In a speech delivered in June of 1996, President Clinton told us that 9-1-1 was "broken". I believe his opinion was in response to well-publicized problems that have been attributed to 9-1-1. What many people do not understand is that 9-1-1 is not a single person, place, or thing. I have worked for a variety of public safety agencies in three states during the last 25 years. At no time was the 9-1-1 system where I worked "broken".

If I lived in a place where 9-1-1 was answered by a recording and I was unable to communicate my emergency within a reasonable time, I might also believe that 9-1-1 was "broken". The real issue is that there are no nationwide standards for funding, equipment, or staffing 9-1-1 centers. A Public Safety Answering Point must provide "enough" working 9-1-1 lines and people to answer them at any given time.

How many is "enough"? That is individual to each community. In Ventura, CA, where I currently work, we have a population of approximately 100,000 people and eight 9-1-1 lines. Generally, only two or three people are able to answer all the calls on a fifty line phone. We do have a recording that answers 9-1-1 if it rings three times. An average of four calls a month are answered by the recording; those calls average hearing the recording less than ten seconds before being answered by a 9-1-1 dispatcher.

Is 9-1-1 broken? No. Are there communities who, for a variety of reasons, do not staff their communications centers adequately? Oh, yes!

It was suggested in President Clinton's speech in June of 1996 that, as a solution to "the disintegration of 9-1-1", the new number 3-1-1 be implemented for non-emergency use.

The first issue attached to this suggestion is: non-emergency use for what? This has already been interpreted by several communities in several different ways. Again, no national standards have been established.

If our assumption is that 3-1-1 is to be used for non-emergency public safety requests to alleviate the "load" on 9-1-1 dispatchers, then we must also assume that 9-1-1 dispatchers will not be answering 3-1-1. In the communities I have served, admittedly in only three states, the people who answer 9-1-1 are the same people that answer the current non-emergency lines for that community.

If that is the case, how will implementing 3-1-1 answer your calls any faster or create any more time for the dispatcher to spend with you? My goal as a career dispatcher is to have enough time to resolve your problem. That may be by sending a police officer or firefighter, or it may be by discussing your options with you so that you can make an informed decision to help yourself. The solution is adequate staffing, not implementing 3-1-1.

Oh, and by the way, just who is going to pay for this new number? It will cost money to implement and maintain whether or not there are any additional people to answer it. Yep, you guessed it! It will be you and me, the taxpayers...

Share Your Opinion

Annette's Home Page

Web Page © 1997 by Annette Allen
Last Updated August 17, 1997