Rave Mobile Safety Blog

The map below is great news if you’re the Republican candidate for the Presidency; however, if it represents the prevalence of influenza-like illness, then not so much.

There is much concern in certain populations, and rightfully so, about participating in a special needs or disability registry. Many individuals who are differently-abled, for example those who are deaf or hard of hearing, do not feel inclined to participate in such a system that labels them or singles them out. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to take a full-day course offered by the Boston Public Health Commission called Emergency Planning for the Diverse Needs of Communities. This outstanding program was designed to familiarize participants with FEMA’s concept of Whole Community Preparedness, in particular, understanding the needs of and preparing for vulnerable populations. One of the main objectives of the course was to broaden everyone’s thinking about what exactly it means for a member of the community to be “vulnerable” and in need of special consideration by emergency managers. We went around the room rattling off different characteristics that we felt would put someone into that category. The activity began with the more traditional definitions – those with mobility limitations and developmental disabilities – and quickly progressed to others not traditionally considered. By the end, the list included the following:

·         Those with limited proficiency in speaking, reading, or understanding the English language

·         Children

·         The elderly

·         Deaf or Hard of Hearing

·         Visual impairments

·         Individuals with medical conditions (particularly those requiring home healthcare, regular outpatient treatment, such as dialysis, or electrically-powered medical devices)

·         Institutionalized individuals (assisted living, nursing homes, the incarcerated)

·         Caregivers (single parents, medical professionals, social workers, first responders)

·         Economically disadvantaged

·         Those without access to transportation

·         Pet owners

There were other segments of the population mentioned, but even just the above list demonstrates that our at-risk populations include far more than we once planned for. In fact, in Boston, City officials have estimated that anywhere between 39.7% and 46.9% fall into the categories of vulnerable or requiring assistance. Perhaps complicating preparedness efforts even further is the fact that many individuals are vulnerable for multiple reasons – the elderly woman who is the primary caregiver for a grandchild, the child with a significant medical condition (and his parents), etc. The complexity surrounding the makeup and needs of our communities, as well as the shortcomings in recent disasters of responding to those with certain needs, have been large drivers behind FEMA’s focus on the concept of Whole Community Preparedness. That is, the effort to develop emergency operations plans around all of the needs of the community, rather than the relatively small portion of the population that is self-sufficient.

In speaking with emergency management and public health officials, as well as advocacy groups and ADA coordinators, since joining Rave, I have an appreciation for why there is hesitation for being singled out in a government-maintained registry. However, when you consider the breadth of individual and community issues that emergency managers must be prepared to respond to, it strikes me that if properly deployed and marketed, local or state government could capture this information in such a way that it would not be construed as a registry.

More specifically, if the goal is to maintain up-to-date and detailed information about the residents and commuters of a jurisdiction who could be considered vulnerable (i.e. upwards of 50% in some places), then you are no longer targeting two or three specific populations. In fact, this is why we have had such broad support from advocacy groups and ADA coordinators alike for how we market and collect information in Smart911 and SmartPrepare. Smart911 and SmartPrepare partner jurisdictions target every segment of their population for participation in the programs. Of course they will reach out to the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Autism communities, but they will also message parents, pet owners, and even the young and healthy. Because everyone can at some point benefit from maintaining an updated Safety Profile in our system, no group is singled out. This is the distinction that allows all members of the community to feel comfortable with sharing their information and, ultimately, providing 9-1-1 call takers, first responders, and emergency managers with the vital information needed to enhance response.

Over the weeks, months and years to come the debate will rage around video game violence, mental health services, school security procedures and gun control.  While it is inarguable that there is a correlation between mental health and mass killings, the data around gun control and video game violence is not as clear with both sides able to produce studies proving their points (for an interesting summary of real research done into these type of events, look here). 

Recently a number of articles have also been published showing that the rate of mass killings has actual decreased, with the largest numbers being reported in the 1920’s.  I think that wildly misses the point.  One child killed is too many and justifies a hard look at the drivers behind these type incidents and how we can avert them.

So, the real question is:  how can we in the publicly safety industry remove the emotions from the arguments and identify actionable changes, founded in factual evidence, that can change the equation.  I don’t know if we should arm administrators in schools, or eliminate guns all together.  I’m not sure if the early intervention programs for those “profiled” as potentially suffering from depression or other mental conditions should be more aggressive.  Or maybe emergency action plans for active shooters should be drilled at schools the way I grew up doing tornado and nuclear attack drills. 

First, and most importantly, the proposed solution enables true SMS to the 3-digit number 9-1-1 across approximately 80% of mobile devices in the United States.  This is clearly the preferred mode identified in the EAAC (Emergency Access Advisory Committee) and the easiest in terms of citizen adoption and education.

Second, the carriers will implement a “bounce back” message nationwide.  .  It simply means that citizens attempting to contact 9-1-1 via SMS where it is not supported will receive a response message telling them to call 9-1-1.  This is critical and, frankly, overdue.

Third, the commitment was made in advance of the expected FCC considering “steps towards ensuring that text-to-911 is made available as soon as possible by all carriers, and over-the-top providers who offer Internet-based text services” (see full text of Chairman Genachowski’s comments here).  The FCC has made clear that they want to foster innovation across not just SMS, but also pictures and video.  It will be interesting to see how a viable solution put forth by the largest industry players is balanced against other very interesting options and the need to continue to innovate new solutions.  The FCC is expected to issue further guidance on December 12th. 

Finally, the proposed solution is based on the draft ATIS Standard for Interim Text-to-9-1-1 (a project known as JSMS911).  ATIS, or the Alliance for Telecommunication Standards, is telecom-centric organization so the solution is one that has minimal impact on existing carrier operations.  The current approach in the draft standard, and mentioned in the voluntary commitment letter, is based on delivering messages via baudot tones to TTY stations.  The advantage is clear – every PSAP has a TTY machine, call takers are trained on them, and calls are integrated into existing call queuing and MIS reporting.  In other words, the SMS-to-911 calls have very little operational or training impact.  The downside is that each “text” is a trunked 9-1-1 call.  Multiple calls will tie up multiple trunks.  That impact could be significant given the experience in early trials and in Europe that text based calls take significantly longer to process than voice calls.  There are also other implications of using TTY, such as communication protocols like “GA” responses that are foreign to SMS users, but I’m sure those can be technically addressed.  We reviewed some of the pros and cons of various interim options in a previous blog post - most of which haven't really changed.

Multi-modal communication is key.  As Sandy moved across the Northeast, the wireless carriers experienced numerous  issues (read more about the carriers issues here).  From an emergency communications / mass notification perspective, this emphasizes the importance of a multi-modal communication strategy.  While mobile phones and SMS messaging has traditionally been one of the most reliable methods of communication during a disaster, ultimately messages only get through if the network is available.  Your emergency notification strategy should encompass all different modes, from email, voice, and text messaging to social media, on-campus signage, sirens and cable TV.  It is also important to think about the best uses for each mode of communication.  Facebook, Twitter and your web site are great “mass media” vehicles for getting a common message out to everyone.  Think of these for the initial messages warning your constituents of the impending risks and reminding them about the proper procedures, where to go for updates, etc.  As the situation evolves, look at sending very targeted messages to specific groups with actionable instructions (e.g. “Power is out in Smith Hall, please do not return to your room until further notice.”). Next, continue to monitor and engage on social media.  Remember its not just a one way messaging vehicle.

Have back up plans (and back ups to back ups).  Many customers experienced local network and power outages.  While many emergency plans called for driving students, faculty and staff to the university’s web site for updates, this quickly became untenable.  Some pointed their constituents to Facebook for updates.  It is important to look at off-site redundant web apps that can be used to disseminate information.  Facebook is an option as is having a low cost hosted back up web site that is hosted in a different geographical area.  Many Rave clients utilize the ability to customize the Rave Alert home page to serve as a back up source of information under an emergency.

Aim twice and pull the trigger once.  Training is key.  Make sure you have regular interactions with every emergency system you plan to utilize and be ever vigilant that the data in your systems (especially emergency notification systems) is current.  Have a comprehensive list of those that are trained easily accessible.  Make sure everyone knows who to call if support is necessary. Even with lots of pre-planning, in the heat of battle we can sometimes mis-type content or write ambiguous messages, causing more confusion.  Though we often plan ahead with templates and thorough processes for reviewing content, a best practice is to send yourself the message first and ensure that it reads the way you’d like.  The 30 seconds pause to reconsider the message can save a lot of confusion (and embarrassment). If you do make an error, get an update out quickly. Rumors spread quickly in today's hyper-connected world.

The typical measures of 9-1-1 center operational performance are call answer time, call processing time, time to dispatch and compliance with call processing protocols. However, given the high frequency of low priority calls received, should a 9-1-1 center strive to achieve rapid answer time for every single call? Most Police, Fire, and EMS agencies have different response time standards based on the apparent severity of the call. Why is this not the case for PSAPs?

The easy answer is that unlike their field agency counterparts, PSAPs are unable to determine the severity of a 9-1-1 call until they actually answer and begin to process it. In fact, call processing is the very activity that permits the field agencies to alter their response. Therefore, current practice dictates that every call needs to be answered as though it’s a life-threatening emergency until proven otherwise. But what if a PSAP could reserve its limited resources (call takers) for higher priority calls by directing callers with lower acuity complaints to either a low priority queue or, better yet, instructing the individual requesting assistance to take an action other than dialing 9-1-1?

Citizen Self Service Background

About 15 years ago, larger cities began experimenting with 3-1-1 centers. There were two primary objectives: 1) provide the public with a single point of access to non-emergency city services; and, 2) reduce the call volume into 9-1-1 for non-emergency requests (or possibly in the reverse order). Although the initial investment in a 3-1-1 center is substantial, most of these cities did realize the benefits they had hoped to, particularly a decompression of the 9-1-1 center’s call volume. In conjunction with receiving its 100 millionth call in the first seven and a half years of service, the New York City 3-1-1 center revealed a glimpse into the treasure trove of data that these calls provided. It is impossible to know with any certainty how many of the complaints or inquiries received by 3-1-1 would have generated 9-1-1 calls in the absence of NYC311, but it is safe to say that a healthy number would have – particularly noise complaints, graffiti, the infamous “maple syrup” incidents, and many others.

Just as with the evolution and growing public awareness of 9-1-1, 3-1-1 centers became victims of their own convenience and success, driving their call volumes higher. However, rather than simply adding call receiving positions and customer service representatives, many 3-1-1 operations moved into the digital era by offering sophisticated options for citizen self service. Citizen self service is offered through a combination of interactive voice response (IVR), web-based services, requests through social media outlets like Twitter, and, increasingly, through sophisticated Smartphone apps such as Boston’s Citizens Connect that allow an individual to report a problem with a geotag, a photo or video, and then track the progress of its or even other citizen-reported problems’ resolution through the city’s work order system.

Today, governments large and small have begun to offer an increasing number of eGovernment services to the public with considerable success. Take, for example, the return on investment realized by the State of Utah over the past five years across 9 different citizen self services. For these services, the cost per transaction has been reduced from $17 to $4, netting a savings of $46 million. The success of citizen self service across all areas of government, including 3-1-1, begs the question of whether there are ways in which 9-1-1 centers can leverage similar tools to divert non-emergency calls. Let’s explore just a few of the possibilities. 

Text-to-911

Todd has done a great job of describing the current and future landscape of text messaging to 9-1-1 in several previous blogs, so it isn’t necessary to rehash all of that detail here. Suffice it to say, however, that once Text-to-911 is ubiquitously available across all wireless carriers and implemented properly within the PSAP, it will very likely give the “call” taker the ability to manage multiple requests for service from different callers/texters simultaneously. This has the potential to offer PSAPs huge gains in operational efficiency.

Web-based Reporting Tools & Smartphone Applications

I firmly believe that, despite the number of ridiculous calls a 9-1-1 center receives, the majority of the public would prefer to not call 9-1-1 if there were another way to resolve their issue. A city or county needn’t have a 3-1-1 center to provide citizen self service options through a Smartphone application or web-based incident reporting / eGovernment solution. Numerous law enforcement agencies, such as Seattle PD allow an individual to report some low-level crimes online. A few examples are property theft (under a certain dollar amount), narcotics activity, and property destruction.

Several years ago, my car was broken into and some items were taken. I spent no less than 25 minutes scouring the city’s website for an online reporting form, or at least a non-emergency number to the police department. I was finally able to find the latter and when I called the number, I was told that I needed to hang up and dial 9-1-1. That doesn’t seem like the best use of limited 9-1-1 resources, since my call would enter the queue, late on a Saturday night, and likely get answered before someone calling with a true emergency. Had I been living in Seattle, Houston, Natick (MA), or any number of cities across the country, I could have reported the theft online and not burdened the 9-1-1 center and the responding officer. Although certainly not the only commercially-available solution on the market, a glimpse at online police reporting provider Coplogic’s client list shows just how many cities are already offering these services.

Social Media

Much in the same way that Text-to-911 will provide citizens with an alternate way of requesting service, so too could social media outlets, such as Twitter and Facebook. Many cities already allow citizens to report non-emergency complaints through social media. There are still issues to be addressed, but if the public could be educated in how to properly communicate with emergency services via social media (and for which circumstances it would be appropriate to do so), the efficiency of 9-1-1 operations would be further enhanced.

While the CAP standard has been available for several years, recent changes in the country's emergency broadcast capabilities, such as the ongoing deployment of CMAS, have increased the visibility of this XML message format.  

The metrics typically tracked are shown in the diagram below:

Let’s take a different look at how we look at responses.  At the highest level we can break an end-to-end emergency response into 4 components: 1) discovering the incident, 2) evaluating how to respond, 3) getting the right resources to the right location in a timely manner, and 4) response effectiveness. 

Discovering the Incident.  Today we like to look at dropped call rates and time to answer a call.  These are typical call center metrics.  But what we really want to do is shorten the time to identifying the need for an emergency response with the same level of resources.  A theoretical metric is something like “time from incident occurrence to identification per dollar invested”.  It’s really an ROI on our emergency infrastructure investment.  Why look at it this way?  Typical dropped call rates and time to answer a call assume a static model of a call taker answering a call.  But that misses a huge area of potential improvements.  For example, take the automated fire alarm protocols (“ASAP to PSAP”) gaining popularity.  They are pushing incidents directly into CAD, reducing the need for call taker intervention.  Or what about advances in telematics or even wireless health monitoring?  We already have pilots of home health monitoring systems that will automatically notify doctors ofcardiac dysrhythmias, dangerously low levels of blood glucose, or other conditions being monitored.  Those could be piped directly into EMS dispatch when pre-determined thresholds are met.  Our current metrics don’t really get us to look at the broader picture of incident identification, instead we focus on the time from a call being made to answered.  There could be a significant time gap between an incident occurring and a phone call being initiated.

How to Respond.  Currently an incident is evaluated by a call taker who triages the call and then either dispatches emergency resources or involves a separate dispatcher. Currently we look at time to dispatch or call processing time.  These metrics also only show half of the picture.  For example, you may get 30 calls reporting an accident on the highway.  The first one is a quick call to report the incident, the next 29 callers are all reporting the same thing and are handled rapidly.  The result is a quick time to dispatch and very low call handling times.  You’ve done a great job right?  Maybe not.  Your normal staffing level is probably inflated due to a large number of daily highway calls.  .  In reality, you should be triaging those 29 calls automatically.  For example, you may identify the calls as coming from the same area and have an automated process that after the second call from the same region recognizes there is an accident dispatch code in effect in that area and sets up an automated answering system (interactive voice response / IVR) stating “We are aware of a crash on XXXX, units are enroute.  If you are calling to report that incident and are not directly involved in or have stopped at the incident, please hang up.  Otherwise you will be immediately routed to the next available emergency operator. We thank you for your report.”  A theoretical metric may be “% of calls answered requiring a unique response or incident vs total calls received.”  You are now measuring your rate of actually adding value to a caller and response. This metric also takes into context the broader concept of citizen training on when to call 9-1-1.

Dispatching the Right Resources at the Right Time to the Right Location.  Let’s theorize on what is possible here.  Currently we receive a call, evaluate what is needed, look at the resources available, and then dispatch via the radio or silently, via mobile CAD.  But we really know what resources are available before the call taker even answers.  Why not look at algorithms that start getting resources ready as soon as a call is received.  If you are doing a good job on the % of calls handled that require a unique dispatch, you can at least start giving an immediate heads up to law enforcement (who responds to the majority of incidents).  See who is closest and available and maybe send a “heads up” page.  At some point then bridge the unit that was given the heads up right into the call to reduce the need to repeat the information gathered from the caller while also providing the responder with ambient noise cues that are hard to convey in relaying a message.  The metrics here involve examining either the time from incident identification and assignment of a resource or the time from incident identification to a first resource beginning to respond.  The concept of when a dispatch occurs, or time to dispatch, is somewhat open to interpretation.

For another example, let’s look again at the remote monitoring scenario.  If you have a heart monitoring alarm going off, and know that the patient is a 75 year old with a specific medical history you can make decisions in the PSAP that can have a huge impact on the incident response time and cost.  Step with me into the time machine a bit and imagine you have a database of nearby trained EMTs.  A quick page to EMTs in the area requiring a response on availability could result in a trained resource on the scene far quicker than an ambulance response and at far less expense.  What makes this possible?  First, accurate data on the incident (how to access the patient’s home, does he require basic or advanced level care, is he unconscious and in need of transport to a hospital, etc).  Second, a more complete picture of resources available is needed (what EMTs, paramedics or nurses are in the area and available to respond, and the ability to easily push data on the patient to them).  Finally, thinking about the problem differently.  The metrics here are broader than we think of in a PSAP.  Our PSAPs measure how quickly they dispatch a resource (not even necessarily the right one). The resources themselves measure how long it takes to get there and (sometimes) whether they were effective.  Our metrics don’t really incent us to look at what other resources we should have been considering. 

Response Effectiveness

Need better resolution?  See a larger version of the infographic here: http://www.ravefiles.com/infographic_location_accuracy.jpg 

What is CMAS?  FEMA gives a great overview here.  It is essentially an interface to a wireless alerting service that wireless carriers are rolling out across the country.  These wireless alerts will “relay Presidential, AMBER, and Imminent Threat alerts to mobile phones using cell broadcast technology that will not get backlogged during times of emergency when wireless voice and data services are highly congested.”  Unfortunately, I continue to hear a number of misconceptions about the service perpetuated throughout the emergency management community, especially in terms of its relationship and overlap with existing emergency notification systems.  Let’s look at a few facts about the service.

It delivers text messages to mobile phones but not via SMS.  CMAS alerts are delivered using a special protocol optimized around one-to-many message delivery to handsets communicating with targeted wireless towers.  When sending the alerts regions are targeted, and mobile handsets supporting the new technology that are speaking with the cellular tower sectors covering the targeted area will receive the messages (if you are really curious, you can read more about cell sectors here).  These emergency alerts have a unique ring tone and vibration.  Alerts will automatically “pop up” on the mobile device screen and will be limited to 90 characters.  In the case of my device the alert actually showed up in my SMS messaging in-box but was visually differentiated with an alert icon.  See the screen shot below:

It is only intended for urgent communications. The FCC’s rules for use of CMAS are covered under 47 CFR 10.  There are three classes of Alert Messages: Presidential Alert; Imminent Threat Alert; and Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert.  Presidential Alerts are issued by the President.  AMBER Alerts can only be initiated by local government officials based on five specific Department of Justice activation criteria. Imminent threat criteria are based on Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) definitions.  The urgency level of imminent threats must be either Immediate ( i.e. , responsive action should be taken immediately) or Expected ( i.e. , responsive action should be taken soon, within the next hour); the severity level must be either Extreme ( i.e. , an extraordinary threat to life or property) or Severe ( i.e. , a significant threat to life or property); and the certainty level must be either Observed ( i.e. , determined to have occurred or to be ongoing) or Likely ( i.e. , has a probability of greater than 50 percent).  In other words, this is really not meant for warnings about pending snow storms or localized street flooding

Not everyone will get them (yet).  Individuals will be able to opt-out of Imminent Threat or AMBER alerts, but not Presidential alerts.  Wireless carriers are currently in different places in terms of supporting both the opt-out process as well as technically being able to support delivery of the wireless alerts.  Handsets need to support the service and the network changes required are still rolling out across different wireless carriers with the expectation that most devices in the market will fully support wireless alerts by 2014.   For example, in my restaurant scenario in Framingham, MA, those with an ATT iPhone were not yet able to receive the CMAS alert.  While mobile carriers are not required to support CMAS, it appears likely that most will do so voluntarily.

The ability to send these alerts will not be widely delegated.  Quoting FEMA, “Imminent Threat alerts may be issued by state and local officials who have completed a four-step application process and executed a Memorandum of Agreement with FEMA governing system security.”  An important aspect of CMAS is limiting the potential for abuse.  Given the criteria required for notifications and their regional impact, use of CMAS is not intended to be delegated down to some of the biggest users of existing emergency notification systems:  colleges and universities, K-12 school districts, and corporate campuses. 

I had the privilege of participating in the NG9-1-1 Institute roundtable last week.  The intent of the roundtable was to update members of the NG9-1-1 Congressional Caucus on the state of 9-1-1.  I was humbled by the experience and thought leadership brought forth by members of the roundtable, including FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Chief David Turetsky, FCC Deputy Chief David Furth, NENA President Brian Fontes, NENA Director of Government Affairs Trey Forgety, TCS Chief Marketing Officer Timothy Lorello, Intrado CTO Stephen Meer, East Hartford PD Communications Supervisor Jeffrey Vannais, CTIA External Affairs Counsel Matthew Gerst, and Avaya E911 Product Line Manager Mark Fletcher.  The roundtable was chaired by NG9-1-1 Institute Executive Director Greg Rohde. 

I've been thinking a lot about the steps it takes to move from mere compliance with Clery Act, HEOA and related safety regulations, to a more "proactive" safety strategy on campus. Along the way, many questions get raised that take us from the "letter" of the law to the "spirit" of the law. For example, the regulations tell us what to communicate, but not always how information needs to be communicated.

At a recent industry event, I had the great privilege of co-presenting with Joseph Brennan, Ph.D., the presenter of Rave's upcoming webinar, "Alert! Best Practices in Emergency Notification". 

Joe is Associate Vice President for University Communications at the University at Buffalo (UB).  He was a member of a large team at UB that performed an empirically-based study of emergency notification communications methods by taking the radical step of asking faculty, staff and students carefully constructed, direct questions about their specific communications preferences. The webinar will present these findings and discuss some of the implications of the research for university communications.

In previous posts, I've discussed how some "Legacy ALI" data will be sourced through NG9-1-1 Additional Data, and options for how 9-1-1 might control how Additional Data is delivered.  However I still get questions on what is (and is not) considered Additional Data.  Maybe it's worth taking a step back:

The current results of the survey are below. While not a statistically significant sample size, there is still a clear trend in regards to the need for protocols and SOPs around text messaging.

Through our implementations of Smart911.com, and the delivery of supplemental data for thousands of calls we have also seen the need for re-thinking existing call taking SOPs and protocols.  The need for standardization and ensuring the proper steps are taken in handling an emergency call are obvious, but new communication types and the data sources that are now available to telecommunicators don't fit as cleanly into rigid scripts as traditional voice calls once did.  For example, in a recent incident a call taker was presented with a rich medical history on an unresponsive caller.  Using the profile, the call taker was able to cut out unnecessary steps and change the dispatch procedures based on the callers history.  Now lets imagine a text "call" to report an assault where the call taker also has access to nearby video feeds.  It becomes impossible to define every scenario and map every interpretation of what is happening in the video. 

Text messaging to 9-1-1 is available today or will be magically enabled by NG9-1-1.  It would be irresponsible to write any comments on texting to 9-1-1 without clearly stating that with very few exceptions citizens cannot simply text to 9-1-1 today.   The Verizon/TCS announcement is a fantastic step in the right direction, but it’s important to note that it really isn’t tied to NG9-1-1.  You don’t need a local i3 Network to receive SMS messages, in fact the solution is designed to work with the tools and networks available in today’s PSAPs.  The reality is that NG9-1-1 networks are designed to support non-voice IP communications, but that does not mean those messages are simply magically delivered into the network.  A parallel effort like that taken by Verizon and TCS to probably handle SMS messages within the wireless carrier networks and deliver those to 9-1-1 is required independent of any NG9-1-1 network upgrades.  

We don’t have a way to get location data on a SMS to 9-1-1 caller.  The truth is that it has been technically possible to locate a wireless caller on most networks without any sort of special app or download for a long time.  The bigger issue has been privacy restrictions designed to protect callers from unwarranted location searches.  As the definition of an emergency call changes from a traditional voice call to include text messages, these legal restrictions are evaporating.  While there are still some interesting hurdles to address, they aren’t technical and we can provide caller location comparable to the current Phase II wireless location we get on mobile calls today.

Text messaging is unreliable.  This is a broad and deceptive statement.  SMS is the most widely used and understood method of text messaging.  Each day over 4 billion SMS messages are sent in the U.S. alone.  SMS is a capability of mobile networks to deliver short messages, normally up to 160 characters in length, to and from mobile devices.  Messages are transmitted in a store and forward mechanism, meaning when the recipient is not available, the short message is stored and delivered when the recipient is available.  Message delivery is generally best effort, so there is no guarantee that a message will actually be delivered to its recipient, but delay or complete loss of a message is uncommon.  However, our experience delivering millions of messages per month, and that of many others in the industry, is that the occurrence of complete message loss is far less than the drop call average for U.S. based carriers.  So, if we are to rely on mobile call voice connections it is not unreasonable to rely on different types of SMS connections.  The reality is that message delay in SMS can have a far bigger impact than the rare occurrence of a lost message.  In a public safety context, the inherent delay in an asynchronous mode of communication where you have limited visibility into the actions being taken by the calling party can be very disruptive.  While most SMS are delivered in a few seconds, some can be delayed for 30 seconds and in some cases even longer.  This “delayed” response by either a call taker or caller can result in redundant and confusing messages.  Coupled with the fact that SMS can be delivered out of sequence or can contain obtuse abbreviations, effective communication requires some clear protocols and patience. 

There is no way to tell if a SMS Text Message was received by a caller.  This is not true.  The protocols used to deliver SMS messages support handset delivery receipts.  Sure, you can’t tell if someone actually read the message but you can see that they received it.  Unfortunately, depending on the Text-to-911 solution implemented, and the specific wireless carrier involved, the ability to see those handset delivery receipts varies.  Some carriers simply don’t expose the receipts, while others make it easily available to authenticated senders.  While it is possible for the sender to get a delivery confirmation, it is not possible for an intended recipient to know that a caller was trying to contact them via SMS unless the message is actually delivered.  Some solutions solve this by providing the caller with an automated response letting them know their message has been received… the expectation being that if you don’t get a confirmation and were expecting one you would try again.

Enabling Text messaging will require too many call taker resources and we aren’t staffed to handle the traffic.  While there are definitely some unknowns around staffing, there are some good data points that indicate we aren’t going to get overwhelmed.  Where Text-to-112 has been enabled in Europe and widely marketed, text messages represent less than 0.5% of calls. Public Safety Officials report that only roughly 3% of those messages are actual emergencies, and the majority of those emergencies are from callers that could make a voice call but are in situations where it is unsafe to do so (versus texts from the Deaf and Hard of Hearing population).  Further, depending on the call types and solutions implemented, a text call may be even quicker than a voice call.  For example, based on the caller’s location and certain keywords in a message, the call taking system may identify the call as related to an existing automobile crash where units have already been dispatched.  An auto-response which does not involve any resources may say “If you are calling to report the accident at First and Main, police and EMS have been dispatched.  If you are in need of immediate assistance please respond with the address of your emergency.”  While European experience shows that the average length of a SMS to 112 call is 11 minutes (gasp… you can start breathing again now), call takers may be able to efficiently handle multiple text calls at once.  Our experience has shown that having additional data on a caller can greatly reduce the 11 minute back and forth.