REPORT FOR THE
INTERAGENCY DISPATCH OPTIMIZATION
PILOT PROJECT
(IDOPP)
FINAL REPORT
January 31, 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project (IDOPP) presents alternatives intended to improve
dispatch functions conducted by the United States Forest Service (FS), Department of the Interior (DOI),
and state, local, and tribal partners, including dispatch for fire, law enforcement, and resource
management personnel. The project teams reviewed dispatch as a crosscutting function and developed
implementable alternatives intended to make dispatch more efficient and cost-effective and to improve
safety in dispatch-related field operations. The Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project Bridge
Team conducted this study with participation by the FS National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE)
who vetted the findings and recommendations for their Union Membership.
The federal government is responsible for conducting dispatch operations in the most cost effective
manner possible while not adversely affecting safety or the levels of service. Although the agencies
have strong cultural ties to the current dispatch system, the agencies also have deep commitments to
considering first the resources they manage.
The IDOPP encompassed two geographically defined areas, California Area (California and Hawaii) and
the Southwest Area (Arizona, New Mexico, west Texas, and the Oklahoma panhandle). Within Texas
and Oklahoma, the Southwest dispatches for federal lands west of 100th meridian. A pilot area subteam studied each of the two geographic areas.
Dispatch crosscuts multiple agencies and programs with no single “owner.” In the past several years,
the FS and the DOI have conducted studies on various segments of the dispatch function. While these
studies produced a variety of recommendations, the agencies implemented so few of the suggested
changes that many long-standing issues remain.
This report presents an assessment of the current organization, discusses issues affecting the dispatch
community, provides recommendations for addressing ongoing issues, and outlines organizational
alternatives for improving dispatch in the California and Southwest areas. The report also provides a
toolbox of methods and lessons learned for use by others in dispatch optimization projects. The
Appendix for the Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project, a companion document to this report,
provides detailed analyses and background related to the IDOPP project. The Appendix document also
contains hyperlinks to background reports as well as to the full California and Southwest sub-team
reports.
National Recommendations
The teams highlighted eight issues that were within the general scope of the IDOPP but that they could
not fully assess due to time and funding constraints and the potential nationwide implications
surrounding the issues. The IDOPP Bridge Team recommends that the agencies address these needs
nationally rather than in limited geographic areas. Chapter 4 details the following identified needs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consistent Training Standards for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatchers
Standard Position Descriptions and Series for Interagency Dispatch Positions
A Standard Operating Guide for Dispatch Centers
A Dispatch Center Workload Analysis and Staffing Tool
A Standard Governance Model including standardized funding methodology
Geographical Area Coordination Center (GACC) Boundary Realignment
Interagency Dispatch Facility and Infrastructure Standards, and
Agency “Ownership” of Dispatch
IDOPP Report
ES - i
January 31, 2013
Organizational Alternatives
The dispatch and coordination systems in the California and Southwest areas are complex and
reasonably efficient. However, with rapidly changing technologies and declining budgets it is prudent to
examine the current system and “retool” dispatch for the next generation. The dispatch and
coordination system requires evaluation of staffing, infrastructure, and equipment to be reliable,
adaptable, safe and sustainable in supporting stakeholders’ missions into the future.
Through evaluating current workload, complexity, organizational alignment, staffing, boundaries
(geographic, political, and fuel type) and interagency partnerships, and with contributions from agency
leadership, employees, and customers, the IDOPP teams formulated and evaluated a variety of
organizational alternatives. Foundational data included data from center managers, from law
enforcement officers, survey results from dispatch employees, interviews with management personnel
and data from systems of record.
The report contains details and limited analysis on organizational alternatives, which reflect the current
operational differences between the two geographic pilot areas. While the Southwest area largely
dispatches law enforcement and wildland fire from separate facilities using specially trained employees,
California uses many of the same facilities and personnel to perform all dispatch functions. The CAL FIRE
presence in California dispatch offices constrains many potential consolidation opportunities while
Southwest states play a lesser role in their area. While the California sub-team considered limited
consolidations of GAACs and of low complexity operational centers, the Southwest developed phased
consolidation alternatives that over several years will result in consolidating 12 centers down to four.
Both sub-areas analyzed whether it is optimal to support law enforcement officers in conjunction with
or separate from wildland fire and other dispatch functions. Chapter 6 details the alternatives.
Data limitations and data quality concerns limited the teams’ ability to cost the various alternatives.
Currently available workload and staffing tools have limitations, so staffing projected for consolidation
alternatives requires validation. The alternatives also require further analyses to develop credible cost
and savings projections, and the projections rely in part on management’s ability to fund infrastructure
improvements necessary to successful consolidations.
National Toolbox
As part of IDOPP, the teams developed a “toolbox” of methodologies that other areas across the nation
can use to assist them in analyzing and optimizing their dispatch operations. The toolbox is in Section 7
National Toolbox.
Toolbox items include:
•
•
•
•
•
Project Start-Up
Data Requests
Staffing Analysis
Complexity Analysis
Costing Method
•
•
•
Research and Identification of Services and
Issues
Implementation Planning
Lessons Learned
The lessons learned, included in Appendix Section 7.8 contain input from the Oversight Support Team,
Bridge Team, California sub-team, Southwest sub-team, and consultants. Items include improvements
to the data call process and enhanced communications.
IDOPP Report
ES - ii
January 31, 2013
Conclusion
A structured approach and a commitment to resilience are necessary to developing a long-term strategy
toward improving safety, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the dispatch and coordination system.
The IDOPP identified areas for improvement that require national-level follow-up while the sub-teams
established alternative means of improving functionality at more localized levels. Implementation of the
California and Southwest organizational changes will improve dispatch program delivery and streamline
operations while meeting the mission needs of the FS, DOI, and state, local, and tribal stakeholders.
Consolidating facilities will reduce the agencies’ environmental footprints, lessening overall water and
energy consumption, waste generation, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed alternatives are subject to approval by sub-area Executive Oversight Teams and require
additional analysis prior to implementation. Although the selected alternatives may require start-up
costs for facilities, equipment, and transfers of station, implementation will allow dispatch to become
more efficient and cost effective in the geographic areas, while enhancing safety for the public and field
going personnel. There may be additional opportunities for consolidation and optimization within
California and the Southwest, particularly if funding is available for major infrastructure improvements.
The Bridge Team recommends Implementation Planning, including detailed analysis, cost and savings
projections, performance measures and appropriate human resources, civil rights and labor union
involvement, prior to finalizing any consolidation plans. The Bridge Team also recognizes that there are
enormous potential cost savings and efficiency gains available through nationwide dispatch optimization
and consolidation, and recommends greater interagency efforts towards such changes.
IDOPP Report
ES - ii
January 31, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................. i
1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Purpose........................................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Scope ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Geographic Scope of the IDOPP........................................................................................................................ 2
1.3.2 Dispatch Issues within Scope ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 IDOPP Teams ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Report Format ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
2
Methods and Approach .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Data Collection Techniques ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Data Calls and Survey........................................................................................................................................ 3
Table 2.1-1 - Data Call and Survey Statistics ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Workload Data .................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1.3 Reports.............................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1.4 Interviews ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.5 Tours and Observations .................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.6 Benchmarking ................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.7 Procedural Documents ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.8 Position Descriptions ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Optimization Considerations ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Constraints .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
3
The As-Is Organization ...................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Organizational Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Organizational Structure for Federal Wildland Fire Dispatch ........................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Organizational Structure for State Fire Dispatch .............................................................................................. 8
3.1.3 Organizational Structure for Law Enforcement Dispatch ................................................................................. 9
3.1.4 Organizational Structure for National Park Service Dispatch ........................................................................... 9
3.2 Locations of Dispatch Centers ................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 3.2-1 - Map of Geographic Area Coordination Centers ....................................................................... 10
Table 3.2-2 - Numbers and Types of Centers per Area, by State .................................................................... 10
3.2.1 California Area ................................................................................................................................................ 11
3.2.2 Southwest Area............................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.2-3 - Dispatch Centers in the California and Southwest Areas ......................................................... 18
3.2.3 Centers that Dispatch for Law Enforcement................................................................................................... 15
Table 3.2-4 - Centers that Reported Dispatching Law Enforcement Officers by Area and State ................... 15
Figure 3.2-5 - Summary of Law Enforcement Officers Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by
Employing Agency ........................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.4 Hours of Operation for Law Enforcement Dispatch ....................................................................................... 16
3.3 Mission ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17
IDOPP Report
TOC - a
January 31, 2013
3.4 Dispatch Functions .................................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 3.4-1 - Summary of Dispatch Services Provided by Area and State ...................................................... 19
3.5 Standard Operating Procedures ................................................................................................................................ 19
3.6 Governance ............................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.6.1 Governance for Federal Wildland Fire Dispatch ............................................................................................. 20
3.6.2 Governance for Federal Law Enforcement Dispatch ...................................................................................... 20
3.6.3 Governance for NPS Dispatch ......................................................................................................................... 20
3.7 Sponsorship and Budget ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Table 3.7-1 - Summary of Center Types by Area and State ............................................................................ 21
Table 3.7-2 - Summary of Personnel Costs by Area and State........................................................................ 22
3.8 Stakeholders .............................................................................................................................................................. 22
3.9 Workload ................................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.9.1 Fire Workload – Number of Fires.................................................................................................................... 23
Table 3.9.1-1 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Area and State .............................................................. 23
3.9.2 Fire Workload – ROSS Actions and Incidents .................................................................................................. 23
Figure 3.9-2 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California GACCs/CC ........................................... 24
Figure 3.9-3 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California Operational Centers ........................... 25
Figure 3.9-4 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – Southwest ........................................................... 26
3.9.3 Law Enforcement Workload ........................................................................................................................... 27
Table 3.9.3-1 - Average Annual Number of Law Enforcement Incidents........................................................ 27
Figure 3.9.3-2 - Average Annual Arrests and Violations by Agency – California............................................. 28
3.9.4 Other Workload .............................................................................................................................................. 28
Table 3.9.4-1 - Average Annual Number of “Other” Incidents - (Based on Five-Year Average) ..................... 28
3.10Staffing ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 3.10-1 - Summary of Dispatch Personnel by Agency ........................................................................... 30
Table 3.10-2 - Number of Federal Positions per OPM Series ......................................................................... 31
Figure 3.10-3 – Dispatch Centers by Staffing Level......................................................................................... 31
3.11Technology and Equipment ....................................................................................................................................... 32
3.11.1 Computer Aided Dispatch Systems................................................................................................................. 32
3.11.2 Networks......................................................................................................................................................... 32
3.11.3 Radio Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................ 33
3.11.4 Radios ............................................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 3.11.4-1 - Summary of Dedicated Radio Frequencies by Area and State ............................................. 33
Table 3.11.4-2 - Summary of Radio Deficiencies by Area and State ............................................................... 34
3.11.5 Telephone Systems ......................................................................................................................................... 34
3.11.6 Law Enforcement Dispatch Technology.......................................................................................................... 34
3.12Facilities ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.13Training ...................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 3.13-3 - Summary of Accredited Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Area and State .................... 36
3.14Safety ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36
4
Dispatch Issues and Areas for Improvement .................................................................................................... 37
4.1 National Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 37
4.1.1 Training Standards for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatching ............................................................. 37
4.1.2 Position Descriptions and Series for Interagency Dispatch Positions ............................................................. 37
4.1.3 Standard Operating Guide for Dispatch Centers ............................................................................................ 38
4.1.4 Dispatch Center Workload Analysis and Staffing Tool.................................................................................... 38
IDOPP Report
TOC - b
January 31, 2013
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7
4.1.8
Standard Governance Model, Performance Management System and Cost Allocation Methodology ......... 39
GACC Realignment .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Interagency Dispatch Facility and Infrastructure Standards ........................................................................... 40
Ownership of Dispatch ................................................................................................................................... 40
4.2 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................................................... 40
4.2.1 Defining Administrative Support to be provided by Dispatch ........................................................................ 40
Table 4.2.1-1 - Administrative Activities ......................................................................................................... 41
Table 4.2.1-1 - Administrative Activities ......................................................................................................... 41
4.2.2 Standard Staffing Module Configuration ........................................................................................................ 41
4.2.3 Jurisdictional Issues ........................................................................................................................................ 42
4.2.4 Prioritization of Dispatch Response ................................................................................................................ 42
4.2.5 Duplication of Radio Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 43
4.2.6 Lack of a Dedicated Law Enforcement Network ............................................................................................. 43
4.2.7 Data Standards ............................................................................................................................................... 43
4.2.8 Check-In and Check-Out Procedures .............................................................................................................. 44
5
Analysis and Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 45
5.1 Complexity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 5.1-1 - Number of Operational Centers by Complexity Level - California (As-Is) ................................. 46
Figure 5.1-2 - Number of Operational Centers by Complexity Level - Southwest (As-Is) ............................... 47
5.2 Staffing Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 47
5.2.1 FireOrg ............................................................................................................................................................ 47
Figure 5.2.1-1 - Excerpt of FireOrg Report for Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center Consolidated with
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center ............................................................................................................ 49
Table 5.2.1-2 - Sample Revised FTE Breakout by Agency based on FireOrg Results ...................................... 49
5.2.2 APCO RETAINS ................................................................................................................................................ 50
5.2.3 Other Staffing Models Reviewed by IDOPP .................................................................................................... 52
5.3 Costing Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 52
5.3.1 As-Is Costs ....................................................................................................................................................... 52
5.3.2 Costs for Alternatives...................................................................................................................................... 53
5.4 Allocation of Cost Sharing ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Table 5.4-1 - Sample Revised FTE and Workload Breakout by Agency based on FireOrg Results .................. 54
Figure 3.10-1 - Summary of Dispatch Personnel by Agency ........................................................................... 54
6
Organizational Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 55
Figure 6.0-1 - Relationship of Optimized Dispatch to Earlier Chapters .......................................................... 55
6.1 General Advantages and Disadvantages of Consolidation ........................................................................................ 56
6.2 Summary of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Table 6.2-1 - Summary of IDOPP Alternatives ................................................................................................ 58
6.3 Organizational Alternatives for California ................................................................................................................. 60
6.3.1 Consolidation of GACCs in California .............................................................................................................. 60
6.3.2 Consolidation of Operational Centers in California ........................................................................................ 61
Table 6.3-1 - Summary of Primarily Low Complexity Consolidations – California .......................................... 62
Table 6.3-2 - Summary of California Super Centers ........................................................................................ 63
6.3.3 Alternatives for California Law Enforcement Dispatch ................................................................................... 64
6.4 Staffing and Cost Analysis for the California Alternatives ......................................................................................... 65
6.4.1 Costing Assumptions....................................................................................................................................... 65
6.4.2 California GACCs ............................................................................................................................................. 65
IDOPP Report
TOC - c
January 31, 2013
6.4.3 California Operational Centers ....................................................................................................................... 66
Table 6.4-1 - Limited Costing of California Operational Centers Alternative 2............................................... 66
Table 6.4-2 - Limited Costing of California Operational Centers Alternative 3............................................... 67
6.4.4 California Law Enforcement Dispatch ............................................................................................................. 67
6.5 Organizational Alternatives for the Southwest ......................................................................................................... 69
6.5.1 Consolidation of Law Enforcement Communication in the Southwest .......................................................... 69
6.5.2 Consolidation of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers in the Southwest ............................................................... 71
Table 6.5-1 - Summary of Southwest Consolidations of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers – Alternative 2A ... 72
Table 6.5-2 - Summary of Southwest Consolidations of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers – Alternative 2B.... 73
6.5.3 Co-Location of Law Enforcement and Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers in the Southwest .............................. 74
No Action Alternative - Continue to Separate Law Enforcement Communication and Wildland Fire Dispatch
- The no action alternative is to continue with the current dispatch organization, where law enforcement
communication and wildland fire dispatch are separate. .............................................................................. 75
Alternative 1 - Co-locate Law Enforcement Communication and Wildland Fire Dispatch ............................. 75
6.5.4 Southwest Geographic Area of Coverage ....................................................................................................... 75
6.6 Staffing and Cost Analysis for the Southwest Alternatives ....................................................................................... 76
6.6.1 Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers ...................................................................................................................... 76
Alternative 1 - Maintain Current Number and Location of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers .......................... 76
Alternatives 2A and 2B - Implement a Three-Phased Approach for Consolidation of Wildland Fire Dispatch
Centers ............................................................................................................................................................ 76
Table 6.6-1 - Cost Summary for Alternative 2A Consolidation of the Southwest Wildland Fire Dispatch
Centers ............................................................................................................................................................ 77
Table 6.6-2 - Cost Summary for Alternative 2B Consolidation of the Southwest Wildland Fire Dispatch
Centers ............................................................................................................................................................ 78
6.6.2 Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center ......................................................................................... 78
6.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................. 80
7
National Toolbox ............................................................................................................................................. 81
7.1 Project Start-Up ......................................................................................................................................................... 81
7.2 Data Requests............................................................................................................................................................ 82
7.2.1 Information Needs Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 82
7.2.2 Center Manager Data Call............................................................................................................................... 82
7.2.3 Law Enforcement Officer Data Call ................................................................................................................. 83
7.2.4 Employee Survey ............................................................................................................................................ 83
7.3 Staffing Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 83
7.4 Complexity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 83
7.5 Costing Method ......................................................................................................................................................... 84
7.5.1 Lease and Operating Costs ............................................................................................................................. 84
7.5.2 Personnel Costs .............................................................................................................................................. 85
7.5.3 PCS/TOS Costs................................................................................................................................................. 88
7.6 Research and Identification of Services and Issues ................................................................................................... 88
7.7 Implementation Planning .......................................................................................................................................... 89
7.7.1 Transition Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 89
7.7.2 Intergovernmental Order ............................................................................................................................... 89
7.7.3 Dedicated Project Manager for Implementation ........................................................................................... 89
7.8 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................................................................ 90
IDOPP Report
TOC - d
January 31, 2013
1 INTRODUCTION
This Interagency Dispatch Optimization Pilot Project (IDOPP) report presents alternatives for improving
dispatch functions conducted by the US Forest Service (FS), the Department of the Interior (DOI), and
state, local, and tribal partners, including dispatch for fire, law enforcement, and other field going
personnel. The pilot covers two geographically defined areas, California and the Southwest, and
outlines methods for examining optimization nationwide.
Long-standing issues exist related to the mission, oversight, management, supervision, support, training,
and funding of dispatch centers and their employees. This is partly because dispatch is a crosscutting
function spanning multiple agencies and programs with no single “owner.” In the past several years, the
agencies have conducted studies on various aspects of dispatch. While these studies have produced a
variety of recommendations, to date the agencies have implemented so few of the suggested changes
that many unresolved issues remain.
The IDOPP reviewed dispatch as a crosscutting function in order to develop implementable alternatives
and make dispatch more efficient and cost-effective, as well as to improve safety for the public and field
going personnel.
This IDOPP report describes the data compiled, analyses conducted and alternatives formed by the
teams to improve dispatch delivery in the pilot areas. The Appendix for the Interagency Dispatch
Optimization Pilot Project, a companion document to this report, provides additional background,
detailed analyses and other information supplemental to the core report. Separate sub-team reports
detail the location-specific analyses conducted by the California and Southwest groups.
1.1
BACKGROUND
The FS and DOI previously jointly assessed federal wildland fire dispatch functions to determine
whether changes to staffing, organization, communication, technology application, and business
processes might produce efficiencies and cost savings. This Management Efficiency Assessment of the
Interagency Wildland Fire Dispatch and Related Services (MEA, 2008) highlighted areas for operational
improvements that would, if implemented, help dispatch to become more efficient and cost effective.
In 2009, the Interagency Interoperability Oversight Group (IIOG) examined the MEA findings and other
dispatch-related issues and sponsored the Interagency Dispatch Improvement Project (IDIP) Steering
Committee to address the issues. The IDIP, integrated across FS and DOI programs and agencies that
use dispatch services, provides leadership and direction to deliver an efficient and cost-effective
interagency dispatch capability that meets the business needs of stakeholders at all levels through
standards, integration, and interoperability.
As part of its work, the IDIP Steering Committee chartered geographically-defined pilot projects to
optimize dispatch operations in California and the Southwest. Unlike the 2008 MEA, the IDOPP
encompassed dispatch for fire, law enforcement, aviation, all-hazard, and other field going personnel,
and included state, local, and tribal partners.
IDOPP Report
-1-
January 31, 2013
1.2
PURPOSE
The purpose of the IDOPP was to develop:
• Implementable organizational configurations for optimizing integrated, multi-functional
interagency dispatching in California and the Southwest;
• A toolbox of methods, business needs, user needs, management issues, and lessons learned for
use by others to develop organizational configurations for optimizing integrated interagency,
multi-functional dispatching; and,
• Standards to help dispatch efficiently meet business needs and address user needs that include:
o Mission Support
o Workload (workforce, staffing)
o Technology and Equipment
o Business Practices and Operational Standards
o Facilities (location, coverage)
o Governance
The project assessed the current business and organizational models, identified issues, assessed user
needs, and developed implementable alternatives to increase customer satisfaction and mission
delivery while improving program efficiency and cost effectiveness. As part of the project, the IDOPP
teams reviewed current policies and procedures, and identified areas where standardization and clear
direction could result in increased efficiency and improved safety. Implementation of
recommendations will improve dispatch delivery while meeting stakeholders’ mission support needs.
1.3
SCOPE
1.3.1 Geographic Scope of the IDOPP
Based on a determination by the IDIP Steering Committee, the IDOPP encompassed two
geographically defined areas, California (California and Hawaii) and the Southwest (Arizona, New
Mexico, west Texas, and the Oklahoma panhandle). Within Texas and Oklahoma, the Southwest
dispatches for federal lands west of 100th meridian.
1.3.2 Dispatch Issues within Scope
The Project Plan for IDOPP identified many national level issues that for resolution require
consideration of the entire dispatch system and involvement of national leadership. The team
addressed the current situation, areas for improvement and recommended actions for the
following, and suggested follow-up studies or reviews for matters of national scope and impact:
• Dispatch Mission, Function, and Scope - Reviewed the dispatch services provided by centers
across the various land management agencies to assess the business and user needs for
supported program areas and to confirm the overall mission, function, and scope of dispatch
within the defined areas. Recommended functions and activities that are appropriate for
dispatch and those that might be better handled elsewhere.
• Governance - Reviewed the structure, funding policies, decision processes, and delegations of
authority used to manage dispatch operations, to assess opportunities for improved efficiency
and effectiveness. Discussed how to organize governance structures and processes for shared
agency and program dispatch operations to include membership, authorities, roles and
responsibilities, decision processes, and funding.
• Dispatch Workload and Staffing - Reviewed full dispatch workload (regular and expanded
dispatch) in the pilot areas to assess optimal hours of operation, staffing, and organizations to
meet current and projected needs.
• Dispatch Center Locations and Coverage - Assessed alternatives for the physical locations and
geographic coverage of dispatch centers to provide improved services.
IDOPP Report
-2-
January 31, 2013
•
•
•
•
•
Operational Standards - Reviewed operational practices, business processes, and standards
across agencies and program areas to assess where changes, including greater standardization,
might increase operational efficiency while more effectively meeting mission needs.
Training Standards - Reviewed training and qualification standards for dispatch personnel and
recommended changes to develop a properly and consistently trained dispatch workforce that
will improve safety in dispatch operations.
Technology and Equipment Standards - Gathered limited information regarding functional
support requirements for dispatch operations (for example, radio consoles, telephone systems
and sets, computer system capability, software suites and licensing, and printers) while
improving consistency and compatibility.
Facility Standards - For alternatives involving consolidation, assessed current conditions and
infrastructure to formulate recommendations as to whether to keep or close certain centers.
Recommended the general infrastructure necessary to set up a dispatch center.
Dispatch Center Typing - Assessed the range of dispatch center duties, workload, and
complexity to set up a single, interagency dispatch center typing schema. Standardized typing
would show the range of capabilities within a “Tier 3” or local interagency center and eliminate
differences between the National Park Service (NPS) and other agencies’ Tier 3 centers.
In examining the above issues, the IDOPP considered these crosscutting issues:
• Safety of field going personnel and the public;
• Risk management;
• Sustainability in operations;
• Eliminating unnecessary facilities and infrastructure;
• Opportunities to share dispatch services, personnel, and facilities among multiple program
areas;
• Processes for reconciling and adjudicating competing priorities; and,
• Relative roles and functions of GACCs and local dispatch centers.
1.4
IDOPP TEAMS
The IDIP Steering Committee formed a Bridge Team to manage the project and to ensure consistency
in sub-teams’ assumptions, approaches, methods and deliverables. The Bridge Team also gave a
national perspective to the optimization pilots and produced this final consolidated IDOPP report.
Sub-teams were composed of subject matter experts (SMEs) representing federal agencies, state
organizations and programs for each of the two geographically defined areas covered by the IDOPP.
The sub-teams brainstormed key issues, conducted analyses, and developed implementable
alternatives specific to their geographic areas. An executive group oversaw each of the sub-teams, to
provide within-area leadership and support for implementation. IDOPP Report Appendix Table 1.4 IDOPP Team Members lists the team members involved in the project and their respective titles at
that time.
IDOPP Report
-3-
January 31, 2013
1.5
REPORT FORMAT
This report presents an overview of the current dispatch organizations and their functions, followed
by alternatives to improve dispatch services within California and the Southwest, and finally a
discussion of the national toolbox. The chapters of the report are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Methods and Approach
Chapter 3 - The As-Is Organization
Chapter 4 - Dispatch Issues and Areas for
Improvement
Chapter 5 - Analysis and Findings
Chapter 6 - Organizational Alternatives
Chapter 7 - National Toolbox
The IDOPP Report Appendix provides reference documents and details on many analyses and
background related to the IDOPP project as well as links to background reports, additional IDOPP data
tables, and to the full California and Southwest sub-team reports.
IDOPP Report
-4-
January 31, 2013
2 METHODS AND APPROACH
The IDOPP teams used several methods to gather information necessary to the analyses, including
conducting a data call, pulling data from systems of record, reviewing prior reports, interviewing
management and stakeholders, observing facilities and work processes, reviewing procedures, policies
and regulations, and assessing position descriptions (PDs). This chapter describes the methods and
approach to gathering and analyzing the information.
2.1
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES
2.1.1 Data Calls and Survey
The primary data sources for this project were specific employees in California and the Southwest.
The teams distributed a data call to dispatch center managers and to law enforcement officers
(LEOs), and an optional survey to all dispatch center employees. Appendix Exhibit 2.1-2 - Data Call
and Survey, displays copies of the questions for all data requests. The teams used results from the
data requests to document the as-is organization (Chapter 3), and as inputs to defining issues and
alternatives (Chapters 4 and 6).
The center manager data call collected operational and staffing information about dispatch services,
and allowed the center managers to express their opinions related to improving dispatch services.
The LEO data call collected information on dispatch services offered to law enforcement. This data
call also allowed the LEOs to comment on and provide suggestions for improving dispatch services.
The employee survey gave dispatch employees an opportunity to highlight their issues with current
dispatch operations and give suggestions for improving dispatch services.
Table 2.1-1 - Data Call and Survey Statistics displays survey and response statistics for each data
request. Completion percentages varied from 100 percent for the mandatory Center Manager data
call to 49 percent for the Southwest’s Employee Survey. This table does not reflect the considerable
data quality variance among the respondents, which adversely affected the teams’ ability to conduct
detailed analyses. Some responses seemed to reflect misinterpretation of the data call questions or
otherwise overstate workload.
Table 2.1-1 - Data Call and Survey Statistics
Region
Center Manager Data Call Total
California
Southwest
Law Enforcement Officer Data Call Total
California
Southwest
Employee Survey Total
California
Southwest
Overall Total
IDOPP Report
Number of
Recipients
66
51
15
744
559
185
472
396
76
1,282
-3-
Number of Completed
Responses
66
51
15
500
384
116
312
275
37
878
Completion
Percentage
100%
100%
100%
67%
69%
63%
66%
69%
49%
68%
January 31, 2013
2.1.2 Workload Data
The teams collected historical dispatch workload for calendar years 2006 through 2010 through the
center manager data call. They also collected workload for the same period directly from systems of
record, resource data from the Resource Ordering and Status System (ROSS) and fire data from the
FS Fire and Aviation Management (FAM) website.
The teams collected five years’ of data to develop workload averages, since some years may have
had relatively high or low workloads. Reviewing and analyzing historical records can give significant
insight into current operations and workload needs, and form a basis for determining trends and
projecting future workload needs.
2.1.3 Reports
The teams reviewed many prior studies on dispatch-related functions, noting relevant issues and
recommendations. This report references applicable parts of these study reports. Appendix Exhibit
2.1.3-1 - Reports Reviewed for the IDOPP, lists prior reports reviewed. Appendix Exhibit 2.1.3-2 is
the 2008 MEA report.
2.1.4 Interviews
The sub-teams conducted interviews on issues such as potential center consolidations and process
standardization. The Southwest sub-team emailed four questions to the wildland fire center
managers and received responses from seven of 12. The California sub-team contacted key
personnel from 18 forests and interviewed seven forest supervisors, 12 fire management officers,
and 11 center managers. The teams used interview findings in developing the alternatives.
Appendix Exhibit 2.1.4 - Interviews, lists the interview questions used by each sub-team.
2.1.5 Tours and Observations
The sub-teams toured center facilities and observed work processes, where possible, to understand
how the in-scope dispatch centers work, the services they offer, and whom they serve.
The California sub-team toured the CAL FIRE and FS Monte Vista Interagency Emergency
Communications Center (ECC) and NPS’ Yosemite ECC to understand better the general prevailing
work environments, equipment usage, and facility layouts.
The Southwest sub-team toured the Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center (FLECC),
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center, Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center, Santa Fe Interagency
Dispatch, and Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center to assess space for potential consolidation and
evaluate infrastructure and equipment needs.
2.1.6 Benchmarking
The teams tried to benchmark but efforts were largely unsuccessful and the teams gleaned little
information.
2.1.7 Procedural Documents
Review of current dispatch procedures enabled the teams to assess how individual centers operate
and how procedures differ across areas, programs, and centers. Where available, the teams
collected written procedures for review and analysis, including center-specific policies and
mobilization guides from in-scope centers.
IDOPP Report
-4-
January 31, 2013
2.1.8 Position Descriptions
The teams collected PDs for in-scope federal dispatch positions and reviewed each to assess
differences, determine where standardization may be possible, and evaluate suitability for use in
staffing optimized dispatch centers.
2.2
OPTIMIZATION CONSIDERATIONS
Alternatives incorporated the following considerations:
•
•
•
•
•
2.3
Potential Alternatives: Due to constraints, the teams did not consider all possible alternatives.
There exist additional consolidation possibilities that Agencies could evaluate in the future.
Feasibility of Alternatives: The teams developed alternatives that are practical, achievable,
beneficial, and consistent with organizational policies and missions.
Documentation and Quantitative Support: To ensure credibility, the basis of this report is data
derived from physical records, interviews, and analysis. The teams created a detailed audit trail
for accountability. Where possible, quantifiable data sources support recommended alternatives.
Minimal Disruption: Throughout the course of this assessment, the teams made a conscious
effort to limit disruption to the ongoing work of dispatch personnel. Analysis also considered
potential disruption associated with implementation of alternatives.
Partner participation: Partners in some cases constrained efforts to propose consolidation of
certain facilities, if they were unwilling or unable to consider relocation for any number of
reasons.
ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions form the basis for analyses and alternatives:
•
•
•
•
•
Documents, information, and data analyzed during the project are current and representative of
actual dispatch functions and needs.
An interwoven network of federal agencies, state governments, local governments, and tribal
governments perform and fund dispatch services. Changes made to the dispatch function may
directly affect response capability and any changes must ensure continued coordination among
these organizations.
The various interagency needs and agreements necessitate the standardization of dispatch
personnel, equipment, and operating procedures to support interoperability across geographic
areas.
Budgets will continue to fluctuate. Changes in funding, fluctuations in workload, and shifts in
work activities require the dispatch function to seek ways to support high levels of readiness at
lowest possible cost.
Agency Leadership can make changes to staffing, dispatch center locations, PDs, procedures, and
organizational structures.
IDOPP Report
-5-
January 31, 2013
2.4
CONSTRAINTS
The alternatives proposed in this report are subject to the following constraints:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Funding limitations;
Differing mission needs among agencies and program areas;
Inconsistent policies, protocols, and business practices among agencies and partners;
Partners’ willingness to consider consolidation and or/relocation;
Technology limitations/coverage areas; and
Politics (economic, cultural, and other).
IDOPP Report
-6-
January 31, 2013
3 THE AS-IS ORGANIZATION
The dispatch community includes three major components: federal land management agencies, state
agencies, and local jurisdictions. Within the federal sector, five land management agencies operate in
an integrated fashion, with common planning and operational protocols, facilities and resources. These
agencies include the Forest Service in US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) in DOI. The state agencies are partners with the federal agencies, as land ownership and
protection responsibilities are intermingled. In some areas, the counties and local fire/law
enforcement/emergency medical services departments share dispatch responsibilities through
agreements with federal and state agencies.
Dispatch is a cross-cutting function spanning multiple agencies and programs both internally and
externally with no single “owner.” Developing an optimized organization and increasing
standardization, where beneficial, requires an understanding of the variations in agencies and programs.
This chapter overviews the current organizational structure, locations, mission, functions, standard
operating procedures, governance, sponsorship and budget, stakeholders, workload, staffing,
technology and equipment, facilities, training, safety, and law enforcement dispatch. Appendix Exhibit
3-1, Data Compilation, provides tables summarizing data at the area and state levels. A separate
document provides data at the center and agency levels.
3.1
3.1.1
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Organizational Structure for Federal Wildland Fire Dispatch
The federal dispatch coordination system for wildland fires is a multi-tiered interagency organization
linking national, geographic or regional, and local hubs, overlapping with similar state organizations.
Under normal circumstances and official protocols, the wildland fire dispatch system, excepting NPS,
has three levels (tiers) numbered one through three. Several Tier 4 dispatch centers also exist to
protect remote locations or to supplement Tier 3 dispatch centers covering large areas. Dispatch at
the NPS uses a different system for classifying levels of service, described in 3.1.4 Organizational
Structure for National Park Service Dispatch.
Tier 1 - National Center – National Interagency Coordination Center - The National Interagency
Coordination Center (NICC) in Boise, ID, manages movement of firefighting resources between 11
geographic areas and oversees all interagency coordination activities in the United States. The NICC
has authority, delegated by the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group, to prioritize and allocate
resources on a national scope commensurate with the values at risk. The NICC also develops and
issues procedural guidance and policy related to resource mobilization and support.
Tier 2 - Geographic Area Coordination Centers - The 11 Geographic Area Coordination Centers
(GACCs) make up the second tier of the coordination system, shown in Figure 3.2-1 - Map of
Geographic Area Coordination Centers . The five federal wildland fire agencies and state agency
representatives typically work together in each of the GACCs. The GACCs manage resource
movement to incidents within their geographic areas and coordinate resource ordering from outside
of the GACC through the NICC. The GACCs also provide intelligence and predictive services-related
products for internal wildland fire and incident management decision-making.
California has two GACCs, the Northern California Operations Coordination Center (ONCC or North
Ops) and the Southern California Geographic Coordination Center (OSCC or South Ops). The ONCC
in Redding, CA covers Northern California and Hawaii. The OSCC in Riverside, CA covers Southern
IDOPP Report
-7-
January 31, 2013
California and the U.S. Pacific Islands. Federal and CAL FIRE state employees staff the GACCs in
California.
The Southwest has one GACC, the Southwest Coordination Center in Albuquerque, NM, which
covers Arizona, New Mexico, and federal lands within Texas and Oklahoma west of the 100th
Meridian. Personnel from the five federal agencies staff the Southwest Coordination Center, which
also supports state incidents and processes orders for state resources.
Tier 3 - Local Dispatch Centers - Local dispatch centers comprise the third tier of the system. The
majority of Tier 3 centers are interagency centers that frequently include both federal and state fire
representatives. The primary responsibilities of Tier 3 centers are to dispatch resources to incidents
within their assigned areas, to order additional resources through the GACC or neighborhood, to
assess local fire danger, and to serve as communication centers for field operations.
Tier 4 - Local Centers - Tier 4 dispatch centers supply intelligence relating to wildland fires and
resource status to their Tier 3 centers, agency managers, and cooperators. Tier 4 centers may work
for or with numerous agencies, and in nearly all cases they report to only one Tier 3 dispatch center.
Some Tier 4 centers cover law enforcement and agency administrative workloads for non-fire
operations.
The 2007 Interagency Standards for Fire & Aviation Operations requires that any geographic area or
local dispatch center using a dispatch structure outside the approved three-tiered federal system
obtain annual written authorization from the FS Regional FAM Director or from the BLM Office of
Fire and Aviation Director. BIA is not included in this mandate.
3.1.2
Organizational Structure for State Fire Dispatch
The California and Southwest Areas organize their operations differently due to differences in their
state partners’ operations.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) uses a three-level command
and control structure for day-to-day department operations and for emergency incident response.
Written policies establish pre-identified levels of authority, procedures for implementing command
decisions, and telecommunications systems necessary for rapid information transmittal. A
command and control center serves each level.
•
•
•
The Director is in charge of the department and its operations and communicates emergency
management instructions through the CAL FIRE Sacramento Command Center. The Director may
delegate command and control authority to a Department Duty Chief.
The Sacramento Command Center conveys instructions to the Region Chiefs via Region
Command Centers in Redding and Riverside. Region Chiefs may delegate command and control
authority to a Region Duty Chief or to the Region Command Center. The Region Chiefs, or
delegates, may in turn convey these instructions via the Region Command Center to the
appropriate Unit Chiefs.
Unit Chiefs may delegate command and control authority to a Unit Duty Chief, to the unit
Emergency Command Center (ECC), or to a designated Incident Commander. The Unit Chiefs, or
their delegates, then act on the instructions as appropriate.
IDOPP Report
-8-
January 31, 2013
Three Districts make up the Arizona State Forestry Division (ASFD): Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff.
The State Forester supervises the District Foresters, each of whom has collateral duties as the
District Fire Management Officer. The State Forestry Fire Management Officer provides policy and
guidance for the fire program.
The New Mexico State Forestry Division (NMSF) has statutory responsibility for wildfire suppression
on all non-federal, non-municipal, non-tribal, and non-pueblo lands. The six state districts include
Chama, Cimarron, Socorro, Las Vegas, Capitan, and Bernalillo. Each district office works with
volunteer and paid fire departments and cooperating agencies in suppressing wildfire and
protecting New Mexico citizens. The state office in Santa Fe coordinates funding opportunities and
programs.
3.1.3
Organizational Structure for Law Enforcement Dispatch
Most federal centers in California dispatch for law enforcement in a decentralized manner. In the
Southwest, most law enforcement dispatch is consolidated at the Grand Canyon National Park and
the Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center (FLECC).
3.1.4
Organizational Structure for National Park Service Dispatch
The NPS uses four levels of dispatch services ranging from minimal dispatch service at Level One to
the most complex services at Level Four. The level of service, determined by careful analysis of a
park’s individual needs, depends upon many factors as described in Park Needs Assessment. An
excerpt from Chapter Y of this guide follows:
•
•
•
•
Level One - Minimal Dispatch Service
o Description - Park areas with minimal incidents requiring interaction with dispatch
operations, such as a small historic site in an urban setting.
o Service - Dispatch operations may be limited to interaction with local, regional, or state
dispatch systems through established Public Safety Answering Points and procedures.
Level Two - Occasional Public Safety Dispatch Service
o Description - Park does not routinely experience a large volume of incidents requiring
interaction with dispatch operations, but isolated incidents have occurred in the past.
o Service - These parks rely on the local, regional, or state authorities to provide dispatch
services. Park employees need to be able to receive the report, provide initial activation of
dispatch services, and have limited capability to perform National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) checks or other queries.
Level Three - Active Dispatch Service
o Description - Park regularly experiences incidents and provides dispatch to such incidents on
a routine basis. These can be any combination of law enforcement, search and rescue,
emergency medical service, structural and wildland fire, etc.
o Service - Dispatch services are immediately available, whether they are provided by NPS
personnel, outside organizations and agencies, or a combination of both.
Level Four - Complex and Active Dispatch Service
o Description - In addition to the park regularly experiencing and responding to incidents, the
uniqueness of dispatch operations in the area compels the staff to maintain a high degree of
dispatch services. These can be any combination of law enforcement, search and rescue,
emergency medical service, structural and wildland fire, etc.
o Service – Dispatch services are immediately available, 24x7, provided by NPS personnel,
such services require unique training and experience (emergency medical dispatcher, etc.).
IDOPP Report
-9-
January 31, 2013
3.2
LOCATIONS OF DISPATCH CENTERS
IDOPP included 54 centers throughout the California and Southwest areas, distributed by state as
shown in Table 3.2-2 - Numbers and Types of Centers per Area, by State. Throughout this report,
“California (GACC/CC)” refers to the two Tier 2 centers (North Ops and South Ops) and the CAL FIRE
Sacramento Headquarters Command Center, while “California (Operational Centers)” refers to the
Tier 3 and 4 centers, NPS centers, and CAL FIRE centers. IDOPP did not include the Tier 2 Southwest
Coordination Center.
Figure 3.2-1 - Map of Geographic Area Coordination Centers shows the locations of the California and
Southwest GACCs and their coverage areas.
Figure 3.2-1 - Map of Geographic Area Coordination Centers
Table 3.2-2 - Numbers and Types of Centers per Area, by State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Number of
Federal
Centers
16
0
15
1
12
8
4
28
Number of
State
Centers
15
1
14
0
0
0
0
15
Number of
Combined Federal
and State Centers
9
2
7
0
2
1
1*
11
*All five centers in NM dispatch for state lands, but only one center includes state personnel.
IDOPP Report
- 10 -
Total
Number of
Centers
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
January 31, 2013
The following lists operational centers within the scope of the IDOPP. The maps in Figure 3.2-3 Dispatch Centers in the California and Southwest Areas. Figure 3.2-3 - Dispatch Centers in the
California and Southwest Areas depict locations of these centers. The Southwest area map only
includes the Tier 3 operational centers.
3.2.1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
California Area
Angeles ECC (Lancaster)
Butte ECC or Oroville ECC (Oroville)
Camino Interagency ECC (Camino)
Central California ECC (Porterville)
Federal Interagency Communications
Center (San Bernardino)
Felton ECC (Felton)
Fortuna Interagency ECC (Fortuna)
Fresno Kings ECC (Fresno)
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (San
Francisco)
Grass Valley Interagency ECC (Grass Valley)
Hoopa Dispatch (Hoopa)
Howard Forest ECC (Willits)
Los Padres ECC (Santa Maria)
Mariposa ECC (Mariposa)
Mendocino Interagency ECC (Willows)
Modoc Interagency ECC (Alturas)
Monte Vista Interagency ECC (El Cajon)
Monterey ECC (Monterey)
Morgan Hill ECC (Morgan Hill)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Owens Valley Interagency ECC (Bishop)
Perris ECC (Perris)
Plumas ECC (Quincy)
Red Bluff ECC (Red Bluff)
Redding Interagency ECC (Redding)
San Andreas ECC (San Andreas)
San Bernardino ECC (San Bernardino)
San Luis Obispo ECC (San Luis Obispo)
Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC (Three
Rivers)
Sierra Interagency ECC (Fresno)
St. Helena ECC (St. Helena)
Stanislaus ECC (Sonora)
Susanville Interagency ECC (Susanville)
Visalia ECC (Visalia)
Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National
Recreation Area (Whiskeytown)
Yosemite ECC (El Portal)
Yreka Interagency ECC (Yreka)
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
Note that Sierra Interagency ECC is a federal center co-located with the CAL FIRE Fresno Kings ECC;
these centers completed the data call separately and appear as two separate centers throughout the
report.
IDOPP Report
- 11 -
January 31, 2013
3.2.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Southwest Area
Arizona Interagency Dispatch Center
(Phoenix, AZ)
Federal Law Enforcement Communication
Center (Phoenix, AZ)
Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center
(Flagstaff, AZ)
Grand Canyon National Park (Grand
Canyon, AZ)
Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center
(Mesa, AZ)
Prescott Interagency Dispatch Center
(Prescott, AZ)
Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center
(Show Low, AZ)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center (Tucson,
AZ)
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
(Williams, AZ)
Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch Center
(Alamogordo, NM)
Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center
(Albuquerque, NM)
Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center (Santa
Fe, NM)
Silver City Interagency Dispatch Center (Silver
City, NM)
Taos Interagency Dispatch Center (Taos, NM)
The Southwest also has the following Tier 4 centers that were not included in the data call: Hopi
Agency, Big Bend National Park, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, Navajo Regional Office, and
Truxton Canon Agency.
Figure 3.2-3 - Dispatch Centers in the California and Southwest Areas
IDOPP Report
- 18 -
January 31, 2013
Federal agencies manage over 43 million acres of public land in the California area and over 85 million
acres of public land in the Southwest area. In California, CAL FIRE provides fire protection within the
state responsibility areas, totaling over 31 million acres. In most cases, CAL FIRE directly protects these
areas, but in Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties, the counties
provide protection for 3.4 million acres of state responsibility areas under contract with CAL FIRE. In the
Southwest, the ASFD provides for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires on 22 million acres of
State Trust Land and private property located outside incorporated communities, and the NMSF
provides wildfire suppression on over 43 million acres of state and private land.
3.2.3
Centers that Dispatch for Law Enforcement
Many prior dispatch studies, including the 2008 MEA, focused exclusively on wildland fire dispatch.
To enable assessment of all dispatch activities, the IDOPP teams collected details on law
enforcement dispatch, as part of the center manager data call and through a separate data call to
LEOs. Appendix Exhibit 2.1-1Data Call and Survey, and the Appendix Tables for Section 3.9.3 Law
Enforcement Dispatch summarize the data.
The center managers reported that 63 percent of all centers in the California area and 79 percent of
all centers in the Southwest dispatch agency law enforcement officers (LEOs), as shown in Table 3.24 - Centers that Reported Dispatching Law Enforcement Officers by Area and State. Since the data
call occurred at almost the same time as the FLECC was coming online, the Southwest numbers
reported may be inaccurate.
Table 3.2-4 - Centers that Reported Dispatching Law Enforcement Officers by Area and State
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total
Number
of
Centers
Yes
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
25
0
24
1
11
7
4
36
Center Reports Dispatching LEOs
Mixed
Response:
Yes
1 Yes and
(%)
No
No (%)
1 No
63%
79%
67%
12
3
9
0
3
2
1
15
30%
21%
28%
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
Mixed
Response
(%)
8%
0%
6%
Within the California area, over 90 percent of the federal centers reported dispatching for law
enforcement. In some centers, dispatchers rotate through law enforcement dispatch. In other
centers, one or more dispatchers primarily dispatch for law enforcement. In some forests and BLM
areas, the federal government pays counties to dispatch for law enforcement.
In the Southwest, two centers dispatch primarily for federal law enforcement and handle about 97
percent of the Law enforcement dispatch workload. The Grand Canyon National Park dispatches for
NPS LEOs at the Grand Canyon. The FLECC in Phoenix dispatches for BLM, FWS, NPS (other than the
Grand Canyon), and FS (North Kaibab National Forest and Coronado National Forest) LEOs in Arizona.
This center began operating in the early 1990s, with 24/7 coverage beginning in August 2010. The
FLECC has an agreement with BIA; however, the tribes or county police departments dispatch for most
BIA law enforcement officers. As of the beginning of IDOPP, county police departments provided most
IDOPP Report
- 15 -
January 31, 2013
of the law enforcement dispatch services in New Mexico. Since then, the FLECC began providing
services to additional law enforcement officers in New Mexico.
Based on lists compiled by the sub-teams, centers provide dispatch services for approximately 559
LEOs in the California area and 185 LEOs in the Southwest, or approximately 744 officers in total. The
team did not collect information for BIA LEOs in the Southwest or for FWS and NPS LEOs in New
Mexico. Figure 3.2-5 - Summary of Law Enforcement Officers Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch
Services by Employing Agency shows the distribution by agency of officers receiving dispatch services.
Total Number of LEOs Receiving LE
Dispatch Services - California
CAL
BLM,
FIRE,
62, 11%
174,
31%
FS, 122,
22%
FWS,
10, 2%
NPS,
191,
34%
Total Number of LEOs Receiving
LE Dispatch Services - Southwest
NPS
(AZ
BLM,
Only),
60,
47,
33%
25%
FWS
(AZ
Only),
22,
12%
FS, 56,
30%
Total Number of LEOs Receiving LE Dispatch Services - IDOPP Total
CAL FIRE, 174,
23%
BLM, 122, 17%
FS, 178, 24%
NPS, 238, 32%
FWS, 32, 4%
Figure 3.2-5 - Summary of Law Enforcement Officers Receiving Law Enforcement Dispatch Services by
Employing Agency
3.2.4
Hours of Operation for Law Enforcement Dispatch
Immediate access to dispatch services to conduct criminal background checks is vital to officer
safety. Overall, 70 percent of the LEO respondents reported using a primary dispatch center that
operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week (24/7). This percentage was 66 percent in the
California area and 84 percent in the Southwest. Of those officers whose primary center does not
operate 24/7, 67 percent have access to alternate dispatch centers. Two officers reported no
dispatch support at all and 47 reported that they do not have 24/7 support.
IDOPP Report
- 16 -
January 31, 2013
3.3
MISSION
The primary mission of dispatch is to provide initial response/action and support to wildland fire
incidents, law enforcement incidents, all-hazard incidents, and declared emergencies through the
coordination of requests for a variety of resources. Additionally, California mob guide includes the
following mission statement:
“The mission of the California ECCs is to perform as a vital primary communication link
providing for public and employee safety, including service and support for all personnel.”
3.4
DISPATCH FUNCTIONS
Dispatch centers commonly provide the following general functions:
Administrative - Administration of dispatch activities requires a variety of support tasks including
acquisition, human resources, budget and financial functions, and cooperative agreements.
• Acquisition functions include development of emergency equipment rental agreements, blanket
purchase agreements, and land use agreements; reconciliation of corporate travel credit cards and
corporate business accounts; support for Type 3 and 4 incidents, to include lodging, meals, and
local supply purchases; coordination with buying teams to fill and document resource orders for
services, supplies, and equipment from the open market and established sources; documenting
buying team order information in ROSS; and communicating the information with the incident base
to track the status of resources.
• Human resource functions include facilitating documentation completion for injuries/illnesses;
coordinating health screening questionnaires and physicals; documenting exemptions; maintaining
the center’s data in the human resources database; coordinating hiring employees, recruitment
planning, monitoring progress, and completing paperwork; and coordinating administratively
determined (AD) employees for the center, including hiring, training, and timekeeping.
• Budget and financial functions include cost tracking; database management; assisting with cost
share agreements; processing claims; processing travel authorizations and vouchers for seasonal
and AD employees; reconciling federal corporate travel accounts; and preparing emergency
equipment rental agreement payment packages, to include invoices and documentation.
• Cooperative agreement functions include establishing and maintaining agreements with state,
county and local government agencies for personnel, equipment, and services; initiating and
facilitating meetings; and setting up and managing memorandums of understanding, cooperative
agreements, interagency operating plans, and reimbursable agreements.
All-Hazard - The dispatch community supports all-hazard support under the National Response
Framework to manmade and natural disasters such as oil spill responses, hurricanes, floods, and
tornados. All-hazard dispatch requires coordination similar to wildland fire incidents.
Aviation Support, Including Helicopter Dispatching - The wildland fire dispatch function includes
communicating wildland fire aviation activities to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Department of Defense (DoD), other federal agencies, surrounding airports, and state and local
governments in support of agency aviation responses to incidents and training missions. Airspace
coordination can occur anytime agencies conduct a normal initial attack for a wildland fire, large fire
support, or special events.
Emergency Medical Service - Emergency medical service dispatch includes coordinating the response
to medical emergencies using an emergency medical dispatcher. Emergency medical dispatch
identifies basic call information, including the location and telephone number of the caller, the
IDOPP Report
- 17 -
January 31, 2013
location of the patient, the general nature of the problem, any special circumstances, and the
provision of instruction, through a telecommunications process, of by-stander emergency care.
Local Dispatch Contract - State fire protection departments provide fire protection within state
responsibility areas directly or by contract with counties. Under the contracts, the state funds wages
of suppression crews, lookouts, maintenance of firefighting facilities, fire prevention assistants, prefire management positions, dispatch, special repairs, and administrative services. The contracts also
fund infrastructure improvements and expanded firefighting needs when fires grow beyond initial
attack.
National Crime Information Center/State-Authorized Law Enforcement - Dispatch centers provide
communications and logistical support for law enforcement personnel and incidents, including
tracking law enforcement personnel, relaying information from law enforcement databases (including
criminal histories and wants/warrants checks), dispatching law enforcement resources to back up field
personnel, ensuring timely law enforcement incident notifications, and providing telephonic support
as requested.
Search and Rescue - Search and rescue dispatch includes coordinating the response to search and
rescue efforts, including personnel, aircraft, equipment, and supplies. Search and rescue dispatch
operations are generally associated with law enforcement functions. The National Search and Rescue
Plan and Inland Search and Rescue Addendum govern search and rescue operations.
Structural Fire - Structural fire dispatch includes dispatching resources to a fire originating in and
burning a part or all of any building, shelter, automobile, aircraft, vessel, or other structure.
Wildland Fire - Wildland fire dispatch includes coordinating resources for initial attack, statusing
resources, and monitoring and supporting field resources. Resources dispatched include personnel,
equipment, aircraft, and supplies. Dispatch centers use ROSS to request and dispatch resources,
allowing dispatchers to see the status (availability) and location of resources and to place orders for
those resources. Predictive services and intelligence gathering functions support wildland fire
dispatch by gathering, compiling, and disseminating information and decision support products.
Law Enforcement Dispatch Functions - Dispatch related activities in support of law enforcement vary
by center, with at least 90 percent of all centers covering the most common functions of dispatch,
status checks, check-in and check-out, and field tracking.
Officers often use more than one dispatch center because law enforcement assignments may take an
LEO into numerous counties and jurisdictions. Approximately half of the LEOs responding reported
using multiple centers. Using different centers means that the officers must deal with differing
procedures, radio nomenclature (clear text and 10-code), access to criminal information databases,
and other variances in individual dispatch centers’ support to law enforcement. Over half of the
officers who reported using multiple dispatch centers use three or more centers in their assigned
patrol areas.
Periodic checks are critical to the safety of LEOs, both status checks during public contact and welfare
checks during patrol. For IDOPP overall, 58 percent of LEO data call respondents (57% California, 62%
Southwest) indicated that their primary centers require status checks and 39 percent (34% California,
53% Southwest) indicated that their primary centers require welfare checks.
IDOPP Report
- 18 -
January 31, 2013
Other Functions - The dispatch community provides pre-event planning and preparedness services
and response resources to other activities, such as special events.
Responses to the center manager data call indicate that all operational centers in the California and
Southwest areas are multi-function centers. Table 3.4-1 - Summary of Dispatch Services Provided by
Area and State shows the numbers and percentage of centers per area and state that reported
performing the various general dispatch functions.
There is additional detail on dispatch functions in the Appendix Table 3.4-2 - Dispatch Functions.
Table 3.4-1 - Summary of Dispatch Services Provided by Area and State
9
5
IDOPP TOTAL
54
3.5
Other
Arizona
New Mexico
Wildland Fire
14
Structural Fire
Southwest Area Total
30
1
12
(86%)
7
5
44
(81%)
Search and Rescue
3
36
1
NCIC/State
Authorized LE
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational
Hawaii
39
(98%)
3
35
1
13
(93%)
9
4
52
(96%)
Local Dispatch
Contract
32
(80%)
Helicopter
Dispatching
40
Emergency
Medical Service
Administrative
California Area Total
All-Hazard
Total Number of
Centers
Number/Percent of Centers Performing Various Dispatch Functions
33
(83%)
34
(85%)
30
(75%)
26
(65%)
31
(78%)
29
(73%)
39
(98%)
18
(45%)
32
1
3
(21%)
3
0
36
(67%)
31
1
11
(79%)
7
4
45
(83%)
29
1
7
(50%)
5
2
37
(69%)
25
1
4
(29%)
2
2
30
(56%)
29
1
9
(64%)
6
3
40
(74%)
28
1
2
(14%)
2
0
31
(57%)
36
1
12
(86%)
7
5
51
(94%)
15
7
(50%)
5
2
25
(46%)
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
The National Interagency Mobilization Guide (NFES 2092) outlines standard procedures for multiagency logistical support operations throughout the coordination system. The guide facilitates
interagency dispatch coordination to promote timely and cost effective incident support. To
supplement the National Interagency Mobilization Guide, centers use independently developed
Geographic Area Mobilization Guides and local guides.
According to the center manager data call, 98% of the California area centers and all of the Southwest
centers maintain their own standard operating procedures (SOPs) for dispatch.
Eighty-seven percent of the centers dispatching for law enforcement report established local standard
operating procedures to document dispatch LEO support processes.
IDOPP Report
- 19 -
January 31, 2013
3.6
GOVERNANCE
3.6.1 Governance for Federal Wildland Fire Dispatch
The Tier 1 NICC operates under the direction of the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group. This
group includes one agency representative from each of the federal wildland fire agencies, and one
each from the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and U.S. Fire Administration (USFA).
In addition to national and regional oversight, Tier 2 GACCs and Tier 3 dispatch centers may have a
board of directors or steering committee providing them direction and operational oversight. These
boards and committees include representatives from the agencies charged with protecting lands in
the center’s geographic area. No national standard or guidance exists on how these boards and
groups are established, organized or their governance model. Only 11 percent of the Tier 3 or 4
centers in California report having boards of directors/steering committees. In contrast, 78 percent
of Arizona centers and all New Mexico centers report having a board of directors or steering
committee. The Southwest organizes coordination and governance of wildland fire dispatching by
zones. Some zones in Arizona include more than one dispatch center.
3.6.2 Governance for Federal Law Enforcement Dispatch
Agencies govern federal law enforcement dispatch on a decentralized basis. In the Southwest, the
FLECC has a board of directors that provides interagency governance.
3.6.3 Governance for NPS Dispatch
The NPS Division of Law Enforcement, Security and Emergency Services provides national oversight
and coordination on policy and guidance related to public safety dispatching. NPS Reference
Manual #9 (RM-9) sets guidance and policy for determining the level of service required by an NPS
unit, and for law enforcement communications and terminology. 1
The NPS chartered their Public Safety Dispatch Committee to develop and maintain the NPS public
safety dispatch workforces, and to establish consistent training and SOPs.
1
http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder9.html
IDOPP Report
- 20 -
January 31, 2013
3.7
SPONSORSHIP AND BUDGET
The IDOPP review included single agency centers, interagency centers with multiple agencies sharing
space (co-located only), and operationally integrated multi-agency centers as depicted on Table 3.7-1 Summary of Center Types by Area and State. Of the 15 single agency operational centers in the
California area, five are federal, one is tribal, and nine are CAL FIRE. Of the federal centers, three are
NPS and two are FS. Two of the centers previously designated as single agency in the 2008 MEA,
Angeles ECC and Mendocino Interagency ECC, are now interagency integrated centers. The one single
agency center in the Southwest is the NPS center at Grand Canyon National Park.
Table 3.7-1 - Summary of Center Types by Area and State
Type of Center
Total
Number of
Centers
Interagency
Center –
Integrated
Functions
Interagency
Center –
Co-located Only
Single
Agency
Center
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
40
3
36
1
18
2
16
0
6
0
6
0
16
1
14
1
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
14
9
5
13
8
5
31*
(57%)
0
0
0
6
(11%)
1
1
0
17
(31%)
IDOPP TOTAL
54
*Note: The interagency integrated designation includes centers with staff from multiple agencies and/or centers
providing dispatch services to multiple agencies. Except for four CAL FIRE centers, staffed with CAL FIRE employees
to provide services to state and local agencies, the interagency integrated centers encompass multiple federal
and/or state agencies.
Data call results indicated that agencies receiving dispatch services are not consistently providing
funding commensurate with those services. Appendix Section 3.7 Sponsorship and Budget contain
shows the agencies provided dispatch services versus the agencies funding costs.
Various program areas provide funding for dispatch services. The wildland fire function provides
funding at 85 percent of the dispatch centers, whereas the law enforcement function provides funding
at 13 percent of the dispatch centers. Appendix Section 3.7 Sponsorship and Budget Table E.3-1-7 in
Exhibit 3-1, Dispatch Data Compilation, show the program areas funding dispatch services, as reported
by the center managers.
IDOPP Report
- 21 -
January 31, 2013
Table 3.7-2 - Summary of Personnel Costs by Area and State summarizes the estimated annual
personnel costs for full-time and part-time permanent employees, not including overtime. These
costs include benefits and represent the cost to the government. The IDOPP teams developed
personnel costs based on the staffing lists provided by each center manager. The Costing Analysis
section in Chapter 5 details the costing method.
Table 3.7-2 - Summary of Personnel Costs by Area and State
Annual Personnel Costs
(in millions)1
$35.63
$4.99
$30.31
$0.33
$5.70
$4.04
$1.66
$41.33
California Area
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area
Arizona Operational Centers
New Mexico Operational Centers
IDOPP TOTAL
1
Estimated base salary personnel costs inclusive of benefits. Overtime and non-permanent employees excluded.
3.8
STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholder agencies in firefighting and law enforcement work under cooperative agreements to
share resources, provide mutual aid, and accomplish common goals. According to the center manager
data call, 23 percent of the centers have more than 20 cooperative agreements. Only six percent of
the centers have no cooperative agreements.
The following are primary stakeholders:
• Local fire departments
•
• Local police departments and sheriffs’ offices
• State police departments
•
• National Guard
•
• National Association of State Foresters
•
Other federal stakeholders include:
• National Weather Service
• Department of Defense – aircraft support,
modular airborne firefighting system
(airtankers), active uniformed military
services, National Guard and Reserve
components
• FAA
•
•
Regional Organizations – for example,
Southern Group of State Foresters and Council
of Western State Foresters
Western Governors’ Association
Tribal governments
State fish and game commissions
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
 Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)
 Transportation Security Agency
 Customs and Border Protection
The public uses agency-managed parks, forests, recreation areas, national monuments, and adjacent
to or surrounded by public lands and/or tribal properties.
IDOPP Report
- 22 -
January 31, 2013
3.9
WORKLOAD
3.9.1 Fire Workload – Number of Fires
The teams gathered fire `workload data for calendar years 2006-2010 in the center managers’ data
call, as well as from systems of record including ROSS and the FAM Website. Table 3.9.1-1 - Average
Annual Number of Fires by Area and State displays the average annual number of fires by area and
type. 2 Appendix Section 3.9.1 includes additional fire workload detail.
The Southern California fire-related workload is higher than that of Northern California. The state
total fire workload is larger than the federal workload but the federal land management agencies
perform more prescribed burns than the state.
In the Southwest, the workload is higher in Arizona, which has seven Tier 3 operational centers, than
in New Mexico, which has five Tier 3 operational centers.
Table 3.9.1-1 - Average Annual Number of Fires by Area and State 3
(2006-2010)
Area/Center Type
California Area Operational Centers
Northern California
Federal
State
Southern California
Federal
State
Southwest Area Operational Centers
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP Total
A-C Fires
10,550
4,946
1,595
3,351
5,604
2,066
3,538
4,854
2,889
1,965
15,404
D+ Fires
236
104
57
47
132
81
51
288
99
189
524
Rx Fires
807
596
585
11
211
204
7
356
190
166
1,163
Total Fires
11,593
5,646
2,237
3,409
5,947
2,351
3,596
5,498
3,178
2,320
17,091
3.9.2 Fire Workload – ROSS Actions and Incidents
The teams performed a seasonality analysis on ROSS data for calendar years 2006-2010, using
numbers of ROSS actions to approximate fire-related workload. Seasonality charts in Appendix
Section 3.9.2 compare two sets of ROSS data: 1) seasonality of overall ROSS actions by month and 2)
seasonality of incidents documented in ROSS by month.
Figure 3.9-2 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California GACCs/CC, Figure 3.9-3 - Average
Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California Operational Centers and Figure 3.9-4 - Average Annual
Number of ROSS Actions – Southwest depict seasonality for the number of ROSS actions by
geographic area. Figure 3.9-2 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California GACCs/CC and
2
Fire type classifications: Class A - one-fourth acre or less; Class B - more than one-fourth acre, but less than 10
acres; Class C - 10 acres or more, but less than 100 acres; Class D - 100 acres or more, but less than 300 acres;
Class E - 300 acres or more, but less than 1,000 acres; Class F - 1,000 acres or more, but less than 5,000 acres; Class
G - 5,000 acres or more.
3
Data sources: FAMWEB (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/weatherfirecd/), CAL FIRE, Arizona State Forestry Division
(ASFD), and New Mexico State Forestry (NMSF).
IDOPP Report
- 23 -
January 31, 2013
Figure 3.9-3 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California Operational Centers also
approximate workload for the California Geographic Pilot Area. Workload for the Southern
California GACC peaks in October, with November as the second highest month. This is not
consistent with the workload for the remainder of California operational centers, where the fire
workload peaks in July with the second highest month being August, as shown . As shown in Figure
3.9-2 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California GACCs/CC, the Southwest workload
peaks in June, with the second highest months being July for Arizona and May for New Mexico.
Southern California GACC
Number of ROSS Actions
Number of ROSS Actions
Northern California GACC/CC
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Month
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Total California GACC/CC
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
3,626
1,950
1,130
151
67
133
153
307
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
2,079
1,534
1,686
212
June July
Month
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Figure 3.9-2 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California GACCs/CC
(Based on Five-Year Average)
IDOPP Report
- 24 -
January 31, 2013
Southern California Operational Centers
Number of ROSS Actions
Number of ROSS Actions
Northern California Operational Centers
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
0
Month
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Total California Operational Centers
50,000
45,235
40,000
36,861
27,060
30,000
25,492
20,000
10,000
0
13,500
8,032
761
783
Jan
Feb
3,054
1,117 1,846
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
690
Dec
Month
Figure 3.9-3 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – California Operational Centers
(Based on Five-Year Average)
IDOPP Report
- 25 -
January 31, 2013
New Mexico
Number of ROSS Actions
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Number of ROSS Actions
Arizona
Month
Number of ROSS Actions
Month
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Total Southwest
15,240
6,483
333
661
1,260
Jan
Feb
Mar
6,244
3,439
3,025
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
791
687
374
136
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Month
Figure 3.9-4 - Average Annual Number of ROSS Actions – Southwest
(Based on Five-Year Average)
IDOPP Report
- 26 -
January 31, 2013
3.9.3
Law Enforcement Workload
The teams used center manager-provided data on the number of law enforcement incidents for
calendar years 2006-2010 to approximate law enforcement workload. Table 3.9.3-1 - Average
Annual Number of Law Enforcement Incidents depicts the average annual number of law
enforcement incidents by area. IDOPP Appendix Tables for Section 3.9.3 provide additional law
enforcement workload-related data.
The Southern California operational centers dispatch 59 percent of the law enforcement incidents in
the California area, with the Yosemite ECC and Federal Interagency Communications Center
dispatching the majority of these. Golden Gate National Recreation Area dispatches 67 percent of
the Northern California law enforcement incidents.
Arizona centers dispatch 99 percent of the law enforcement incidents in the Southwest, with the
majority done by Grand Canyon National Park and the FLECC. In New Mexico, sheriffs’ offices do
most of the dispatch for federal law enforcement personnel. Section 3.15 provides additional
information regarding law enforcement dispatch.
Table 3.9.3-1 - Average Annual Number of Law Enforcement Incidents
(Based on Five-Year Average)
Average Annual Number of
Law Enforcement Incidents
California Area Operational Centers
106,727
Northern California
44,145
Federal
42,921
State
1,224
Southern California
62,582
Federal
48,419
State
14,163
Southwest Area Operational Centers
38,351
Arizona
37,937
New Mexico
414
IDOPP Total
145,078
The California sub-team collected statistics on arrests and violation notices issued for calendar years
2006-2010. The Southwest sub-team did not gather similar data, as they do not consider this
information necessary to defining the dispatch workload in the Southwest non-law enforcement
centers.
Figure 3.9.3-2 - Average Annual Arrests and Violations by Agency – California depicts the average
annual arrests and violations by agency in California. This workload does not correlate directly to
dispatch workload, but it represents a workload driver and shows a general trend in law
enforcement dispatch. For example, a law enforcement officer may contact dispatch for a license
check and give a verbal warning, information not recorded in the arrests and violation notices data.
Conversely, a law enforcement officer may issue a violation notice without involving the dispatch
center. NPS statistics vary from the other agencies in that arrests include both physical arrests and
summoned arrests (mandatory court appearances).
IDOPP Report
- 27 -
January 31, 2013
Arrests and Violations by Agency - California
40,000
36,301
30,000
20,000
10,000
4,567
BLM
929
CAL FIRE
5,625
FS
473
FWS
NPS*
* 2009 NPS data does not include counts for Yosemite National Park.
Figure 3.9.3-2 - Average Annual Arrests and Violations by Agency – California
(2006-2010)
3.9.4 Other Workload
The center managers provided workload data for other incidents (non-fire/non-law enforcement)
for calendar years 2006-2010. Other incidents included:
• Aircraft
• Public assistance
• FEMA (natural disasters)
• Recreation
• Hazardous materials
• Resource
• Medical aid incidents
• Search and rescue
• Off-highway vehicles
• Traffic collisions
• Planned events (for example, Rainbow
• Unplanned events (human caused disasters)
Gathering, Burning Man, Sturgis)
Table 3.9.4-1 - Average Annual Number of “Other” Incidents depicts the average annual number of
“other” incidents by area. In the California area, the state centers dispatch 90 percent of these
incidents. In the Southwest, Arizona centers dispatch 91 percent of these incidents with Grand Canyon
National Park dispatching half of the Southwest’s total.
Table 3.9.4-1 - Average Annual Number of “Other” Incidents - (Based on Five-Year Average)
Area/Center Type
California Area Operational Centers
Northern California
Federal
State
Southern California
Federal
State
Southwest Area Operational Centers
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP Total
IDOPP Report
- 28 -
Number of Other Incidents
336,195
142,259
12,841
129,418
193,936
19,419
174,516
9,114
8,312
802
345,309
January 31, 2013
3.10
STAFFING
Federal and state permanent and seasonal employees make up the bulk of the dispatch workforce.
During peak periods, federal centers may supplement their staffs using:
• AD employees: non-federal personnel who maintain fire qualifications, some of whom maintain
dispatch qualifications
• The “militia”: federal employees who are cross-trained to support fire as a collateral duty may be
trained in dispatch
• Temporary employees with relevant dispatch training
These individuals provide dispatch expertise needed for continuity of dispatch operations.
Operational centers typically include the following position categories, irrespective of series:
• Center Managers - Center managers direct, plan, supervise, coordinate, and manage the dispatch
center. For interagency centers, center managers work with partner agency administrators
developing and executing annual operating and financial plans.
• Assistant Center Managers - The Assistant Center Manager assists the Center Manager in managing
the center. Assistant center managers may be in charge of day-to-day center operations, including
establishing work schedules, assigning work, and conducting personnel evaluations.
• Dispatchers - Dispatchers receive and process incoming calls, communicating with and transmitting
information to field personnel. Dispatchers process resource orders, documenting resource status
updates and providing the field with information concerning resource use and availability.
The average grade of federal personnel in the California GACCs is between a GS-10 and GS-11. The
average grade of federal personnel in the California and Southwest area operational centers is GS-08. 4
Figure 3.10-1 - Summary of Dispatch Personnel by Agency summarizes permanent full-time and part-time
staffing by agency. On July 1, 2011, the California area had 482 positions comprising 481.5 Full-Time
Equivalents (FTE). 5 The Southwest had 93 positions totaling 88.5 FTE. Of these 575 positions, 50
positions were vacant.
Figure 3.10-3 – Dispatch Centers by Staffing Level displays the numbers of positions and FTEs by agency
and by area. CAL FIRE employs over half of all dispatch personnel in the California area. The FS employs
approximately half of the dispatch personnel in the Southwest.
4 The average. grade of federal personnel in California GACCs is high due to inclusion of Mets: 2 GS-13s and 5 GS-12s.
5
Each FTE equates to 1,776 productive work hours per year. The 1,776 annual productive hours exclude annual leave,
sick leave, administrative leave, training, and other non-productive time.
IDOPP Report
- 29 -
January 31, 2013
Number of FTE - California
Area
BLM,
13,
3%
CAL
FIRE,
263,
54%
Tribal,
1, 0%
BIA,
7, 8%
FS,
162.5,
34%
NPS,
42,
9%
Number of FTE - IDOPP
Total
Number of FTE - Southwest
Area
NPS,
11,
13%
ASFD, NMSF
3, 3% , 1,
1%
BLM,
36, 7%
BLM,
23,
26%
FS,
43.5,
49%
State,
267,
47%
Tribal,
1, 0%
FS,
206,
36%
BIA, 7,
1%
NPS,
53, 9%
Figure 3.10-1 - Summary of Dispatch Personnel by Agency
The CAL FIRE dispatch center organization typically includes an ECC Battalion Chief (center manager), Fire
Captains, and Communications Operators. State of Arizona dispatch positions include Natural Resource
Manager (assistant center manager) and Natural Resource Technician (dispatcher).
Experience, training, and qualifications for federal dispatch positions are a compilation of interagency
standard PDs, the Interagency Fire Program Management (IFPM) Qualifications Standards and Guide, the
310-1 Interagency Wildland Fire Qualifications, FS Handbook 5109.17 Fire and Aviation Management
Qualifications, and the Interagency Aviation Training Guide. 6 Firefighting experience is a requirement for
all secondary firefighting positions, and firefighting is a selective placement factor in the dispatch
application process. The IFPM team implemented standard interagency PDs for Center Managers,
Assistant Center Managers, and Initial Attack Dispatchers at the local unit level.
In California, all dispatch employees with physical access to the California Law Enforcement
Telecommunications System (CLETS) must pass background and fingerprint checks in accordance with
CLETS Policies, Practices and Procedures and the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Division 1,
Chapter 7, Article 1.
Agencies classify the 307 federal dispatch center positions under a variety of Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) job series’, as shown in Table 3.10-2 - Number of Federal Positions per OPM Series.
Federal dispatch positions most frequently classify as GS-462 Forestry Technicians, followed by the GS2151 Dispatcher series. The next most frequent series’ are GS-390 Public Safety Telecommunications
Technician, used by the NPS Golden Gate National Recreation Area Center, and GS-1802 Mission Support
Technician, used by the FLECC. The FLECC began using the GS-1802 series in 2011; they classified these
positions as GS-2151 Dispatchers previously.
6
http://www.ifpm.nifc.gov/
IDOPP Report
- 30 -
January 31, 2013
Working titles for non-lead and non-supervisory positions in the 2151 series vary and include
Communications Equipment Operator (Dispatch), Dispatcher, Fire Logistics Dispatcher, Logistics
Dispatcher, and Public Safety Dispatcher.
NPS uses five standardized PDs for Public Safety Dispatcher positions: GS-04/05 Basic Dispatcher, GS05/06 Dispatcher, GS-07/09 Lead Dispatcher, GS-09/11 Supervisory Dispatcher, and GS-11/13 Center
Manager. At center Levels One and Two, NPS uses the GS-04/05 dispatcher positions with GS-09/11
center managers. NPS includes background checks as a pre-hire condition for dispatchers.
Table 3.10-2 - Number of Federal Positions per OPM Series
3
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
5
2%
Total
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0%
Not Specified
13
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
13
4%
2151 Dispatching
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0%
1802 Compliance
Inspection and
Support
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1%
1340 Meteorology
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1%
462 Forestry
Technician
California
BLM
FS
NPS
Southwest
BIA
BLM
FS
NPS
IDOPP Total
Percent
303 Miscellaneous
Clerk and Assistant
326 Office
Automation Clerk
and Assistance
390
Telecommunications
Processing
391
Telecommunications
401 Natural
Resources
Management
455 Range
Technician
301 Miscellaneous
Admin and Program
Number of Positions per OPM Series
158
9
148
1
51
5
4
41
1
209
68%
7
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2%
0
0
0
0
13
0
13
0
0
13
4%
30
0
3
27
15
1
0
4
10
45
15%
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0%
218
13
163
42
89
7
24
47
11
307
100%
2
2
0
0
6
1
5
0
0
8
3%
The number of personnel staffing the operational centers varies with complexity and workload. The
California area staffs centers with as few as one FTE to as many as 41 FTE; the Southwest area staffs
centers with four to 14 FTE. Figure 3.10-3 – Dispatch Centers by Staffing Level shows the number of
centers in each geographic area staffed at the various FTE levels.
Number of Centers
Count of Dispatch Centers by FTE
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
26
20
7
9
2
1 to 5
6
CA
10 11
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
SW
CA + SW
6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40 41 to 45
Number of FTE per Center
Figure 3.10-3 – Dispatch Centers by Staffing Level
IDOPP Report
- 31 -
January 31, 2013
3.11
TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT
Information systems are critical to the functionality of interagency dispatch. Technology advancements
introduced sophisticated software and hardware systems into dispatch business practices, increasing the
speed and efficiency of dispatching resources to an incident. However, there remain issues of
inconsistency and incompatibility in information systems among the various agencies.
3.11.1 Computer Aided Dispatch Systems
Computer aided dispatch (CAD) software is used to initiate service calls, dispatch resources, and
maintain the status of resources deployed to incidents. There are two primary CAD systems used by
interagency dispatch, WildCAD and Altaris CAD. Computer aided dispatch is generally used by
emergency communications dispatchers, call-takers, and 911 operators in centralized, public-safety call
centers, as well as by field personnel using mobile data terminals or mobile data computers.
In California, approximately 95 percent of the operational centers reported using a CAD system. In
Hawaii, Arizona, and New Mexico, all of the centers reported using a CAD system.
Centers without CAD systems use manual methods to determine closest available resources, access to
incidents, appropriate management response, and incident priorities and allocate resources. These
methods may include magnetic boards, resource tracking and status boards, and multiple maps.
Centers reported using WildCAD at 62 percent and Altaris CAD at 44 percent of centers. Some centers
use multiple systems. Federal dispatch centers use WildCAD while CAL FIRE centers use Altaris CAD.
Both systems automate “run cards” and other data by providing information about appropriate
resources to dispatch, the status of committed resources, and contact information. These systems
have basic mapping capabilities to depict visually the fire location and local features. The systems
record fire information including location, time, and fire number, along with a running log of
communication with the responders on the fire or other parties.
A separate project, the Integrated Reporting of Wildland-Fire Information (iRWIN) Initial Architecture
project, is collecting information on CAD business needs that may be used to develop a proposal for a
nationwide CAD system.
At present, NPS has ten CAD systems in use at regional dispatch centers for all hazard dispatch. NPS
has both Motorola Premier One CAD and CIS CAD on a national Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity
contract to provide integrated CAD for COMPAS, to include IMARS, the first national records
management and analysis system for the DOI for law enforcement, search and rescue, emergency
medical, and structural fire incidents.
3.11.2 Networks
The interagency dispatch system requires a reliable and adequate network infrastructure in terms of
system load capability and overall performance. The network infrastructure that provides the
backbone of the dispatch system varies across centers. Managers from 78 percent of the centers
assessed their networks as “adequate.”
Some centers have set up “snap” servers to allow their locations to operate on one system and with a
backup system available in the event of a system outage. Within the California and Southwest areas,
44 percent of centers have a standalone network server.
IDOPP Report
- 32 -
January 31, 2013
3.11.3 Radio Infrastructure
The sub-teams collected and reviewed maps showing radio tower locations but did not include them in
this report for national security reasons.
3.11.4 Radios
The majority of dispatch communications occur at the local level, between a dispatch center and law
enforcement officers or local fire response units. In other situations, an adjoining unit or a more
distant location may dispatch resources. Both of these are common scenarios that require
communication resources be available and adaptable.
Dispatch centers in the California and Southwest areas report from zero to 50 dedicated radio channels
available for their use, with averages of approximately nine and 12 channels, respectively.
Eighty-three percent of the IDOPP centers have frequencies dedicated to functions such as fire, law
enforcement, or aviation, with most centers having multiple dedicated frequencies. Center managers
reported having dedicated frequencies as shown Table 3.11.4-1 - Summary of Dedicated Radio
Frequencies by Area and State.
Table 3.11.4-1 - Summary of Dedicated Radio Frequencies by Area and State
Emergency
Medical
Service
Search &
Rescue
Other
None
54
Aviation
IDOPP TOTAL
Admin
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
Law
Enforcement
California Area
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area
Arizona Operational Centers
New Mexico Operational Centers
Wildland Fire
Total
Number of
Centers
Dedicated Radio Frequencies
33
3
29
1
13
8
5
46
(85%)
19
0
18
1
5
5
0
24
(44%)
21
1
19
1
10
7
3
31
(57%)
25
3
21
1
12
7
5
37
(69%)
18
1
17
0
1
1
0
19
(35%)
11
0
11
0
2
2
0
13
(24%)
7
1
6
0
4
3
1
11
(20%)
9
0
9
0
0
0
0
9
(17%)
California operational centers report having between one to 15 radio consoles, with an average of six
consoles per center. Southwest operational centers report having between one to 10 radio consoles,
with an average of five consoles per center. According to the center manager data call, 94 percent of
all operational centers use a recording device to capture radio traffic. This includes 97 percent of the
California area centers and 86 percent of the centers in the Southwest. Radio systems for NPS law
enforcement use encryption and recording devices for all communications in this discipline.
The center manager data call asked about radio deficiencies such as dead spots, lack of recording
devices, frequency overlap, limited bandwidth availability/traffic, and other. As shown in Table 3.11.42 - Summary of Radio Deficiencies by Area and State, the most commonly identified deficiency was
dead spots, reported by 83 percent of the center managers. Limited bandwidth availability/traffic was
the second most commonly identified deficiency for California, reported by 45 percent of center
managers. Frequency overlap was the second most commonly identified deficiency for the Southwest,
IDOPP Report
- 33 -
January 31, 2013
reported by 50 percent of center managers. Percentages do not sum to 100 as some center managers
selected multiple deficiencies.
Table 3.11.4-2 - Summary of Radio Deficiencies by Area and State
Limited Bandwidth
Availability/Traffic
(%)
Other (%)
None (%)
40
3
36
1
14
9
5
54
Frequency Overlap
(%)
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Recording Device (%)
Total
Number of
Centers
Dead Spots (%)
Percent of Centers Reporting Each Radio Deficiency
83%
0%
89%
100%
86%
78%
100%
83%
13%
0%
11%
100%
14%
11%
20%
13%
25%
0%
28%
0%
50%
44%
60%
31%
45%
0%
50%
0%
21%
0%
60%
39%
33%
33%
33%
0%
21%
11%
40%
30%
15%
100%
8%
0%
14%
22%
0%
15%
3.11.5 Telephone Systems
Seventy-eight percent of center managers assessed their centers’ existing telephone systems as
adequate.
3.11.6 Law Enforcement Dispatch Technology
Radio coverage has a large impact on LEO safety. The ability to contact others when involved in
potentially dangerous situations often relies upon radio functionality. The radio deficiencies most cited
by law enforcement officers were dead spots in radio coverage (91% of respondents), followed by
competing functional traffic (47%).
Over half of the LEO respondents indicated that their jobs require them to use multiple frequency
bands, primarily due their need to use multiple dispatch centers, including local police departments.
Those officers reported using VHF (79%), UHF (60%) and 800MHz bands (56%) in varying combinations.
Both the California and Southwest areas use a mix of codes, primarily clear text and 10-code. DOI
policy requires that dispatchers conduct all public safety communications in clear text. In the California
area, 89 percent of respondents report using clear text and 46 percent report using 10-code.
Southwest LEOs report using 10-code at 86 percent and clear text at 55 percent of centers. Ten-codes
may vary by center.
The centers use a variety of law enforcement databases, with some using more than one. The most
widely used database is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s NCIC database (used by 54% of centers),
followed by CLETS (41%), and Others.
IDOPP Report
- 34 -
January 31, 2013
3.12
FACILITIES
The center manager data call included questions regarding facilities and space. The sub-teams used
these responses when evaluating potential consolidations. Appendix Section 3.12 Facilities displays the
data call results for facilities.
Facility-related questions included:
• Facility type (part of an agency facility, standalone facility, or temporary or modular facility)
• Building owner (General Services Administration, other federal government-owned, state
government-owned, local government-owned, privately owned/leased, or other)
• Condition of the facility (excellent, good, fair – minor improvement(s) needed, or poor – major
improvement(s) needed)
• Age of the facility (0 to 10 years, 11-20 years, 21-50 years, 51+ years)
• Accessibility for employees with disabilities
• Adequacy of space for current staff
• Excess space for expansion
• Availability of backup generators and uninterruptible power sources
• Capacity of data transmission circuits
3.13
TRAINING
Training for dispatchers varies across agencies, centers, and functions. Appendix Table 3.13-1 and 3.13-2
provide an outline of training requirements for fire and aviation dispatch positions from the IFPM
Qualifications Standards and Guide. No formal, standardized training curriculum exists for law
enforcement dispatching. Within California, the only requirement is CLETS training for those dispatchers
accessing the system. CLETS Policies, Practices and Procedures outlines these training requirements.
NPS established a multi-layered program to develop incident management and public safety dispatcher
skills. This system focuses on validating behaviorally based core competencies through training,
experience, and formal education. The NPS Public Safety Dispatch Guide and RM-9 together establish the
minimum requirements for public safety dispatcher training. The guide defines the course description,
syllabus, minimum hours, goals, objectives, didactic components, tactile components, and experimental
learning elements for each recommended public safety dispatcher-training course. NPS personnel with
skills in adult learning methods teach the courses or NPS uses commercial sources that meet the
equivalency. NPS does not require accreditation but the course sponsor must verify that it meets the
minimum requirements.
IDOPP Report
- 35 -
January 31, 2013
Table 3.13-3 - Summary of Accredited Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Area and State summarizes
accredited law enforcement dispatch training by area and state. The data call showed that training
requirements are inconsistent within as well as among individual agencies.
Table 3.13-3 - Summary of Accredited Law Enforcement Dispatch Training by Area and State
CALEA
Federal Law
Enforcement
Training Center
Peace Officer
Standards and
Training
Agency
Sponsored
Other
None
California Area Total
California (GACC/CC)
California (Operational Centers)
Hawaii
Southwest Area Total
Arizona
New Mexico
IDOPP TOTAL
Total
Number of
Centers
Performing
LE
Dispatch
28
0
27
1
11
7
4
39
Association of
Public-Safety
Communications
Officials
Type of Accredited Law Enforcement Training
2 (7%)
0
2
0
0
0
0
2 (5%)
1 (4%)
0
1
0
0
0
0)
1 (3%)
1 (4%)
0
1
0
0
0
0
1 (3%)
6 (21%)
0
6
0
0
0
0
6 (15%)
14 (50%)
0
14
0
2 (18%)
1
1
16 (41%)
8 (29%)
0
8
0
2 (18%)
1
1
10 (26%)
10 (36%)
0
9
1
8 (73%)
5
3
18 (46%)
In addition to formal training, some centers require on-the-job training before considering dispatchers
qualified to perform law enforcement dispatch without supervision or require ride along experience so
that the dispatchers have a better understanding of LEO needs.
3.14
SAFETY
Safety is among land management agencies’ highest priorities and dispatch centers have a primary
responsibility for the safety of field going personnel. The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations mandate that personnel deployed to remote locations
have emergency communication capabilities at all times. All federal agencies fall under federal OSHA
regulations. Similarly, FSH 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code Handbook), Chapter 10 (Travel) section
11.21(g), requires that personal protective equipment for backcountry travel include a "two-way radio,
cellular phone, or similar personal communication device.”
Eighty-one percent of centers reported having standard check-in and check-out procedures for field
going employees but these procedures are site-specific. A separate national-level FS group is assessing
check-in and check-out processes nationwide.
IDOPP Report
- 36 -
January 31, 2013
4 DISPATCH ISSUES AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Although dispatch centers continually adapt and respond to agency and program needs, the IDOPP teams
identified many areas for potential improvement, many of which tie back to the lack of standardization
within the interagency dispatch system. Resolving these issues will enable a transition to a more efficient
and effective dispatch system with enhanced mission support and improved safety.
4.1
NATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The teams identified many issues within the original scope of the IDOPP that the project could not
remedy within the time and authority allotted. The Bridge Team recommends that the agencies follow
up on these issues at a national level.
4.1.1 Training Standards for Law Enforcement/Public Safety Dispatching
Issue - Lack of standardized LEO dispatch training -Many NWCG courses provide training specific to
wildland fire and aviation dispatch activities, but there is no standard curriculum to train dispatchers in
supporting LEOs for federal land management agencies. Agencies use various private and state training
programs, but the inconsistency and lack of standardization in criminal justice, field officer support, and
other core competency training is unacceptable, particularly given the risks inherent in law
enforcement activities.
Recommendation - Sponsor a subject matter expert (SME) group of public safety dispatchers and law
enforcement officers to develop and recommend national standardized training for land management
agency law enforcement and public safety dispatchers, in partnership with the Dispatch Training
Steering Group. 7 The SME group will submit the course to the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center for approval. This will improve the delivery of law enforcement dispatching, enhancing LEO and
public safety.
4.1.2 Position Descriptions and Series for Interagency Dispatch Positions
Issue - Dispatchers who support law enforcement may be working outside their PDs. Federal wildland
fire dispatch PDs fall under the IFPM Qualifications Standards and Guide. This guide classifies the
positions as Forestry Technician GS-0462, Range Technician GS-0455, Natural Resource Management
GS-0401, or Program Administration GS-0301. There is a strong wildland fire dispatch emphasis, and
OPM requires a minimum of 90 days of wildland firefighting experience as a selective placement factor.
These are secondary (administrative) positions covered under the special 6(c) retirement program. 8
These PDs do not require specialized law enforcement knowledge or the skills necessary to ensure
officer safety.
7
This group could leverage other federal agency law enforcement training materials and best practices.
Department of Justice is a good source for materials. Federal level public safety is unique in the U.S. since it
exists as a layer to state and local agencies and requires special considerations on dispatch, common language,
radio interoperability, etc.
8
A special retirement benefit for federal law enforcement officers and firefighters in section 8336(c) of Title 5,
United States Code (5 USC 8336(c)) is often referred to as “6(c) retirement.” The 6(c) provision of the law allows
a covered firefighter to receive special retirement benefits after meeting certain age and service requirements.
The FS has further defined that a firefighter eligible for coverage under the 6c special retirement benefit is a
position whose primary duties are defined as “on the line” wildland firefighter experience gained through
containment, control, or the suppression or use of wildland fire.
IDOPP Report
- 37 -
January 31, 2013
The NPS recently prepared a suite of Public Safety Dispatcher PDs for human resources review in the
GS-2151 Dispatching series. In January 2011, the OPM changed BLM dispatch positions at the FLECC
from the Dispatching series (GS-2151) to the Compliance Inspection and Support series (GS-1802).
Other agencies continue to struggle with the use of IFPM PDs for positions supporting law enforcement
dispatch.
Recommendation - Charter an interdisciplinary group of public safety dispatchers, law enforcement
officers, and human resource/classification specialists from DOI and FS to develop for approval and
interagency implementation standardized PDs adapted to the varied complexities and services
provided by dispatch centers. This will address issues with dispatchers working outside of their PDs and
the related consequences, and will help to standardize dispatch services nationwide.
4.1.3 Standard Operating Guide for Dispatch Centers
Issue - The dispatch community lacks a nationwide standard operating guide. Local dispatch centers
provide a variety of services to wildland fire, aviation, employee safety, law enforcement, search and
rescue, emergency medical services, structural fire, and all-hazard missions with no overall guidance for
performing dispatch operations, staffing, administration, facilities and equipment standards, training
and qualifications, and governance.
As dispatch center services evolved, centers did not standardize best practices. Many dispatch offices
have center-wide standard operating procedures (SOPs) but these documents often describe practices
that vary in content and detail from those of other centers. These inconsistent procedures negatively
affect employee safety and efficiency. As resources move, differing terminology and practices cause
communication difficulties. Personnel from different agencies or locations work less effectively on
incidents and projects when local protocols differ from the way they are accustomed to working.
Recommendation - Sponsor a task group to develop a national umbrella standard operating guide that
outlines a framework for dispatch roles and responsibilities and standards for performing dispatch
operations, staffing, administration, facilities and equipment, training and qualifications, and
governance. The guide would standardize procedures that are common across centers and enable local
offices to tier off the national guide with local, supplemental SOPs. This task group could leverage best
practices from other federal agencies that work in a multi-tiered dispatch environment. After
developing the guide, the group should build a process and timeline for interagency approval and
implementation.
4.1.4 Dispatch Center Workload Analysis and Staffing Tool
Issue - Agencies need a national standardized tool to develop cost effective staffing. Methods for
assessing dispatch center workload and complexity and figuring baseline-staffing levels to meet
support needs vary widely across agencies and areas.
Recommendation - Sponsor a national task group to develop recommendations to adopt, change, or
develop a standardized workload analysis and staffing tool for all dispatching services. 9 Once finalized,
9
NPS will use the Staffing and Risk Reduction Tool (STARRT), which the agency is currently developing to help guide
decisions regarding staffing in parks, including rangers and dispatchers. STARRT generates staffing numbers using a
scientific/mathematical metric related to miles of road patrolled, yearly visitation, call volume, 24/7 public safety
answering point or not, number of patrol staff, etc.
IDOPP Report
- 38 -
January 31, 2013
the group can add this tool to the national toolbox developed by IDOPP. The IDOPP teams recommend
the FireOrg staffing tool, subject to the limitations discussed in Section 5.2.1 FireOrg.
4.1.5
Standard Governance Model, Performance Management System and Cost Allocation
Methodology
Issue - Standardized, consistent governance is necessary to improve dispatch services and enhance
program management. There is no formal governance structure or national accountability system for
the dispatch coordination system, and cost allocation at dispatch centers is generally not
commensurate with services provided for the various programs and agencies. Various mobilization
guides contain differing direction for organization and structure of the dispatch and coordination
system. Dispatch centers work under various oversight systems, most often a board of directors or
steering committee. The members of these boards and committees represent the agencies and
program areas served by the centers and have delegated authority to make decisions affecting
resource distribution and funding commitments. Throughout the nation, there is large variance in
membership, size, voting rights, and other practices followed by these boards and committees. No
accepted standard exists for deciding agency budget contributions to interagency dispatch centers and
individual agencies have no standards for allocating costs over programs served.
Recommendation - Sponsor a national task group to recommend and assist in implementation of
standard governance models for dispatch centers to enable center integration and consolidation,
interagency cooperation, fair and reasonable cost allocation and to improve consistency throughout
the dispatch system. Membership on governing bodies should include representatives from all
program areas served by the dispatch centers, such as law enforcement, all-hazard, fire, and aviation.
Governance models should include a nationally accepted method to calculate appropriate budget
contributions by agency and agencies should develop appropriate cost allocation methodologies to
fund support to the various programs. Safecom has this covered for land mobile radio and multiagency management and governance. 10 This group should also develop performance measures for the
dispatch coordination system to better validate the workability and practicality of governance and cost
allocation solutions.
4.1.6 GACC Realignment
Issue - Current GACC boundaries increase workload complexity, have caused confusion about roles and
responsibilities for incidents that occur within more than one GACC coverage area, and can burden
some state partners. The current tier structure includes 11 Tier 2 GACCs that generally follow FS
regional land boundaries, often splitting states between multiple centers. For example, the Eastern
Great Basin and Northern Rockies GACCs cover the State of Idaho while the Western Great Basin, North
Ops, and South Ops GACCs cover sections of California.
The current tier structure has been in place since the early 1970s. The ROSS implementation in 2006
dramatically changed workload. Current technology may enable workload division among fewer
centers. All dispatch studies prior to this assessment focused on Tier 3 centers.
Recommendation - Create a national task group to analyze the current GACC boundaries to assess
opportunities for realignment and consolidation among these Tier 2 centers. This will address
boundary issues and enable workload balancing among the GACCs.
10
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/Interoperability_Continuum_Brochure_2.pdf
IDOPP Report
- 39 -
January 31, 2013
4.1.7 Interagency Dispatch Facility and Infrastructure Standards
Issue - There are no standards for interagency dispatch facilities, infrastructure, or information
technology. Standard plans for federal wildland facilities exist for airtanker and helibases, bunkhouses
and engine stations. Standard building planning will reduce overall engineering design costs and
increase consistency and efficiencies in dispatch operations. 11
Recommendation - Sponsor an interagency group of engineers, radio technicians, dispatchers, and
information technology personnel to design a standard initial attack dispatch office, potentially based
upon a currently operating facility. The design should include appropriate square footage per person
and minimum standards for radio and IT, backup power supply, records storage, and other employee
needs. The floor plan should be moderately flexible (expanded dispatch area, individual office space
needs, lunch room, and restroom facilities as needed locally) and the building plan should include
appropriate deviations from standards for items such as zoning, landscape and parking design, and
snow loading. The design should comply with each agency’s engineering standards; be modeled after
the current agency standards for crew quarters, engine bays, and aviation facilities; and meet Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
4.1.8 Ownership of Dispatch
Issue - Dispatch is a crosscutting function spanning multiple agencies and programs with no single
“owner” agency. Similarly, the IDOPP report covers multiple agencies and programs.
Recommendation - Determine and assign appropriate “ownership” of dispatch, and ownership and
stewardship for the IDOPP National Toolbox, website, and report. This “owner” agency should also
monitor implementation. The “owner” must operate program areas spanning fire, aviation and law
enforcement, and must work closely with all partner agencies to ensure balanced representation.
4.2
OTHER ISSUES
The IDOPP teams identified other issues, some of which are specific to one or both of the California and
Southwest geographic areas:
4.2.1 Defining Administrative Support to be provided by Dispatch
Issue - Administrative workload at operational dispatch centers has increased for several years due to
changes in agency human resources and budget and finance organizations. Many of these
administrative service needs are time-sensitive, such as credit card reconciliation, and the workload is
heaviest when the center is actively engaged in fire support activities. These activities often require
mandatory training like procurement, security, records management, and safety, further adding to the
workload.
Hiring, training, qualification management and dispatching of AD resources is a significant and
increasing workload for many dispatch centers. The workload compounds because agencies
increasingly call on AD resources to support dispatch, and AD employees must complete the same
forms for agency processing each time they mobilize.
Agencies can use the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement (CALEA) as an example, benchmark, or
actual accreditation (http://www.calea.org).
11
IDOPP Report
- 40 -
January 31, 2013
Table 4.2.1-1 - Administrative Activities below gives examples of administrative activities performed
by dispatch centers.
Table 4.2.1-1 - Administrative Activities 12
Acquisition
Duties
Human
Resource
Duties
Budget and
Financial
Duties
• Aiding in development of pre-season emergency equipment rental agreements, blanket
purchase agreements, and multi-year land use agreements. This includes support
expectations outlined in the agreements with cooperators and partners.
• Reconciliation of the corporate travel credit cards and corporate business accounts
• Support for Type 3 & 4 incidents to include lodging, meals, local supply purchases
• Set up of blanket purchase agreements in remote areas and for merchants who do accept
credit cards
• Processing agency provided medical care compensation for injury support
• Coordinating health screening questionnaires and physicals
• Documenting exemptions
• Keeping the center’s data in the human resources database
• Coordinating hiring full time, seasonal, and temporary employees including developing
recruitment plans, checking progress, and completing paperwork
• Coordinating AD employees for the center including hiring, training, and timekeeping
• Preparing emergency equipment rental agreements payment package to include invoices
and documentation
• Assisting with Cost Share Agreements
• Processing claims
• Processing travel authorizations and vouchers for seasonal and AD employees
• Reconciling federal corporate travel accounts
Recommendation - Define administrative support expectations internal to dispatch centers. Dispatch
employees should focus on dispatching for incidents; agencies should properly staff administrative
workload that does not directly support dispatching for incidents or move this workload out of the
dispatch centers. Any workload and staffing analysis tool adopted nationwide should include staffing
to perform all administrative support functions.
The 2008 MEA recommended creation of a centralized Interagency AD Management Center attached
to the FS Albuquerque Service Center or the DOI National Business Center in Denver. Implementation
of this recommendation would centralize workload associated with the hiring and mobilization of AD
personnel, removing this work from the GACCs and operational dispatch centers.
4.2.2 Standard Staffing Module Configuration
Issue - The dispatch system has no standard staffing module configuration. The California geographic
area developed and implemented a standard staffing module configuration for dispatch centers in 2004
that calls for baseline staffing of seven positions for non-24/7 centers:
• 1 GS-10/11 Center Manager
• 2 GS-8/9 Assistant Center Managers
• 3 GS-6/7 Initial Attack Dispatchers
• 1 GS-5/6/7 Entry Level Dispatcher
12
Management Efficiency Assessment of the Interagency Wildland Fire Dispatch and Related Services, August 25,
2008.
IDOPP Report
- 41 -
January 31, 2013
Centers were to conduct workload analyses to assess staffing needs above this baseline. California’s
standard module configuration, designed for wildland fire workload, does not consider the
complexities of individual dispatch centers beyond moderate complexity. It is inadequate to meet
dispatch service demands that include law enforcement staffing. The California standard module
configuration for 24/7 operations includes 10 positions. The Southwest has no standards for baseline
staffing.
Recommendation - Create a national task group to design a standard staffing module configuration in
conjunction with the workload analysis and staffing tool developed under Section 38 - Dispatch Center
Workload Analysis and Staffing Tool. 13
4.2.3 Jurisdictional Issues
Issue - The California and Southwest geographic areas both have issues related to overlapping
boundaries and jurisdictions.
Recommendations - Organizational Alternatives in Chapter 6 address jurisdictional issues within the
Southwest area. The Southwest sub-team did not address geographic boundary issues with other areas
in their alternatives; however, the team recommends development of mutual aid agreements among
federal, state, and local agencies for areas where boundaries appear to overlap to ensure centers give
adequate dispatch support to those areas.
California centers should continue to attempt to mitigate boundary issues in local annual operating
plans.
4.2.4 Prioritization of Dispatch Response
Issue - Individual dispatchers may independently have to prioritize between concurrent fire and law
enforcement needs due to the number of combined centers. In California, 70 percent of operational
dispatch centers dispatch for both fire and law enforcement. Law enforcement dispatch
responsibilities often complicate dispatch priority setting between law enforcement and initial attack of
wildland fire incidents. Dispatch centers have historically treated law enforcement communications as
lower priority than fire radio traffic during active fires. Even when separate consoles handle law
enforcement and fire, dispatchers with limited frequencies may have to set priorities for radio time.
This is not an issue in the Southwest, where law enforcement dispatch is separate from wildland fire
dispatch.
Recommendation - The IDOPP teams recommend that the dispatch centers realign staffing so that an
individual dispatcher is not concurrently responsible for law enforcement and other dispatch
responsibilities. While dispatchers can be cross-trained to do various types of dispatch, dispatchers
simultaneously assigned both tasks must attempt to prioritize equally important functions. The
standard operating guide discussed in Section 4.1.3 should include a section on incident prioritization.
13
One resource may be the Staffing and Risk Reduction Tool (STARRT), which NPS is currently developing to help guide
decisions regarding staffing in parks, including rangers and dispatchers. STARRT generates staffing numbers using a
scientific/mathematical metric related to miles of road patrolled, yearly visitation, call volume, 24/7 public safety
answering point or not, number of patrol staff, etc.
IDOPP Report
- 42 -
January 31, 2013
4.2.5 Duplication of Radio Infrastructure
Issue - As part of the IDOPP process, the sub-teams inventoried fixed radio (repeater) sites used by
each of the participating agencies and found multiple instances of duplication.
Each agency independently designed its radio infrastructure, and there are duplications in services.
Even with the duplication, radio “holes” exist, limiting communication within certain parts of
geographic areas. As budgets decline, the need to support and fund independent radio infrastructures
increases each year. A review of current inventories revealed instances where multiple agencies have
repeaters co-located on some mountaintops.
Recommendation - Agencies should commit to analyzing all options to increase efficiencies and
coverage and control costs associated with radio infrastructure. 14 Before purchasing additional radio
components or upgrading current equipment, agencies should explore sharing equipment to prevent
unnecessary duplication and costs.
4.2.6 Lack of a Dedicated Law Enforcement Network
Issue - When centers lack a dedicated frequency for law enforcement dispatch, LEOs must share
unencrypted radio frequencies with other operations. This can negatively affect an officer’s ability to
send or receive vital information about a situation. In California, half of the 36 operational centers
reported having a dedicated radio frequency for law enforcement dispatch. In some cases, dedicated
frequencies are available for general law enforcement use but are not exclusive to dispatch.
The FS is in the process of implementing a statewide communication network for FS law enforcement
in California. This is not an issue in the Southwest, where the FLECC primarily performs law
enforcement dispatch. This center uses SatRad technology to mitigate having fire and law enforcement
on the same frequencies.
Recommendation - The California sub-team recommends that California fully implement a Law
Enforcement Net with P25 compliance, encryption, and operational procedures. In the short-term,
agencies should use interagency agreements to maximize the use of dedicated law enforcement
frequencies.
4.2.7 Data Standards
Issue - The various CAD systems in use capture different data. Centers in the California and Southwest
areas use five or more different CAD systems. The data call results indicate that 62 percent of the
centers use WildCAD, followed by Altaris (44%), IQ CAD 911, Motorola, and “Other”. The centers and
their CAD systems record law enforcement workload differently. Some systems capture the number of
calls received while others do not. 15
14
Results of a radio study in Central Oregon had mixed results in terms of the realized potential savings for co-located
FS and DOI repeater sites. Agencies should reference this study for additional information and recommended
technical solution sets.
15
NPS centers will only have two choices for law enforcement dispatch. Motorola Premier and CIS are the only
authorized systems. Law Enforcement data may not be combined into a record management system with wildland
fire unless all personnel having access to data are security cleared by a National Agency Check with Inquiries or Special
Background Investigation.
IDOPP Report
- 43 -
January 31, 2013
Due to inconsistencies in the CAD systems and the way CAD systems record workload, it is difficult to
capture consistent workload counts or implement area- or national-level performance standards. This
issue will become more important when the agencies adopt a nationwide workload and staffing model.
Recommendation - Continue efforts currently underway to address inconsistencies among CAD
systems. The Integrated Reporting of Wildland-Fire Information (iRWIN) Initial Architecture project is
collecting information on CAD business needs which may be used to develop a proposal for a
nationwide CAD system. 16 The FS Fire I&T Enterprise Working Group for CAD and the iRWIN team are
working together to standardize reporting fields.
4.2.8 Check-In and Check-Out Procedures
Issue - Land management agencies need national interagency tracking standards and protocols to
improve accountability and better ensure the safety of field-going personnel. Few agency policies exist
regarding tracking of field going personnel. Most policies evolved after fatality incidents or other
emergency events and tend to target specific situations rather than address root issues, like the lack of
employee tracking. Dispatch or administrative protocols and field tracking procedures vary widely and
are inconsistent across land management agencies and organizations. The tables in IDOPP Appendix
Section 3.14 - Safety provide information on tracking procedures.
Recommendation - A separate national-level FS group is studying the issue of tracking field-going
personnel and is piloting a new system in FS Region 10. The bridge team should share with this group
information related to current check-in and check-out practices in California and the Southwest
submitted through the IDOPP center manager and LEO data calls.
16
DOI has instituted IMARS, a nationwide records management system for all law enforcement, emergency medical
service, search and rescue, and structural fire incidents to be fully deployed by January 2013. DOI has two computer
aided dispatch systems currently on national contract through Tribalco: Motorola and CIS. All new CAD systems must
comply with DOI IMARS requirements. Two legacy computer aided dispatch systems will also have the
IMARS/computer aided dispatch two-way interface.
IDOPP Report
- 44 -
January 31, 2013
5 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The following section describes the major analyses performed for IDOPP, including an assessment of center
complexity, analysis of staffing needs, and costing analysis.
5.1
COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS
Background - The complexity of operational dispatch centers varies with factors specific to each
geographic area. The first step in analyzing the operational centers was to identify the factors that best
captured the complexity levels experienced at each center.
Use by IDOPP - Building on the complexity concept developed in the 2008 MEA, the sub-teams revisited
the MEA data and explored other potential factors for which data were available. 17 The teams agreed
that data from systems of record is preferable, as some of the data call results are suspect.
The teams decided the following three factors are core complexity factors that apply to all geographic
areas:
• Fires A-C & D+ (five-year average) – number of fires by size, collected from the FAM Website
• Resources Dispatched Out (five-year average) – resources dispatched by the center, collected from
the ROSS
• Incoming Resources (five-year average) – resources received by the center, collected from ROSS
The California sub-team also included two area-specific factors that measure non-fire dispatching, since
these functions are significant workload drivers:
• Law Enforcement Incidents (five-year average) – number of law enforcement incidents reported by
center managers on the data call
• Non-Fire and Non-Law Enforcement Incidents (five-year average) – number of non-fire and non- law
enforcement incidents reported by center managers on the data call (hazardous materials, search
and rescue, traffic collisions, medical aid, FEMA, unplanned events, planned events, resource,
recreation, public assistant, off-highway vehicles, and aircraft)
The Southwest sub-team considered the law enforcement factor unnecessary since the FLECC and local
county dispatch centers provide the bulk of such dispatch support. They also considered the non-fire and
non-law enforcement factors unnecessary because these incidents are not primary workload drivers for
Southwest wildland fire dispatch. The Southwest sub-team added one complexity factor, the five-year
average number of prescribed fires, due to the heavy involvement in prescribed burns by Southwest
dispatch personnel. This sub-team also discussed adding a factor to capture the workload for check-in
and check-out, but did not include this factor due to the ongoing national study of check-in and check-out
procedures. Pending findings of this group, the Southwest may later add check-in and check-out as a
complexity factor, to account for the total number of non-fire personnel supported by each dispatch
center.
After the teams selected the complexity factors, they converted the factors into a single complexity value
for each center by calculating the average normalized score. This method is beneficial because it
incorporates the actual volumes of workload whereas the MEA method equally weighted a center with a
complexity value of 4,001 and a center with a value of 18,000. Average normalized score methodology
17
See Management Efficiency Assessment Section 5.2.41 and Table 86.
IDOPP Report
- 45 -
January 31, 2013
takes into account the relative value of these workload figures, so that the center with 18,000 has a
higher average normalized score than the center with 4,001.
Complexity score calculations for the three core factors used the combined California and Southwest
averages. Complexity score calculations for the area-specific factors used the area-specific average.
The teams developed the average normalized score for each center as follows:
• For each center, the teams divided the center’s workload quantity for each complexity factor by the
average for all centers to develop the center’s "normalized score" for each complexity factor.
• The team averaged the normalized scores for each of the factors to calculate the average normalized
score for each center. The approach assumed that each complexity factor is equally weighted.
Based on this method, an average normalized score of 1.0 is exactly average, with scores less than 1.0
being below average and scores greater than 1.0 being above average. For IDOPP classification purposes,
a low complexity center has an average normalized score of less than 0.75, with a moderate complexity
center having a score of 0.75 up to but not including 1.25, and a high complexity center having a score
greater than or equal to 1.25.
IDOPP Appendix Table 5.1-3 provides a detailed example of the complexity score calculations.
Findings - Figure 5.1-1 - Number of Operational Centers by Complexity Level - California (As-Is) shows
current center complexity classifications for the California area.
Number of Operational Centers by Complexity Level California (As-Is)
16
1
Number of Centers
14
6
12
10
2
8
6
5
4
2
Tribal
State
6
9
1
4
3
High
Moderate
Federal
Federal/State
0
Low
Complexity Level
Figure 5.1-1 - Number of Operational Centers by Complexity Level - California (As-Is)
IDOPP Report
- 46 -
January 31, 2013
Figure 5.1-2 - Number of Operational Centers by Complexity Level - Southwest (As-Is) shows current
center classifications for the Southwest. 18 The Southwest sub-team did not calculate complexity scores
for the Grand Canyon National Park or the FLECC. The complexity factors are not appropriate for either
of these centers, since neither provides wildland fire support.
Number of Centers
Number of Operational Centers by Complexity Level Southwest (As-Is)
16
11
6
1
-4
1
1
High
New Mexico
1
5
Moderate
Complexity Level
3
1
Low
Arizona
Figure 5.1-2 - Number of Operational Centers by Complexity Level - Southwest (As-Is)
The sub-teams took into account complexity scores for the current centers when developing the
organizational alternatives, attempting to consolidate low complexity centers with other centers, where
appropriate. As the teams developed the alternatives, they calculated a complexity score for each
consolidated center. Chapter 6, Organizational Alternatives, shows the results.
5.2
STAFFING ANALYSIS
During IDOPP, the teams assessed two workload and staffing tools, FireOrg and APCO RETAINS, to
determine whether to recommend a staffing application for national adoption. The teams found that
no workload and staffing tool considers all variables necessary to properly staffing a dispatch center.
5.2.1 FireOrg
Background - A workgroup formed by the National Coordinators (superiors of the Area GACCs)
developed FireOrg during 2001 to 2002. This group included SMEs from the dispatch and coordination
center manager business group and a contractor, Bighorn Systems. In November of 2004, the National
Coordinators requested: 1) continued implementation of FireOrg and 2) adoption of FireOrg as the
national standard dispatch workload analysis program. The National Wildland Fire Directors supported
FireOrg in concept only, making it available for voluntary use but without national support.
FireOrg calculates staffing for Tier 3 centers based on workload for the primary dispatch functions or
core workload criteria, including incident activity, resource activity, resource availability, and
administrative duties. FireOrg weights these workload factors to account for the many tasks
associated with each primary function. IDOPP Appendix Table 5.2.1-3 provides the FireOrg factors and
the data source for each factor. FireOrg weights factors by normalizing the user-entered factors based
on established ranges, then multiplying the normalized factor by the weight. Finally, FireOrg totals all
of these weighted factors for the unit or dispatch center and applies multipliers to derive the FTE.
18
This graph only shows the Tier 3 centers included in the data call. The data call and this graph omitted the five Tier
4 centers in the Southwest (three tribal centers and two NPS centers),
IDOPP Report
- 47 -
January 31, 2013
When developing FireOrg, the workgroup calibrated this process using real data from sample small,
medium, and large centers.
FireOrg calculates the number of dispatchers needed for initial response, or baseline staffing yearround (IR FTE); the number of dispatchers needed to staff dispatch, to include peak (Total FTE); and the
average annual percentage of total workload per unit supported by the dispatch center.
The IDOPP team only conducted a limited evaluation of Fire Org because they did not have access to
documentation on how FireOrg weights each factor and calculates the staffing.
Use by IDOPP - The teams tested FireOrg using agency data for each dispatch center from the center
manager data call and from systems of record including ROSS and the FAM website. The teams
entered the data into FireOrg for 49 of the 51 operational dispatch centers. They did not use FireOrg
for the FLECC, since it only supports law enforcement dispatch, or for Golden Gate National Recreation
Area since this center did not complete the workload section of the data call. The teams did not enter
FireOrg data for the three Tier 2 centers because the workgroup designed FireOrg for use by Tier 3
centers. The teams then produced FireOrg reports showing the results for each center and prepared a
spreadsheet showing the as-is staffing as reported by the center managers, the calculated FireOrg IR
FTE, and the calculated FireOrg Total FTE. IDOPP Appendix Tables 5.2.1-4 and 5.2.1-5 show these
comparisons.
The Southwest sub-team found that the IR FTE represents the workload of the baseline staff, and the
Total FTE, which encompasses all of the workload, represents the number of positions a center may
need to staff up to during the peak fire season. Further review by a sampling of center managers in the
Southwest affirmed these findings. The consensus among the Bridge Team was to follow this
approach, comparing the as-is staffing to the FireOrg IR FTE.
The California sub-team reviewed FireOrg but considered it an inaccurate workload analysis and
staffing tool for California centers. Only 40 percent of California centers fell within plus or minus three
FTE of their current staffing levels. The sub-team also noted that FireOrg underestimates the staffing
needed for 24/7 centers since it staffs purely based on workload without incorporating coverage
requirements. For the 24/7 federal centers (Angeles ECC, Federal Interagency Communications Center,
federal part of Monte Vista Interagency ECC, Yosemite ECC, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park),
FireOrg IR FTE calculated at less than the as-is FTE for each center. Percentages ranged from 84
percent below as-is to 13 percent below as-is. This supports the sub-team’s conclusion that FireOrg
does not account for 24/7 requirements.
The Southwest sub-team decided that FireOrg-calculated staffing was reasonable for most centers. In
the Southwest, 84 percent of the centers’ FireOrg outputs were within plus or minus three FTE of their
as-is staffing. The sub-team recommends workload validation prior to consolidation for a few centers
(for example, Show Low Interagency Dispatch Center).
IDOPP Report
- 48 -
January 31, 2013
The Southwest sub-team used FireOrg to calculate staffing for their proposed consolidation alternatives
and the results appear in Chapter 6 (Organizational Alternatives). Figure 5.2.1-1 - Excerpt of FireOrg
Report for Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center Consolidated with Williams Interagency Dispatch
Center is an excerpt of a FireOrg report summarizing the Total and IR FTE by agency for consolidation of
the Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center and Williams Interagency Dispatch Center under Southwest
Alternative 2A Phase 1.
Figure 5.2.1-1 - Excerpt of FireOrg Report for Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center Consolidated with
Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
Table 5.2.1-2 - Sample Revised FTE Breakout by Agency based on FireOrg Results is a revised version of
the FireOrg-calculated FTE allocation that only includes the agencies that “significantly” contribute to
the workload (approximately 8% or more). The team rolled up workload from the other agencies with
the workload of the agency providing the majority of the funding at the center. In this example, the
team added BLM, FWS, Local, Other, and State/Territory workloads to the FS workload. The table also
shows the sub-team’s translation of these FTE calculations into a baseline number of positions for the
dispatch center.
Table 5.2.1-2 - Sample Revised FTE Breakout by Agency based on FireOrg Results
Agency
BIA Navajo Region
BIA Western Region
FS
NPS
TOTAL
Total FTE
Needed
3.47
2.25
11.54
1.81
IR FTE
1.82
1.18
6.06
0.95
19.08
10.01
Number of
Positions
2
1
6
1
10
Although the Southwest sub-team agreed that the alternative FireOrg reports resulted in FTE levels
appropriate for the consolidated centers, the team still believes the program needs some adjustments
before full implementation.
In addition to using FireOrg for staffing calculations, the Southwest sub-team used FireOrg to calculate
cost sharing. Section 5.4 (Determination of Cost Sharing) describes the cost sharing methodology and
Chapter 6 (Organizational Alternatives) includes proposed cost sharing for each alternative.
IDOPP Report
- 49 -
January 31, 2013
Findings - For non-24/7, fire dispatch centers, FireOrg is an acceptable method for calculating baseline
staffing as was done for the Southwest. However, users of FireOrg should be aware of the following
issues:
• FireOrg does not take into account 24/7 operations. An accurate methodology for determining
staffing needs should consider 1) the workload of the center; 2) average task times (durations); 3)
the total number of hours needed for coverage (for example, 365/24/7); and 4) any requirement to
have more than one person per shift For example, safety standards require a minimum of two
people per shift. FireOrg meets the first two criteria.
• The calculated IR FTE more closely represents FTEs needed to complete baseline workload and the
calculated Total FTE, which encompasses all of the workload, more closely represents the number
of positions a center may need during the peak fire season.
• Some of the non-fire workload may be highly weighted. In California, the large amount of non-fire
workload appears to skew FireOrg results.)
• Three workload factors (predictive services hours, days to prepare plans, and days for database
administration) do not appear to be included in the FTE calculations.
• ROSS categories entered in FireOrg include Aircraft, Crew, Overhead/ Smokejumpers,
Dozers/Tractor Plows, and Engines/Water Tenders. FireOrg does not include the ROSS categories
for supplies or equipment such as medical, trailers, and transportation. It is unclear why FireOrg
omits some categories.
• FireOrg does account for workload seasonality. A member of the FireOrg workgroup stated that
the program calculates FTE staffing for 75 percent of the workload, but none the documentation
for FireOrg validates this statement.
• FireOrg developers will need to add appropriate workload factors or expand current factors if the
agencies decide to use FireOrg for Tier 2 staffing calculations. For example, FireOrg captures
predictive services workload under only one entry (Intel/Predictive Services), for which users enter
the average annual number of person hours per day required to perform predictive services. This
major workload for the Tier 2 centers is minimal to nonexistent at the operational centers.
• Based on a review of the FireOrg User Guide, the teams believe calculations incorporate a relief
factor, so the teams did not adjust FTE for IDOPP.
• The workgroup created FireOrg before agencies implemented ROSS so FireOrg weighting factors do
not take into account all automated processes. The teams recommend that the agencies update
FireOrg, to include reviewing and updating weights to capture current requirements more
accurately.
The teams could not evaluate the program further without access to documentation on how FireOrg
weights each factor and calculates the staffing.
5.2.2 APCO RETAINS
Background - Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) RETAINS is an online
staffing application available by subscription through APCO. The APCO RETAINS Toolkit includes
formulas that communications center managers can use to estimate their staffing needs and compare
them with current staffing levels. RETAINS calculates staffing based on the available hours employees
can work, turnover rates, hours requiring coverage, and call volume. Land management agencies have
not used RETAINS for dispatch since it is an application designed to support 911 and other public safety
answering point dispatch centers.
IDOPP Report
- 50 -
January 31, 2013
APCO RETAINS calculates two types of staffing, “coverage” positions and “volume-influenced”
positions. Coverage positions by definition handle a particular task or “cover” a workstation for a
specified length of time. RETAINS calculates volume-influenced positions based on numbers and
durations of call processing activity. Users can also enter “function” positions, such as Manager, where
the number of positions does not depend on the activity level or work station coverage over time.
Users calculate employee availability, or net available work hours, through entry of total hours, holiday
and vacation leave hours, sick leave hours, personal leave hours, training leave hours, military and
family leave hours, meal and break hours, and other hours.
Use by IDOPP - Since the IDOPP data call did not collect the data necessary to test APCO RETAINS, a
few dispatch centers in each area tested the application. Testing exclusively used volume-influenced
calculations. The California sub-team selected five centers to test the application, with one center
(Camino Interagency ECC) submitting results. The Southwest sub-team selected the FLECC to test
RETAINS since FireOrg is not suitable for this law enforcement dispatch center. The center managers
served as the RETAINS user at both centers.
IDOPP Appendix Exhibit 5.2-2 and associated tables display the results of the RETAINS testing.
Findings - Key findings on APCO RETAINS include:
• The volume-influenced staffing calculations RETAINS uses rely on call quantities and average
processing time, data not collected by the dispatch centers. For the land management agencies,
RETAINS offers only a simple calculator that converts coverage requirements from hours to FTE
based on employee availability. Agencies could obtain similar results more cost effectively and
easily with an Excel spreadsheet like Appendix Table 5.2.2-4 which replicates the pertinent RETAINS
calculations.
• RETAINS data inputs include items not used in the staffing calculations, such as square miles
covered, service population, number of sworn and civilian employees, and types of calls processed.
This may mislead users into thinking that these entries influence staffing levels.
• RETAINS allows for the comparison of scenarios only if the user creates multiple entries for the
position(s), and will only save one scenario. For example, if a user wanted to calculate having a
Shift Supervisor 24/7/365 versus have a Shift Supervisor 24/7 on the weekends and 16 hours per
day on weekdays, the user would have to calculate these scenarios separately, saving over one
scenario to develop the next.
• The specified employee availability hours have a major impact on staffing calculations. If the FS
and DOI consider adopting a staffing application such as RETAINS, they should set up guidelines to
either implement a standard method for employee availability or use a government-wide standard,
such as the OMB-specified 1,776 productive hours per year. The two sample RETAINS reports for
IDOPP used 1,530 and 1,840 hours. Other federal dispatch reports related to staffing have used
numbers ranging from 1,500 to 1,700.
• The RETAINS report shows the employee availability breakout but does not show how the user
calculated hours needing coverage, the primary driver of the staffing calculations. For instance,
readers of the FLECC report may assume that it is appropriate to staff the center at 37.99 FTE
Mission Support Technicians if they do not realize that this assumes six Mission Support
Technicians and 24/7 coverage. Knowing the inputs, users may question whether the workload
supports the calculated staffing levels.
IDOPP Report
- 51 -
January 31, 2013
5.2.3 Other Staffing Models Reviewed by IDOPP
The teams found other staffing applications through benchmarking resources such as the
www.911dispatch.com website. Many applications (including cc-Modeler Lite, freeware from
www.KoolToolz.com, which the teams tested), use the call center industry-standard Erlang C traffic
model. This application models call centers, help desks, checkout queues, and other scenarios where
customers wait in a queue for assistance. Input needed includes calls per hour, average call time, and
service levels, factors not tracked by land management dispatch. Other applications focus on shift
scheduling, as opposed to staffing calculations.
The NPS is developing the Staffing and Risk Reduction Tool (STARRT) to help guide decisions regarding
staffing in parks, including rangers and dispatchers. STARRT generates staffing numbers using a
scientific/mathematical metric related to miles of road patrolled, yearly visitation, call volume, 24/7
public safety answering point or not, number of patrol staff, etc. This tool was not available for IDOPP
review.
Other applications reviewed were not included in the IDOPP toolbox because they did not calculate
workload-based staffing needs.
5.3
COSTING ANALYSIS
5.3.1 As-Is Costs
Costing presented in this report only includes regular time personnel costs, estimated based on
reported staffing levels. Three components make up the “as-is” costs: personnel costs, lease costs, and
operating costs. The teams collected these costs via the center manager data call but because
reported lease and operating costs appeared inaccurate, the teams focused solely on personnel costs.
The teams calculated personnel costs based on the staffing lists provided by each center manager. The
following describes the cost attributes included in the calculations:
• County: Location of the dispatch center. The annual salary/wages for federal positions vary with
locality-based pay rates.
• Type of Agency: The costing used the specific pay scales for each agency type (federal, state, local,
tribal, or contract).
• Appointment Type: Appointment type (full-time, part-time, temporary seasonal, permanent
seasonal, temporary, limited-term, Student Temporary Employment Program) impacts the fringe
benefits calculations.
• Grade: The costing used the grade for the General Schedule (GS) positions, in conjunction with the
locality, to determine annual salary/wages for federal employees. For state employees, the costing
used the grade for state positions and state pay scales.
• Annual Salary/Wages: The teams obtained the annual salary/wages for federal positions from the
current certified GS locality-based pay rate tables. 19 To account for variations in steps, the teams
calculated all GS position salaries at Step 5. The pay rate tables used for IDOPP included Hawaii,
Los Angeles, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Rest of the United States. IDOPP
collected state government pay scales for California and Arizona. Neither Hawaii nor New Mexico
currently provides dispatch personnel.
19
http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/index.asp
IDOPP Report
- 52 -
January 31, 2013
•
•
•
•
•
Annual Fringe Benefits: Annual fringe benefits represent the cost to the government for employee
benefits. The teams calculated annual fringe benefits for federal employees by multiplying the
appropriate fringe benefit factor by the position’s annual salary/wages. For full-time and part-time
positions, the fringe benefit factor is 36.25 percent, which includes insurance and health (7.00%),
retirement (26.10%), Medicare (1.45%), and a miscellaneous (1.70%) for workmen’s compensation,
annual performance rating awards, and unemployment programs. 20 For temporary and
intermittent positions, only the Federal Insurance Contributions Act fringe benefit factor of 7.65
percent applies. 21 In the absence of information on state benefits, the teams applied the same
method to the state positions.
Annual Overtime Costs: The teams did not include overtime in the cost estimates since many of
the center managers did not provide overtime data for their centers.
Annual Other Pay Fringe: The teams did not include other pay fringe in the cost estimate.
Number of FTE: The number of FTE associated with each position, as reported by center managers.
Annual Total Personnel Costs: The annual total personnel cost used for each position is the sum of
annual salary/wages, exclusive of annual overtime costs, and annual other pay fringe. This cost
represents the base time cost to the government.
5.3.2 Costs for Alternatives
For each of the alternatives, the teams developed the total estimated annual baseline personnel costs
exclusive of overtime. The teams did not calculate lease or operating costs for the alternatives due to
lack of credible cost data. The teams recommend gathering accurate operating cost data during
implementation to better estimate cost savings.
To calculate personnel costs, the team first established the baseline staffing levels and grade structure.
The Southwest sub-team established the number of positions for consolidated centers using FireOrg.
The sub-team used as-is staffing, not FireOrg, for non-consolidating centers. The baseline staffing
includes only permanent full-time and part-time positions; it does not include permanent or temporary
seasonal positions. The team developed the grade structure for consolidated centers by applying the
standard module configuration used by the California area. This configuration specifies a baseline
staffing of seven positions as follows:
• 1 - GS-10/11 Center Manager;
• 2 - GS-8/9 Assistant Center Managers;
• 3 - GS-6/7 Initial Attack Dispatchers;
• 1 - GS-5/6/7 Entry Level Dispatcher.
The sub-team adjusted grades based on complexity.
The California sub-team did not develop staffing for their alternatives. Their baseline staffing for the
alternatives combined current staffing from each center involved in the consolidation, minus duplicate
center manager positions and, in some cases, duplicate assistant center manager positions. The
baseline staffing includes only permanent full-time and part-time positions.
20
OMB Transmittal Memoranda M-08-13, Update to Civilian Position Full Fringe Benefit Cost Factor, Federal Pay Raise
Assumptions, and Inflation Factors used in OMB Circular No. A-76, "Performance of Commercial Activities" (March 11,
2008)
21
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act factor includes 6.20% for Old Age and Survivors Benefits insurance and
1.45% for Medicare. The Old Age and Survivors Death Insurance benefit part (Social Security) has an annual maximum
earnings limitation of $110,100.
IDOPP Report
- 53 -
January 31, 2013
One-Time Costs - When an alternative included consolidation of dispatch centers, the teams assumed
some of the current staff at the closed center(s) will transfer to the consolidated location. Agencies will
incur permanent change of station (PCS)/transfer of station (TOS) costs for moving personnel between
centers greater than 50 miles apart. The IDOPP teams estimated PCS/TOS costs by assuming 75% of
the permanent positions will transfer, not including the center manager, vacancies, or seasonal
positions.
The Southwest sub-team estimated $65,000 PCS/TOS per transferring position based on amounts
Arizona BLM historically used in budget development. The California sub-team used an estimate of
$92,000 per transferring position, the average FS PCS/TOS cost for California based on an ASC-provided
three-year average.
The Southwest sub-team included known implementation costs in their cost estimates because some
implementation is underway in the Southwest. These costs include microwave equipment, T1 circuits,
consoles, telephones, and computers.
Construction Costs - The teams collected data on construction costs for dispatch centers. Based on the
most relevant estimates from the collected data, the teams developed an average cost estimate of
$380 per square foot for construction of a new dispatch center facility. Agencies could apply this cost
per square foot to the estimated size of any proposed new facilities. IDOPP Appendix Table 5.3.2-1
shows the construction cost data used to develop this estimate.
5.4
ALLOCATION OF COST SHARING
In addition to staffing calculations, FireOrg reports workload percentage by agency. These percentages
provide a starting point for interagency partners to discuss allocating each center’s cost obligations
among the benefiting agencies.
The Southwest sub-team used the percentage of workload breakout by agency to estimate cost sharing
for the agency partners. The following cost allocation example uses the Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch
Center in Southwest Alternative 2A Phase 1, where the Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
consolidates with the Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center. Table 5.4-1 - Sample Revised FTE and
Workload Breakout by Agency based on FireOrg Results shows the revised FireOrg breakout by agency of
both Total and IR FTE and percent of workload/share of operating costs.
Table 5.4-1 - Sample Revised FTE and Workload Breakout by Agency based on FireOrg Results
Agency
BIA Navajo Region
BIA Western Region
FS
NPS
TOTAL
Total FTE
Needed
3.47
2.25
11.54
1.81
IR FTE
1.82
1.18
6.06
0.95
Number of
Positions
2
1
6
1
Percent of Workload/Share
of Operating Costs
18%
12%
61%
10%
19.08
10.01
10
100%
Figure 3.10-1 - Summary of Dispatch Personnel by Agency shows the consolidated centers staffing by
agency. As an example, FS costs for the Flagstaff Interagency Dispatch Center include its 61 percent
share of operating costs and the personnel costs associated with its six positions. During
implementation, the Southwest will decide which agency partner will provide each position.
IDOPP Report
- 54 -
January 31, 2013
6 ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES
The IDOPP teams formulated organizational alternatives by evaluating workload, complexity, organizational
alignment, staffing, boundaries (geographic, political, and fuel types), interagency partnerships, and input
from agency leadership, employees and customers. The teams evaluated these alternatives based on cost
comparisons, data collection and feedback from subject matter experts.
The dispatch and coordination systems in the California and Southwest areas are complex and reasonably
efficient. However, with rapidly changing technologies and declining budgets it is prudent to take a fresh
look, and potentially “retool” and update the systems. The dispatch and coordination system requires
appropriate staffing, infrastructure, and equipment to be reliable, adaptable, and sustainable in achieving
stakeholders’ missions. All agencies are concerned with cost and safety. Developing a long-term strategy
toward improving efficiency and effectiveness in the dispatch and coordination system requires a
thoughtful and resilient approach.
The teams designed alternatives to 1) improve operational efficiency, 2) maintain or improve safety and
levels of service, 3) meet all applicable laws and regulations, and 4) produce long-term cost savings. The
teams recommended the alternatives that best meet these goals. Regardless of the number of centers
remaining after implementation of the alternatives, government oversight will continue, to ensure
continuity of coordination with state, local, and other partners.
As shown in Figure 6.0-1 - Relationship of Optimized Dispatch to Earlier Chapters, the organizational
alternatives discussed in Chapter 6 address issues described in Chapter 4 to improve the current operations
described in Chapter 3.
Figure 6.0-1 - Relationship of Optimized Dispatch to Earlier Chapters
IDOPP Report
- 55 -
January 31, 2013
Management will have to address human resources, civil rights, and labor and union issues for the centers
selected for optimization. The teams calculated the estimated costs of the alternatives using the methods
described in Chapter 5.
6.1
GENERAL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CONSOLIDATION
The teams identified the following general advantages and disadvantages, which apply to all alternatives
unless otherwise noted.
Advantages
Increased Efficiency
• Standardization: Having fewer dispatch centers will facilitate standardization of business processes,
increase consistency in operations, improve safety, stabilize service offerings, and generally improve
other operational aspects of the dispatch function. Standardized training across all centers positively
affects service levels, safety, and consistency. 22
• Cooperation: Increasing the number of interagency dispatch centers through consolidations
facilitates improved communication, information sharing, resource sharing, and fire suppression
coordination across all lands, irrespective of ownership.
• Response Efficiencies: Consolidated centers may be better equipped to deal with large-scale
incidents and provide greater efficiency in emergency response. In addition to having a larger pool of
employees, a consolidated center reduces duplication of requests, minimizes boundary and
jurisdictional issues and lessens the need for coordination and information sharing among centers.
• Staffing Efficiencies: While consolidation does not reduce a centers’ workload (number of incidents),
it allows for more efficient staffing to meet the combined workload. For example, outside of peak
fire season two small independent centers may each need two positions to cover shifts with minimal
workloads. A consolidated center may still need coverage for just two positions, which will reduce
total staffing needs.
• Staffing Flexibility: Consolidation adds critical depth to dispatch staffing and increases staffing
flexibility. Consolidated centers have a larger pool of employees for staffing of night, weekend, and
holiday shifts, as well to cover absences for leave and training.
• Reduced Need for Expanded Dispatch: The unpredictable nature of wildland fire and all-hazard
incidents dictates the need for expanded dispatch operations. Expanded dispatch operations at local
dispatch centers primarily use AD staff called in for short-term assignments at hourly rates. A larger
pool of employees within a consolidated center may reduce the need for short-term help.
• Reduced Need for Expanded Dispatch Equipment: Centers maintain or lease computers dedicated to
expanded dispatch operations. Consolidation of the expanded dispatch function to fewer locations
may reduce the number of computers needed.
Cost Savings
• Resource Reduction: Consolidation of dispatch centers may require fewer overall resources such as
personnel, phone lines, radio systems, consoles, CAD systems, and computers.
• Operational Cost Savings: Consolidation of centers should result in overall facility lease/purchase,
operational and maintenance cost savings because running one larger facility generally does not cost
as much as running two smaller facilities.
22
The Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) Working Group 1A, Key Findings and
Effective Practices for Public Safety Consolidation Final Report, October 2010.
IDOPP Report
- 56 -
January 31, 2013
•
•
Cost Sharing: At consolidated centers, more than one agency bears the cost of renovations and
upgrades.
Greater Purchasing Power: Consolidation may allow for economies of scale with equipment,
supplies, and contracts. In addition, overall time spent executing and administering purchase orders
and contracts may decrease.
Other
• Reduction in Facilities: Consolidation into fewer facilities supports the Executive Order calling for
reduction in the number of federal government facilities. 23
• Environmental Footprint: Facility consolidation results in greater sustainability in operations
including measurable reductions to energy and water use, as well as decreases in air emissions and
solid waste generation. 24
• Facility and Infrastructure Upgrades: Consolidation presents opportunities for upgrades to facilities
and infrastructure.
• Reduction in Collateral Duties: Consolidated dispatch centers may result in fewer collateral duties.
Disadvantages
Short-term Reduced Efficiency
• Newly consolidated centers may suffer some initial efficiency reductions as the employees gain local
knowledge, get to know each other and learn to work together efficiently.
o Potential Loss of Personal Relationships: Consolidated centers may experience some initial loss
of the personal relationships between the dispatchers and the field units for which they dispatch.
A small center combining with a nearby small center will result in less such loss than a small
center becoming part of a “super center.”
o Loss of Local Knowledge: Consolidation may result in an initial loss of local knowledge of areas
over which the center dispatches resources. As with the item above, the extent of the loss will
vary with the nature of the consolidation.
Costs
• Transition and Implementation Costs: Agencies will incur transition and implementation costs to
consolidate facilities that will ultimately generate long-term savings. It may be several years before
agencies realize cost savings.
O Depending on the size of the consolidated center, existing facilities may not provide sufficient
space and agencies may have to lease or construct new facilities.
O Depending on the locations of consolidated centers, agencies may need to build out the radio
system.
• Impact on other Lease Holders: When centers consolidate at a different location, the cost of an
existing lease may shift to non-dispatch agency leaseholders that remain in a currently leased space.
Other
• Perceived Loss of Control: Consolidation may create issues with perceived loss of control and service
for the local units.
• Staffing Impact:
o Consolidation may displace employees or require them to relocate.
23
24
See EO 13423 Presidential Memorandum “Disposing of Unneeded Federal Real Estate” (June 2010).
See “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management” (24 January 2007)
IDOPP Report
- 57 -
January 31, 2013
Consolidation may generate disruption and other negative effects on employees.
Moving centers from their current locations may cause a loss in experienced staffing, if current
personnel are not willing to move. This could have a short-term negative impact on dispatch
operations.
Reassignment of Collateral Duties: Local units may need to reassign collateral duties that the
dispatch center now performs.
Increased Database Management: Consolidation will require an initial increase in database
management for items such as CAD and run cards.
O
o
•
•
6.2
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 6.2-1 - Summary of IDOPP Alternatives summarizes the alternatives for both the California and
Southwest areas, discussed in detail in IDOPP Appendix 6.3a and 6.5a, and generally in the sections that
follow the table.
Table 6.2-1 - Summary of IDOPP Alternatives
Alternative Title
Brief Description of Alternative
6.3 ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CALIFORNIA
CONSOLIDATION OF GACCs IN CALIFORNIA
No Action Alternative - Maintain Current Maintain the status quo, with the North Ops GACC, South Ops GACC,
GACC Locations
and the CAL FIRE Headquarters remaining in their current locations
(Redding, Riverside, and Sacramento respectively).
Alternative 1 - Consolidate Two GACCs
Consolidate the North Ops GACC and South Ops GACC into one GACC
into One GACC
serving all of California. CAL FIRE Headquarters will stay in
Sacramento.
CONSOLIDATION OF OPERATIONAL CENTERS IN CALIFORNIA
Alternative 1 - Maintain Current Number Leave each operational center in its current location (no
and Locations of Operational Centers
consolidation). Standardize training, procedures, equipment, and
systems to increase the efficiency of the dispatch operations.
Alternative 2 - Primarily Consolidate Low Primarily consolidate low complexity operational centers. This
Complexity Operational Centers
alternative includes 11 separate options.
Alternative 3 - Create Super Centers
Develop seven “super centers,” each providing dispatch for a
geographic section of California: North West, North East, North
Central, Central, South Central, Inland Empire, and South Coast.
ALTERNATIVES FOR CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT DISPATCH
Alternative 1 - Include Law Enforcement
Have all 23 federal operational centers provide NCIC authorized or
in the Scope of Federal Dispatch Services state authorized law enforcement dispatch services in the California
area.
Alternative 2 - Obtain Law Enforcement
Stop providing law enforcement dispatch at federal operational
Dispatch Services through Partnerships
centers. Instead, partner federal agencies with other law enforcement
communication centers to provide law enforcement dispatch. Three
options include:
1) NPS
2) California Department of Fish and Game and California
Department of Parks and Recreation
3) Sheriffs’ offices
Alternative 3 - Establish One or Multiple
Establish one or more centralized federal law enforcement dispatch
Federal Law Enforcement Dispatch
centers, separating law enforcement dispatch from fire and aviation
Centers
dispatch.
6.5 ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SOUTHWEST
IDOPP Report
- 58 -
January 31, 2013
Alternative Title
Brief Description of Alternative
CONSOLIDATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNICATION IN THE SOUTHWEST
No Action Alternative - Continue Law
Continue with the current law enforcement dispatch operations that
Enforcement Communication As-Is
existed as of the start of IDOPP. In this case, the FLECC does not
provide support to all federal law enforcement officers in the
Southwest. This is not a viable alternative as FLECC has already begun
providing support to more law enforcement personnel in the
Southwest.
Alternative 1 - Consolidate the Majority
Consolidate Southwest law enforcement dispatch at the Phoenix
of the Law Enforcement Communication
FLECC. The alternative includes four options for relocating the center.
in the Southwest into One Center in
Phoenix
Alternative 2 - Operate Two Centers in
Keep the FLECC in Phoenix to support law enforcement personnel in
the Southwest to Provide Law
Arizona and open another law enforcement communication center in
Enforcement Communication – One in
New Mexico to support law enforcement personnel in New Mexico.
Arizona and One in New Mexico
CONSOLIDATION OF WILDLAND FIRE DISPATCH CENTERS IN THE SOUTHWEST
Alternative 1 - Maintain Current Number Leave each center in its current location (no consolidation).
and Location of Wildland Fire Dispatch
Standardize training, procedures, equipment, and systems to help
Centers
increase the efficiency of dispatch operations.
Alternative 2A - Implement a ThreeConsolidate wildland fire dispatch centers using a three-phased
Phased Approach for Consolidation of
approach. Alternative 2A consolidates the 12 Tier 3 centers into:
Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers
• 9 centers during Phase 1 (5 in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico);
• 7 centers during the Phase 2 (4 in Arizona and 3 in New Mexico);
• 4 centers during the Phase 3 (2 in Arizona and 2 in New Mexico).
Alternative 2B - Implement a ThreeConsolidate wildland fire dispatch centers using a three-phased
Phased Approach for Consolidation of
approach. Alternative 2B consolidates the 12 Tier 3 centers into:
Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers
• 9 centers during Phase 1 (5 in Arizona and 4 in New Mexico);
• 7 centers during the Phase 2 (4 in Arizona and 3 in New Mexico);
• 4 centers during the Phase 3 (2 in Arizona and 2 in New Mexico).
CO-LOCATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WILDLAND FIRE DISPATCH CENTERS IN THE SOUTHWEST
No Action Alternative - Continue to
Continue with the current dispatch organization, with separate
Separate Law Enforcement
centers supporting law enforcement and wildland fire dispatch.
Communication and Wildland Fire
Dispatch
Alternative 1 - Co-locate Law
Co-locate law enforcement communication with wildland fire dispatch
Enforcement Communication and
services. This alternative includes three options for locations.
Wildland Fire Dispatch
SOUTHWEST GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF COVERAGE
Southwest Geographic Area of Coverage
Provides four alternatives for the Texas boundary:
• Leave the current boundaries and dispatch operations as-is;
• Clarify the role of the Southwest dispatch in Texas, west of the
100th meridian, to eliminate the current overlapping support
issues with the Texas Forest Service;
• Redefine the boundaries so that the Southwest provides dispatch
support to all federal lands in Texas;
• Redefine the boundaries so that the Southern area provides
dispatch support to all federal lands in Texas.
IDOPP Report
- 59 -
January 31, 2013
6.3
ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CALIFORNIA
The California sub-team developed several alternatives to improve delivery of dispatch services. The
alternatives include consolidation of GACCs, consolidation of operational centers, and options for
delivering law enforcement dispatch. The California Executive Oversight Group approved these
alternatives, and may later pursue additional consolidations.
The California sub-team used the data call results to analyze and validate the proposed alternatives.
Section 6.4 discusses the staffing and cost estimate. IDOPP Section 6.3 and 6.3a includes the complete
California sub-team report.
Any dispatch optimization alternatives must include further analysis of the interagency radio tower
infrastructure as communications and radio systems are vital to the operations of the dispatch system.
6.3.1 Consolidation of GACCs in California
The North Ops GACC, South Ops GACC, and CAL FIRE Headquarters support wildland fire suppression
within California. The GACCs have two primary functions: (1) coordination to establish priorities and
allocate resources and (2) dispatching, which implements, tracks, and document decisions. The GACCs
are involved in a wide variety of emergency management activities including, fires, law enforcement,
hazardous material spills, plane crashes, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and typhoons, and civil
disorders. A national fire cache at each GACC stocks a wide variety of supplies and equipment. The
sub-team found that CAL FIRE generally does not support consolidation into one GACC.
IDOPP Appendix Section 6.3a displays alternative-specific advantages and disadvantages.
No Action Alternative - Maintain Current GACC Locations
The no action alternative is the North Ops GACC, South Ops GACC, and the CAL FIRE Headquarters
remaining in their current locations at Redding, Riverside, and Sacramento respectively with GACC
functions remaining unchanged.
Alternative 1 - Consolidate Two GACCs into One GACC
Alternative 1 is to consolidate the North Ops GACC and South Ops GACC into one GACC serving all of
California. Depending on the selected location, the consolidated GACC may or may not include CAL
FIRE Headquarters.
The potential locations considered include Redding, Sacramento, and March Air Reserve Base in
Riverside. Selection of a single GACC location in California should consider a Natural Hazard Disclosure
Statement for six disaster zones: flood hazard zone, dam inundation area, very high fire hazard severity
zone, wildland fire area, earthquake fault zone, and seismic hazard zone.
IDOPP Report
- 60 -
January 31, 2013
6.3.2 Consolidation of Operational Centers in California
Many of the California area’s 37 operational centers have evolved into 24-hour, all-hazard
communication and coordination centers that support fire, law enforcement, resource management
and protection, and resource tracking for federal, state and local partners. Complexity analyses show
that California has 16 low complexity centers, 10 moderate complexity centers, and 11 high complexity
centers. IDOPP Appendix Table 3.9.1-9 lists units supported by each center.
Due to their county relationships, CAL FIRE is considering opportunities to optimize command centers
only within their current county and jurisdictional boundaries.
IDOPP Appendix Section 6.3a contains the alternative-specific advantages and disadvantages.
Alternative 1 - Maintain Current Numbers and Locations of Operational Centers
Alternative 1 leaves Operational Centers in current locations but improves operational efficiency. The
numbers and locations of centers will not change but the centers will standardize training, procedures,
equipment, and systems to increase dispatch operational efficiency by implementing the
recommendations outlined in Chapter 4.
Alternative 2 - Consolidate Low Complexity Operational Centers
Alternative 2 is to consolidate low complexity operational centers to create more efficient moderate or
high complexity centers and reduce the overall cost of operations. A prior California study shows that
technology allows for a reduction in the number of centers within the area. 25 Centers considered for
consolidation are relatively near to one another. The Alternative 2 options strive to use existing
facilities to minimize capital outlay, take advantage of current plans to upgrade infrastructure and
facilities, locate consolidated centers within two-hours’ driving time to minimize travel by
management, and maintain CAL FIRE cooperative fire protection agreements.
This alternative addresses 12 of the 16 low complexity centers. Of the remaining four low complexity
centers, three are CAL FIRE centers not in proximity to any federal centers and one is a federal center
that is already co-located with CAL FIRE. Table 6.3-1 - Summary of Primarily Low Complexity
Consolidations – California summarizes this alternative.
This alternative does not prevent managers of moderate and high complexity centers from looking for
opportunities to consolidate.
25
Emergency Communication Center (ECC) and Geographic Area Coordination Center (GACC) Study, 2006
IDOPP Report
- 61 -
January 31, 2013
Table 6.3-1 - Summary of Primarily Low Complexity Consolidations – California
Number of
As-Is FTE
16.0
16.0
23.0
Number of
Estimated FTE for
FTE
Alternative*
Reduction
15.0
1.0
14.0-15.0
1.0-2.0
19.0-21.0
2.0-4.0
Alternative 2 Options
Option 1: Modoc Interagency ECC/Susanville Interagency ECC
Option 2: Plumas ECC/Susanville Interagency ECC
Option 1 + 2: Modoc Interagency ECC/Plumas ECC/Susanville
Interagency ECC
Option 3: Hoopa Dispatch/Fortuna Interagency ECC
15.0
14.0
1.0
Option 4: Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity NRA/Redding Interagency ECC
16.0
15.0
1.0
Option 5: Mendocino Interagency ECC/Red Bluff ECC
15.0
15.0
0.0
Option 6: Stanislaus ECC/San Andreas ECC
13.0
13.0
0.0
Option 7: Yosemite ECC/Mariposa ECC
25.0
25.0
0.0
Option 8: Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC/Visalia ECC
14.0
13.0
1.0
Option 9: Owens Valley Interagency ECC/Federal Interagency
28.5
25.5-27.5
1.0-3.0
Communications Center
Option 10: Los Padres ECC/San Luis Obispo ECC
17.0
17.0
0.0
Total (if Option 1 selected)
159.5
152.5-154.5
5.0-7.0
Total (if Option 2 selected)
159.5
151.5-154.5
5.0-8.0
Total (if Option 1 + 2 selected)
166.5
156.5-160.5
6.0-10.0
*The California sub-team did not use a staffing model so the staffing shown for the consolidations is the total of each
center’s current staffing minus one Center Manager position when federal centers are combining and, in some cases,
minus Assistant Center Manager positions. Additional staffing efficiencies may be available.
Alternative 3 - Create Super Centers
Alternative 3 is a long-range plan for super centers within California for potential implementation as
technology advances. The sub-team divided the California workload into seven geographic areas, each
of which could house one super center. Super centers would provide full service dispatching support
for any agency within their geographic boundary that requests services and fiscally supports the center.
Super centers would most likely be federal-only, with minimal CAL FIRE participation. CAL FIRE will
decide whether to participate in the centers based on locations. CAL FIRE is co-located with the federal
agencies in five of the seven super center cities. Because of CAL FIRE county ties and their desire not to
consolidate dispatch outside of unit/ county boundaries, this alternative will rely heavily on federal
partnerships. Based on this assumption, this alternative only includes the workload and staffing from
federal centers and federal parts of interagency federal/state centers. Each super center consolidates
the entire workload for the specified centers except the Inland Empire Super Center, which
consolidates the Federal Interagency Communications Center workload except for the South Coast BLM
(El Centro and Palm Springs border activities). The South Coast Super Center would dispatch for the
South Coast BLM area.
Selection of locations should consider a Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement for six disaster zones:
flood hazard zone, dam inundation area, very high fire hazard severity zone, wildland fire area,
earthquake fault zone, and seismic hazard zone.
The California sub-team recommends against these consolidations, considering the workloads and
complexities across the state. However, if management decides to form separate law enforcement
dispatch centers for California, these super centers would be more feasible.
IDOPP Report
- 62 -
January 31, 2013
The centers considered for consolidation currently employ 185.5 FTE. Proposed staffing of the super
centers based on reduction in Center Manager and Assistant Center Manager positions is 160.5, a decrease
of 25.0 FTE. Each of the super centers rates as a high complexity center. Centers of this workload and
complexity already exist in California. For example, CAL FIRE’s Perris ECC with an average normalized score
of 3.75 and a staff of 41.
Table 6.3-2 - Summary of California Super Centers
Alternative 3 Super Centers
North West Super Center
• Fortuna Interagency ECC - Federal Only
• Hoopa Dispatch
• Mendocino Interagency ECC
• Redding Interagency ECC - Federal Only
• Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity National Recreation Area
• Yreka Interagency ECC - Federal Only
North East Super Center
• Grass Valley Interagency ECC - Federal Only
• Modoc Interagency ECC
• Plumas ECC
• Susanville Interagency ECC - Federal Only
North Central Super Center
• Camino Interagency ECC - Federal Only
• Golden Gate National Recreation Area
• Hawaii Volcanoes National Park
• Stanislaus ECC
Central Super Center
• Sierra Interagency ECC
• Yosemite ECC
South Central Super Center
• Central California ECC
• Los Padres ECC
• Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC
Inland Empire Super Center
• Federal Interagency Communications Center
• Owens Valley Interagency ECC
South Coast Super Center
• Angeles ECC
• Monte Vista Interagency ECC - Federal Only
• South Coast BLM (El Centro and Palm Springs) (from
Federal Interagency Communications Center)
Total
Number of
Estimated
Number of
FTE for
FTE
As-Is FTE Alternative Reduction
31.0
22.0
9.0
25.0
21.0
4.0
34.0
30.0
4.0
19.0
18.0
1.0
24.0
21.0
3.0
28.5
25.5
3.0
24.0
23.0
1.0
185.5
160.5
25.0
Further analysis of super center consolidations could result in better-balanced centers and more evenly
dispersed FTE. Further analysis may also determine greater potential cost savings.
IDOPP Report
- 63 -
January 31, 2013
6.3.3 Alternatives for California Law Enforcement Dispatch
The sub-team evaluated California’s federal operational centers’ delivery of law enforcement dispatch
and found that 21 out of 23 federal operational centers perform NCIC authorized or state authorized
law enforcement dispatch. The tables in IDOPP Appendix Section 3.9.3 show that numbers of law
enforcement incidents in California increased an average of 6 percent per year from 2006 through
2010, or 28 percent total. This upsurge increased dispatch workload and competition for radio
frequencies.
The California sub-team examined current and best practices relative to inclusion or separation of law
enforcement from fire and aviation dispatch services. IDOPP Appendix Section 6.3a lists alternativespecific advantages and disadvantages.
Alternative 1 - Include Law Enforcement in the Scope of Federal Dispatch Services
In Alternative 1, federal operational centers will provide 24/7 NCIC- or state-authorized law
enforcement dispatch services in the California area from a local or other designated dispatch center.
To provide 24/7 coverage, local centers may institute more shifts or the agencies may implement
technology allowing certain centers to provide after-hours service. If the California Executive Oversight
Group selects this alternative for implementation, the options require further analysis.
This alternative excludes CAL FIRE centers since they do not have CLETS in their centers but use
counties or federal partners for law enforcement dispatch.
Each agency will organize to meet its business needs. For example, NPS dispatch centers may continue
to separate fire dispatch services from all-hazard dispatch services, as they currently do in centers such
as Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC. Alternatively, NPS may opt to cross-train personnel in law
enforcement and all-hazard as at Yosemite ECC. FWS may acquire law enforcement dispatching
services through agreements with other agencies.
Alternative 2 - Obtain Law Enforcement Dispatch Services through Partnerships
In Alternative 2, agencies will secure law enforcement dispatch support as needed through
partnerships with other communication centers. Partners providing services could include NPS centers,
California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Parks and Recreation, or county
sheriff’s offices.
Alternative 2 Option 1 - Establish agreements with NPS dispatch centers that provide law enforcement
and all-hazard dispatch services, such as Yosemite ECC.
Alternative 2 Option 2 - Establish agreements with the California Department of Fish and Game and
California Department of Parks and Recreation. These agencies operate three statewide law
enforcement dispatch centers: Northern Communications Center in Rancho Cordova, CA; Central
Communications Center in Monterey, CA; and Southern Communications Center in Perris, CA.
Alternative 2 Option 3 - Establish agreements with local county sheriff’s offices. This option may be
unwieldy statewide since California has 58 counties.
IDOPP Report
- 64 -
January 31, 2013
Alternative 3 - Establish One or More Federal Law Enforcement Dispatch Centers -Alternative 3
establishes one or more centralized federal law enforcement dispatch centers to provide 24/7
coverage. The federal California dispatch centers within the scope of IDOPP have a five-year average of
91,500 law enforcement incidents per year. The three centers with the highest volumes are Golden
Gate National Recreation Area Dispatch Center (29,000), Yosemite ECC (21,000), and the Federal
Interagency Communications Center (12,500). If these three centers continue at their current volumes,
the remaining workload of 29,500 incidents equates to one additional fully functional law enforcement
dispatch center.
6.4
STAFFING AND COST ANALYSIS FOR THE CALIFORNIA ALTERNATIVES
6.4.1 Costing Assumptions
The team acknowledges that the costing is incomplete, and recommends additional data collection and
analysis to establish accurate cost and savings estimates prior to implementation decisions.
Cost analyses in the IDOPP Appendix Section 6.3a use an estimated construction cost of $380 per
square foot for new construction in California. This does not include the cost to furnish the center.
These costs will vary widely by location.
The team uses an estimated cost of $5 thousand per officer to establish approximate annual costs for
obtaining LEO dispatch support through other centers. The team determined that this is an acceptable
average for California based on current agreements with counties and other entities.
The team developed costs for staffing as described in Chapter 5, to include applicable changes in
locality pay and PCS/TOS costs.
6.4.2 California GACCs
No Action Alternative - Maintain Current GACC Locations - If California maintains the current GACC
locations, there will be no cost savings.
Alternative 1 - Consolidate Two GACCs into One GACC
Consolidation into one GACC will require the California area to lease or build a new facility with an
approximate square footage dependent on the center’s staffing. Based on responses from the 2008
MEA data call, the North Ops GACC is approximately 8,796 square feet, while the South Ops GACC is
approximately 5,690 square feet, for a total of 14,486 square feet. 26
The current GACC facilities are federal- or state-owned, with no lease costs. CAL FIRE and the FS have a
reciprocal agreement, with CAL FIRE owning the South Ops facilities and the FS owning the North Ops
facilities. If the consolidated GACC is federal only, some of the costs now borne by CAL FIRE may shift
to the federal agencies or vice versa.
This alternative proposes alternative locations for the combined GACC (Sacramento, March Air Reserve
Base in Riverside, and Redding), so staffing and PCS/TOS costs will differ depending on the selected
location.
26
The 2008 Management Efficiency Assessment reported an average of 386 square feet per position for the GACCs
nationwide.
IDOPP Report
- 65 -
January 31, 2013
6.4.3 California Operational Centers
Alternative 1 - Maintain Current Number and Locations of Operational Centers
If the California Executive Oversight Group decides to maintain the current number of operational
centers and work toward standardization and efficiencies, no short-term cost savings will result. Costs
may increase initially as the centers update and improve equipment and infrastructure but should
decline with long-term improved efficiency.
Alternative 2 - Consolidate Primarily Low Complexity Operational Centers
Projected staffing for the federal center consolidations in Alternative 2 equals the total of each center’s
current staffing minus one Center Manager position. When the consolidation includes a federal center
and state center, the consolidated staffing totals each centers current staffing to maintain both federal
and state Center Manager positions. Further analysis could realize additional position reductions.
Table 6.4-1 - Limited Costing of California Operational Centers Alternative 2 summarizes the estimated
FTE and cost savings (in thousands) for Alternative 2. IDOPP Appendix Section 6.3a includes tables for
estimated annual cost savings and startup costs for each proposed consolidation.
Table 6.4-1 - Limited Costing of California Operational Centers Alternative 2
Estimated Annual
Number
Personnel Savings Estimated
of
Number of
before PCS/TOS
One time
Current Estimated FTE Reduction
Costs
PCS/TOS Costs
Alternative 2 Options
FTE for Alternative in FTE
(in thousands) (in thousands)
Option 1: Modoc Interagency ECC/Susanville Interagency 16.0
15.0
1.0
$89
$414
16.0
14.0-15.0
1.0-2.0
$89 to 162
$276
Option 2: Plumas ECC/Susanville Interagency ECC
Option 1 + 2: Modoc Interagency ECC/Plumas
23.0
19.0-21.0
2.0-4.0
$177 to 324
$690
15.0
14.0
1.0
$106
$0
Option 3: Hoopa Dispatch/Fortuna Interagency ECC
Option 4: Whiskeytown-Shasta Trinity NRA/Redding
16.0
15.0
1.0
$54
$0
15.0
15.0
0.0
$0
$0
Option 5: Mendocino Interagency ECC/Red Bluff ECC
13.0
13.0
0.0
$0
$0
Option 6: Stanislaus ECC/San Andreas ECC
25.0
25.0
0.0
$0
$0
Option 7: Yosemite ECC/Mariposa ECC
Option 8: Sequoia Kings ECC/Ash Mountain ECC/Visalia
14.0
13.0
1.0
$60,
$0
ECC
Option 9: Owens Valley Interagency ECC/Federal
28.5
25.5-27.5
1.0-3.0
$42 to 205
$345 to 414
Interagency Communications Center
17.0
17.0
0.0
$0
$0
Option 10: Los Padres ECC/San Luis Obispo ECC
$351 to 514
$759 to 828
Total (if Option 1 selected)
159.5 152.5 to 154.5 5.0 to 7.0
$351
to
587
$621 to 690
Total (if Option 2 selected)
159.5 151.5 to 154.5 5.0 to 8.0
$1,035 to 1,104
Total (if Option 1 + 2 selected)
166.5 156.5 to 160.5 6.0 to 10.0 $439 to 749
Note: estimated annual savings includes savings from projected reduced staffing only. Limited costing of the as-is and
alternatives excludes lease and other operating costs.
IDOPP Report
- 66 -
January 31, 2013
In three options, position consolidations led to staffing the consolidated center with more than two
Assistant Center Manager positions. The team developed costs for reductions in these positions, which
results in between two and four fewer FTE and increased annual personnel savings of $163 to 310
thousand.
Six of the consolidated centers in Alternative 2 may require new leases or construction of new facilities,
as well as furnishings.
Alternative 3 - Create Super Centers
The team assumed each super center includes one Center Manager and four Assistant Center
Managers.
The teams developed staffing costs as outlined in Chapter 5. To cost the PCS/TOS, the team selected a
possible location for each super center. Selection factors included team discussions and consideration
of the geographic layout of the consolidated centers, so that the super center is located in a city central
to the consolidating centers.
Table 6.4-2 - Limited Costing of California Operational Centers Alternative 3 below summarizes the FTE
and cost savings for Alternative 3. IDOPP Appendix Section 6.3a displays estimated annual cost savings
and startup costs for each proposed super center.
Table 6.4-2 - Limited Costing of California Operational Centers Alternative 3
Estimated One
Number of
Number of
Estimated Annual Personnel
Time PCS/TOS
Current
Estimated FTE Reduction Savings before PCS/TOS Costs
Cost (in
Alternative 2 Options
FTE
for Alternative
in FTE
(in thousands)
thousands)
$719
North West Super Center
31.0
22.0
9.0
$966
$446
North East Super Center
25.0
21.0
4.0
$1,035
$373
North Central Super Center
34.0
30.0
4.0
$966
$73
Central Super Center
19.0
18.0
1.0
$483
$276
South Central Super Center
24.0
21.0
3.0
$345,
$205
Inland Empire Super Center
28.5
25.5
3.0
$414,
$115
South Coast Super Center
24.0
23.0
1.0
$690,
$2,207
Total
185.5
160.5
25.0
$4,899
Note: estimated annual personnel savings is savings from staff reductions only. The team did not calculate lease,
construction, and operating costs.
This alternative requires lease or construction of new facilities for six of the seven proposed super
centers. Approximate square footage of the super centers will vary by center and be dependent on
final staffing levels.
6.4.4 California Law Enforcement Dispatch
Alternative 1 – Include Law Enforcement in the Scope of Federal Dispatch Services
In this alternative, all 23 federal operational centers will provide NCIC- or state- authorized lawenforcement dispatch services. Two of the centers currently do not provide these services. This
alternative requires no new facilities.
IDOPP Report
- 67 -
January 31, 2013
This workload may affect staffing levels at the two centers that will add law enforcement dispatch,
Modoc Interagency ECC and Yreka Interagency ECC. Implementation of dispatch center consolidations
may influence this alternative since the alternatives for consolidation of dispatch centers include these
two centers.
This alternative requires an increase in staffing to cover shifts 24/7, or funding for other centers to
provide the after-hours services. The reduction in fees currently paid to county sheriffs’ offices for law
enforcement dispatch will partially offset costs. This alternative requires further analysis if selected for
implementation.
Alternative 2 – Obtain Law Enforcement Dispatch Services through Partnership
Alternative 2 Option 1 - Establish agreements with NPS dispatch centers that provide law enforcement
and all-hazard dispatch services, such as Yosemite ECC. For 385 officers, the annual agreements for
federal law enforcement coverage in California could total approximately $1.9 million. Compatibility
between the LEOs receiving services and the NPS dispatch centers may require new equipment such as
radios. The estimated costs require further analysis.
Alternative 2 Option 2 - Establish agreements with the California Department of Fish and Game, and
California Department of Parks and Recreation for use of their three joint state-wide law enforcement
dispatch centers. The annual agreements for federal law enforcement coverage in California could
total approximately $1.93 million. Compatibility between the law enforcement officers receiving
services and the three state dispatch centers may require new equipment. The estimated costs require
further analysis.
Alternative 2 Option 3 - Establish agreements with local county sheriffs’ offices. The annual
agreements for federal law enforcement coverage in California could total $3.83 million per year since
many officers cover multiple counties costs increase with each county added. California law
enforcement officers reportedly use an average of two dispatch centers, presumably equating to two
counties. Compatibility between the law enforcement officers receiving services and the sheriffs’
offices may also require new equipment. The estimated costs require further analysis.
Alternative 3 – Establish One or More Federal Law Enforcement Dispatch Centers
Alternative 3 requires lease or construction of a law-enforcement dispatch center. Using the average
square footage of a dispatch center in California of 5,248 square feet, the estimated cost for a new
furnished center is $4 million.
Staffing costs will total approximately $1.2 million annually, depending on locality pay, for a 24/7
center with a staff of 12 - 16 and a minimum of two dispatchers per shift. This estimate includes night
differential, holiday pay, Sunday pay and benefits. This staffing assumes approximately eight
employees during the day shift Monday through Friday:
• 1 - GS-11 Center Manager
• 3 - GS-7 Dispatchers
• 1 - GS-9 Assistant Center Manager
• 3 - GS-6 Trainee Dispatchers
The center could staff the night shifts and weekends with one GS-9 Assistant Center Manager and two to
three GS-7 Dispatchers. A 24/7 center could be staffed with fewer positions depending on workload.
The cost to build out the radio system statewide would require a major financial investment. Data is
inadequate for estimating this cost.
IDOPP Report
- 68 -
January 31, 2013
Reductions in funds transferred to county sheriffs’ offices for law enforcement dispatch services will
partially cover facility and operational costs. Salary savings from reductions in staffing levels at the 21
operational centers now performing law enforcement dispatch should also help offset new costs.
6.5
ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SOUTHWEST
The Southwest sub-team developed several alternatives to improve delivery of dispatch services. The
alternatives include consolidation of law-enforcement communication services, consolidation of wildland fire
dispatch centers, co-location of law enforcement and fire dispatch support services, and changes to the
geographic areas of coverage. The Southwest Executive Oversight Group accepted these alternatives and
may choose to further pursue and implement any of the alternatives.
The Southwest sub-team used the information gathered via the data calls to further analyze and validate the
proposed alternatives. Once the Executive Oversight Group decides which alternatives to implement, a
team of subject matter experts will develop an action plan that includes standard operating procedures,
staffing levels, PDs, budget formulations, and IT needs for all centers in the Southwest. Section 6.6 discusses
the staffing and cost estimate. IDOPP Appendix Section 6.5 and 6.5a includes the Southwest sub-team’s
report.
6.5.1
Consolidation of Law Enforcement Communication in the Southwest
The Southwest sub-team developed two alternatives for consolidating law enforcement communication in
the Southwest. During development of the alternatives, the sub-team discussed the possibility of a third
alternative of contracting with local police departments. Federal law enforcement personnel work across
county lines, limiting the counties’ abilities to track their movements, so this alternative is not feasible.
The Grand Canyon Dispatch Center was not included in the alternative discussions because NPS prefers to
continue to operate the center as-is. The NPS recently expressed interest in shifting some of the law
enforcement dispatch to the FLECC, but not the Grand Canyon. Therefore, the alternatives discussed
below may incorporate support to law enforcement personnel working in the Southwest.
The alternatives for law enforcement communication are on a different track than the wildland fire
dispatch center consolidations; however, the Southwest sub-team developed alternatives for consolidation
of law enforcement communication at centers that are vacated during consolidation of wildland fire
dispatching. IDOPP Appendix Section 6.5a includes advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and
figures displaying the consolidations.
No Action Alternative - Continue Law Enforcement Communication As-Is
The no action alternative is to continue with the law-enforcement communication operations that existed
as of the start of IDOPP, but this cannot happen without reversing current changes. The FLECC has begun
providing support to more law enforcement personnel in the Southwest so “no action” is not a practical
alternative.
IDOPP Report
- 69 -
January 31, 2013
Alternative 1 (Selected) - Consolidate the Majority of the Law Enforcement Communication in the
Southwest into One Center in Arizona
At the time of this report, the Executive Oversight Group has decided to move forward with the planning
for alternative 1, continuing the current trend and consolidating the majority of the Southwest’s federal
land management law enforcement communications into the FLECC. The current center in the BLM
Phoenix district office supports 166 law enforcement personnel from BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS in Arizona. In
Arizona, 21 FS LEOs currently use the FLECC, and the FLECC will support 48 more FS officers upon
completion of a phased transition. The FLECC also supports BLM law enforcement personnel in New
Mexico, and has begun to support law enforcement officers in parts of Utah, California, and Montana. The
center does not support NPS law enforcement personnel located in the Grand Canyon National Park. The
BLM Arizona Chief Ranger expects that the FLECC will begin to support 86 additional law enforcement
personnel from BLM, FWS, NPS, and FS. Some of these additional BLM law enforcement personnel are
located outside of the Southwest area in Nevada and Utah.
The current FLECC facility has inadequate space to accommodate the additional staff necessary to support
the increased workload. Ultimately, the Executive Oversight Group will decide where to locate the center.
The Southwest sub-team provides four options for relocation of the center:
• Relocate the center to vacant Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) space at the Arizona Counter
Terrorism Information Center in North Phoenix. Lease costs would be approximately $16 to $17 per
square foot with 10,000 to 20,000 square feet available. The Arizona Department of Public Safety may
provide existing furnishings at this facility at no cost.
• Relocate the center to the BLM National Training Center in Phoenix.
• Relocate the center to other commercial space in metropolitan Phoenix large enough to allow future
co-location of fire and law enforcement.
• Relocate the center to either the Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center or the Tucson Interagency
Dispatch Center, depending on which center is available after implementation of Phase 3 of the
wildland fire dispatch alternatives. The Southwest sub-team recommends moving law-enforcement
communication support to the Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center.
Alternative 2 (considered but not selected) - Operate Two Centers in the Southwest to Provide Law
Enforcement Communication – One in Arizona and One in New Mexico
In this alternative, the FLECC would stay in Phoenix or move to Tucson to support law enforcement
personnel in Arizona, and the Southwest would open a center in New Mexico to support law enforcement
personnel in that state. The new center would have the same operating procedures as the FLECC. If the
Southwest Executive Oversight Group moves to this alternative, the Southwest will need to conduct further
research to determine where to locate a New Mexico center. The Southwest sub-team discussed the
possibility of using a center that will be vacant upon consolidation of the wildland fire dispatch centers.
Several agencies already purchased the satellite radio equipment necessary for their law enforcement
personnel located in New Mexico to use the FLECC. If the Southwest Executive Oversight group decides to
create a law-enforcement communication center in New Mexico, the center could use the same equipment
or the agencies could repurpose the equipment.
IDOPP Report
- 70 -
January 31, 2013
6.5.2 Consolidation of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers in the Southwest
In the Southwest, 12 Tier 3 interagency dispatch centers provide wildland fire dispatch support. Based on
the complexity analysis, the 12 centers include four low complexity centers (one in Arizona and three in
New Mexico), six moderate complexity centers (five in Arizona and one in New Mexico), and two high
complexity centers (one in Arizona and one in New Mexico). The Southwest sub-team developed two
alternatives for consolidation of wildland fire dispatching services in the Southwest. IDOPP Appendix Table
3.9.1-10 shows a list of the units supported by each dispatch center.
Alternative 1 (considered but not selected) - Maintain Current Number and Location of Wildland Fire
Dispatch Centers
Alternative 1 is to consolidate no wildland fire dispatch centers in the Southwest, leaving each center in its
current location with its current support boundaries. Although the number and location of centers will not
change, this alternative will not continue business as usual. The Southwest will upgrade and improve the
current centers as needed. The centers will standardize training, procedures, equipment, and systems to
increase the efficiency of the dispatch operations within the area.
Based on direction from DOI management, the Southwest has already begun to consolidate centers in
Arizona, so the team determined this alternative not practical.
Alternative 2 (Selected) - Implement a Three-Phased Approach for Consolidation of Wildland Fire
Dispatch Centers
This alternative consolidates wildland fire dispatch centers in three phases. The two sub-alternatives,
Alternatives 2A and 2B, each present a three-phased approach with some minor differences in the Arizona
center consolidations and identical recommendations for New Mexico.
Alternative 2A - Consolidate low and moderate complexity centers to reduce the overall costs of
operations. Advances in current technology allow management to look at new solutions and create larger
dispatch centers that service expansive geographic areas. Interoperability between agencies is critical,
especially for safety near the border.
Alternative 2A presents a three-phased approach for consolidating centers. The alternative consolidates a
few centers during each phase with an ultimate goal of four centers in the Southwest, two in Arizona and
two in New Mexico. Phased consolidation will give the executives time to plan and assess whether
consolidated centers meet the dispatch needs in the Southwest, as well as meet the mission needs of each
agency partner. The Southwest sub-team suggests an evaluation period of two to three years after each
phase to assess performance of the new dispatch structure and determine whether to consider more
consolidations. The sub-team expects full implementation of the phased consolidations could take 10 to 15
years.
IDOPP Report
- 71 -
January 31, 2013
Table 6.5-1 - Summary of Southwest Consolidations of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers – Alternative 2A
summarizes Alternative 2A. IDOPP Appendix Section 6.5a includes further descriptions, alternative-specific
advantages and disadvantages, and the complexity analysis for each consolidation and a graphical depiction of
the consolidations.
Table 6.5-1 - Summary of Southwest Consolidations of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers – Alternative 2A
As-Is Center
Arizona
Arizona
Flagstaff
Phoenix
Prescott
Show Low
Tucson
Phase 1 Consolidation
Consolidated into Phoenix, Prescott,
and Tucson
Williams & Tier 4
Arizona - part of federal and state
workload
Arizona - part of federal workload
No change
Arizona - part of state workload
Phase 2 Consolidation
Phase 3 Consolidation
Already Consolidated
Already Consolidated
No additional change
Show Low
Prescott
Tucson (may need to move
into a new center)
Consolidated into Flagstaff
Already Consolidated
Consolidated into
Phoenix*
Already Consolidated
No additional change
Consolidated into Phoenix
No additional change
Williams
New Mexico
Alamogordo
Consolidated into Flagstaff
Already Consolidated
Tier 4
No additional change
Albuquerque
Santa Fe
Tier 4
Taos
Silver City
No change
Consolidated into Santa Fe**
Albuquerque (may need to
move into a new center)
No change
Taos
Consolidated into Santa Fe
Already Consolidated
* Phase 3 Arizona consolidation will retain either Phoenix or Tucson
Silver City (may need to
move into a new center)
Already Consolidated
No additional change
Consolidated into
Alamogordo
Already Consolidated
** Phase 2 New Mexico consolidation will retain either Santa Fe or Albuquerque
PHASE 1 - The Southwest has twelve Tier 3 centers and five Tier 4 centers. Phase 1 will initiate the planning
and consolidation of these centers, with nine centers remaining at the end of this phase (five in Arizona and
four in New Mexico). Center consolidation planning has begun in Arizona and the sub-team expects
consolidations to begin in New Mexico during late 2012.
At the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, BLM put approximately $200 thousand into an intergovernmental order
with FS to use for consolidation implementation. The agencies have used the majority of this money
consolidating centers in Arizona during Phase 1. BLM added $290 thousand more in FY 2012 funding for
ongoing implementation.
PHASE 2 - Phase 2 will further consolidate the nine centers from Phase 1 down to seven centers, leaving
four in Arizona and three in New Mexico, assuming implementation of the consolidations displayed in Table
6-6.
PHASE 3 - The final phase in consolidation of the wildland fire dispatch centers, Phase 3 will results in four
“super centers” remaining in the Southwest, two in Arizona and two in New Mexico.
With two centers per state, the Southwest will have the option of setting up expanded dispatch satellite
centers in particular geographic areas when fire activity warrants.
IDOPP Report
- 72 -
January 31, 2013
Alternative 2B - Implement a Three-Phased Approach for Consolidation of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers
The Southwest sub-team presented the consolidations discussed in Alternative 2A to the Southwest
Executive Oversight Group and obtained approval. Since this occurred, the City of Show Low approached
the Southwest sub-team with a proposal to build a new dispatch center at the Show Low Airport. This
proposal provides another option for the executives to review when considering consolidation of the
dispatch centers in the Southwest.
Alternative 2B still presents a three-phased approach with some minor differences in the Arizona center
consolidations. Alternative 2B does not change any recommendations for New Mexico.
Table 6.5-2 - Summary of Southwest Consolidations of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers – Alternative 2B
summarizes the Alternative 2B recommendations. IDOPP Appendix Section 6.5a includes further
descriptions, alternative-specific advantages and disadvantages, and the complexity analysis for each
consolidation and provides a graphical depiction of the consolidations.
Table 6.5-2 - Summary of Southwest Consolidations of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers – Alternative 2B
As-Is Center
Arizona
Arizona
Phase 1 Consolidation
Consolidated into Phoenix,
Prescott, and Tucson
Flagstaff
Tier 4
Phoenix
Arizona – part of federal and state
workload
Prescott
Williams, Tier 4, & Arizona – part
of federal workload
Show Low
No change
Tucson
Arizona – part of state workload
Williams
Consolidated into Prescott
New Mexico – No Change from Alternative 2A
Alamogordo Tier 4
Albuquerque
Santa Fe
Tier 4
Taos
Silver City
No change
Phase 2 Consolidation
Phase 3 Consolidation
Already Consolidated
Already Consolidated
Consolidated into Show Low
No additional change
No additional change
Already Consolidated
Prescott & Tucson (may need
to move into a new center)
Consolidated into Phoenix*
Flagstaff
No additional change
Already Consolidated
No additional change
Consolidated into Phoenix*
Already Consolidated
No additional change
Silver City (may need to move
into a new center)
Already Consolidated
No additional change
Consolidated into Santa Fe**
Albuquerque (may need to
move into a new center)
No change
Taos
Consolidated into Santa Fe
Already Consolidated
* Phase 3 Arizona consolidation will retain either Phoenix or Tucson
** Phase 2 New Mexico consolidation will retain either Santa Fe or Albuquerque
Consolidated into
Alamogordo (may need to
move into a new center)
Already Consolidated
PHASE 1 - Phase 1 of this alternative will reduce the twelve centers in the Southwest to five in Arizona and
four in New Mexico. The Arizona consolidations are the same as Alternative 2A Phase 1 except for Flagstaff
Interagency Dispatch Center, Prescott Interagency Center, and Williams Interagency Dispatch Center.
PHASE 2 - Phase 2 will further consolidate the nine centers from Phase 1 into four in Arizona and three in
New Mexico, assuming full implementation of the consolidations discussed in Phase 1.
IDOPP Report
- 73 -
January 31, 2013
PHASE 3 - Phase 3 is the final proposed phase for the consolidation of the wildland fire dispatch centers in
the Southwest. As in Alternative 2A, four “super centers” will remain in the Southwest, two in Arizona and
two in New Mexico.
With two centers per state, the Southwest will have the option of setting up expanded dispatch satellite
centers in particular geographic areas when fire activity warrants.
6.5.3
Co-Location of Law Enforcement and Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers in the Southwest
In the Southwest, different centers perform wildland fire dispatch and law enforcement dispatch as
summarized below.
• The FLECC in Phoenix provides dispatch support to law enforcement personnel from BLM, FWS, NPS
(other than law enforcement personnel working in Grand Canyon National Park), and FS within Arizona.
• The Grand Canyon Dispatch Center specializes in dispatching search and rescue, law enforcement, and
recreational activities for Grand Canyon National Park, with Williams Interagency Dispatch Center
dispatching fires.
• BIA law enforcement personnel also receive support from tribal dispatch centers or through contracts
with local police departments, if funding is available.
• As of the beginning of IDOPP, law-enforcement dispatch services in New Mexico were provided mainly
through county police departments. Since then, the FLECC began providing services to more law
enforcement officers in New Mexico.
• County police departments primarily dispatch FS law enforcement officers in New Mexico and Northern
Arizona.
• Twelve Tier 3 interagency dispatch centers (seven in Arizona and five in New Mexico) and five Tier 4
dispatch centers (three in Arizona and two in Texas) provide wildland fire dispatch support to the
Southwest.
The Southwest sub-team discussed several alternatives surrounding consolidation and co-location of
wildland fire and law enforcement dispatch. The Southwest sub-team developed an alternative to colocate but not consolidate these dispatch services. Consensus among the team members was that
dispatchers should not perform both types of dispatch support due to the unique differences in operating
procedures, knowledge base, security requirements, and training. Law enforcement dispatchers require
extensive and costly background checks to access criminal information databases such as the NCIC and
Arizona Criminal Justice Information. Wildland fire dispatchers must meet prerequisite dispatch
experience, as well as experience in field operations. Before ruling out development of an alternative that
would recommend cross-training dispatchers, the Southwest sub-team researched and gathered issues and
lessons learned from other dispatch centers in the Southwest where dispatchers performed both types of
dispatch services.
Several team members met with personnel at the City of Mesa Regional Dispatch Center, which had
previously operated under a model where dispatchers performed both law enforcement and fire dispatch.
The City of Mesa found that having a dispatcher perform both types of dispatch was not an ideal practice.
For 20 years, the same dispatchers in Mesa performed both law enforcement and fire dispatch sharing the
same software and equipment. The City found that integration of the systems did not work well. The
needs of the two dispatching types differed greatly, causing the dispatchers problems with adapting to new
technology and training for each. The fire and law enforcement missions became too dissimilar, causing
operational problems. On July 1, 2010, Mesa’s police and fire dispatch split into separate units within the
same facility to more efficiently deploy the proper resources needed for each 911 call.
IDOPP Report
- 74 -
January 31, 2013
Based on feedback from the law-enforcement data call, the majority of LEOs prefer a centralized law
enforcement dispatch center. Of the 116 law enforcement personnel in the Southwest that completed the
data call, 72 percent prefer a centralized center. In California, 53 percent of the 384 law enforcement
personnel responding preferred the same. The California responses included many comments concerning
the lack of training and knowledge among the dispatchers who often only have fire dispatch training and
tend to prioritize fire support higher than law enforcement support.
IDOPP Appendix Section 6.3a lists alternative-specific advantages and disadvantages.
No Action Alternative - Continue to Separate Law Enforcement Communication and Wildland Fire
Dispatch - The no action alternative is to continue with the current dispatch organization, where law
enforcement communication and wildland fire dispatch are separate.
Alternative 1 - Co-locate Law Enforcement Communication and Wildland Fire Dispatch
The Southwest sub-team discussed three options to co-locate law enforcement communication with
wildland fire dispatch services in Arizona. The FLECC currently provides law-enforcement communication
services for BLM New Mexico through satellite radio and this is expected to continue. Local police
departments will continue to provide law-enforcement communication support for the FWS, NPS, and FS in
New Mexico; however, proposals are underway with the FWS and FS to move to the FLECC.
• Option 1 - Co-locate dispatch support at the Phoenix Interagency Dispatch Center, which is near U.S.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.
• Option 2 - Co-locate dispatch support at the Tucson Interagency Dispatch Center, a brand new facility.
Locating the center in Tucson will allow for better coordination with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.
• Option 3 - Co-locate dispatch support at a new facility.
6.5.4 Southwest Geographic Area of Coverage
The Southwest sub-team also discussed alternatives for the geographic boundaries of the Southwest area.
Currently, the Southwest encompasses Arizona, New Mexico, the Oklahoma panhandle, and west Texas.
Within Texas and Oklahoma, the Southwest provides dispatch support for federal lands west of the 100th
meridian. The Southwest has encountered issues in the past with the coverage provided in Texas.
The Southwest sub-team developed four alternatives for the Texas boundary:
• Leave the current boundaries and dispatch operations as-is;
• Clarify the responsibility of the Southwest dispatch in Texas, west of the 100th meridian, to eliminate
the current overlapping support issues with the Texas Forest Service;
• Redefine the boundaries so that the Southwest provides dispatch support to all federal lands in Texas.
• Redefine the boundaries so that the Southern area provides dispatch support to all federal lands in
Texas.
Some of the sub-team members expressed concern that the alternatives may not solve the dispatching
issues due to the county-centric dispatching structure in Texas. Other team members believed that moving
the boundary line to encompass all of Texas into either the Southwest or Southern area would solve some
of the day-to-day issues. The Southwest sub-team discussed establishing a direct protection agreement
with the Texas Forest Service to assist with coordinating efforts in the prevention, detection, and
suppression of wildfires in and next to the at-risk areas of responsibility.
IDOPP Report
- 75 -
January 31, 2013
The Southwest sub-team also discussed an alternative to make the Lake Meredith National Recreation Area
a Tier 3 center to resolve some of the boundary issues experienced with Texas.
The Southwest sub-team did not develop these alternatives further during the IDOPP process, leaving the
decision of whether or not to explore changing the Southwest’s geographic area of coverage to the
Southwest Executive Oversight Group.
6.6
STAFFING AND COST ANALYSIS FOR THE SOUTHWEST ALTERNATIVES
6.6.1 Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers
Alternative 1 - Maintain Current Number and Location of Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers
The Southwest sub-team does not consider maintaining the original number of centers a viable alternative.
Consolidation of dispatch centers in the Southwest has begun so if the team recommends maintaining the
original number of centers and working toward standardization and efficiencies, no cost savings will result.
Initially, costs would increase to update and improve equipment and infrastructure at the centers.
Alternatives 2A and 2B - Implement a Three-Phased Approach for Consolidation of Wildland Fire Dispatch
Centers
The team developed the baseline staffing for the alternatives using the FireOrg IR FTE methodology
discussed in Chapter 5 The Southwest will use the Total FTE as the target for determining the number of
permanent or temporary seasonal positions the center may need to staff to during peak season. Using the
standard module configuration and the IR FTE results from FireOrg, the team developed an estimated
baseline staff for each center. The staffing estimates are subject to change pending discussions with
agency Human Resources specialists during implementation.
Chapter 5 describes how the teams developed personnel costs for the alternatives. The calculations
showing changes in FTE from the current centers only include the baseline staffing of current permanent
full-time and permanent part-time positions. The teams costed ladder positions at the most typically used
grade. Table 6-8 below summarizes the FTE and cost savings for Alternative 2A.
IDOPP Appendix Section 6.5a displays the FTE and cost savings for Alternative 2A by dispatch center. It
includes the following information for each organizational alternative in Alternative 2A: original FireOrg
breakout by agency of the FTE and workload percentage; revised FireOrg breakout by agency; crosswalk of
the original staffing to the consolidated staffing breakout by agency; estimated baseline staffing; estimated
annual personnel cost savings; and one-time costs (implementation and PCS/TOS).
IDOPP Report
- 76 -
January 31, 2013
Table 6.6-1 - Cost Summary for Alternative 2A Consolidation of the Southwest Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers
Number
of
State
Centers
Phase 1 Implementation
Arizona
5
New Mexico
4
Total Phase 1
9
Phase 2 Implementation
Arizona
4
New Mexico
3
Total Phase 2
7
Phase 3 Implementation
Arizona
2
New Mexico
2
Total Phase 3
4
Total Change
Reduced
As-is to Phase from 12
3
to 4
Chang
e in
FTE
Estimated
Annual
Personnel
Cost
Savings
(in
thousands)
Implementation
Costs
Estimated
PCS/TOS
Costs
(in
thousands)
39.0
29.0
68.0
-0.5
+3.0
+2.5
$77
-$159
-$82
TBD
TBD
TBD
$293
$146
$439
39.0
29.0
68.0
39.0
30.5
69.5
0.0
+1.5
+1.5
$95
-$12
$83
TBD
TBD
TBD
$195
$0
$195
39.0
30.5
69.5
Started
with
65.5 FTE
(As-Is)
37.0
31.5
68.5
Ended
with
68.5 FTE
(Phase 3)
-2.0
+1.0
-1.0
+3.0
$265
$3
$268
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$585
$195
$780
$1,414
Number
of FTE
from
Previous
Phase
Number
of FTE
Needed
(IR FTE
from
FireOrg)
39.5
26.0
65.5
Table 6.6-2 - Cost Summary for Alternative 2B Consolidation of the Southwest Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers
summarizes the FTE and cost changes for Alternative 2B.
IDOPP Appendix Section 6.5a summarizes the FTE and cost savings for Alternative 2B by dispatch center. It
includes the following information for each organizational alternative in Alternative 2B; original FireOrg
breakout by agency of the FTE and workload percentage; revised FireOrg breakout by agency; crosswalk of the
original staffing to the consolidated staffing breakout by agency; estimated baseline staffing; estimated annual
personnel cost savings; and one-time costs (implementation and PCS/TOS).
IDOPP Report
- 77 -
January 31, 2013
Table 6.6-2 - Cost Summary for Alternative 2B Consolidation of the Southwest Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers
Number
of
State
Centers
Phase 1 Implementation
Arizona
5
New
4
Total Phase
9
Phase 2 Implementation
Arizona
4
New
3
Total Phase
7
Phase 3 Implementation
Arizona
2
New
2
Total Phase
4
Total Change
Reduced
As-is to
from 12
Phase 3
to 4
Change
in FTE
Estimated
Annual
Personnel
Cost
Savings
(in
thousands)
Implementation
Cost
(in thousands)
Estimated
PCS/TOS Cost
(in
thousands)
37.0
-2.5
$174
$150
$439
26.0
65.5
29.0
66.0
+3.0
+0.5
-$159
$15
TBD
TBD
$146
$585
37.0
39.0
+2.0
-$20
TBD
$49
29.0
66.0
30.5
69.5
+1.5
+3.5
-$12
-$32
TBD
TBD
$0
$49
39.0
30.5
69.5
Started
with
65.5 FTE
(As-Is)
37.0
31.5
68.5
Ended
with
68.5 FTE
(Phase 3)
-2.0
+1.0
-1.0
+3.0
$293
$3
$296
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
$780
$195
$975
$1,609
Number
of FTE
from
Previous
Phase
Number
of FTE
Needed
(IR FTE
from
FireOrg)
39.5
As shown in Table 6.6-1 - Cost Summary for Alternative 2A Consolidation of the Southwest Wildland Fire
Dispatch Centers and Table 6.6-2 - Cost Summary for Alternative 2B Consolidation of the Southwest
Wildland Fire Dispatch Centers, Alternative 2B results in greater annual personnel cost savings than
Alternative 2A. However, PCS/TOS costs for Alternative 2B are approximately $195 thousand more than for
Alternative 2A.
If the Southwest Executive Oversight Group ultimately decides to consolidate to two centers in New
Mexico, the Southwest may need to establish a new location. The Alamogordo Interagency Dispatch
Center and Santa Fe Interagency Dispatch Center may not have enough room to expand to the number of
dispatchers needed to support the workload both year-round and during the peak fire season. During
implementation, the Southwest will need to determine how large the new center should be to
accommodate the baseline staffing (12.0 FTE in the South and 19.5 FTE in the North) and peak staffing.
6.6.2 Federal Law Enforcement Communication Center
Current authorized staffing at the FLECC, which supports 166 LEOs, is 14.0 FTE. Using APCO RETAINS, the
team calculated staffing needs for supporting 166 LEOs based on the following desired staffing levels and
continued 24/7 operations:
• 1 - Center Manager
• 1 - Lead Mission Support Technician (Shift Supervisor) 24/7
• 2 - Mission Support Technicians (Administrative/Resource) 12/7
• 6 - Mission Support Technicians (Law Enforcement) 24/7.
IDOPP Report
- 78 -
January 31, 2013
This identified a need for a total 38.0 FTE:
•
•
1 - Center Manager
5 - Lead Mission Support Technicians (Shift
Supervisors)
•
2 - Mission Support Technicians
(Administrative/Resource)
• 30 - Mission Support Technicians (Law
Enforcement).
The additional 24 positions would increase personnel costs from approximately $860 thousand to $2.35
million.
With the new projected workload supporting 86 additional law enforcement officers, center
management projects a desired staffing of nine Mission Support Technicians (Law Enforcement) 24/7.
RETAINS calculates the need for 53.0 FTE:
• 1 - Center Manager
• 5 - Lead Mission Support Technicians (Shift Supervisors)
• 2 - Mission Support Technicians (Administrative/Resource)
• 45 - Mission Support Technicians (Law Enforcement)
The teams recommend that the FLECC revisit the staffing coverage needs based on a more detailed
approach to shifts. For example, if the center were to reduce RETAINS staffing inputs to six Mission
Support Technicians (Law Enforcement) for 16 hours per day Monday through Friday, with two Mission
Support Technicians (Law Enforcement) for the remaining hours in the week, calculated staffing needs
would drop from 38.0 FTE to 28.0 FTE, with:
• 1 - Center Manager
• 5 - Lead Mission Support Technicians (Shift Supervisors)
• 2 - Mission Support Technicians (Administrative/Resource)
• 20 - Mission Support Technicians (Law Enforcement)
The total personnel cost for this scenario is approximately $1.74 million. This appears accurate since it
approximately doubles the current $860 thousand personnel cost while precisely doubling the FTEs
from 14 to 28. In shifting workload to the consolidated center, the reduction in fees now paid to local
police departments for support to BIA, NPS, and FS law enforcement officers in New Mexico will
partially offset the increased costs.
IDOPP Report
- 79 -
January 31, 2013
6.7
CONCLUSION
A structured approach and a commitment to resilience are necessary to developing a long-term strategy
toward improving safety, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the dispatch and coordination system.
Implementation of the California and Southwest organizational changes will improve dispatch program
delivery, streamline operations and reduce the agencies’ environmental footprints while meeting the
mission needs of the FS, DOI, and state, local, and tribal stakeholders. Consolidating some facilities will
lessen overall water and energy consumption, waste generation, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed alternatives are subject to approval by sub-area Executive Oversight Teams and require
additional analysis prior to implementation. Although the selected alternatives may require start-up
costs for facilities, equipment, and transfers of station, implementation will allow dispatch to become
more efficient and cost effective nationwide, while enhancing safety for the public and field going
personnel. There may be additional opportunities for consolidation, particularly if funding is available for
major infrastructure improvements.
The Bridge Team recommends Implementation Planning, including detailed analysis, cost and savings
projections, performance measures and appropriate human resources, civil rights and labor union
involvement, prior to finalizing any consolidation plans. The Bridge Team also recognizes that there are
enormous potential cost savings and efficiency gains available through nationwide dispatch optimization
and consolidation, and recommends greater interagency efforts towards such changes.
IDOPP Report
- 80 -
January 31, 2013
7 NATIONAL TOOLBOX
The IDOPP teams developed a “toolbox” of methodologies and recommendations that other areas across
the nation can use to analyze and optimize their dispatch operations. Principal analytical tools include
complexity analysis, staffing analysis, and data analysis.
Prior to the completion of IDOPP, the Great Basin began using some of the tools for its own optimization
project. Many of these suggestions are standard best practices for efficiency assessments.
7.1
PROJECT START-UP
The teams recommend the following at the start of an optimization project:
• Expressed Leadership Buy-in and Intent: Leadership buy-in and intent are integral to a successful
project. Clear direction from leadership can help a project team focus more efficiently on potential
alternatives, while leadership support can garner field support to assist the team in data collection
and other field level efforts.
• Communication: The success of large optimization efforts relies in part on support at all levels of the
organization. Early, clear, consistent communication to the field, NFFE and other interested parties
can ensure common understanding of the project objectives and participatory needs.
• Availability of Team Members: Team members must fulfill their commitments to thorough and
timely participation and provide participatory representation on behalf of the agency, program or
entity that they represent. Team members must understand the expected time commitment prior to
their assignment to the team. Project teams should verify availability of their members, including
availability for attendance at conference calls and in-person meetings and ability to conduct
assignments including draft report reviews. Agencies should assign team members for the duration
of the project, as replacements can negatively affect project continuity.
• Team Composition:
o Dedicated Project Manager: Project teams should consider having a dedicated project manager
who can focus solely on the optimization project. This position can also serve as a liaison to
Leadership. For IDOPP, the sub-team leaders were responsible for IDOPP as well as for their
regular job responsibilities.
o Consultant Support: Project teams should assess whether contractor support is necessary. While
smaller projects may not need contractor support, large projects such as IDOPP may need
support for items such as running the data call, data call analysis, complexity analysis, staffing
analysis, security management of personally identifiable information, and report compilation.
o Selection of Team Members and Subject Matter Experts: Project leads should carefully select
team members so that teams have the proper mix of individuals. Teams should include
management level personnel with decision-making experience and objectivity as well as subject
matter experts with field experience. Teams should also involve GIS and IT subject matter
experts early in the process, as center locations and technology limitations can play a large role in
the selection of potential alternatives.
o Human Resources: The project team should have assigned representatives from human
resources available as a resource when the team is considering alternatives affecting staffing and
PDs.
o Union Representation: In accordance with the Master Agreement between the FS and National
Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), the teams should invite NFFE to participate on teams
prior to conducting the initial meeting.
• Project Plan: Project teams should prepare a comprehensive Project Plan prior to project start. This
plan should include roles and responsibilities, communications protocols, timeline and detailed
IDOPP Report
- 81 -
January 31, 2013
project scope. The team should thoroughly discuss project scope up front, as the scope impacts data
collection, analysis, and the issues the team will address.
Budget: Project teams should develop a budget to capture project outlays, including projected travel
costs, consultant support, and (if used) dedicated project manager. USDA or others may request
incremental cost reporting for such projects.
In-Person Meetings: While teams can conduct some meetings via conference call or web meeting,
the most productive meetings related to optimization are typically conducted in-person. During inperson meetings, participants can focus on the project and most freely share and discuss ideas. The
project budget should include funding for in-person meetings. All in person meetings require cost
comparisons to ensure meetings occur in the overall most cost effective locations.
•
•
7.2
DATA REQUESTS
Optimization projects often require data calls to supplement information available through agency
systems of record. Three data collection tools distributed to targeted groups in California and the
Southwest were the primary data sources for IDOPP. These included a data call for dispatch center
managers, a data call for law enforcement officers, and a survey for dispatch center employees. The
teams used results from the data requests to document the as-is organization, and as inputs to defining
issues and alternatives.
IDOPP Appendix Section 2 includes copies of the questions for all IDOPP data requests.
7.2.1 Information Needs Assessment
Before preparing the data requests, the IDOPP teams developed an information needs assessment.
This document listed each data element, defined why the teams needed the data, listed the data
source, and described the analyses the teams would perform using the data element. IDOPP
Appendix Exhibit 2.1-2 provides the information needs assessment.
Project teams should consider developing an information needs assessment. This assessment is
helpful in determining the essential data request elements and eliminating unnecessary elements.
Limiting the data requests to essential data elements minimizes the completion time for respondents.
7.2.2 Center Manager Data Call
The center manager data call collected operational and staffing information about dispatch services,
and allowed the center managers to give their opinions related to improving dispatch services.
Categories included office, facility, IT, radio, budget, expanded dispatch, supervision and staffing,
workload, operations and governance, safety, law enforcement and public safety dispatch, issues and
feedback, and personnel. Center managers completed this data call online. Center managers could
finalize each of the 13 sections individually, allowing the teams to track the percent completed by each
center manager. This helped the team in tracking completion and deciding when to send reminders.
The IDOPP teams recommend that similar optimization projects use the center manager data call
modified to incorporate the lessons learned, discussed in IDOPP Appendix Section 7.8. These lessons
relate to data call timeline, data call interpretation issues, survey completion by more than one center
manager, distribution of data call to Tier 4 centers, printing of data call responses, limiting free form
questions, collection of cost data, questions to add, and questions to delete.
IDOPP Report
- 82 -
January 31, 2013
Project teams will need to update data call response choices (for example, state, position titles, and
dispatch center names) so that they apply to their specific areas and centers. Areas not performing law
enforcement or public safety dispatch should omit the law enforcement and public safety dispatch
category.
The teams recommend using systems of record for data needs, where possible. This minimizes impact
on field personnel while strengthening data quality. For IDOPP, the teams collected much of the
workload data for FireOrg inputs from the center managers, since the data is not available in systems of
record. Some of this data appeared suspect, so the teams used it minimally for items such as the
complexity analysis.
7.2.3 Law Enforcement Officer Data Call
The LEO data call collected information on the status of dispatch services offered to law enforcement,
information not available in systems of record. This data call also allowed the LEOs to comment on
issues and provide suggestions related to improving dispatch services.
The team primarily used the responses related to centralization of law enforcement dispatch and the
feedback questions to support the law enforcement alternatives. Future teams may want to conduct
similar data calls or surveys for other specific customer groups where data is otherwise unavailable.
7.2.4 Employee Survey
The employee survey gave dispatch employees an opportunity to highlight issues with, and give
suggestions for improving, current dispatch services. The teams found this survey to be of limited use
for developing consolidation alternatives. While some survey feedback was useful in supporting
assumptions, other project teams may find such a survey more useful during implementation planning.
7.3
STAFFING ANALYSIS
The Southwest sub-team found FireOrg an acceptable method for calculating baseline staffing for non24/7, wildland fire dispatch centers. For IDOPP, the teams collected FireOrg data by agency for each
dispatch center via the center manager data call and from systems of record (ROSS and Fire and Aviation
Management Website). The contractor entered the data into FireOrg and generated the staffing reports,
both for the as-is centers and for all proposed consolidations. The sub-team used the IR FTE from FireOrg
as the baseline staffing for the consolidated centers. The sub-team also used FireOrg to calculate initial
cost sharing for the consolidated centers in the Southwest.
Although the FireOrg reports resulted in FTE levels appropriate for the consolidated centers, the program
needs adjustments prior to broader use. These include update of weighting factors to reflect current
dispatch procedures, incorporation of 24/7 requirements, and review of weighting factors for non-fire
workload.
7.4
COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS
The IDOPP-developed complexity analysis method is a useful tool that other areas can use to classify their
operational dispatch centers. Determining which centers are of low complexity can be a first step in
identifying centers for possible consolidation. Complexity scores can also be helpful if an area wants to
balance its centers; the area can redistribute workload among centers so that each has a similar
complexity score and FTE count.
IDOPP Report
- 83 -
January 31, 2013
The teams developed three core complexity factors that apply to all areas, and area-specific factors for
California and the Southwest. The core complexity factors are as follows:
• Fires A through C and D+ (five-year average) – number of fires collected from the FS Fire and Aviation
Management Website
• Resources Dispatched Out (five-year average) – resources dispatched by the center, collected from
ROSS
• Incoming Resources (five-year average) – resources received by the center, collected from ROSS
For the national toolbox, the team recommends that other projects use the three core complexity factors
and assess whether they should add other factors to capture area-specific complexities. Project teams
should develop the average normalized score for each center as follows:
• For each center, divide the center’s workload quantity for each complexity factor by the average for
all centers (this is the center’s "normalized score" for each complexity factor).
• Average the normalized scores for each of the factors to calculate the average normalized score for
each center. This approach assumed that each complexity factor is equally weighted.
IDOPP Appendix Section 5, Tables 5.1-8 through 5.1-10 give a detailed example of the complexity score
calculations.
When calculating the average normalized score, other areas should use the average of the combined
California and Southwest data for the core complexity factors, as this workload is 40 to 60 percent of the
nationwide workload. By using this average, the score will better reflect the complexity of a center
relative to all centers nationwide, rather than providing an area-specific complexity. Other areas should
not recalibrate the total for the core factors.
For area-specific complexity factors, the area should use its area-specific average for the average
normalized score calculations, as the IDOPP teams did for the California- and Southwest-specific
complexity factors.
As an alternative, the team recommends the method shown in Table 86 of the 2008 MEA, included in
IDOPP Appendix Exhibit 2.1.3-2.
7.5
COSTING METHOD
7.5.1 Lease and Operating Costs
The IDOPP teams collected lease and operating costs in the center manager data call. Lease and
operating costs appeared inaccurate, so the teams focused solely on personnel costs. The teams will
collect accurate operating costs during implementation, and will use a list of operating cost
components to standardize responses.
When collecting operating costs, project teams should clearly define components, such as supplies,
utilities, equipment, and maintenance. Project teams should consider the credibility of numbers
submitted and not rely on suspect data.
If the project teams gather reliable lease and operating cost data, they could consider developing
average costs for low, moderate, and high complexity centers and using these averages to calculate
potential cost savings.
IDOPP Report
- 84 -
January 31, 2013
7.5.2 Personnel Costs
Project teams can use the IDOPP method for developing personnel costs. Teams can use this method
for costing both the as-is organization and alternatives.
For IDOPP, the teams developed personnel costs based on center manager-provided staffing. This is a
more uniform and accurate method than asking each center manager to report total personnel costs.
Center managers completed a personnel spreadsheet, which included the following:
• Center Identifier
• Appointment Type
• County
• Position Series
• Center Name
• Classification Title
• Agency
• Appointment Classification
• Type of Agency
• Grade
• Employee Name
• FTE
• Organizational Title
The teams pre-populated this spreadsheet with available information, such as the staffing submitted
for the 2008 MEA. This allowed the center managers to verify and update the information rather
than enter it from scratch.
The IDOPP personnel spreadsheet also asked the center managers to report each position
performing fire, law enforcement, or all-hazard dispatch. The teams needed this information to
determine the extent of cross training, particularly in California. Since 14 center managers left this
section blank, the teams could not calculate total cross-training statistics so the data had minimal
use. (Unlike the other sections of the data call where center managers generally selected answers
from drop-down menus or used buttons, personnel data was collected via a spreadsheet to reduce
the burden on center managers. The downside to this was that the center managers could leave
spreadsheet cells blank, whereas the data call format would have required an entry before the
center manager could submit responses.)
Using the provided data, the teams obtained the annual salary for federal positions from the current
certified GS locality-based pay rate tables. 27 To account for variations in steps, the teams calculated
GS position salaries at Step 5. The teams used state government pay scales for state employees
where available.
The teams calculated annual fringe benefits for federal employees by multiplying the fringe benefit
factor by the position’s annual salary. For full-time and part-time positions, the fringe benefit factor
is 36.25%. 28 For temporary and intermittent positions, the fringe benefit factor is 7.65%. 29 In the
absence of information on state benefits, the teams applied the same method to the state positions.
If project teams can obtain state benefit rates, using the state rates is preferred.
27
http://www.opm.gov/oca/12tables/index.asp
OMB Transmittal Memoranda M-08-13, Update to Civilian Position Full Fringe Benefit Cost Factor, Federal Pay
Raise Assumptions, and Inflation Factors used in OMB Circular No. A-76, "Performance of Commercial Activities"
(March 11, 2008)
29
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act factor includes 6.20% for Old Age and Survivors Benefits insurance and
1.45% for Medicare. The Old Age and Survivors Death Insurance benefit part (Social Security) has an annual
maximum earnings limitation of $110,100.
28
IDOPP Report
- 85 -
January 31, 2013
The teams then calculated the annual total personnel cost for each position, which is the cost to the
government. This cost is the sum of annual salary multiplied by the number of FTE. Since the IDOPP
focused on baseline staffing the teams did not include costs for overtime.
Regardless of the method used, project teams should use the same method to cost both the as-is
and alternatives. This allows direct comparison and calculation of cost savings.
The Sample Personnel Spreadsheet and the Sample Personnel Spreadsheet Containing Team
Developed Costs provide two sample personnel spreadsheets: the version center managers
completed and the version the team used to calculate personnel costs.
7.5.3 PCS/TOS Costs
Permanent Change of Station (PCS)/Transfer of Station (TOS) is another cost element for the
alternatives. The Southwest sub-team used an estimate of $65,000 per transferring position based
on historical amounts used in budget development by Arizona BLM. The California sub-team used
an estimate of $92,000 per transferring position; this amount is the average FS PCS/TOS cost for
California based on a three-year average given by the Albuquerque Service Center. Other project
teams should determine area-specific PCS/TOS costs as these vary across the nation.
Both teams calculated PCS/TOS costs by assuming 75% of the permanent positions will transfer, not
including the center manager, vacancies, temporaries, or seasonal positions. This is a more realistic
approach than seen in other studies which calculated PCS/TOS costs for all positions.
7.6
RESEARCH AND IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES AND ISSUES
When defining the scope of dispatch, project teams can refer to the IDOPP-developed list of dispatch
functions provided in IDOPP Appendix Table 3.4-2. Major categories include:
• Dispatch Operations Functions (Non-Law
• Employee Supervision and Development
Enforcement)
Functions
• Law Enforcement Dispatch Functions
• Predictive Services and Intelligence Functions
• Support to and from Other Functions
• Interagency Cooperation Functions
• Management and Organization Functions
When trying to identify issues related to dispatch, project teams can use the issues identified in
Chapter 4 (Dispatch Issues and Areas for Improvement) as input for their projects. These included:
• Defining Administrative Support to be
• Duplication of Radio Infrastructure
Provided by Dispatch
• Lack of a Dedicated Law Enforcement Network
• Standard Module Configuration
• Data Standards
• Jurisdictional Issues
• Check-In and Check-Out Procedures
• Prioritization of Dispatch Response
Throughout the process, the teams reviewed various communication centers studies for information
that may apply to the interagency dispatch system. Project teams may want to review these reports
and conduct research to see if any other more relevant and recent studies provide valuable
information. IDOPP Appendix Table 2.1.3-1 gives citations for these reports.
IDOPP Report
- 88 -
January 31, 2013
7.7
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING
The Southwest sub-team began implementing some of the alternatives (center consolidations) while
the project was underway. These implementations served as pilots within the IDOPP and provided
valuable lessons.
7.7.1 Transition Plan
The Southwest sub-team developed draft dispatch transition guidelines to outline the steps for
implementation and incorporate lessons learned. Project teams implementing a consolidation can
use this plan, entitled Dispatch Center Transition - Consolidation Processes to Consider (Center
Manager Point of View). The sub-team will provide the plan upon request. Sections of the plan
include:
• Mission Direction
• Frequency Distribution
• Overall Goal and Objective
• Computer Networks
• Specific Goals and Objectives
• Computer Hardware and /Infrastructure
• “Go” – “No Go” Checklist
• Dispatch Center Processes to Consider
• Determination of Current and Predicted
• Weather Information Management System
Workloads
and Weather Station Catalogs
• Current Situation
• Delegations of Authority
• Continuity of Operation Plans
• Fire Reporting and Answering Services
• MOUs – Protection Agreements
• Dispatch Center Websites
• Facility Requirements and Improvements
• Distribution of Excess Dispatch Furniture and
Equipment
• Dispatch Console Furniture
• Cooperator Training Plan
• Agency Resource Distribution –
Consolidations
• Operating Plan Revisions
• Contracted Resources (Emergency
• Appendix A – Transition Letter Example #1
Equipment Rental Agreements)/Supply
• Appendix B – Transition Letter Example #2
Plans
• Appendix C – Meetings and Decisions Table
• Current and Recommended Staffing
• Appendix D – National Situation Report Table
• Current and Predicted Timeframes
• Appendix E – ROSS Transition Table
• Administrative Incident Management
• Appendix F – Boundary Proposal Table
• All Hazard Incidents
• Appendix G – Frequency Transition Table
• Dispatch Boundaries
• Radio Infrastructure
7.7.2 Intergovernmental Order
The Southwest recommends other project teams consider setting up an intergovernmental order to
enable multiple agencies to contribute towards implementing consolidated centers.
7.7.3 Dedicated Project Manager for Implementation
The Southwest Sub-team assigned a dedicated project manager for implementation. The project
manager created the transition plan and coordinated the transition for the pilot centers. Having a
dedicated position helps implementation progress, allowing the center managers to continue their
regular duties and ensuring a consistent approach to consolidation.
IDOPP Report
- 89 -
January 31, 2013
7.8
LESSONS LEARNED
The teams faced many challenges in conducting the optimization project for both the California and
Southwest areas. Throughout the optimization process, however, participants gained invaluable
knowledge and experience and the lessons learned can be helpful for future optimization efforts.
IDOPP Appendix Section 7.8 contains the discussion of lessons learned. These lessons compile input
from the Oversight Support Team, Bridge Team, California sub-team, Southwest sub-team, and
consultant support.
IDOPP Report
- 90 -
January 31, 2013