City staff outlines non-emergency response network; council asks for measurable dispatch metrics
Loading...
Summary
Long Beach staff presented a catalog of 22 non-emergency response programs and recommended a consolidated public resource; council members pressed for clearer dispatch priorities, response thresholds and a report back with specific metrics and evaluation plans.
City staff presented a detailed review on Feb. 10 of Long Beach's response strategies for individuals displaying unsafe or noncriminal threatening behavior, cataloguing existing non-emergency teams, dispatch triage procedures and key gaps in coverage.
Reggie Harrison, director of disaster preparedness and emergency preparedness, told the council the catalog includes 22 city-run non-emergency programs and six partner programs that prioritize de-escalation, stabilization and connections to long-term services. "Not all calls regarding threatening or unsafe behavior stem from criminal intent," Harrison said. "Sometimes perceived threatening behavior may be the result of untreated or undertreated mental-health issues, substance use disorder, homelessness or severe economic distress." Staff recommended greater public clarity about who to call and proposed creating consolidated brochures and public-facing resources.
Gabriela Jelic, representing the 911 communications center, said the center handles roughly 600,000 emergency and nonemergency calls annually and described how dispatchers triage calls using a priority system to match appropriate police, fire or non-law enforcement teams. Staff described existing programs, including the community crisis response (CCR) teams, the mental evaluation team (MET), the multi-service center (MSC), park ambassadors and diversion programs, and explained operational limits: many programs operate only during business hours and expanding CCR to a 24/7 model would require significant funding — staff estimated about $7.7 million annually to scale CCR from two to ten teams.
Council members asked precise operational questions: who should residents call for different scenarios, how calls are prioritized (priority 1/2/3 and typical response times), when an incident escalates from voluntary engagement to mandatory intervention, and what metrics are used to evaluate dispatcher decisions and program deployment. Council member Duggan summarized the policy aim: "For me, the priority is safety first, and that means safety of the public, our residents, our community, and the individual who may be displaying threatening behavior, followed by getting that person the help they need."
Staff described current performance and quality-assurance efforts and said the 911 center is piloting AI-assisted quality checks to flag call-handling for supervisor review. Council members asked staff to return with concrete measurables and an evaluation plan; staff agreed to prepare a report on what data exist and what can be measured, and the council approved receiving the presentation and requested the metrics report back.
Next steps: Staff will produce consolidated public materials explaining which number to call in which circumstances, and will return to council with the set of metrics and the proposed evaluation framework requested by council members.
