times citizen callers weretransferred when trying to reach various city departments.In addition, the 3-1-1 call takers felt they wereknowledgeable and helpful regarding all city services, andthat by knowing the bigger picture, they could deal with anextensive range of citizen problems.



14 Lorraine Mazerolle et al., ManagingCitizens Calls to the Police: An Assessment ofNon-Emergency Call Systems, draft report tothe National Institute of Justice, 2001.

The 3-1-1 number can also serve as a data collection tool.The call system captures information that can help policeand municipal government identify and analyze crime anddisorder problems, as well as other types of complaints ( forexample, broken fire hydrants, power outages, andpotholes). This can serve as a starting point for determininga plan of action.

For 3-1-1 data to be valuable in identifying and analyzingproblems, however, it is important to carefully plan whatinformation the system will collect. For example, in onepolice-managed 3-1-1 system, the only calls entered into acomputer system were those where an officer wasdispatched or police reports were taken. The 3-1-1 callsreferred to other city agencies were not entered into thesystem, eliminating any possibility of systematicallyanalyzing those calls.14 In addition, a CAD system thatcaptures 3-1-1 calls may not differentiate how calls enterthe system.

Telephone RReporting UUnitsMore than half of the surveyed police departments (56percent) have telephone reporting units (TRU). The nationalsurvey showed TRU were operated by police in 93 percentof jurisdictions with populations of 250,000 or more and in77 percent of jurisdictions with 50,000 to 250,000 residents.In contrast, 43 percent of departments in jurisdictions of25,000 to 50,000 and only 29 percent in jurisdictions of lessthan 25,000 had TRU. TRU staff take reports over thephone on incidents that do not require an officer to bedispatched. A call may reach TRU in various ways,depending on the agency. The unit may have a directnumber, a call taker may route the call to the unit, or thereporting party's contact information may be passed on toTRU to call the individual back. Although agencies vary as

Teleserve Cadets in Knoxville

In addition to sworn personnelpermanently assigned to the unitand those on temporaryassignments or restricted duty,police cadets staff the KnoxvillePolice Department's TeleserveUnit. In 2000, cadets took 42percent of the reports coming intoTeleserve. Using cadets not onlyallows patrol resources to stay inthe field but also providesindividuals who are pursuing acareer in law enforcement a way tobecome familiar with thedepartment's policies, organization,and personnel.

24

to what call types are routed to TRU, the common thread isthat the incidents are non-emergency situations with limitedchances of apprehending a suspect at the scene. TRU can bea particularly efficient response to handling lower prioritycalls for service.

One advantage of any specialized unit is that the personneldevelop an increased efficiency and mastery of the task.Some agencies staff TRU with patrol officers on limitedduty (due to injury), who bring to the job considerablereport taking and field experience. Other agencies find thatstaffing TRU with trained, experienced civilians can beeven more cost-effective. Civilian personnel are oftenmotivated by the responsibility involved in taking reportsfrom community members and can be trained to providethorough, well-written reports.

Enhancing CCommunity PPolicingMinor incidents handled by TRU do not require fieldresponses by patrol officers and can be more quickly andefficiently handled by TRU personnel. Delegating non-emergency, non-suspect incidents to TRU frees up patrolresources, providing officers with more time andopportunities for community-oriented, proactive work.

Citizen satisfaction with TRU (and other intake strategies)tends to depend on how the alternative is explained to thecaller. Department policies typically state that if a citizeninsists on seeing an officer, one will be sent. In manysituations, though, citizens may appreciate having theirneeds met more quickly via TRU. The average time for anofficer to handle a call is 30-45 minutes; and for minorincidents reported during busy times, citizens may have towait several hours for an officer to arrive. For example, if


MPDC Telephone Report Unit

The Metropolitan Police, Districtof Columbia (MPDC) operates aTelephone Report Unit (TRU) thathandles reports for the following:"damage to or destruction ofproperty, stolen vehicles orbicycles, lost property, stolen/losttags, injury reporting (except thoseoccurring on public space), animalbites, all thefts from auto, Theft II'sand those Theft I's which do notexceed $1,000 in property loss,certain hit and run accidents,larcenies from mail, and additionalinformation on all reports."

MPDC General Order No. 401.10


the caller simply needs to file a report for insurancepurposes, TRU can be an excellent alternative. Beforeimplementing a TRU, departments may want to surveycitizens about various levels of service; for example, ifresidents can file a report over the phone within an hour orreceive a patrol response within four hours, which servicewould they rate higher?

Finally, TRU reports are almost always captured by adepartment's records management system. (Chapter 5discusses how data can help provide a more completepicture of non-emergency requests for police service).

Mail-iin RReportsSome departments have developed processes fordistributing special report forms that citizens can completeand mail back to the department. With mail-in reporting,citizens can mail an incident report form to report a crimeor quality of life issue, provide intelligence or anonymoustips, file a complaint about police performance, or providesupplemental information to the police about a priorincident. Citizens can do this anonymously or providecontact information.

Enhancing CCommunity PPolicingWhen callers have time to provide supplementalinformation after an initial report, they can be morethorough in identifying property and providing descriptions.Because the national survey did not ask follow-up questionsabout mail-in reports, it is not clear how many containvaluable details and how many provide only minimalinformation (e.g., reports on minor traffic accidents filed forinsurance purposes). However, mail-in reports should not beoverlooked as a potential source of information for

Mail-in Reports in Knoxville

The Knoxville, Tennessee, PoliceDepartment reports that givingcitizens the option of mailing ininformation when they are lessupset or have time to provide moredetails puts the citizens more atease. It is one way of showing thatthe police are interested in doing athorough job, as well asaccommodating the caller's needs.

26

15 According to the San Jose Mercury News(12/19/99), several California jurisdictionsbegan Internet reporting services prior to SanJose, including Sacramento, Santa Rosa, andSalinas.

problem-solving. In addition, tips and intelligence receivedthrough mail-in reports can contain background informationabout a neighborhood or other factors, helping officersanalyze problems more thoroughly. Feedback about policeperformance can be beneficial for training and educationpurposes. Of course, anonymous information must alwaysbe verified.

Internet RReportsA law enforcement agency's website or email address canbe available for citizens to report crime and disorder,provide feedback on police performance (compliments orcomplaints), or provide investigative information. Anagency may have forms for citizens to fill out and submit,or simply an email address. Personal email and onlinereporting systems do not guarantee anonymity and maypreclude anonymous tips, except from individuals whobelieve the channels to be secure or untraceable. If anagency is receiving online information, it can be stored in adatabase (through forms) or simply in a file for laterretrieval.

Internet reporting was in place in only 6 percent of policedepartments responding to the national survey. Thetechnology of police agencies is often influenced by thetechnological sophistication and support of the surroundingcommunity�state and local government, private industry,universities, etc. For example, the San Jose, California,Police Department, located in the heart of Silicon Valley,has had online reporting for several years, receiving 25-30online reports daily.15


Citizens' Online Incident ReportForm, Arlington County

The Arlington County, Virginia,Police Department uses several callintake methods for non-emergencies, including an Internetreporting form(www.co.arlington.va.us/police)

The form includes several pull-down menus. For example, optionsunder "type of offense" includedestruction of property, fraud,simple assault, eight types of theft(vehicle license plate, bicycle, cellphone, etc.), and threatening orharassing phone calls.

Before citizens can submit theform, they must check a boxindicating they are aware that it isa crime to submit a false report.Several fields for providing contactinformation must also becompleted.


Enhancing CCommunity PPolicingDespite the rapid growth of Internet communications,relatively few people access the Internet for reportingincidents and information to the police. Use of thistechnology can be expected to increase as people becomemore familiar with computers and online resources, and aspolice departments make greater use of onlineopportunities. The Internet allows residents to file a crimereport any time of day or night and take whatever time theyneed to explain what happened in their own words.However, the "digital divide" is still a reality in today'seconomy. Although citizens can access the Internet frommany public locations (libraries, community centers, cybercafes, etc.), those who have personal computers in theirhomes obviously have an advantage.

Community policing and problem-solving can be enhancedby online reporting's capability to rapidly exchangedocuments with detailed information, data, and pictures.Community leaders, among others, may find the Internet aconvenient way to exchange information with the police.The Internet also offers possibilities with respect to crimesthat are typically underreported. For example, people whohave witnessed or have knowledge of gang related crimesmay be apprehensive about having a police officer come totheir home, but may be willing to file a report online.Quality of life issues can also be reported quickly and easilyover the Internet. The more information the police have, themore readily they can identify, analyze, and respond toproblems.

28

16 The Washington Post, Alexandria-ArlingtonExtra, P. 3, January 24, 2002.

17 Koban is a Japanese word for "mini-station." In Japan, a koban is usually staffedby two police officers and located in aresidential neighborhood.

Arlington County, Virginia, Police Chief Edward Flynn hasexpressed hope that his department's new online reportingwill encourage citizens to report more crimes. "We arechallenged as an industry to create time for our officers tobe proactive with community problems," Chief Flynn hasstated. "The less time we spend chasing our tails and takingfalse alarm calls or minor crime reports, the more time wehave for prevention."16

Internet reporting is relatively new. In the near future,however, it is likely that departments experienced with thisoption will shed more light on citizen satisfaction withInternet reporting, the extent to which citizens takeadvantage of it, and for what purposes.

Walk-IIns tto PPolice SStations aand SStorefrontsAlmost every police department accepts crime reports frompeople who walk in to the police station or a districtsubstation. Many departments have expanded their walk-inreporting options by opening storefront facilities and othertypes of police service centers, sometimes in cooperationwith other government agencies.

Storefronts in this country initially became popular in retailareas in cities and in suburban "strip" shopping centers.Vacant retail space, which often invited crime, could beconverted to provide a visible police presence as a deterrentto crime. As interest in community policing grew, theJapanese system of operating neighborhood kobans17 alsoinfluenced the development of police storefronts in thiscountry.


Police Storefronts in Greensboro

Greensboro, North Carolina, PoliceDepartment storefronts,implemented with input fromneighborhood block captains,community activists, and citycouncil, were customized for eachdistrict. They put the departmentcloser to the community, increasedpolice availability, and were foundto be more inviting, leading tomore community involvement andparticipation in policing issues.


18 See M. A. Wycoff and W. Skogan,"Storefront Police Offices: The Houston FieldTest," in D. Rosenbaum, editor, CommunityCrime Prevention: Does It Work? BeverlyHills, CA: Sage, 1986; W. Skogan, Disorderand Decline, NY: Free Press; J. H. Skolnickand D. H. Bayley, New Blue Line, Free Press,1986; C. Uchida, B. Frost, and S.O.Annon,Modern Policing and the Control of IllegalDrugs: Testing New Strategies in TwoAmerican Cities, Research Report,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, 1992.

19 C. Coles, "National COPS EvaluationOrganizational Change Case Study: Savannah,Georgia," one of 10 case studies conducted bythe John F. Kennedy School of Government,Program in Criminal Justice Policy andManagement, Harvard University, publishedonline atwww.ncjrs.gov/nij/cops_casestudy/savannah2.html (December 2002).

20 L. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie,et al. Preventing Crime: What Works, WhatDoesn't, What's Promising, Research Report,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, 1996.

Today, police storefront facilities provide services in avariety of neighborhood settings, including shopping malls,restaurants, apartment complexes, and community centers.They tend to be small and often are not permanently staffed.Storefronts have been set up by police for several purposes:(1) provide a visible police presence in a community; (2)hold community meetings and encourage informalinteraction between police and residents; (3) house policeservices, such as distributing crime prevention informationor conducting youth programs; and (4) serve as office spaceand a meeting place for officers. Residents may also visitstorefronts to report crime or suspicious persons, ask law-related questions, or discuss other issues with the police.

Some years ago, several studies of the impact of storefrontson reducing crime and victimization produced mixedresults.18 In contrast, a recent case study in Savannah,Georgia, describes how four storefront offices appear tohave contributed to significant reductions in crime.19 Inaddition, storefronts are often requested by residents, andthere are positive citizen evaluations associated with them.20

Enhancing CCommunity PPolicingA storefront setting has many potential benefits forcommunity policing. It is usually set up with the particularneeds and culture of the neighborhood in mind and is oftenmore accessible by public transportation than the precinctstation. These factors may encourage people to stop in,particularly those who are not comfortable with the moreformal setting of a traditional precinct or district facility.Storefronts provide opportunities for police to foster andmaintain contacts with residents; develop better rapportwith members of the public; and build partnerships. Theyalso encourage community leaders to meet with policeinformally.

30

In addition, larger police or multi-agency service centersmay offer some of the neighborhood-oriented features ofstorefronts while providing a wider range of services. Inline with community policing goals, these centers involvepolice collaborations with other criminal justice agencies,social services, public works, and others who seek to maketheir services more responsive to community needs. Forexample, in Spokane, Washington, parole officers from thestate Department of Corrections work in COPS Shops (seesidebar) along with police personnel and local volunteers.


"COPS Shops" in Spokane

The Spokane, Washington, PoliceDepartment currently has ten"COPS Shops" (CommunityOriented Policing substations)operating in differentneighborhoods throughout the city.Police personnel, parole officers,and community volunteers staff theshops. Each shop can developprograms based on thatneighborhood's needs. At one shop,Neva-Wood, there are over 160projects and programs, includingBlock Watch, Restorative Justice,Juvenile Justice, Fax Back, NOPS,and Graffiti and Fingerprinttraining.


AppointmentsAnother call intake strategy involves citizens makingappointments with officers to report crime and otherinformation. If the incident is not an emergency and thecaller would like personal contact, appointments often canbe made to meet with specific police personnel, such as thebeat officer. Generally, this is offered as a convenience tothe caller, with the appointment scheduled at the caller'shome, place of business, or a police facility. It can also be aconvenience for officers, allowing them to scheduleresponses to minor calls when time permits. Citizens usually request appointments by calling a general,non-emergency number, although appointments can beoffered as a response option for people calling 9-1-1 withcertain types of complaints. A citizen may also have a directnumber to a detective for arranging appointments related toan ongoing investigation. Finally, some departments haveset up voice mail for individual officers, and some haveprovided officers with cell phones. As part of communitypolicing, officers may encourage citizens to call themdirectly and hand out business cards listing their office,voice mail, or cell phone numbers.

Enhancing CCommunity PPolicingAppointments can be convenient for both citizens andofficers and can show the police agency's willingness to beaccommodating, which can help build positive relationshipsbetween police and citizens. Encouraging communitymembers to interact more with police can, in turn, improveproblem-solving efforts. Community leaders and individualswho have specific quality of life complaints or who areconcerned about persistent crime problems need personaltime with police. Appointments can help police and citizensdiscuss these issues in detail at a time when interruptionsare less likely.

Appointments: Call ManagementSurvey Results

As a reporting method,appointments were much morelikely in jurisdictions with fewerthan 50,000 residents than in largerjurisdictions. Approximately halfof departments in cities andcounties of 25,000 to 50,000 (49percent) and in jurisdictions withless than 25,000 population (53percent) report that they scheduleappointments, compared to 34percent of departments injurisdictions of 50,000 to 250,000and 19 percent in jurisdictions of250,000 or more.

In the survey comments, a numberof respondents listed voice mail,pagers, and cell phones as callintake options that theirdepartments were considering.

32

21 Another option is seen in the Los AngelesPolice Department (LAPD). The number800.ASK.LAPD is a non-emergencyinformation line, which directs callers tooperators handling non-emergency calls forservice. The city also maintains a 3-1-1number for non-public safety citizen calls.

SummaryIn the survey comments related to call intake strategies, anumber of departments mentioned preventive steps taken toreduce the number of 9-1-1 calls for certain problems.These included passing alarm ordinances to encouragebusinesses to adjust or replace faulty alarm systems; using"Reverse 9-1-1" to communicate information or alerts toselected areas of the community; and conducting publiceducation campaigns, along with providing clearer directorylistings, to encourage use of existing 7-digit police non-emergency numbers.21 Another way to reduce calls is toaddress conditions that create problems as part of adepartment's community policing efforts. Examples of thisare included throughout the guidebook.

This chapter discussed call intake strategies with whichdepartments have considerable experience, as well as others(such as 3-1-1 and Internet reporting) that have evolvedmore recently. The focus here has been on how thestrategies are employed and their benefits for communitypolicing. The next chapter (Chapter 3) provides similarinformation on managing call response, followed by adiscussion in Chapter 4 of issues that should be addressedto successfully implement various call intake and responsestrategies.


Managing Call Response

3Chapter 3

35Managing Call Response

Managing Call ResponseManaging implies making thoughtful decisions based onknowledge, experience, and priorities. Police executivesmust manage the call for service response�think about it,study it, and reach decisions based on data analysis, recenthistory, employee input, and community acceptance.

This chapter discusses call stacking and delayed responseand the process of transferring or referring calls to otheragencies. It also provides information on civilianemployees, special teams or units, volunteers and others asalternative responders to calls for service and discusses themanagement of call responses from the field.

Call SStacking aand DDelayed RResponseCall stacking is a process that the CAD system performs inwhich non-emergency, lower priority calls are ranked andheld or "stacked" so that higher priorities are continuallydispatched first. The objective of call stacking is to reducecross-beat dispatches and allow the unit in the area ofresponsibility to handle as many calls in that area aspossible. This has significant advantages for communitypolicing, which in the majority of departments involvesassigning patrol officers to specific geographic areas suchas beats or neighborhoods. As officers spend more time intheir beats, they gain opportunities to become familiar withconditions, problems, and resources in those areas. Cross-beat dispatches reduce those opportunities by taking officersout of their assigned areas, as well as adding to the timerequired to respond to calls.

Chapter 3

36

Call stacking occurs in two types of situations. The first iswhen the patrol unit in the area of responsibility is busy anda lower priority call arrives in the communications center.Rather than recommending a unit from an adjacent beat, theCAD system holds the call until the primary unit becomesavailable. Many CAD systems alert the dispatcher afterholding the call for a period of time (for example, 30minutes). The dispatcher can then make a decision onwhether to dispatch an adjacent unit or continue to stack thecall. Another option, discussed later in this chapter, is torefer the call to a field supervisor.

The second situation that creates call stacking is when everyunit in the city (or command area) is busy on calls andanother call comes into the communications center. If thecall is low priority, the same process occurs in that the callhas to be held until a unit�hopefully the unit in the area ofresponsibility�becomes available. If all units are busy and ahigh priority call comes in, the dispatcher may send out aplea for "any units available."

With delayed response, lower priority incidents do not getan immediate response. They can be held until a quietertime during the shift, e.g., waiting until later in the eveningto get past the busy time of 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. or,alternatively, they can be held until the next shift, e.g.,passing the call from the evening to the day shift whencomplainants are more likely to be available.

Because CAD automates call prioritization and callstacking, departments can manage limited resources muchmore efficiently than in the past. Some departments stillattempt to provide an in-person, sworn response to all callsas soon as possible, whether or not their CAD system stackscalls. In contrast, departments may not have their CAD



systems stack calls but may still have policies for providingdelayed responses. For most busy departments, though, callstacking and delayed response to certain calls have becomethe norm. As a lieutenant in one department noted, callstacking aids community policing because "it puts officersat critical places at critical times." In addition, it can helpmake larger blocks of time available to patrol in betweenhigh priority calls. One challenge for police management isto determine the extent to which officers are using thoseblocks of time for problem-solving and other communitypolicing activities.

Nearly 60 percent of police agencies responding to thenational call management survey have call stacking/delayedresponse to handle certain call types. Although there wereno major differences among departments servingjurisdictions with populations of 25,000 or greater,departments in jurisdictions of less than 25,000 were muchless likely to have these strategies (36 percent, compared toapproximately two-thirds of departments in otherjurisdictions).

Transferring aand RReferring CCallsUnder community policing, public safety is viewed as alocal government and community-wide responsibility, notsimply a police responsibility. Coordination of localgovernment services is vital. Developing an organizedsystem of referring citizen calls to the appropriate agencyhas the potential to accelerate service delivery and allowpolice to focus on crimes and problems they can affect. Inmany departments, call takers work from comprehensivelists of government and other community agencies. Theirexperience and knowledge can help callers connect to theright agency.

38

The national survey showed that overall, 59 percent ofdepartments transfer non-police calls to other, moreappropriate agencies. Approximately 70 percent ofdepartments in jurisdictions with populations of 50,000 ormore transfer calls, compared to 59 percent in jurisdictionsof 25,000 to 50,000 and 42 percent in jurisdictions of lessthan 25,000. These differences are understandable, sincelarger jurisdictions generally have an array of agencies andorganizations that can handle referrals.

Transferring and referring calls can also reduce the numberof calls erroneously directed to the police. Ifcommunications personnel carefully explain to callerswhich agency can better meet their needs and why, callersmay remember the next time a similar situation occurs.These explanations may also prevent feelings of frustrationwhen a caller is transferred or asked to hang up and dialanother number. The 3-1-1 systems previously describedhave similar objectives for reducing red tape by directingcallers to the appropriate agencies for services.

Alternative RRespondersThe departments surveyed were also asked about thepersonnel who respond to calls for service. The sidebartable illustrates that although some departments employalternative responders, patrol officers handle anoverwhelming majority of calls. But some departments havecommunity-oriented policing teams, uniformed civilians,special teams and units, and even volunteers to respond tocertain calls. These departments note that alternativeresponders can allow patrol officers to devote more time tothoroughly addressing emergency calls, as well as free uppatrol time for problem-solving and other proactive policework.


Percent of Calls Responded to ByType of Responder

Responder Percentof Calls

Patrol Officers 87Community PolicingTeam/Unit 4Uniformed Civilians 2Special Team/Unit 6Volunteers 1

"The entire department(civilian and sworn) receivedtraining on communitypolicing so that informationor referrals can be given toany citizen contact withoutforwarding them to anotherperson for the information."

Survey Respondent


The following sections provide descriptions of non-patrolresponders and some of their duties in departmentsthroughout the country.

Community PPolicing TTeamsMany departments began community policing withspecialized teams, although some have eliminated them infavor of making all patrol officers community policeofficers. Departments that have community policing teamsoften see advantages in providing communities with anexperienced and consistent group of officers for problem-solving. The team approach also limits the number ofofficers who need specialized training in problem-solvingand related techniques (for example, data analysis, groupfacilitation skills). Historically, a drawback to communitypolicing teams has been resistance from officers whoperceive them as elite squads. For example, depending onthe department, they may not handle routine calls forservice or may have greater flexibility in setting their ownschedules. In short, community policing teams haveadvantages and disadvantages that must be weighed by eachdepartment.

In general, community policing teams are not responsiblefor traditional responses to citizen calls to 9-1-1, althoughthey may take certain types of calls and reports. More often,they work closely with communities to identify and respondto specific neighborhood issues, such as graffiti problems;and they may work in conjunction with patrol officers onproblem-solving projects to address almost any type ofcrime or condition related to crime.

Types of Calls Handled by Civilians

Depending on the department,civilians handled calls in the field, onthe phone, or at a storefront or station.National survey respondents noted avariety of duties for which civilianpersonnel are responsible, includingthese:

Ê Calls not involving dangeroussituations, suspects, or follow-up(cold calls)Ê Traffic accidents (no injury), traffic

control, parking issues, abandonedvehiclesÊ Vehicle lockouts, building checksÊ Burglary, theft, lost and found

propertyÊ Vandalism, criminal mischiefÊ RunawaysÊ Paperwork relays and services,

subpoena service, funeral escortsÊ Animal complaintsÊ Bicycle stops, park patrol

40

Civilian PPersonnelExamples of civilian, or non-sworn, personnel respondingto dispatched calls include community service officers(CSO), traffic controllers, and cadets. Civilian personnel,who cost less than patrol officers, can be employedsuccessfully to handle calls for service that require a reportbut not the presence of sworn (and armed) legal authority.Various departments have trained civilians to respond totraffic accidents, staff a TRU, process mailed or emailedreports, or handle incident reports or collect evidence in thefield (see sidebar on page 39, "Types of Calls Handled byCivilians"). In these instances, civilian personnel collect thepertinent information and notify patrol or detectives asappropriate.

Specialized TTeams oor UUnitsSpecialized teams and units also enhance communitypolicing. They can be a resource for patrol, or alternateresponders themselves. In addition to special units that arepermanent parts of the organization (for example, homicide,fraud), specialized teams or units can be created on an as-needed basis. For example, if there is a persistent problemin a neighborhood or citywide, such as street narcoticshotspots, a specialized unit might be created to bettermanage the problem and large call volume. SchoolResource Officer (SRO) teams are another example. WhereSROs are assigned to work at specific schools, they areavailable to respond to incidents there, as well as handleother appropriate calls (for example, general complaintsabout crime in and around the school).


"Reports of ongoing narcoticsactivity (drug houses) are notresponded to by patrolofficers. This policy hassuccessfully eliminatedsituations where patrolofficers have unexpectedlyencountered plainclothes/undercover officers."

Survey Respondent


22 SDPD volunteer programs include theReserve Police Officer Program, RetiredSenior Volunteer Program, Volunteers inPolicing, Crisis Intervention Unit, andEmergency Management Volunteers.

The consistent response to calls and community complaintsby specialized teams has several advantages for communitypolicing. Team members gain insight into conditions thatcontribute to crimes and problems, and they can identifycommunity members who want to become part of thesolution. By working together with patrol officers assignedto the area, a more focused, collaborative response can bedeveloped.

VolunteersVolunteers can offer specialized skills and knowledge topolice departments. Many departments appreciatevolunteers' service in programs like Neighborhood Watch,and they may have volunteers to handle clerical tasks likefiling. But some departments use volunteers in otherimportant roles, including call response. One example is theChaplains Corps in Knoxville, Tennessee (see sidebar).Another example is the San Diego Police Department'svolunteer programs,22 which make a major contribution withrespect to freeing up officer time for community policing.To give just a few examples, SDPD volunteers are involvedin fingerprinting and in lifting selected latent prints,responding to emergencies with officers and assistingvictims, taking cold crime reports, and working withofficers on various problem-solving projects.

The more ingenuity and time a department puts into findingresponsibilities for volunteers, and the more training thedepartment can provide, the more helpful those volunteerswill be. Clearly, sharing responsibility with citizenvolunteers can be an important step toward meetingcommunity policing goals for partnerships and problem-solving.

Chaplains Corps in Knoxville

The Knoxville, Tennessee, PoliceDepartment makes excellent use ofsome residents' specialized skills.Volunteers in Police Services(VIPS) program volunteers do arange of work in the departmentand community. Since 1994, VIPShas also included a ChaplainsCorps. Currently, 40 chaplains,representing every major religion,share on-call duties to assist withdeath notification, crisisintervention, and stressmanagement. Members of thecorps save patrol time, while alsoassuming some of the morestressful responsibilities requiredof police.

42

Managing CCall RResponse ffrom tthe FFieldTraditionally, calls for police service are received in anddispatched from a communications center. Phone operators,call takers, and dispatchers decide whether calls requireofficers to respond or whether they can be handled in someother way (referral to another agency, TRU, etc.). Wheredispatching an officer is the indicated response, this is doneaccording to unit availability and location.

Some agencies have increased the responsibility of the fieldsupervisors in call management. Instead of communicationshaving complete responsibility for the call, dispatchersinform field sergeants of calls pending, empowering themto "own the calls." They can review calls and have authorityto upgrade, downgrade, or cancel the calls. The sergeantmay also contact callers directly, or have an officer makethe contact, to gather information and prioritize the calls.Once familiar with the situation, the officer or sergeant caninform the caller of viable options. For example, the callermight be told that dispatching a patrol officer to a residencefor vandalism may take six hours, whereas the report can befiled immediately by phone or at a storefront.

The major benefits of having field supervisors manage callsare that they are held more accountable for, and becomemore knowledgeable about, activity and problems in theirgeographic area. By being more aware of calls their area,they are better informed when they make decisions aboutproblems and lead their officers' efforts. Currently, patrolsergeants in Reno, Nevada, are managing calls, but mustaccess station computers to view calls from the CADsystem. In the near future, supervisors will be able tomanage calls with mobile data computers in their vehicles.


Considerations for Successful Implementation

4Chapter

4

45Considerations for Successful Implementation

Considerations for Successful ImplementationCommunity policing has not always been the driving forcebehind adoption of particular call management strategies.Other priorities, such as the need for more efficientallocation of patrol resources, may have been the impetus.For example, even before contemplating communitypolicing, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, like manylaw enforcement agencies, created a TRU to reduce theworkload for patrol officers. Once community policingbecame a priority, the department recognized that availablepatrol time created by the TRU allowed officers to pursue avariety of problem-solving and community policingactivities.

This chapter addresses the following key areas, whichpolice departments must consider to help ensure successfulimplementation of new call management strategies:

Ê Planning and evaluationÊ Policy and procedure changes, especially policies

related to- Call classifications and priorities- Resource allocation and staffing- Acquiring technology and other resources - Public information and trainingÊDepartment-wide buy-in and community

participationÊChallenges to implementation.

Chapter 4

46

Some of the topics discussed�for example, planning andevaluation, training, and staffing�apply to almost any newstrategy, and most considerations are important whether thedepartment's community policing activities are extensive ormore limited. However, the focus of the discussions is onintroducing new call management strategies towardachieving organizational goals for enhanced communitypolicing and problem-solving.

Planning aand EEvaluationEfficient and effective call management requires asystematic approach and a team effort. Several importantplanning steps need to be taken before figuring out how astrategy will operate technically or who will do what. First,from patrol officers through chief executive, there must be ashared vision. A vision is broader and more idealistic than agoal, but it can and should be spoken and written down. Forexample, the goal might be to operate a TRU, but the visionmight be "a city where citizens are safer because all calls topolice are handled efficiently" or "a proactive policedepartment where the communications workload is undercontrol and officers have time to solve persistent crimeproblems."

Advice for developing a shared vision can be found inalmost any book on strategic planning, but it is not alwaystaken seriously. When it comes to linking call managementand community policing, though, it should be. If call takersand dispatchers were not directly involved in planning forcommunity policing, they may not understand what fieldoperations wants to accomplish in the blocks of timeavailable between calls. Similarly, officers may not beaware of various technical or cost issues involved in callmanagement. Citizens may not know how much timecommunications staff spend on non-police matters called in



to 9-1-1 and how this can affect their safety. To succeed, thenew strategy will require concerted efforts, a willingness toperform new duties, and unselfish participation. A sharedvision will help achieve the department-wide buy-in andcommunity support that is vital for successfullyimplementing any new call management strategy.

It is also important to think about evaluating a new strategyduring the planning stage, before the strategy is up andrunning. Evaluation does not have to be complicated orintimidating, but it does raise this question: How will youknow that your goals and objectives have beenaccomplished? Before community policing, the answermight have been, "when the average response time topriority 3 calls is 30 minutes," or "when officers have anaverage of one hour a day of available time." You wouldknow this had been accomplished by analyzing call data ondispatch, arrival, and completion times, and you would planto collect that data.

These may still be important objectives. But in linking thenew strategy to community policing, departments also needto address additional questions. For example: Whatcommunity-based tasks are officers are now pursuing withthis new available time? How satisfied are citizens with thenew strategy? How will you know? The "how will youknow" question has important implications for the planningstage. Would it help to create new call classifications for"self-initiated activities" (for example, "communitymeeting," and " problem-solving project")? Will you wantto add new questions to the next citizen survey (forexample, "Have you ever tried the TRU option?" "Howsatisfied were you with the response?").

"We have implemented anew schedule anddepartment reorganizationthat reduced the number ofsupervisors, establishedteams, and provided a dailyblock of time (with overlap)to allow officers time forself-initiated problem-solving. Doing an assessmentof that change right now; donot know if we have criteriaset that will tell us if we aresuccessful."

Survey Respondent

48

Chapter 5 on "Using the Data" offers more information onhow data analysis can help measure the success of callmanagement strategies. The main point here is to avoidbeing caught short, without the data that can demonstratesuccess and also point to areas that need improvement.

Policy aand PProcedure CChangesIn addition to creating new policies directly related to thenew call management strategy, departments may need tochange other policies that are affected by it. For instance, ifa TRU is implemented, patrol officers will no longer behandling certain call types in the field (a major policychange). The department will also need a new procedure toensure that officers learn about crimes that the TRUprocessed. Patrol officers need this crime informationbecause they are no longer personally involved with takingcertain types of crime reports. One department's policy, forexample, states that after a report is taken by telephone, theTRU will send a message "to the police district anddetective division where the incident occurred. This keepsthe police district and detective division informed as tocrime patterns that may develop. It also gives patrol unitsinformation that may be beneficial in the prevention ofcrime."

With new call management strategies, the more commonpolicy and procedure changes are related to call types andpriority classifications, resource allocation, and theacquisition of technology. Finally, all stakeholders,including department and community members, should beinformed of policy and procedure changes and trained tohandle any tasks that have changed.


Incident Management Units,Merseyside, England

The Merseyside Constabulary, inEngland, created IncidentManagement Units (IMU) as a keycomponent in its shift to problem-solving policing. They recognized thata change in call managementstrategies was vital in order toimplement POP department-wide. Theprimary purposes of IMUs are:

Ê Filter incoming messagesÊ Track non-urgent callsÊ Support the more effective

deployment of resourcesÊ Facilitate the early

identification of problems,especially repeat incidents.

All messages, calls to the police,correspondence, complaints, itemsraised by the community, andessentially anything requiring a policeresponse, will be graded and directedthrough the IMU. Non-emergencycalls received on the emergency lineget logged and forwarded to IMU.Channeling all calls andcorrespondence through one locationensures that accurate scanning cantake place and patterns of incidentscan be identified and analyzed.


23 For background on the value of better callclassification schemes for developing policeresponses to problems, see H. Goldstein,Problem Oriented Policing, New York:McGraw-Hill, 1990; and J. Eck and W.Spelman, problem-solving: Problem OrientedPolicing in Newport News, Washington, D.C.:Police Executive Research Forum, 1987.

Call TTypes: CClassifications aand PPrioritiesBecause most calls for police service are not emergencies,how a call type is classified and prioritized is critical to callmanagement. Regardless of whether the call comes through9-1-1, a seven-digit line, 3-1-1, or as a walk in, calls shouldbe classified by subject matter and type of response needed(see page 48 sidebar, "Incident Management Units,Merseyside").

Call subject matter is defined by the caller's descriptionsand aided by question-and-answer protocols from calltakers. For example, if critical information is notvolunteered by the caller, such as presence of weapons,extent of injuries to persons, etc., call takers are promptedby protocols to ask for such information.

Call classification schemes reviewed for this guidebookranged from 20 different classifications in some agencies to60 different classifications in others. By nature, many callclassifications are broad because, at this early stage beforeofficers or others have assessed the scenes, agencies havelimited verifiable information. For example, classificationssuch as "suspicious persons" and "loud noise" are common.In departments with larger classification schemes, the calltypes are broken down more specifically. For example,vandalism may be broken down into graffiti and destructionof property. Distinctions like these can aid in problem-solving.23

50

Priorities are then assigned to calls for service based on thedepartment's judgment about the emergency nature of thecall (e.g., harm to a person imminent; crime in progress),response time, need for back up, and other local factors, ifany. While call priority schemes vary across the country,many have four or five levels, as shown in the abbreviatedillustration that follows.

It is also common for departments to have nine or tenlevels, with some of the priority numbers reserved for self-initiated activities.

In a police organization committed to community policing,the community should play a role in setting and reviewingpolice call priorities and response policies. The communityhas a vested interest in how quickly officers are dispatched,the extent to which police expedite through neighborhoods,the extent to which multiple units are dispatched or stay atthe scene, whether calls are handled by alternative means,and related issues.


Priority

1

2

3

4

5

Designation

Emergency

Immediate

Routine

Delayed

TRU

Response

Immediate; lights and siren;exceed speed limit

Immediate; lights and siren;maintain speed limit

Routine

Delay up to one hour; routine

Delay up to two hours

Numbers of Units

2

2if requested

1

1

TRU


In some departments, field sergeants have authority toassign and adjust call priorities as they deem necessary. Callclassifications and priorities are sometimes changed afterfurther information is obtained regarding the status of thecaller and incident.

Resource AAllocationCall and incident report information is vital for resourceallocation. Agencies have traditionally used call data, suchas location, number of units responding, response times,length of time on scene, etc. to allocate patrol resources.When applying call management techniques in acommunity policing environment, departments shouldexamine additional factors. The national survey askeddepartments to indicate whether they used or planned to useseveral measures for resource allocation. The resultsrevealed that only one resource allocation measure,evaluating self-initiated activities, is currently being doneby a majority of police departments. In fact, as thefollowing table indicates, many agencies are not evenplanning to review out of area dispatches or analyze eitherTRU or call stacking data. More information on callmanagement strategies and resource allocation is providedin the next chapter on "Using the Data" (Chapter 5).

Percent of Departments Using Resource Allocation MeasuresMeasures

Evaluating self-initiated activitiesAnalyzing time spent at a locationor on problemAnalyzing TRU activityReviewing out of area dispatches inregard to beat responsibility

Performing call stacking analysis

Currently doing58%46%

27%24%

19%

No plan to do15%20%

52%53%

53%

Plan to do27%34%

21%23%

28%

52

StaffingDepartments also need to examine the expertise, training,and job responsibilities of the persons assigned to thevarious response strategies. It is important to assign staff topositions in which they feel invested and that arecompatible with their skills. For example, some agenciesstaff TRU with sworn officers on temporary limited duty.Although TRU may not be their first choice of assignment,these officers have the skill to take reports over the phone.In addition, officers on limited duty often appreciate theopportunity the TRU provides to stay in direct contact withcitizens and crime situations. But if they do not really enjoythe assignment, they may display a lack of enthusiasm thatcan be detected by callers.

As noted in Chapter 1, evaluations of differential policeresponse (DPR) consistently found that citizen satisfactionwas dependent on the courtesy of the call taker, includingthe call taker's willingness to explain the reason for thealternative response and how long it would take. Asinnovative call management strategies are implemented, thenew policies, procedures, and job descriptions shouldclearly state the department's expectations for courtesy indealing with the public.

Agencies also need to examine resources to ensure that thenumber and type of staff are adequate. In addition topersonnel directly responsible for implementing thestrategy, support staff or other resources may be necessary.For example, the Reno, Nevada, Police Department wantedvisitors to its storefront facilities to include people whosefirst language was not English. The department contractswith a service that storefront CSOs (and other departmentmembers) can call any day or time for translations into 21different languages. Paying close attention to who will



24 Some cities house the police storefront atthe fire station, so that it can be open 24 hoursper day for emergencies without necessitatingthe police department staffing it at all times.

25 A mail-in reporting system also requiresstaff to receive, process, and input reports andinformation.

benefit from the strategy and how it will actually be appliedhelps develop an accurate staffing plan and adequate budget(for equipment and facilities as well as staff resources). Ifpossible, a new strategy should be field tested before fullimplementation begins.

It is also important to recognize that part of a strategy'sutility depends on its hours of operation. For example, thedepartment might expect people to visit a storefront aftertheir own workday ends. As a result, it may want to keepthe storefront open into the evening or even 24 hours a day,which will require staffing two or three shifts.24 Thedepartment will need to determine how many people shouldwork each shift, and then regularly analyze data on thevolume of the facility, modifying the staffing plan ifnecessary.

Another consideration is the emphasis that communitypolicing places on geographic responsibility�assigning thesame personnel to the same service area or beat forextended periods to get to know the community. For astorefront to be most effective in community policing, staffneed to be familiar with the neighborhood, people, andproblems. This is true regardless of whether CSOs, officers,or volunteers staff the storefront.

An Internet reporting system requires different types ofstaffing considerations. In addition, the numbers and typesof staff will depend on the way it is implemented. In somesystems, messages are sent via email, and someone must beassigned responsibility for reading and answering themessages or forwarding the information to appropriatedepartment members. Someone else may be needed to enterthe information into a computer application for storage,reference, or analysis purposes.25 Other Internet reporting

54

systems allow for information to be entered into a pre-setform that transfers the information into a departmentaldatabase. If the information transfers to a database, staff ora contractor will need to create and manage the database. Inboth cases, the department needs to identify someone incharge of trouble-shooting technological problems.

Acquiring TTechnology aand OOther RResourcesImplementing new call management strategies oftenincludes acquiring new technology. This can be one of themost challenging and costly aspects of call managementchanges. The acquisition of other resources, such as anoffice or a building for a storefront, can also be a significantcost item.

Technological innovations for call management may includea new CAD (that includes call stacking applications),Internet access (for online reporting), laptops in patrolvehicles (for field reports), or a new phone system withautomated, menu-driven answering and routing. Varioustechnologies can be applied to accomplish differentcommunity policing goals. For example:

ÊOnline reporting to improve the community'saccessibility to the policeÊ Telephone reporting to free up officer time for

problem-solving, and Ê Laptops to allow officers to spend more time in the

field and remain visible to the community.

Regardless of the strategy, new information technology (IT)acquisitions should fit with the department's overall ITplans, needs, and capabilities (see sidebar, "ITAcquisition").As an alternative form of TRU, outsourcing for telephone


Information Technology Acquisition

Major information technologyacquisitions require a thorough,detailed process that includes a needsassessment, precise descriptions oftechnical and user requirements,requests for proposals, and asystematic way to evaluate availableproducts. The whole process needs tobe coordinated with the agency'soverall technology plan.

For an in-depth discussion ofinformation technology acquisition forlaw enforcement, see ILJ's RFPGuidebook and case studies of ITacquisitions by policing agencies(available at www.ilj.org).


reporting services is an option that departments may want toconsider (see sidebar, "Contracting Out for a TRU inReno.")

There are several things to consider when outsourcing thetelephone reporting process. ÊVendor must be reliable and be able to produce

timely, quality reports. ÊDepartments should conduct background checks on

vendors.ÊVendor's reports should be customized to meet the

department's needs.ÊData from the vendor's reports should transfer

effectively into the agency's computer system formanagement analysis.ÊDepartment must develop safeguards to ensure the

confidentiality and security of the information.ÊDepartment should conduct quality control

monitoring, including reviewing sample audiotapes.

Information aand TTrainingIt is important to gain support for innovative callmanagement strategies by providing information, education,and training. These efforts must be directed internally to alldepartment members and externally, to encourageappropriate application of the strategy. Internally, police cansend out department announcements and handouts, developroll call briefing videos, and take advantage of in-servicetraining. In addition to patrol and communicationspersonnel, crime analysts, investigators, and others shouldalso be informed of policy changes, with particularemphasis on how the new strategy affects their own work.

Contracting Out for a TRU in Reno

The Reno, Nevada, Police Departmentoutsourced the operation of itstelephone reporting unit. A privatevendor handles many types of non-emergency calls.

An evaluation of this service foundthat the cost of report taking wasreduced dramatically, and a customersatisfaction survey showed positiveresults.

"We tried a deferred callresponse; however, we didnot properly prepare ourresidents and there was agreat deal ofmisunderstanding andpolitical fallout; within sixweeks we had to abandonthe program. We continue tolook at reviving it with abetter sales job to thecommunity and politicians."

Survey Respondent

56

An agency's implementation plan for a new call strategyshould also include marketing the strategy to thecommunity. The same marketing approach may not work inall communities. Departments must become moresophisticated in marketing new call management plans toincrease community awareness and obtain acceptance andsupport, especially in underserved or minority communities.For example, if a department plans to open a storefront inan Hispanic neighborhood, flyers, posters, and websiteinformation must be written in Spanish to reach the widestaudience.

Some types of media may be called upon more frequentlythan others by particular populations. Older residents tendto subscribe to and read newspapers; younger residents getmost of their news from TV; and middle to upper incomeresidents more often have access to the Internet. In short,the department needs to tailor its marketing approach andmessage according to specific demographic groups to havethe most impact.

In addition to informing the public, the department needs toeducate residents by explaining the goals and reasons forthe new call management strategies. This involvesexplaining to citizens the advantages of new call proceduresand advising them of any changes they may experience. Forexample, to educate the public about new 3-1-1 procedures,examples may be provided of the types of crimes,situations, or concerns for which 3-1-1 should be dialed,along with reminders to call 9-1-1 for emergencies. Publiceducation messages should also explain that the new 3-1-1service or TRU could unburden 9-1-1 so that police havemore resources to handle true emergencies. Public



education campaigns can reduce dissatisfaction amongcallers by letting citizens know that a delay in responsedoes not mean their call is not important.

Public education does not need to be restricted to formalmeans. Informally, officers, call takers, CSOs, and otherdepartment members can disseminate information to thecommunity. For example, when an officer responds to aresidence on a delayed (minor) call, she can explain to thecitizens that they could have received faster service bycalling TRU. Department representatives should also attendcommunity meetings and distribute information tocommunity leaders, who can, in turn, inform other residentsand groups.

Departments need to address training on two levels whenimplementing a call management strategy specifically insupport of community policing. First, the department musttrain those personnel assigned to work with the strategy onhow to implement it, the proper channels ofcommunication, and the particular goals associated with thestrategy. Second, community policing also requires trainingin problem-solving, and this training should not be limitedto officers who solve problems in the field. A wider array ofpersonnel (e.g., dispatchers) can become valuable channelsof information to patrol, if trained in this area.

"With a positive approachfrom call takers, manycitizens are very satisfiedwith TRU (telephone report)or a mail in. Positiveapproach meaning "We canhandle that call for you by . . ."instead of "We don'tsend a police officer . . ."

Survey Respondent

58

Getting BBuy-IInOne of the keys to implementing change in anyorganization is to get buy-in and commitment from all ofthe groups and people who will be affected by the outcome.Most police departments would not mandate a major changein officer uniforms without the support and buy-in ofofficers. Likewise, new call management strategies andinformation technology changes should not be implementedwithout support and commitment from the people mostaffected. When implementing a call management strategy,the major stakeholders are usually management,communications personnel, patrol officers, and thecommunity. Other members of the department, such asanalysts, investigators, and data systems staff, may also beaffected depending on the strategy.

Work on the goal of obtaining buy-in and commitmentshould begin in the initial idea and planning stages. Oncesome people are on board, it is always easier to get more.People want to know how their jobs will be affected. Willthey have to learn new skills? Change their work hours?Create new products? Interact with different people? Noone likes to be told of major change. By soliciting inputearly on, people will be more likely to cooperate with, orimplement, the change. What should be done depends onthe strategy, number of people affected, and size of thedepartment. At a minimum, it is vital to make people awareof the strategy's goals and intended benefits and keep theminformed throughout the process. This can be done throughdepartment announcements, roll call discussions, staffmeetings, or accessing the department's email or website.Input should also be obtained on perceived needs and other



ideas from a cross representation of all ranks and unitswithin the department, as well as members of thecommunity. Focus groups can be held to involve smallergroups; surveys may be needed to reach a larger population.

Challenges tto IImplementationWhen implementing call management strategies, like anychange, police departments will inevitably face somechallenges. Many departments throughout the country havealready dealt with these issues and should be consulted forlessons learned. The sections that follow focus on concernsin four areas: technology, policies and procedures,community involvement, and citizen and police acceptance.In addition, challenges associated with specific strategiesare noted.

TechnologyTechnology challenges involve hardware, software, anddatabases. Departments must develop comprehensive plansfor computer hardware and software acquisition andimplementation, and for training developers. While mostagencies have some level of CAD, RMS, or other systemthat collects call data, the challenge is to integrate andcoordinate decentralized systems. Disparate systems need tocollect data in compatible ways so that data migrations fromone system to another can be successful. Data systems alsoneed to identify the source of reports according to intakestrategy and the responding unit.

The important overall concept is that no matter how arequest comes in, the data need to be captured and analyzedto get an accurate picture of demands for police service.This concept is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 5,"Using the Data."

60

Policies aand PProceduresAgency policies and procedures, whether new or modified,must coincide with call management strategy goals. In theplanning stages, departments must determine what types ofreports will be handled by which strategy, what theresponse will be and by whom, and details of the process.For example, in Reno, Nevada, the call takers' protocol waschanged to allow them to suggest alternate reportingmethods to callers for specific call classifications.

Community IInvolvementOne of the challenges of community involvement, a keycomponent of community policing, is to get a cross-sectionof the community involved, so that support is not limited tothe neighborhoods that already have a history of workingwith the police. Often, community members who wouldderive the most value from certain call managementstrategies are the least involved in providing input becauseof language, cultural, or other barriers.

Community needs also have to be balanced with publicsafety resources. If a neighborhood wants a storefront open24 hours a day, the department must weigh the perceivedneed versus available resources and costs. A compromisemay be reached to open the storefront 12 hours a day duringthe times when residents most need the services, and topublicize Internet, TRU, or other reporting options. Keepingthe community involved in developing and implementingcall strategies may require new outreach efforts, some ofwhich may be time-consuming, but these efforts areimportant for making the strategies work as planned.



Citizen aand PPolice AAcceptanceFor many departments responding to the national survey,alternatives such as TRU have become an accepted way ofproviding services. As noted earlier, these departmentstypically have a policy stating that if a citizen insists on aresponse by an officer, one will be sent. However, somedepartments said they were not considering new callmanagement alternatives because they felt citizens wouldnot accept them, their call volume was low enough topermit personal responses by officers to most calls, or theydid not want officers to "lose touch" with citizens. Yet eventhese communities may have to make difficult decisions inthe future about managing calls. Many small and ruraljurisdictions, as well as larger cities and counties, are facingbudget shortfalls combined with demands on the police towork on homeland security efforts. Citizens today may bemore willing than in the past to file routine reports byphone or with CSOs, for example, if it helps give police theresources they need for other priorities.

Another challenge relates to the call handling duties ofspecial teams, such as community policing teams. Whendepartments limit community policing team officers'responsibilities for responding to routine calls for service,those officers can devote a great deal of their time toproblem-solving and related activities. On the other hand,departments historically have experienced resistance to thisapproach and have had to combat perceptions of communitypolicing teams as elite squads. This challenge is complex,affects organizational acceptance of community policinggenerally, and must be resolved by individual departments.The main point here is to fully recognize the potentialconsequences as well as benefits of call handling and callresponse strategies with respect to this issue.

62

Special CChallenges ffor DDifferent SService OOptionsThere are also several challenges unique to storefronts,Internet and mail-in reporting, TRU, and 3-1-1. These arediscussed below.

StorefrontsImplementing a storefront as a call management strategyinvolves staffing and funding challenges. Agencies mustfirst be clear on the storefront's purpose: Is it primarily alocation for officers in the community to write reports, meetwith each other, and take a break; or is it intended as aplace where residents can go for police-related services? Asnoted earlier, the answer has a direct bearing on thestorefront's hours of operation, space requirements, andstaffing. Storefronts for officers are not consistently staffed,but community storefronts must be customer-serviceoriented and present staffing challenges. While departmentstypically staff community storefronts with sworn officers orcivilian personnel, some are finding that trained volunteerscan also be effective.

Funding for storefront offices may be supplemented bycommunity donations or businesses that donate space andpossibly equipment. "Full service" police or multi-agencycenters can be costly to implement, both in terms of officeand meeting space and the need to connect computers to thedepartment's network.



Internet ReportingInternet reporting, the newest and most technologicallyadvanced call management strategy, presents uniquechallenges. Some of the issues that should be decided forInternet reporting prior to implementation include thefollowing (the last four items apply for mail-in reports aswell):

ÊWhat will the user interface look like? ÊWho will receive the reports and in what capacity? ÊWill reports go directly into an existing computer

system or does a new one need to be created? ÊHow will the information be analyzed and

distributed?ÊWhat are the confidentiality issues?

Telephone Report UnitsLike storefronts, TRU present staffing challenges. Duringthe planning stages, analysis of call for service data will beespecially important for anticipating the volume and type ofcalls that might be handled by the TRU. In addition,staffing issues must be resolved, such as the following:

ÊWhat should be the hours of operation and howmany staff are needed to handle calls in a timelymanner?ÊWho should staff the TRU (sworn officers on

limited duty, civilians, or both)? Is it feasible forcadets or volunteers to handle some of theworkload?ÊWhat staff resources are currently available? Is the

TRU a budget priority for the department?

Another significant challenge in administering TRU is thecall routing technology. Departments must determine

64

26 The COPS Office and individual states haveprovided funding to local jurisdictions toimplement 3-1-1. Several studies andevaluations have been conducted related tothese projects.

whether existing 9-1-1/CAD can transfer calls, whetherTRU will be centralized (located within or outside of thecommunications center), or if there will be a separate, directtelephone number for citizens to call.

3-1-1 Non-emergency Telephone NumberA unique challenge in implementing any type of 3-1-1system is coordination with multiple local governmentservices.26 If the system is managed by the policedepartment and promoted as a service for non-emergencypolice matters, the staffing and technology issues are moreeasily managed. If a citywide 3-1-1 system is implemented,the additional challenge is political�getting departmentheads to agree on a system and process. In any case, thebelow issues must be addressed.

ÊWill there be separate call takers who only answercalls coming in on 3-1-1 and 7-digit lines?ÊWill the 3-1-1 call data go into CAD?ÊHow will the calls be transferred and tracked? ÊHow will citizen satisfaction with the service be

measured?

SummaryPolice managers need to identify priorities and select thecall management strategy that will best accomplish thedepartment's objectives. Appropriate resources must beallocated to make a new strategy work. Without thesecommitments, there is an increased likelihood that any onechallenge will prevent the strategy from being adopted, orfrom being successful if it does go forward. Although someof the above challenges appear extensive, they can bemanaged or overcome with enough planning, analysis, andcommitment.


Using the Data

5Chapter

5

67Using the Data

Using the DataInformation on citizen calls for service is critical to theentire police organization. Analyzing call data can helppolice agencies increase their understanding of crime,disorder, and quality of life problems; develop and evaluatecall responses based on a comprehensive picture ofcommunity needs; and allocate resources more efficientlyand effectively.

Over the last 20 years, CAD systems have undergone aseries of improvements, including expansion to handlemultiple unit dispatches, mobile digital terminals in patrolunits, citywide emergency communication provisions, andapplications linking to police records management systems.Even so, many challenges remain in terms of capturing andanalyzing information on all requests for service and usingthat data to enhance the department's call managementstrategies and community policing efforts. This chapteraddresses the following issues:

Ê Types of information and the need for additionaldata to support community policing.ÊData analysis concepts related to solving problems

and measuring the success of call managementstrategies.ÊOfficer access to data.Ê Issues related to problem-solving in the field,

including freeing up and managing officer time,resource allocation, and management accountability.ÊUsing data to assess and encourage community

involvement.

Chapter 5


Using Data to Modify TRU Procedures in Knoxville

In Knoxville, Tennessee, auto theftreports were generally taken inTeleserve (TRU). Through dataanalysis, a pattern was identified inone area of the city, revealing thatdrug addicts were exchanging theircars for drugs and then reporting thecars stolen. Deciding that it was tooeasy for these people to make falseauto theft reports over the telephone,the Knoxville Police Departmenttemporarily altered its auto theftreporting procedures so that officerswere dispatched to take reports fromthat particular area.

Types oof IInformationEach call management strategy can be designed to capture avariety of beneficial information. Ideally, the data on eachcall for service�whether it comes in through 9-1-1 or someother means�should transfer directly into an agency'smaster database. For example, information from 3-1-1 callsshould be captured in the CAD system; and TRU reports, aswell as report information collected at storefronts, should beincluded in the department's records management system(RMS).

Regardless of the report source, departments can collectdata on location, type of call, date and time received, meansof response, responding officer (or civilian), and disposition(i.e., report taken, arrest made, etc.). CAD systems capturethese and other data, including time of dispatch, arrival, andcompletion; and final call type when this is reported by theresponding officer. In addition, CAD applications recordinformation about self-initiated activities by patrol officers,including time and type of activity (car stop, suspiciousperson stop, etc.). CAD captures this information not onlyfor patrol officers, but also for any other personnel in thefield�sergeants, detectives, traffic units, canine units, andothers.

The reports produced from these data are a good example ofhow a CAD system can provide support to communitypolicing without any changes to the system itself.Departments often analyze data on type of call and calllocation in planning for a new strategy such as a TRU orstorefront. But to determine whether a strategy is effectivein handling non-emergency calls, and to enhancecommunity policing and problem-solving, severalinformation needs should be addressed.

69Using the Data

Data oon SSource oof CCall aand RResponderAs departments implement call management strategies, theywill need to know what calls or reports are coming in viawhich strategy, and they will need an easy way to determinewho responded to the call. These data can assist inallocating resources, and they can also aid in evaluating astrategy's effectiveness. For example, if storefronts wereimplemented to receive walk-in reports from citizens, andthe data show that a high percentage of reports were beinghandled by storefront personnel, the strategy would besuccessful in accomplishing that objective. Somedepartments in the national survey could determine whotook the call or report on an individual basis from complaintnumbers, but most had no way of quickly determining TRUversus field report or patrol officer versus CSO.

Definitions oof CCall TTypesPrecise definitions of call types can also enhancecommunity policing and problem-solving. Departmentsneed to review call type categories periodically to be surethey accurately reflect current community issues and to helpmeasure policing activities. Some agencies define callclassifications too broadly or put too many calls into an"other" category. Breaking these down into sub-categoriescould produce data that is much more beneficial forproblem-solving. For instance, if all noise calls are recordedas "loud noise," it is difficult to distinguish constructionnoise from loud parties from barking dogs. This issignificant because these are different problems that warrantpotentially different solution strategies.

70

Final Call Type. A related issue is the need for data on"final call type." The national survey showed that the vastmajority of departments (88 percent) analyze call forservice data by type of call as recorded at dispatch, but only64 percent capture the final call type based on officerassessment. Relying only on the initial assessment can givea misleading picture of the types of incidents officers areactually responding to.

Self-Initiated Activities. Police departments also need toreview the classifications they have for self-initiatedactivities. A good way of capturing and measuring patroltime spent on community policing is to have officers call inspecial codes for dispatchers to enter into CAD. These caninclude codes such as " problem-solving project" or"community meeting." The exact codes will depend on adepartment's particular community policing objectives andthe types of activities associated with them. For example,one department responding to the survey developed codesfor "citizen assist," "foot patrol," "community policingmeeting," and "community policing, schools." Anotherdepartment had codes for "eye on the elderly program,""foot patrol," and " problem-solving project." Codes forcommunity policing activities in other departments included"bicycle patrol," "gathering information," "abandonedbuilding check," "community contact," and others.

Integrated IInformation MManagement SSystemsTechnology today offers many new possibilities forcollecting and managing police-related information. Fromsimple databases through complex, interactive applications,departments are gathering more information than everbefore. Some agencies, however, have a variety ofindependent computer systems, with no means of linkingdata between systems. When this is the case, a solution


"Our CAD system was put inplace long before thecommunity policing activities,etc. were started. Therefore,our next system alterationswill incorporate many ofthese activities."

"We have made thetechnology commitmentsrequired. We have mobilecomputers, a new CADsystem, and will have arecords management systemon line this year. It seems ournext step would be a culturechange for policing to be asuccess."

Survey Respondents

71Using the Data

27 For a COPS Guidebook on problemanalysis, see Timothy S. Bynum, UsingAnalysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebookfor Law Enforcement. U. S. Department ofJustice, Office of Community OrientedPolicing Services, 2001.

should be implemented to combine the data into a singledatabase or establish connectivity between systems. Theadvantage of this latter approach is that it allows thesystems to remain intact while providing the means tomerge data.

AnalysisStrategic planning for call management begins with datacollection, but it relies heavily on analysis to understand thedata. Careful data analysis is also critical to effectiveproblem-solving and community policing. National surveyresults, as reflected below, show that most police agenciesdo analyze call data. But it is common for action-orientedpeople, including police, to skip over pieces of the analysistask and move quickly from identifying a crime pattern orproblem to trying to resolve it.27

MeasuresIdentifying top problem locationsReporting/analyzing frequency ofcall typesConducting "hot spot" analysisIdentifying repeat callersReporting/analyzing calls byproblem typesReporting/analyzing calls byproblem locations

Currently doing9284

666571

75

No plan to do13

121813

8

Plan to do713

231716

17

Percent of Departments Using Call Data for Analysis

72

Crime aand PProblem AAnalysisAnalysis sheds light on the who, what, when, where, how,and why factors of the crimes or problems being studied. Tobe comprehensive, agencies will want to analyze manydifferent characteristics of crime and problems, and theywill need many different data sources. For example, inaddition to analyzing call data specifically related to drugs,it is important to consider the factors and circumstances thatsupport a local drug market. Call for service data on graffiti,vandalism, or broken street lights in the area could providea more complete picture. Housing department data onabsentee landlords and abandoned buildings might also beneeded. In addition, it is important to obtain an historicalperspective by reaching back and analyzing comparativedata: What was the neighborhood like five years ago?Agencies can also obtain and analyze information from avariety of sources within the department�crime analysts,patrol officers, investigators, communications personnel�aswell as other organizations and community members.

Analysis includes arranging data in easily understoodformats, but it also involves offering interpretations andperspectives that will aid decisionmaking. While the "gutfeelings" of experienced officers are important, agenciesneed to show that their analysis has been thorough to gainsupport for changes in policy and practice.

Developing comprehensive and coordinated databases helpsprovide rich information for problem-solving. Departmentsmust ensure that call information from all sources enters thedatabases. Most agencies collect adequate information whenincident information is captured on report forms. However,in the majority of calls for service, officers do not preparereports; they just provide disposition codes to dispatchers.Where reports are not prepared, agencies must ensure that


Using Internet Reports to Identify Problems

Police in Lansing, Michigan, andSan Diego, California, both useInternet websites to provide thepublic a means to reportneighborhood problems and requestextra patrol. Lansing's "On YourStreet" (www.lansingpolice.com)and San Diego's "Citizen RequestForm" (www.sannet.gov/police)allow users to report quality of lifeissues by completing a form online.Similarly, the Kansas Bureau ofInvestigation's "Tip Sheet"(www.accesskansas.org/kbi) allowsthe community to report suspiciousdrug activity anywhere in the state.

73Using the Data

CAD information (and information from other sources) isalso available on these activities; it will be important foridentifying and tracking problems. In addition, someagencies encourage citizens to access the Internet to reportquality of life issues that may not be crimes (see sidebar,"Using Internet Reports to Identify Problems").

Measuring tthe SSuccess oofCall MManagement SStrategiesPolice agencies should also call upon several data sourcesand techniques to analyze issues that are important foreffective and efficient call management. For example, datacollection and analysis can help determine why thecommunity was not taking advantage of various policeservices like storefronts or online reporting. Data onnumbers and types of reports taken measure the level ofservice, but these numbers do not answer the "why"question. The storefront's hours of operation may be afactor, the online reporting form may be too complicated, orthe service alternative may not have been well publicized.The department may need to conduct follow-up techniquessuch as surveys or focus groups to find out. These types ofassessments can indicate whether the strategy can bemodified, or whether a different response shouldimplemented. The assessment might also suggest a need tore-analyze the problem that the strategy was intended toaddress. Whatever the issue, responses or changes instrategy should be informed by data�based on the results ofthe analysis.

Reporting "Petrol Drive-Offs" inBeenleigh, Australia

The importance of efficient resourceallocation and the use of an alternativeresponse is highlighted in theBeenleigh, Australia, Calls for ServiceProject. The problem for the policedepartment was frequent petrol drive-offs (people filling auto gas tanks andleaving without paying). Thedepartment calculated an expenditureof $53 per police response. Theaverage loss per gasoline stationowner was $25 for the tank of gas.The loss did not outweigh the cost ofthe police response.

The new strategy implemented was tohave gas attendants immediately faxincident and offender details when thethefts occurred. The benefit was two-fold�the department saved money andthe immediate provision of theoffender description increased thelikelihood of apprehension.

74

Officer AAccess tto DDataIf officers are expected to identify, analyze, and trackproblems, they must be given access to the department'sdata on calls and problems. In some agencies, depending onsize, crime analysts may be available to provide data andanalysis for officers. In others, officers need to learn toaccess department data and conduct some rudimentaryanalysis themselves. In both situations, the starting pointinvolves both centralizing the information and making itaccessible.

As discussed earlier, if call and other data are maintained ina variety of decentralized databases, analysts, but especiallyofficers, will often lack information that may be pertinent.For example, some agencies collect very little informationon abandoned vehicle calls; most are handled by phone andsometimes by contractors (tow companies). However,detailed information on the history of the vehicle may beneeded by an officer working a problem-solving projectrelated to stolen cars.

Problem-SSolving iin tthe FFieldEffective call management strategies streamline handling,processing, and responses to calls for service. Theinnovative application of call management strategies canallow patrol officers to have more time in the field toengage in community policing and problem-solving.Departments need to help officers manage this time. Inaddition, community policing's focus on geographicdeployment involves an increased emphasis on holdingmanagers accountable for solving problems in their serviceareas.


False Alarm Calls in Salt Lake City

The Salt Lake City, Utah, PoliceDepartment (SLCPD) solved a costly20-year old problem using callmanagement strategies in its problem-solving efforts. SLCPD identified that99 percent of alarm calls, representing12 percent of dispatched calls, werefalse alarms. Each call consumed upto 40 minutes of patrol time. The citypassed a verified alarm responseordinance and the SLCPD conductedtraining for private security. Privatesecurity now performs the critical dutyof initial verification into the alarm. Benefits of the new strategy included:

Ê Alarm call response by SLCPDreduced by 90 percentÊWorkload reduced in

communications, alarm unit, citytreasury, and courtsÊ Backlog of calls reducedÊMore than 9,000 officer hours (in

one year) redirected to other callsand activities.

�Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing 2001

75Using the Data

All departments interviewed for this guidebook felt that theagency's call management strategies, whether telephonereporting or field CSOs, freed up patrol officer time. Therewere differences among those departments in terms of howmuch available time was generated and what officers weredoing with it. The challenge is that most available (freedup) patrol time comes in unplanned blocks�15 minutesduring the shift's first two hours; 22 minutes in the next twohours; etc. Without management's help, it is difficult forpatrol officers to accomplish much problem-solving withsuch intermittent available time.

The more proactive officers are able to take advantage oftime between calls to work on some types of communitypolicing and projects, such as establishing or maintainingcommunity contacts, doing specific directed patrol, andinteracting with crime analysts. Agencies that encourageproblem-solving may have alternative responders and othercall management strategies to provide patrol officers blocksof uninterrupted time in the field, during which they are notresponsible for answering radio calls and can work onprojects. A remaining challenge for police management inmany agencies is to determine more precisely the portion ofthat time that is actually being devoted to problem-solvingand other community policing activities.

Resource AAllocationPolice agencies benefit by analyzing call management datafor resource allocation decisions. Resource allocation,particularly in patrol, has become much more "scientific" inrecent years. In large agencies, small shifts in patrolresources can equate to thousands of dollars. Effectively

76

28 The Compstat approach originated in NewYork City and has been adapted and modifiedin other departments. It includes managementaccountability meetings where data (crimereports, arrests, calls for service, etc.) ispresented and discussed.

and efficiently matching resources to crime and problemworkload requires accurate analysis of call managementdata. No national standards exist on determining policestaffing. Analyzing workload provides the most accurateresource allocation decisions, and the most accurate pictureof patrol workload comes from call for service data in CADsystems.

As the number of call management strategies increases,resource allocation becomes more challenging. In order todetermine effective strategies, departments should examinecall data broken down by:Ê Priority and type of call (because of different ways

of handling different calls)Ê Source of call (9-1-1, 3-1-1, Internet, storefront,

etc.)ÊGeographic locationÊ Time of day and day of weekÊUnits assigned (include TRU)Ê Types of personnel (basic patrol units, supervisors,

volunteers, etc.)ÊAmount of time devoted to calls (including

backups)

Management AAccountabilityCall data can also be analyzed to assess management andsupervisory accountability. Nearly two-thirds of the policedepartments responding to the national survey analyze calldata to assess management accountability�for example bylooking at numbers and types of calls in the manager'sgeographic area of responsibility. A good example of usingcall and report data for accountability is the success ofCompstat in some police agencies.28 Instead of solely


77Using the Data

looking at crime or arrest numbers, analyzing calls forservice of a particular type, such as noise complaints,provides a more complete picture of the issues that concerncitizens enough to call the police. Comparing the databefore and after a police intervention can help determine ifmeasures taken by officers were effective in reducingproblems.

In addition, management, supervisors, and officers can beheld accountable for the successful implementation of aparticular call management strategy. If telephone reportingis supposed to free up time for officers to do problem-solving, call data can show whether this is actuallyoccurring. Call data can also help to identify the success ofteams or special units assigned to problems. For example,the combination of vandalism and graffiti complaints,arrests, and tip information to a graffiti hotline can assist inassessing the effectiveness of a special anti-graffiti taskforce.

Interacting wwith tthe CCommunityCall for service data can also be valuable in conductingvictim call-backs and surveys to measure police-communityinteractions, an integral part of community policing.Community participation in surveys, focus groups, and beatmeetings is important not only for problem-solving projectsor volunteer programs, but for implementing successful callmanagement strategies. The community can becomeinvolved in call management strategies in several ways. Ê The community can indicate a need or desire for a

new strategy. Ê The community can be involved in developing the

strategy. For example, when prioritizing calls, thecommunity's main concerns may be different fromwhat the department perceives them to be.

78

Ê The community can become part of the strategy, forexample, by participating in a problem-solvingactivity or by serving as a volunteer.Ê The community will be using or be affected by each

strategy. If citizens accept and use alternative callmanagement strategies, they are activelycontributing to the overall goal of communitypolicing.Ê The community interacts with the police department

by providing feedback, both positive and negative.

Community participation in evaluations and surveys needsto be seen as valuable input by the department. Solicitinginformation about citizens' views and experiences canencourage their involvement in finding solutions toproblems. Results from the national survey revealed thatpolice agencies are attempting to measure the pulse of thecommunity through surveys and other data collection andanalysis. For example, 57 percent of departments conductcitizen satisfaction surveys, and another 23 percent areplanning these surveys. In addition, 38 percent of policeagencies analyze various measures of fear of crime, andanother 29 percent are planning to collect this information.


Summary of Recommendations

6Chapter

6

81Summary of Recommendations

Summary of RecommendationsWhen police agencies examine call management strategiesto support community policing, executives should reviewthe information and challenges in this guidebook andaddress key issues in the planning stages. This chapterprovides a summary of activities that can help agenciessystematically move through the process of adding one ormore call management strategies to support communitypolicing.

Before beginning step 1 below, agencies should developand review some key background information. In thispreliminary stage, a number of questions need to beaddressed.ÊWhat are the department's philosophy, mission, and

goals?ÊWhat are the existing call management strategies?

Why were they implemented and how well are theyworking to meet agency goals, especially thoseassociated with community policing?ÊWhat new call management strategy or strategies

would best serve the department's communitypolicing and problem-solving needs?ÊWho are the stakeholders for the planned strategies

and what are their interests?ÊWhat resources are needed to implement the

strategy? Will these resources come from thecurrent budget, future budget, grants, donations,other?

Chapter 6

82

Call MManagement SSteps tto EEnhanceCommunity PPolicing

1. CConduct aa NNeeds AAssessmentThe development of a specific call management strategyshould be based on an agency's needs rather than employeesentiment or political pressure. The first step is to conduct acomprehensive needs assessment, obtaining input fromvarious work groups inside the agency, other localgovernment agencies, and the community. Means ofobtaining input include surveys, interviews, focus groups,and community meetings.

The agency also needs to conduct a thorough analysis ofcall for service data to determine trends and workloads.After personal experience and statistical information areexamined, departments will have a more comprehensiveand detailed understanding of call management needs andstrategies best suited to address them.

2. CCreate aa RRepresentative PPlanning TTeamSome call management changes can be far reaching andaffect the entire police department. In planning suchchange, organizations should include a representative groupof employees, including communications, crime analysis,patrol, and others, to help steer the process. This planningteam should also meet periodically with community groups.Involving staff in the change process helps generate avariety of ideas and encourages commitment to the processand outcome.

3. CChoose tthe MMost AAppropriate SStrategyDevelop call management alternatives, weigh thealternatives, and choose a call management strategy basedon the department's strategic goals. These are different from



tactical goals, which are important for day-to-day policing.Strategic goals are broader agency and local governmentgoals, and the call management strategies selected shouldhave these broader goals in mind. Certain call managementstrategies are better suited for different jurisdictions becauseof department philosophy, community characteristics, andavailable resources. Consider all these factors beforelaunching a new call management strategy.

4. BBudget AAdequate RResourcesBudget adequate resources for technology, personnel,marketing, and training so that call management strategiescan be implemented effectively. Identify resources insideand outside the agency before beginning implementation.

5. RRecognize tthe IImportance oof TTrainingOrganized training is needed on the new call managementpolicies and procedures and also on problem-solving.Department personnel and the community need to beeducated on the strategy's purposes and goals. Departmentsshould take this change opportunity to further develop andrefine problem-solving practices. Personnel who representproblem identification and analysis sources, such ascommunications, TRU, crime analysis, and others, shouldalso receive training in how they can contribute to andsupport the process.

6. MMarket tthe SStrategyExtensive marketing of the new call management strategywill have an impact on its acceptance by staff and thepublic, and in turn, affect its success. Don't just depend on anewspaper article to assume the public knows about thestrategy. Make sure information and education about thestrategy reaches any particular groups (e.g., those withEnglish as a second language) who are targeted by the

84

strategy. Conduct focus groups with different populationsthe strategy is intended to reach. Learn about people'sconcerns and understand what messages will attract theirattention. Use a variety of advertising media to publicizethe changes: flyers, direct mail, web site, newspaperarticles, signs, community meetings, and more.

7. EEvaluate tthe SStrategyPrepare during the planning stage to collect the informationthat will be needed to evaluate the strategy periodically.Data will be needed to evaluate efficiency (e.g., the numberof calls handled per hour by responder before and afterimplementation) and effectiveness (e.g., citizensatisfaction). Some key questions to address include thefollowing:Ê Is the strategy meeting the intended goals?Ê Is the strategy meeting the needs of the community?

If not, why not?ÊHave there been any unforeseen consequences,

positive and negative? Ê Is there redundancy in the strategies? For example,

are the same people who reported incidents by mailjust as willing to complete an Internet report? If so,you may be able to eliminate mail-in as a reportingstrategy; automated reporting relieves staff fromtime-consuming data entry.ÊAre staff taking advantage of the strategy to its

fullest extent? If not, is it a training issue,technology issue, personnel resources, etc.?ÊWhat is the department doing better because of the

strategy?



8. BBe WWilling tto CChange aand IInnovateAlthough police departments cannot control change, such ascommunity development and growth, agencies can controlorganizational responses to change. As changes occur incommunities, e.g., annexations, new multi-family housingdevelopments, and new shopping areas, the community'sperceptions of its safety and problems change as well.

Community policing calls for flexibility, problem-solving,and participation by community members and a broadcross-section of department members in developingsolutions to problems. These principles clearly apply aspolice agencies and communities work together to createcall management strategies that improve public safety.

87Additional Resources and References

Additional Resources and References

ResourcesÊAmerican Association for the Advancement of

Community Oriented Policing. www.aaacop.orgÊCommunity Policing Consortium.

www.communitypolicing.orgÊUnited Kingdom Home Office.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htmÊNational Center for Community Policing.

www.cj.msu.edu/~people/cp/ÊNational Institute of Justice. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nijÊOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services,

U.S. Department of Justice. www.cops.usdoj.govÊAssociation of Public-Safety Communications

Officials (APCO) International. www.apcointl.orgÊNational Emergency Number Association (NENA).

www.nena.org

ReferencesArreola, P., and E.N. Kondracki. "Cutback

Management, Cost Containment and IncreasedProductivity," Police Chief, 59(10) (Oct 1992):110�112, 115�118. NCJ 139451

Baltimore Police Department. Baltimore PoliceDepartment Communications Division 311 Non-Emergency Telephone Number First AnnualProgram Evaluation (October 1996/September1997). Baltimore, Maryland: Author, 1997. NCJ175320

88

Brown, L.P. Community Policing: A Practical Guidefor Police Officials. Perspectives on Policing.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, September 1989.

Cahn, M.F., and J.M. Tien. Alternative Approach inPolice Response�Wilmington Management ofDemand Program, Wilmington Bureau of Police.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, 1981. NCJ 80490

Chandek, M.S. Technology to Enhance Communityand Problem Oriented Policing. Ann Arbor,Michigan: Regional Community Policing Institute,Michigan State University, 1999.

Cohen, M., and J.T. McEwen. Handling Calls forService�Alternatives to Traditional Policing.Research in Action, NIJ Report. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofJustice. September 1984.

Cordner, G.W. "Getting Serious About CommunityInvolvement," American Journal of Police, 12(3)(1993): 79�88. NCJ 151304

Crime Desks and Help Desks: A Survey. Home OfficePolice Research Group, Briefing Note. London,England: United Kingdom Home Office, February1995.

Diez, L. Use of Call Grading: How Calls to thePolice Are Graded and Resourced. Police ResearchSeries Paper 13. London, England: UnitedKingdom Home Office Police Research Group.



Eck, J., and W. Spelman. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News. Washington,D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1987.

Ekblom, P., and K. Heal. International Summaries:Police Response to Calls from the Public.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, 1982. NCJ 92598

Garden Grove Police Department. Differential PoliceResponse�Training Guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,1983. NCJ 102962

Givens, G. "Concept To Involve Citizens in theProvision of Police Services," American Journal ofPolice, 12(3) (1993): 1�9. NCJ 151300

Goldstein, H. Problem Oriented Policing. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1990. NCJ 122899

Greensboro Police Department. Differential PoliceResponse. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, n.d. NCJ89918

Hoover, L.T. ed. "Assessing Alternative Responses toCalls for Service." In Quantifying Quality inPolicing, L.T. Hoover, ed. Washington, D.C.: PoliceExecutive Research Forum, 1996: 153�166. NCJ158093

90

Hoover, L.T. ed. Police Program Evaluation.Huntsville, Texas: Bill Blackwood LawEnforcement Management Institute of Texas,Criminal Justice Center, 1998. NCJ 174118

Hoover, L.T. ed. Quantifying Quality in Policing.Washington, D.C.: Police Executive ResearchForum, 1996. NCJ 158093

Hough, M., and P.A.J. Waddington. "Calling ThePolice: The Interpretation of, and Response to,Calls for Assistance from the Public," BritishJournal of Criminology, 35(3) (1993). NCJ 146884

Jolowicz, C., and T. Read. Managing Demand on thePolice: An Evaluation of a Crime Line, PoliceResearch Series Paper No. 8. London, England:United Kingdom Home Office Police ResearchGroup.

Jolowicz, C., and T. Read. Telephone Demand on thePolice: The 90's Picture? Briefing Note, London,England: United Kingdom Home Office PoliceResearch Group, May 1995.

Kennedy, D.M. Strategic Management of PoliceResources. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, 1993. NCJ139565

Klosiewicz, R.S. "Police Administration New CastleCounty, Delaware�A Special Problem�BurglarAlarm Study." Master's thesis, University ofDelaware, 1980.



Knee, S.L., and L.G. Heywood. Differential PoliceResponse to Citizen-Initiated Calls forService�Exec Summary (Part 1). Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute ofJustice, 1983. NCJ 95260

Larson, R.C. Future of Police Emergency ResponseSystems. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, 1985. NCJ99829

Larson, R.C. Rapid Response and CommunityPolicing: Are They Really in Conflict? Ann Arbor,Michigan: National Center for CommunityPolicing, Michigan State University School ofCriminal Justice Publication, 1990. NCJ 134978

Managing Citizens Calls to the Police: AnAssessment of Non-Emergency Call Systems. NIJGrant # 98-IJ-CX-0067. Unpublished Report,October 2001.

Manning, P.K. Symbolic Communication: SignifyingCalls and the Police Response. Cambridge,Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1988. NCJ 127029

Mastrofski, S.D. "Varieties of Community Policing,"American Journal of Police, 12(3) (1993): 65�77.NCJ 151303

92

Maxfield, M.G. "Service Time, Dispatch Time, &Demand for Police Services Helping More byServing Less," 1980. (Revised version of paperoriginally prepared for ORSA/TIMS Joint NationalMeeting Milwaukee, WI, Oct 1979) NCJ 76504

McEwen, J.T., E.F. Connors, and M.I. Cohen.Evaluation of the Differential Police ResponseField Test. Alexandria, Virginia: ResearchManagement Associates, 1986.

Minnesota Department of Public Safety.Reimplementation of Differential Police Response.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, 1986. NCJ 102963

Murphy, C., and G. Muir. Community-BasedPolicing: A Review of the Critical Issues. WestOttawa, Ontario, Canada: Canada Solicitor GeneralCommunications Group Programs Branch, 1985.NCJ 133665

Ommen, T.L. What Will Be the Police Response toNon-Emergency Calls for Service by the Year 2000?Sacramento, California: California Commission onPeace Officer Standards and Traiing, 1988. NCJ118740

Sacks, S.R., R.C. Larson, and C. Schaak."Minimizing the Cost of Dispatch Delays byHolding Patrol Cars in Reserve," Journal ofQuantitative Criminology, 9(2) (June 1993):203�224. NCJ 144418



Schneider, P.J. "Proposal for an Evaluation of a TeleServe Unit in the Houston Police Department."Houston, Texas: Houston Police Department, 1983.

Scott, M. Problem Oriented Policing: Reflections onthe First 20 Years. U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,2001.

Stevens, D. "American Police Resolutions andCommunity Response," The Police Journal, 72(2)(1999).

Sumrall, R.O., J. Roberts, and M.T. Farmer.Differential Police Response Strategies. U.S. Deptof Justice, 1981.

Waggoner, K. "Creative Solutions to TraditionalProblems," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 66(8)(August 1997): 8�12.

Weedon, J. "How Is the Balance To Be StruckBetween Prevention and Detection in the PoliceResponse to Crime?" Police Journal, 63(1) (1990):34�48. NCJ 124510

Worden, R.E. "Toward Equity and Efficiency in LawEnforcement: Differential Police Response,"American Journal of Police, 12(1) (1993): 1�32.NCJ 149990

Appendix

Ap

pen

dix

97Appendix

Appendix

IntroductionThis report provides details on the methodology and resultsof a national survey of police call management strategiesand community policing activities. The survey wasconducted as background research for preparing theGuidebook on Call Management for Community Policing.The survey and Guidebook were completed by the Institutefor Law and Justice (ILJ) under a cooperative agreementwith the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS Office), U. S. Department of Justice.

In publishing the Guidebook, the COPS Office wanted toshow how a range of strategies for managing calls forservice could help police agencies (1) free up more officertime for problem-solving and other community policingactivities without compromising emergency responses orcitizen satisfaction, and (2) make better use of call forservice and other data to plan and measure the success oftheir community policing efforts. When work on theGuidebook began, the community policing literaturecontained discussions of these concepts, as well as someexamples of related agency practices. However, very littleresearch had been done on what police departmentsnationwide were actually doing to manage calls for service,or on the link between call management practices andcommunity policing.

98

Because this information was lacking, the national surveywas an essential starting point for preparing the Guidebook.The survey was designed to address such key questions asthese:Ê To what extent are police agencies currently using

various alternatives to providing immediate, swornresponses to non-emergency calls for service (e.g.,call stacking/delayed response, telephone reportingunits (TRUs), mail-in and walk-in reporting, 3-1-1systems, Internet reporting)?Ê To what extent are police agencies using data

captured by their computer aided dispatch (CAD)systems and other sources to help plan and measurethe success of their problem-solving and othercommunity policing efforts?ÊWhat types of activities and organizational changes

commonly associated with community policing areactually being implemented? ÊHow do call management practices and community

policing activities vary with the size ofjurisdictions?ÊWhat can be learned about promising and

innovative call management practices currentlybeing employed to enhance community policing?

MethodologyThe survey sample was drawn from a database that hadbeen used in previous projects, containing contactinformation for almost all of the police departments in thecountry (but not sheriff's offices). The sample of 695included all departments serving jurisdictions withpopulations of 250,000 or greater and a random sample ofdepartments with jurisdiction populations less than 250,000.


99Appendix

29 At the time of the survey, ILJ wasconducting a related National Institute ofJustice project, "CAD Support for CommunityPolicing," in which surveys needed to be sentto the same police agencies. ILJ staff and thefunding agencies agreed that there was enoughoverlap of purpose to combine thequestionnaires.

30 Although the survey instructions askeddepartments without CAD systems tocomplete the community policing items in thequestionnaire, 46 surveys were returned blankwith the notation that the department did nothave a CAD system. These were consequentlydropped from the analysis.

A 24-item survey questionnaire was developed with inputfrom ILJ staff, COPS Office staff, and reviewers withbackgrounds in CAD, differential police response, andcommunity policing and problem-solving. Thequestionnaire included both closed and open-ended items.Because the survey was designed to serve two differentprojects,29 questions were asked about departments'computer aided dispatch (CAD) system, as well as their callmanagement strategies and community policing activities.

The survey was mailed to the 695 police departments inMay 2000. A second wave was mailed in August 2000 todepartments that had not yet responded. By the end ofOctober 2000, 467 surveys (67 percent) had been returnedto ILJ and 420 surveys (61 percent of the 695) wereavailable for analysis.30 In addition to analyzing responsefrequencies for all survey items, crosstabulations were usedto provide insight into how call management strategies andcommunity policing activities vary based on jurisdictionsize. Respondents were grouped into the four populationcategories shown in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Survey Respondents by Population of JurisdictionN = 420

Population of Jurisdiction Percent of RespondentsUnder 25,000 2625,000 - 50,000 3250,000 - 250,000 29250,000 or more 13

Thirteen jurisdictions with populations greater than 1million completed the survey (3.1 percent of allrespondents).

100

FindingsThe extent to which call management strategies directlysupport community policing could not be established byanalyzing the questionnaire responses. However,departments did provide examples of how call managementstrategies help them achieve community policing goals. Inaddition, departments were encouraged to attachinformation concerning different call type classifications,community policing policies, and call management policies,and approximately half of the respondents did so. The survey findings presented in this section are dividedinto two major categories: (1) findings on call managementstrategies, and (2) findings related to community policingactivities.

Call MManagement SStrategiesDepartments were asked to identify the percentage of allcalls for service handled by each of six categories ofresponders (patrol officers, community policing teammembers, uniformed civilians, specialized units (e.g.,detectives), volunteers, and others). Exhibit 2 shows that, asmight be expected, a large majority of calls (87 percent) arehandled by patrol officers.


Exhibit 2: Percent of Calls Responded to by Type of Responder

Responder Percent of CallsPatrol Officers 87Special Team/Unit 6Community Policing Team/Unit 4Uniformed Civilians 2Volunteers 1Other 1

101Appendix

The questionnaire also asked about the use of callstacking/delayed response to handle certain types of calls.Overall, 59 percent of departments reported using thesetechniques. There were no significant differences inresponses for jurisdictions with populations over 25,000;however, jurisdictions with populations less than 25,000were significantly less likely to use call stacking/delayedresponse (only 36 percent, compared with two-thirds ofjurisdictions with populations of 25,000 or greater).

Similarly, 59 percent of police departments said theytransfer certain calls that come in on a police number toother, more appropriate agencies. The likelihood oftransferring calls to other agencies increased significantlywith the population of the jurisdiction. In jurisdictions withfewer than 25,000 residents, 42 percent of policedepartments said they transfer calls, compared to 59 percentof departments in jurisdictions of 25,000 to 50,000; 68percent in jurisdictions of 50,000 to 250,000; and 72percent in jurisdictions with populations of 250,000 orgreater. Transferring calls is most likely a more viableoption in larger jurisdictions because they have a greaternumber of agencies and organizations available to handlethese calls.

Departments were also asked to indicate what types ofmethods they provide for citizens to file police reports, inaddition to having an officer or other police representativetake a report at the scene or call location. Exhibit 3 showsthe percent of departments that employ each of thefollowing reporting methods: walk-ins/storefront reporting,telephone reporting unit (TRU), scheduled appointmentswith officers, mail-in reporting, and Internet reporting. Theresult for walk-in/storefront reports is high (95 percent)because the questionnaire did not distinguish between

102

reports taken at the police station or substations (whichmost departments accept) and walk-in reporting atstorefronts.

For two alternative reporting methods, there weresignificant differences depending on the size of thejurisdiction (see Exhibit 4). The use of TRUs increaseddramatically as the jurisdiction size increased. This is mostlikely because departments in larger jurisdictions generallyhave more personnel available to staff a TRU, as well asenough calls for service to justify its use. In contrast, theuse of scheduled appointments with officers was much lesscommon in larger jurisdictions, suggesting that officers inlarger jurisdictions have less time available forappointments or less control over their daily schedules. Theuse of mail-in reporting, walk-in reporting, and Internetreporting was not related to jurisdiction size.


Exhibit 3: Percent of Departments Using Alternative Reporting Methods

Reporting Method Percent of DepartmentsWalk-ins/storefront reporting 95Telephone Reporting Unit 56Appointments with Officers 42Mail-in 23Internet Reporting 6

Exhibit 4: Use of TRUs and Scheduled Appointments by Size of Jurisdiction

Percent UsingSize of Jurisdiction Percent Using TRUs AppointmentsLess than 25,000 29 5325,000 - 50,000 46 4950,000 - 250,000 77 34250,000 or more 93 19

103Appendix

Nearly half of departments (49 percent) indicated that theyhave discussed implementing one or more of the alternativereporting methods not currently in use in their agency.

Of the responding departments, only ten (three percent),reported that their departments currently use 3-1-1 as a non-emergency number. Half of those departments were injurisdictions with populations greater than one million, andthe other five were in jurisdictions whose populationsvaried from 16,000 to 230,000.

Thirty-one percent of departments not currently using 3-1-1for non-emergencies indicated that they have discussed thepossibility. There was tremendous variation depending onthe size of the jurisdiction, however. Less than 20 percent ofdepartments in jurisdictions smaller than 25,000 or between25,000 and 50,000 said they had considered 3-1-1. Thisincreased to 43 percent of departments in jurisdictionsbetween 50,000 and 250,000 and 78 percent in jurisdictionslarger than 250,000.

Community PPolicingThe survey asked two types of questions related tocommunity policing. First, a set of questions askedrespondents to indicate whether they are currently doing,plan to do, or have no plans to do various types of dataanalysis that might aid in measuring community policingefforts. These questions asked about measures related toproblem-solving, resource allocation, communityinvolvement and satisfaction, support for special units, andmanagement accountability. Second, respondents wereasked about the extent to which their departments areinvolved in twelve different activities that are typicallyassociated with community policing.

104

Problem-SSolving MMeasuresCall for service and other data can be valuable both foridentifying problems and measuring the success of problem-solving efforts. Survey respondents were asked about theiruse of nine different measures that might support problem-solving. As shown in Exhibit 5, almost 92 percent ofdepartments identify top problem locations, and 84 percentreport and analyze the frequency of certain call types (alarmcalls, drug complaints, accidents, etc.). Two-thirds ofdepartments identify repeat callers, two-thirds conduct "hotspot" analysis, and more than half capture and useinformation on premise history (61 percent) and predictemerging problem locations/areas (58 percent). Fifty-onedepartments (twelve percent) perform all nine types ofanalysis listed in the questionnaire under problem-solvingmeasures. This tweleve percent includes departments of allsizes, with almost half (22 departments) located injurisdictions of 50,000 to 250,000 population.


Exhibit 5: Percent of Departments Using Problem-Solving Measures*

Measures Currently doing Plan to do No plan to doIdentifying top problem locations 92 7 1Reporting/analyzing frequency of call types 84 13 3Conducting "hot spot" analysis 66 23 12Identifying repeat callers 65 17 18Capturing and using premise history 61 27 12Predicting emerging problem locations/areas 58 32 10Assessing problem-solving efforts through 50 29 22change in number of callsDetermining which officers are performing 44 30 26problem-solving efforts

Assessing problem-solving efforts through 32 28 40displacement

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

105Appendix

Jurisdiction size was related to whether departments areusing three of the nine problem-solving measures. Largerdepartments are more likely to conduct "hot spot" analysis,assess problem-solving efforts through analysis of changesin call volume, and assess problem-solving efforts byanalyzing displacement. Exhibit 6 shows the use ofproblem-solving measures by jurisdiction size.

Exhibit 6: Percent of Departments Using Problem-Solving Measuresby Jurisdiction Population

250,000 or 50,000- 25,000- Less thanMeasures More 250,000 50,000 25,000Identifying top problem locations 98 90 92 91Reporting/analyzing frequency 94 90 78 80of call types*Conducting "hot spot" analysis 82 72 63 55Identifying repeat callers 69 65 62 68Capturing and using premise history 69 65 60 54Predicting emerging problem 65 60 56 55locations/areas*Assessing problem-solving efforts 60 60 45 40through change in number of callsDetermining which officers are 56 46 43 39performing problem-solving efforts*Assessing problem-solving efforts 40 40 29 24through displacement

* Jurisdiction size was statistically significant at p<.05

106

Resource AAllocation MMeasuresThe questionnaire asked departments to report on their useof five measures related to resource allocation: analyzingtime spent at a location or on a problem, evaluating self-initiated activities, performing call stacking analysis,analyzing TRU activity, and reviewing out-of-areadispatches with regard to beat responsibility. The results areshown in Exhibit 7. Only the evaluation of self-initiatedactivities is currently done by a majority of policedepartments (58 percent).

Only five percent of responding departments said they useall five resource allocation measures listed in Exhibit 7; infact, over half of departments (53 percent) indicated theyhave no plans to review out of area dispatches or analyzecall stacking data.

Jurisdiction size was related to the use of three resourceallocation measures: analysis of TRU activity, review ofout-of-area dispatches, and call stacking analysis. The lattertwo activities are still performed by fewer than half of


Exhibit 7: Percent of Departments Using Resource Allocation Measures*

Measures Currently doing Plan to do No plan to doEvaluating self-initiated activities 58 27 15Analyzing time spent at a location or on problem 46 34 20**Analyzing TRU activity 46 19 35Reviewing out of area dispatches in regard 24 23 53to beat responsibilityPerforming call stacking analysis 19 28 53

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.** These figures represent the percentage of departments that reported they have a TRU. Of the 234 who soindicated, 214 (91%) also indicated the degree to which they analyze TRU activity.

107Appendix

departments in the largest jurisdictions. The differences inTRU analysis are more striking, with departments in largerjurisdictions much more likely to analyze TRU activity. Asnoted earlier, 58 percent of respondents (234 departments)reported having a TRU, and 214 of those departmentsanswered the question about analysis of TRU data. Theirresponses show that 84 percent of departments injurisdictions of over 250,000 analyze TRU activity,compared to 54 percent in jurisdictions of 50,000 to250,000; 25 percent in jurisdictions of 25,000 to 50,000;and seven percent in jurisdictions with 25,000 population orless.

Community IInvolvement/Satisfaction MMeasuresMany police departments appear to be actively involved inmeasuring community involvement in policing initiativesand citizen satisfaction with policing services. Exhibit 8shows the extent to which respondents report using fivemeasures of community involvement/satisfaction. In fact,analyzing measures of fear was the only activity not beingdone by a majority of departments. Eighteen percent ofrespondents (77 departments) report using all five measureslisted in Exhibit 8, with no significant difference in theseresponses based on size of jurisdiction.

108

Jurisdiction population appears to be important only withregard to capturing community meeting times and locations.Eighty-four percent of departments in jurisdictions withpopulations of 250,000 or more perform this activity,compared to only 56 percent of departments in jurisdictionssmaller than 25,000.

Support ffor SSpecial UUnitsThe overwhelming majority of survey respondents providesupport to special units by reporting and analyzing calls byproblem locations (75 percent) and problem type (71percent), as shown in Exhibit 9. Sixty-three percent ofdepartments reported using both types of measures tosupport special units, with no significant differences basedon jurisdiction population.


Exhibit 8: Percent of Departments Using Community Involvement and Satisfaction Measures*

Measures Currently doing Plan to do No plan to doProviding referrals to non-police agencies 93 4 3Doing victim follow up 76 13 10Capturing community meeting times and locations 67 15 18Conducting satisfaction surveys 57 23 19Analyzing measures of fear 33 29 38


Exhibit 9: Percent of Departments Providing Support for Special Units*

Measures Currently doing Plan to do No plan to doReporting/analyzing calls by problem locations 75 17 8Reporting/analyzing calls by problem types 71 16 13


109Appendix

Departments in jurisdictions with populations greater than50,000 more often analyze by problem type than those insmaller jurisdictions, as can be seen in Exhibit 10.

Management AAccountabilityAn important part of community policing is the extent towhich management-level personnel analyze data that canaid in determining whether current efforts and personnel areproductive. For example, examining changes in the numbersand types of calls for service can assist managers inassessing whether strategies are working; and analyzingcomplaint calls can serve as one measure of success withrespect to building community partnerships. Of respondingdepartments, 60 percent use numbers and types of calls forthe purpose of management accountability and 65 percentcapture and analyze complaint calls. There were nosignificant differences in responses based on jurisdictionsize. Half (49 percent) of departments currently use bothmeasures, again with no significant differences based onsize of jurisdiction.

Combined MMeasuresOur analysis showed that two percent of respondents (eightdepartments) report that they perform all of the analysisactivities listed in the questionnaire with respect to

Exhibit 10: Support for Special Units by Jurisdiction Population

Size of Analysis by Analysis by Jurisdiction Problem Type Problem LocationLess than 25,000 62 6525,000 - 50,000 62 7150,000 - 250,000 84 82250,000 or more 87 89250,000 or more 93 19

110

problem-solving measures, resource allocation measures,community involvement and satisfaction measures, supportfor special units, and management accountability. Of theseeight departments, five serve jurisdictions with populationsbetween 50,000 and 250,000, while two are in jurisdictionof over 250,000 and one serves a jurisdiction of less than25,000.

Community PPolicing AActivitiesThe questionnaire asked respondents to report the extent towhich their departments were involved in each of twelveactivities that are often associated with community policing.A number of the activities suggest significant changes inorganizational structure (e.g., decentralizing detectives,opening substations), while others (e.g., conductingcommunity surveys) would not require major organizationalchange. Respondents were asked to indicate whether theywere performing each activity to a great extent, moderateextent, limited extent, or not at all. The results are shown inExhibit 11.


111Appendix

No department indicated that it was performing all tweleveactivities listed to a great extent. In fact, giving geographicresponsibility to patrol was the only activity that a majorityof departments (51 percent) reported doing to a great extent.

Responses with respect to two items�changingcommunications center procedures for call handling anddeveloping evaluation criteria for community policing�areof particular interest in light of the study's focus on call

Exhibit 11: Percent of Departments Engaging in Community Policing Activities

Great Moderate Limited Not atActivities extent extent extent allGave geographic responsibility 51 26 16 8

to patrolHave a citizens police academy 48 10 13 29Conduct beat/neighborhood 32 35 21 12

meetings open to the publicOpened neighborhood substations 26 19 18 37Adopted problem-solving techniques 22 33 31 14Developed information systems 17 31 37 16

to support problem-solvingConduct citizen surveys 17 23 37 24

on a regular basisDecision-making occurs 16 45 36 4

in lower ranksDeveloped evaluation criteria for 14 22 43 22

determining success ofcommunity policing

Decentralized detectives 10 11 18 61Changed communications center 9 24 36 31

procedures on how citizen calls are handled

Eliminated one or more ranks 5 7 13 75

112

management strategies and analysis of call for service datato support community policing. Only one-third ofrespondents report having changed communications centerprocedures to a moderate extent (24 percent) or great extent(nine percent). The percent of departments that havedeveloped community policing evaluation criteria is onlyslightly higher (36 percent), with 14 percent having donethis to a great extent and 22 percent to a moderate extent.

The survey results indicate that the extent to which manycommunity policing activities are conducted is related to thepopulation of the jurisdiction. As shown in Exhibit 12, thisis true for 8 of the 12 community policing activities listed inthe questionnaire. (Exhibit 12 includes data only onperformance of community policing activities to a greatextent). The four activities for which there was nosignificant difference based on population were: givinggeographic responsibility to patrol, decision making inlower ranks, developing evaluation criteria for success, andeliminating one or more ranks.

It is not surprising that smaller jurisdictions would not findsome of the activities useful or feasible (e.g., openingsubstations, decentralizing detectives). For other activities,however, jurisdiction population was not expected to be soinfluential. For example, 42 percent of departments in thelargest jurisdictions, but only eleven percent in jurisdictionsof less than 25,000, have adopted problem-solvingtechniques to a great extent. These differences were not aspronounced, however, with respect to use of problem-solving techniques to a moderate extent (reported by 40percent of departments in the largest jurisdictions,compared to about 25 percent in jurisdictions of less than25,000).


113Appendix

DiscussionThe overall goal of this survey was to determine what callmanagement strategies are currently being used by policedepartments throughout the country, how many departmentshave these strategies in place, and how the strategies arebeing used. The survey also aimed to identify departmentswith innovative call management strategies and those thatare using these strategies to support their communitypolicing efforts.

Exhibit 12: Percent of Departments Performing Community Policing Activities by Jurisdiction Size

Activities Conducted 250,000 or 50,000- 25,000- Less thanto a Great Extent More 250,000 50,000 25,000*Have citizens' police academy 77 55 44 31Gave geographic responsibility to patrol 67 53 45 47*Conduct neighborhood meetings 54 40 30 14*Opened neighborhood substation 53 29 24 13*Adopted problem-solving techniques 42 26 17 11*Decentralized detectives 40 10 5 1*Developed information systems 33 18 15 9

to support problem-solving*Changed communication 29 7 4 8

center procedures*Conduct citizen surveys 23 19 17 10Developed evaluation criteria for 22 15 13 9

determining success of community policing

Decision-making occurs in lower ranks 21 15 16 13Eliminated one or more ranks 6 5 5 3

* Jurisdiction size was statistically significant at p<.05

114

The size of the jurisdiction a department served wasexpected to be an influence on the types of callmanagement strategies employed, as well as on many of thetypes of community policing activities being performed. Forexample, it is logical that stacking/delayed responsetechniques are employed much less frequently injurisdictions of less than 25,000 population, since they areunlikely to have the large volume of calls that would makecall stacking necessary. The use of telephone reporting units(TRUs) and scheduled appointments with officers was alsorelated to jurisdiction population. Most of the largestjurisdictions (93 percent) had TRUs but were unlikely toschedule appointments (only 19 percent); about half ofdepartments in jurisdictions of fewer than 25,000 (53percent) scheduled appointments, but only 29 percent hadTRUs.

It is interesting that for some activities, jurisdiction size wasnot a significant factor, indicating that there are reportingmethods and activities that all departments can consider.Internet reporting, while used by only six percent ofdepartments overall, was no more likely to be offered in alarge jurisdiction than in a small one and may be drivenmore by demographics other than population size.Departments in areas where residents have easy access tothe Internet and are accustomed to using it may be morelikely to provide Internet reporting methods. As Internet usecontinues to increase, this reporting strategy will requirefurther examination, particularly to see whether the publicactually takes advantage of Internet reporting where policedepartments make it available.

The most common alternative reporting method was walk-in/storefront reporting (reported by 95 percent ofdepartments). Because the questionnaire did not


115Appendix

differentiate between walking into the police station or asubstation to make a report and reporting at a storefrontoffice, we could not determine the extent to whichdepartments offer storefront reporting alternatives (althoughseveral examples of this are featured in the Guidebook).The viability of storefront offices for reporting purposesshould be examined in more detail.

One strategy of interest to municipal government in recentyears is 3-1-1, which is intended to serve the dual purposeof keeping 9-1-1 lines free for emergency calls anddirecting appropriate non-emergencies to the agencies bestsuited to handle them. Analysis of 3-1-1 call data may alsoprove valuable for identifying and addressing citizenconcerns before they escalate into serious problems. Only afew departments responding to the survey reportedoperating 3-1-1 systems, although 31 percent said they haddiscussed the possibility. It was not surprising that a largemajority of that 31 percent were departments injurisdictions of 250,000 or more. However, there is somesuggestion that 3-1-1 may be practical for smallerjurisdictions, since half of the departments that had alreadyimplemented 3-1-1 were in jurisdictions with fewer than250, 000 residents.

The responses to survey questions about communitypolicing measures indicate that a significant majority ofdepartments capture various data that could be valuable forevaluating success. For example, 92 percent identify topproblem locations; 84 percent report and analyze thefrequency of certain call types (alarm calls, drugcomplaints, etc.); 66 percent identify repeat callers; and 66percent conduct "hot spot" analysis. Similarly, nearly three-fourths of departments support special units by analyzingcalls by problem type and location. These results are

116

encouraging, although the survey could not determine theextent to which these analyses are specifically aimed atenhancing community policing. Departments were lesslikely to identify which officers were performing problem-solving activities, to assess problem-solving efforts throughchanges in numbers of calls, or to analyze displacement.These were also the activities that the greatest percentage ofdepartments said they had no plan to do in the future.

A significant number of police departments are employingmeasures to help assess communityinvolvement/satisfaction. For example, more than half ofdepartments are conducting victim follow up (76 percent),tracking community meeting times/locations (67 percent)and conducting citizen surveys (57 percent). There were nosignificant differences in these activities based onjurisdiction population.

With respect to departments' involvement in the twelvecommunity policing activities listed in the questionnaire,only one activity�giving geographic responsibility topatrol�was being done to a great extent by a majority ofdepartments (51 percent). Some of the activities (e.g.,decentralizing detectives) were not expected to bewidespread, either because they require significantorganizational change or they are not practical for smallerjurisdictions. However, we did expect to see moreinvolvement in some activities, particularly the adoption ofproblem-solving techniques, which has received a great dealof attention in recent years. In fact, the adoption ofproblem-solving techniques and performance of sevenadditional activities were significantly related to jurisdictionpopulation, with larger departments more likely to conductthose activities. However, development of criteria formeasuring the success of community policing was not


117Appendix

dependent on jurisdiction population and appears to be anarea where more work is needed across the board; only 37percent of departments have developed such criteria to amoderate or great extent.

ConclusionThe survey had a high response rate and was largelysuccessful in providing a picture of the types of callmanagement strategies and community policing activitiescurrently being used in the nation's police departments. Italso was useful in identifying specific departments that havea variety of call management strategies in place and are alsoengaging in more than an average number of communitypolicing activities. These departments are the source of theexamples presented throughout the Guidebook. The surveyanalysis could not determine precise linkages between callmanagement strategies and community policing activities.However, it provided valuable information on thefoundations that departments have already built andconfirmed that many departments are capturing data thatcan help them plan and measure problem-solving and othercommunity policing activities in the future.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call theU.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.e05031968 Updated Date: July 10, 2003ISBN: 1-932582-21-5

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Documents

Call Management and Community Policing