Finding 2-2.  Primary call receiver workload has increased substantially during certain days and times and most likely impacted the Comm Center’s ability to meet their call-answering standard.

Our analysis shows that while the total number of calls received in 2001 has risen by 3 percent since 1998, call volumes increased substantially during certain days and times.  These concentrated increases created a noticeable workload impact for the staff working at these times, who experienced up to a 20 percent increase in the number of calls they were handling, and impacted their ability to meet their call-answering standard at certain times.  But other factors such as understaffing caused by the high number of vacancies also had an effect.  This prevented us from concluding overall whether workload increases or understaffing caused them to miss the standard; it was most likely a combination of the two.

The results of our research show that the patterns of secondary call receiver workload changed between 1999 and 2001, with decreases in several areas and increases in others.  The number of crime reports taken dropped by 3.6 percent overall, with variations by time and day of the week.  In addition, the number of phone calls handled declined by 11 percent, while the average duration of these calls increased by almost 19 percent.  Because of these mixed results, it is difficult to determine the impact of these changes on secondary call receiver performance.  The only available performance indicator for their “service level” is the average hold time for calls in the secondary queue.  Hold times have almost doubled since 1999.  The net impact of these changes is thus somewhat inconclusive; and although their service levels have declined, workload increases may not be the only cause.

Finding 2-4.  Increases in the number of officers per dispatch radio and in radio talk time are straining dispatch communication resources.

Our analysis of dispatcher workload, including the number of deputies on each radio, the number of incidents handled, and radio usage, shows that dispatcher workload has risen and the dispatch communication system is showing signs of strain.

Data from the Sheriff’s Office shows that the minimum number of deputies that dispatchers are responsible for monitoring and dispatching rose between 1995 and 2001, with most of the growth occurring on the day shift.  The number of incidents handled by dispatchers increased on some of the precinct radios but remained the same or decreased on others.

While there are no standards for the number of deputies or the incidents a dispatcher can manage, a 1995 study of dispatcher workload in the Sheriff’s Comm Center determined that 11 to 13 incidents per hour was generally the maximum one dispatcher could manage effectively.  In 2001, the average incidents per hour on all three main dispatch radios consistently exceeded these levels during the late afternoons and evenings.

Between 1995 and 2001, the overall amount of time the dispatch radios are in use (talk time) increased from 20 to 25 percent, with larger increases on some of the dispatch radios.  Part of this increase may be due to the Comm Center’s discontinuation of a dispatcher support radio (called Stats) which removed certain deputy-dispatcher communications from the main radio frequencies.  While there are no standards for radio use levels, our audit identified recommended benchmarks of 30 to 35 percent talk time levels for effective communication on public safety radio systems.  Our analysis shows that talk time levels regularly exceed these levels.

These increases in workload and radio usage are beginning to strain dispatcher capacity, are creating communication delays between the Comm Center and the field, and are making the communication system less effective.  Based on our research, a wireless communication and dispatching system (referred to as “mobile data”) has the potential to relieve some of this strain, improve communication efficiency, and increase the capacity of the current communication system.

To relieve dispatcher workload, the audit recommends that the Comm Center evaluate the feasibility of restarting the Stats channel during peak hours.  In addition, we recommend that the Sheriff’s Office continue its efforts to pursue mobile data dispatching and communications as an option for reducing dispatcher workload and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of dispatch communications.

Finding 2-5.  The Comm Center could improve its monitoring of dispatcher workload.

Our review found that the Comm Center does not regularly monitor the workload levels of its dispatching operations.  While data on dispatched calls for service and on-views is available, it is typically maintained for patrol workload purposes and is not monitored from a dispatcher’s perspective.  Other elements of a dispatcher’s job, such as radio talk time levels, the number of database queries run and phone calls answered, are checked sporadically or are not tracked.  This lack of information has limited the Comm Center’s ability to proactively manage its dispatcher resources.

To improve its ability to manage changes in workload, the audit recommends that the Comm Center begin monitoring dispatcher workload for each of its dispatch radios, including the number of incidents handled, radio talk time levels, and phone call volumes.

Finding 2-6.  The Comm Center’s responsibilities were expanded; however, the staffing increases it received were insufficient to cover the additional staffing requirements.

Our analysis shows that the Comm Center’s responsibilities were expanded over the last four years; however, the new staffing it received was insufficient to cover the additional responsibilities.  Between 1997 and 2000, the Comm Center was given additional dispatching responsibilities including Animal Control dispatching and the new Shoreline and Metro Transit Police dispatch radios, which required approximately 13 FTEs.  However, it only received nine additional FTEs for these purposes.  To provide the necessary staffing, the Comm Center used existing call receiving personnel and discontinued “Stats,” a dispatcher support function.  We found that the Comm Center and the Sheriff’s Budget and Accounting Section have not developed an adequate means of calculating Comm Center staffing requirements (i.e., a staffing relief factor), which most likely explains why the new staffing allocated did not match actual needs. 

The audit recommends that the Sheriff’s Office ensure that potential staffing and fiscal impacts are fully assessed when changes are made to Comm Center responsibilities.  To improve this assessment process, the audit also recommends that the Comm Center work with the King County Sheriff’s Office’s (KCSO) Budget and Accounting Section to develop a staffing relief factor appropriate for the Comm Center.

Finding 2-7.  The Sheriff’s Office is not being fully reimbursed for Comm Center dispatching services provided to other agencies. 

While analyzing the staff changes required by the Comm Center’s new dispatching responsibilities, we found that two of the new functions being provided to agencies outside of the Sheriff’s Office are not fully funded by the other agencies.  Metro Transit is not fully covering the cost of the dispatching services provided by the Comm Center.  Because the Metro dispatch positions are funded through the Current Expense (CX) fund, the CX fund is in effect subsidizing about $180,600 in transportation costs.  In addition, King County Animal Control does not reimburse the Sheriff’s Office for Animal Control dispatching services, which costs approximately $281,200 annually.

The audit recommends that the Sheriff’s Office clarify the terms of its agreements with Metro and Animal Control regarding full coverage of the costs of providing dispatching services, and make the appropriate adjustments to the Sheriff’s budget and Comm Center staffing.  These agreements should be updated annually to reflect changes in staffing costs and operations.

Finding 2-8.  Infrequent hiring in 2000 and 2001 created a gap in the flow of new employees that contributed to the Comm Center’s high vacancy rate and impacted its performance.

Between January and August 2000, the Comm Center completed one hiring round and initiated a second.  However, due to training scheduling difficulties and staff illness, no one was hired from the second round until May 2001, nearly nine months later.  During this 9 month period, 16 people resigned from the Comm Center, a turnover rate nearly double the Comm Center’s typical rate of less than one person per month.  The combination of limited recruiting efforts and this increase in turnover created a gap in the flow of new employees.

Since the beginning of our audit, the Comm Center has accelerated its hiring and as of December 2001, its vacancy rate was 7 percent, down from a high of 25 percent in July.  Management has also begun recruiting on a modified “open-continuous” basis, which is expected to relieve the current staffing crisis.

The audit recommends that the Comm Center improve its ability to minimize the impact of staff vacancies by closely monitoring its turnover rate and implementing frequent and regular hiring rounds.

Finding 2-9.  Phasing out the vapor positions contributed to the Comm Center’s vacancy and performance difficulties.

The Comm Center has ten unfunded “vapor positions” in its budget that allow management to hire additional staff beyond the Comm Center’s budgeted FTE level.  By hiring in advance of anticipated vacancies, these vapor positions enable management to have new employees all or part of the way through the Comm Center’s lengthy new employee training program by the time the next resignation occurs.

Due to fiscal constraints, the Comm Center lost the budget authority to use these vapor positions between 1999 and 2001.  This occurred at the same time that workload was increasing and additional responsibilities were added, and contributed to the staffing difficulties.  Given the Comm Center’s extensive training program, inflexible workload requirements, and the need to meet performance standards, we found that the vapor positions can enable the Comm Center to more effectively and efficiently maintain necessary staffing levels.  We also found that if use of the positions does not exceed turnover rates, there will be no negative budget impact.  Since the conclusion of our analysis, the Comm Center’s authority to hire into the vapor positions has been restored.

The audit recommends that the Comm Center continue using the vapor positions in conjunction with frequent hiring rounds, while monitoring attrition rates to determine how many vapor positions can be used without creating a year-end budget deficit.

Finding 2-10.  The Comm Center’s staffing plan is based on a sound method for ensuring appropriate staffing levels.  However, because the levels have not been updated to reflect changes in call receiver workload, the Comm Center’s staffing efficiency and ability to meet its call‑answering standard have been negatively impacted.

While the Comm Center’s staffing model is appropriately designed and uses standard methods for call center staffing, our audit found that it has not been adequately updated to reflect changes in call receiver workload.  Our staffing analysis shows that staffing levels are frequently too low for the Comm Center to successfully meet its call-answering standards, and at other times may be too high.

In addition, the Comm Center’s staffing model does not provide discrete information on the number of primary call receivers needed to meet the call-answering standard and the number of secondary call receivers needed.  Because these figures are not separated, it is difficult to use the staffing model for planning and monitoring staffing levels for each type of call receiver.

To strengthen its staffing management practices, the audit recommends that the Comm Center update its minimum staffing levels to reflect recent workload changes; continue tracking existing workload information and begin tracking outbound call duration data; revise its call receiver staffing model to more discretely specify primary and secondary staffing levels; and consider revising its staffing model to reflect quarterly variations in call volumes.