City of Morgan Hill Public Safety Master Plan

The authorized staffing levels are adequate to meet call volume. Unfortunately, due to significant leave time for sick, vacation, training, etc., the Communications Section has continuously relied on overtime to meet minimum staffing requirements. This in no way is meant as a criticism, it is simply a variable that affects staffing. Overtime spent to fill personnel on leave time and other variances has caused the Communications Section to spend significant overtime over the last several years. Over the last three years an average of $155,000 has been spent on overtime. The 2016-2017 fiscal year budget projects $169,000 in overtime costs. While on the surface it may appear that an additional dispatcher position would eliminate the need for this overtime expenditure, the sporadic nature of the overtime expended over a 24/7/365 schedule does not allow scheduling of a new position to cover the vacancies created by the various leaves. Therefore, a new position would likely reduce the overtime expenditure by 25%, but at a much higher cost to staff a new position. The data analysis portion of this report contains considerable information concerning response times to all calls. Table 5-1 shows components of response time to all priorities of calls. Most important is the response time to high priority calls involving crimes in progress or life-safety incidents. For that reason, in this portion of the report, we will focus on those high-priority calls. It must be noted that the response time to a call begins when the first keystroke is entered into the CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) call screen. This begins what CPSM refers to as the “dispatch” period. The “dispatch” period ends when a patrol unit is assigned to the call in the CAD system, at which time the “travel” period begins. When the first patrol unit arrives at the scene of the call, the “travel” period ends and the “response time” is calculated. For the period reviewed, the dispatch delay for high-priority calls was 2.7 minutes (rounded). This is an excessively long period of time and its cause requires further examination. The overall response time to high priority calls, with an average of 4.8 minutes (rounded) travel time included, was 7.6 minutes (rounded), again an excessively long period. A reasonable response time average goal to in progress crimes and life safety incidents should be in the five minute range. Reducing the time between receipt of a call and arrival on scene is critical for high-priority calls (crimes in progress and life-safety calls). A seven-minute-plus response time to an in-progress crime will nearly always result in the perpetrator having fled from the scene prior to an officer’s arrival. More importantly, in a life-safety incident, say an active shooter or other aggravated assault, serious injury or death may occur during this extended time period. While those possibilities exist on any call, such a lengthy delay is cause for concern. In observing the process of call taking and dispatching, it appeared the two on-duty employees were very proficient at their duties and manipulated the CAD system with ease and quickness. In the discussion with communications staff, CPSM found them surprised to learn of the dispatch delay and overall response times. CPSM recommends a team from Communications be established to review current dispatch practices and develop a system to accurately identify the true “dispatch delay” period, taking appropriate steps to address the issues once determined. Additionally, it was determined that some calls classified as Priority 1 were treated by dispatchers as a lesser priority call. This fact calls into question the validity of the 7.6 minute response time to what are truly

Police Operations and Data Analysis Report, Morgan Hill, California

57