CALLS FOR SERVICE

Calls for service are requests from citizens for police assistance. Most calls for service originate when a citizen dials either an emergency number such as 911 or a nonemergency number for the local police department. Calls for service range from minor problems in the neighborhood (traffic complaints, loud neighbors, and graffiti) to the most serious crimes (burglaries, robberies, and homicides). The obligation of a police department is to respond to calls for service in an efficient and effective manner.

Reporting Calls for Service

Historically, Great Britain introduced a “9-9-9” number in 1938 for its citizens to contact the police. In the United States the first 911 system became operational in Haleyville, Alabama, in 1968, replacing the need for citizens to dial a seven-digit number or to press zero so that a telephone company operator could connect them to the police. The 911 number quickly became adopted across the country as a universal emergency number; today virtually all jurisdictions have established it for emergency calls to police. The advantage of 911 is that is it not an area code, and it is easy to remember and dial.

By the 1990s, an overload of nonemergency calls on 911 had created serious problems in some cities, with 911 callers receiving busy signals or getting placed on hold at peak times. Indeed, the three-digit number became a victim of its own success as citizens found it easier to dial 911 instead of looking up the nonemergency seven-digit number. In February 1997, the Federal Communications Center designated 311 as a national, voluntary, nontoll phone number for nonemergencies. The two most common types of 311 systems that are emerging are police-operated systems, where 311 is for non-emergency calls, and 311 systems operated by a jurisdiction for general services, including nonemergency police calls for service. As examples, Chicago and Dallas have implemented 311 for citywide services, with Chicago describing the number as “your call to city hall.” The police department in Las Vegas started its service by encouraging citizens to call 311 “when there’s urgency but no emergency.”

A related technological impact on calls for service is the evolution of the wireless cell phone as a means of communication. Police departments receive calls for service more quickly than in the past, with traffic accidents and crimes in progress as good examples. Someone seeing a traffic accident or a crime in progress may immediately dial 911 with a cell phone to report what has occurred. In fact, police departments frequently receive several calls immediately after a major incident occurs. The result is faster response time by the police.

In reverse manner, officers in some police departments have been issued cell phones for making work-related calls during their shift. An unanticipated result is that citizens who find out about this number call the officer directly for service—an occurrence that completely bypasses normal reporting avenues.

Call Classification Schemes

Regardless of how calls arrive, they are classified by police departments by call type and priority. Call type is based on the caller’s information elicited through question-and-answer protocols from call takers. Police departments prioritize incoming calls based on the department’s established policies on the emergency nature of the call (for example, harm to a person imminent, crime in progress), response time, need for backup units, and other local factors. Although call priority schemes vary across the country, most have three to five levels. A typical three-priority scheme might look like that shown in Table 1.

Emergency calls include crimes in progress, serious traffic accidents, and other types of calls for which the presence of police is needed as quickly as possible. These calls usually account for less than 5% of a department’s total volume. Immediate calls include less serious crimes (for example, trespassing, loitering, minor traffic accidents) and routine calls that do not require immediate police presence (for example, vandalism, noise disturbance, suspicious vehicle).

Calls that do not require a patrol officer at the scene represent another call category. With some types of calls, the citizen can report the problem to the police department in an alternate manner such as connecting to the department’s telephone report unit (TRU). Police departments establish TRUs for the specific purpose of allowing citizens to provide information about an incident by telephone. Policies are established on the types of incidents for which telephone reporting is applicable. Evaluations of TRUs consistently find that citizen satisfaction is dependent on the courtesy of the call taker, including the call taker’s willingness to explain the reason for taking the report over the phone and how long it will take.

The Arlington County (Virginia) Police Department provides another example of an alternate way to report minor crimes. The department maintains a website (http://www.co.arlington.va.us/police) for reporting destruction of property, fraud, simple assault, eight types of theft (vehicle license plate, bicycle, cell phone, and so on), and threatening or harassing phone calls. Citizens complete an online form giving the type of incident, address, estimate of when it occurred, and other information.

Table 1

Calls for service include incidents an officer comes across while on patrol. An officer may directly observe an incident or a citizen may flag down a patrol car because an incident has taken place in the neighborhood. These situations fall under the rubric of ”self-initiated activities” because it is the patrol officer who is starting the contact with citizens. In these instances, a citizen eventually would have called the police for assistance, and it is in this sense that these activities are calls for service.

Call classification schemes can range from having twenty different call types in some agencies to sixty or more different call types in others. They include broad categories, such as “suspicious persons” and ”heard shots,” because the citizen contacting the department may not be able to provide more specific information. It is only after investigation by a responding patrol officer that the final determination can be made, and an officer can respond back to the dispatcher with a more accurate call type.

Interestingly, in many jurisdictions, alarm calls are the most frequent type of call based on their classification schemes. These calls are given a high priority with two patrol units dispatched to the scene. Unfortunately, the vast majority—usually 97% or more—are false alarms. That is, they have been set off accidentally. Many jurisdictions have established programs to reduce the volume of false alarms. For example, the Montgomery County Police Department established a False Alarm Reduction Section in 1994 to address the large number of false alarms it had been receiving. Between 1995 and 2004, the county experienced a 55.2% reduction in false alarms due to programs established by the section.

Analysis of Calls for Service

Police departments depend heavily on their classifications of calls for service for strategic and tactical analysis. Analysis inevitably shows that a minority of calls for service are serious crimes (homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, burglary, auto theft, larceny), reflecting the reality that the daily job of patrol officers centers on problems happening on their beats. Calls for disorderly conduct, traffic complaints, suspicious vehicles, noise disturbances, disputes between neighbors, and other noncrime incidents are at the core of what patrol officers do each day.

Analysis of calls for services blends nicely into departments that have transitioned to community-oriented and problem-oriented policing. Examples of analysis of calls that support those policing approaches include the following:

• Analyze calls by call type and problem location

• Conduct “hot spot” analysis

• Identify repeat callers

As a problem-solving activity, the aim of the analysis is to determine the underlying causes of the problems and enlist community support for solutions. Resolving a local problem and freeing up patrol time are the main benefits of problem-solving activities centered on calls for service.

Analysis of calls for service also plays a key role in determining the allocation of patrol officers in the field. This analysis is based on information captured in a department’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. Call takers and dispatchers employ a CAD system to capture information from citizens and track patrol officers who are responding to calls for service. A CAD system is the automated backbone of a communications center. Data in a CAD system include the type of call for service, priority, address, beat, unit(s) responding, time of dispatch, time of a unit’s arrival on the scene, and time the call was completed.

By analyzing data on calls for service in a CAD system, a department can determine:

• Number of calls by day of week and hour of day

• Number of calls by beat

• Calls requiring backup units

• Patrol officer time devoted to call by type and priority

• Patrol officer time on calls by day, shift, and geographic area

The analysis leads to determinations on how many patrol officers are needed and where they should be allocated both spatially and temporally.

Issues about calls for service center on the impact of technology on how calls come into a police department and the need to merge disparate sources of information about calls. The impact of technology on calls for service has yet to be fully determined. Calls are made by citizens and handled by police in many different ways— seven-digit telephone numbers, 911 or 311 numbers, online incident reports, TRUs, and direct calls to officers. The diversity of reporting methods makes it challenging for a department to paint a complete picture of its activities. Departments must find ways to merge the information sources together for a richer analysis of calls for service.