Linking LAFD - LACoFD Dispatch Centers

[inigo88]

Keep the existing dispatch centers. Put both departments on the same CAD system, with uniform AVL coverage for both. As soon as the calltaker takes a 911 call, find the nearest available unit via CAD/AVL, radio dispatch them (or at least get an initial CAD message/alpha page out), and then if it's the other agency's unit transfer the call and let them update the responding unit with the rest of the info enroute.

San Diego uses the "closest unit gets dispatched regardless of station boundaries" model, and it seems to work ok even in such a large city. What often happens especially with EMS calls is that a rig from another station's zone is either driving through the area, or shopping at a local business, and they end up being closer than the nearest station and getting the call. This is especially helpful when the closest station is on another call, and rather than dispatching the NEXT closest station (often unacceptably far away) they can just grab whoever's in the area.

The only way this can work effectively though is if the call is voiced very rapidly (without all the info) so the closest available apparatus doesn't start to leave the area. In SD, EMS calls get dispatched by an EMS dispatcher (7C) first before going out on the main channel (7A/7B). For example, "Medic 36 respond to 123 Main St, call still in triage." This means they are still on the phone with the RP getting more information, and are updating the CAD with more info as they get it. Then when they're done with the call the full dispatch gets voiced over the main channel, and the medic unit is already on it's way there.

I don't see why they couldn't sign a memorandum of understanding so that either dispatch center could do that first step of getting the location from the RP, assigning the closest available unit via the CAD/AVL system and transferring the 911 call to the appropriate dispatch center (if their unit is closest). And it takes about 10 seconds to transfer a 911 call: "Hold on let me transfer you to county fire." *click* "Hi this is Bob at LA City fire comm center, with a patient with difficulty breathing at 123 main st, go ahead sir..." Monitor the first couple seconds to make sure the RP is still there, and hang up.

Shouldn't be too hard, right?

[Radio_Lady]

Most of that sounds doable, although this part would need some rethinking

Originally Posted by inigo88

I don't see why they couldn't sign a memorandum of understanding so that either dispatch center could do that first step of getting the location from the RP, assigning the closest available unit via the CAD/AVL system and transferring the 911 call to the appropriate dispatch center (if their unit is closest). And it takes about 10 seconds to transfer a 911 call: "Hold on let me transfer you to county fire." *click* "Hi this is Bob at LA City fire comm center, with a patient with difficulty breathing at 123 main st, go ahead sir..." Monitor the first couple seconds to make sure the RP is still there, and hang up.

Since 9-1-1 calls destined for LAFD and LACoFD first go to one of the LAPD dispatch centers or the local LASD station, or to CHP for many wireless calls, the callers are already being transferred at least once before reaching a fire department calltaker/dispatcher. Having to transfer them twice (or even three times for a wobbler-location call through CHP) would add to delays, greater chance of hang-ups, and added stress to the callers.

[inigo88]

Good call. I didn't realize all the calls were first going through LAPD/LASD, but of course that makes sense. Perhaps an MOU then that allows either comm center to dispatch only the apparatus from the stations along the border between city and county? Then give those stations two station alerting radios (one on the city channel and one for county). Might be a good way to appease the top brass by not relinquishing too much control to the "other guys," and with a consolidated CAD/AVL system you wouldn't have to worry about accidentally assigning two calls to the same unit. And it would probably cost a lot less than building a consolidated dispatch center!

[LAflyer]

The million dollar question is literally what about the funding?

Seems everyone agrees that a cross jurisdictional dispatching could provide benefits to the community, but the hangup likely is going to be how to make this seamless as possible within very tight budget realities.

LAFD has said it would take $50mil annually simply to get its daily staffing back to pre-cut levels, while LACoFD has been in the red itself eating into County surpluses for 3-years running.

Could be the telephone transfer game, or some half baked methods end up being what comes of all this as the departments end up grappling with inability to pay for fancy inter connected IT technologies.

[LAflyer]

Per LAFD chief, the agency decided to proceed with development of an upgraded computer dispatch system that would allow for seamless dispatching across municipal borders.

Potential partners include the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the Long Beach Fire Department and the consolidated Verdugo dispatch center.

The chief said the project would take three to five years and cost $12 million to $14 million with each participating agency funding its own portion.

Story:
L.A. Fire Department takes step toward linking 911 system to nearby systems - latimes.com

=

[Exsmokey]

With 88 cities that have complex boundaries (more like absurd) and all the county islands this is a real tough nut to crack. The study that concluded that merging more than the dispatch centers would save the most amount of money. All the small cities that still have a fire department would likely want to keep them. El Segundo, for example, is a small city where the residents have a lot of community pride and it has a lot of identity. I grew up next to it and still have family who live in El Segundo. I also have a good friend who is a truck captain with Glendale and a similar situation exists there. The least expensive with the best alternative would be some sort of consolidated fire district. That is a shoot for the moon concept that won't happen quickly, if ever.

When such things happen they are usually the result of a number of much smaller steps and perhaps a linked dispatch center will be one of those. I started my USFS career in 1974 and witnessed jurisdictional provincialism that would take too long to pass along here. There were even barriers between the Kaibab National Forest, where I worked, and the Coconino National Forest to its east. I witnessed the Coconino decline help from the Kaibab, in the form of two Type VI engines (one of them my patrol rig), when we were less than half the distance from the fire. The situation was even worse when other agencies were involved. The phrase was "stay on your side of the fence, we will kill our own snakes." I don't think the public realized the absurdity of this as most of the fires at that time in northern Arizona did not involve structures and private land much at all.

This was present nearly everywhere with the most forward moving agencies in southern California. The catalyst for the greatest change was the ICS. With communication systems of each agency being available for many or most of the agencies, incident response personnel having the same set of jobs and qualifications, standardized apparatus types and lingo (fire terms) becoming more standardized. As firefighters began to work together more, relationships between the personnel of various agencies developed, which collectively broke down the artificial barriers. Some may still exist, although I haven't been on the job for a dozen years and am no longer the best source of the current nitty gritty. On a fire near Paso Robles I took my crew into the fire camp at the fairgrounds there and was treated very poorly by CDF. They were running the camp even though a national Type I team was in place and with the fire being located on the Los Padres. I had never had a experience like that with CDF, but as my story illustrates that things are not perfect, at least at that time.

I have passed along this information to explain my opinion that little steps like linking dispatch centers can lead to large improvements in operations, but it may take decades.

The link LAflyer provided ended with this: "The savings would be astronomical," Hudley-Hayes said. "But there's an upfront cost." I can second that, I saw a lot of situations where significant savings could be realized, but a long term investment was needed. With the way legislature pass budgets it is hard to sustain even the most necessary programs as those bodies tend to be a bit fickle at times, resulting in huge peaks and valleys in programs that may take a decade or more to develop. This is a very tough time to find that upfront funding.

**EDIT** The ultimate question is why there are 88 cities in L.A. County? Imagine the savings for providing all municipal services. If they can't be consolidated I think the county islands need to be looked at for inclusion with adjacent cities and some of those long peninsulas in some corporate boundaries that cost more to service because of them. This last paragraph is not a shoot for the moon idea, more like a manned space flight to the next galaxy.

[Mikerh91]

The biggest issue is politics. If we wanted to solve this issue, LACoFD should give up Universal Studios, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood should just relinquish their fire suppression and EMS to the LAFD since the City of LA surrounds all of them.

Of course the not. The biggest problem is the politicians. They drive all of this. They will never agree to give up any portion of their area.

[LAflyer]

Its not politicians, its really citizens.

Why would the good folks in Bev Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica give up their well staffed and equipped departments to rely on a budget strapped LAFD? Heck the 90 person BH has one of the best response times in the state while LAFD has one of the worst. LAFD even uses BHFD to cover calls for them in Coldwater, Frankling Canyon areas and up on Mulholland.

Reminds me a bit about the El Segundo vote last year - citizens voted by 91% margin to retain their department over switching to LACo, regardless of financial savings.

Its one thing to be open to linking dispatch backends and running borderless dispatching (which already exist to a degree with automatic aid agreements) its another thing to force cities to give up local resources which citizens are willing to fund.

Going with LAFD or LACo might be a move up for some cities, which is a win-win, but to expect others to absorb service cuts simply to join a one model fits all agency is a non starter.

p.s. - remember people sometimes specifically chose where to live based on municipal services - police / fire / schools, etc.
For instance if we had been willing to settle on the mega LAUSD, we could easily have gone to live in the City of LA. Instead we specifically chose to live in academically strong district to have nothing to do with LA schools. People feel the same way about their police and fire/ems coverage also.

[pepsima1]

Well the good thing with LAFD is that they are in the hiring phase for the next few years big time. They are suppose to hire 300 to 500 new firefighers at a rate of 170 new re-cruits a year for the next few years.

Cash broke or not they have no choice at this point. But they will find the money

[zerg901]

"Am I my brother's keeper?" - it is an age old question, and it often comes up in discussions about mutual aid. Children, senior citizens, and the disabled often suffer when emergency services respond slowly and ineffectively to emergencys. Arguing between the "haves" "have nots" "successful" and "non successful", while the weakest suffer, just is not right. IMHO.

Lets keep our eyes on the prize. Saving lives. Let the accountants, politicians, and lawyers argue over the beans. Where are the discussions about effectiveness and efficiency? Where are the discussions about the turnout times? Where are the discussions about traffic priority devices? Where are the discussions about dressing in the station versus dressing enroute? Where are the discussions about being awake on duty versus being asleep on duty? Where are the studys about using catheter A versus catheter B? Where are the discussions about administering drug A versus drug B? Where are the analysis of the geographical distribution of emergency rooms? Where are the discussion about prevention efforts versus preparedness issues? Why are the only discussions in the news media about who gets stuck with the tab? Is the general public incapable of understanding anything besides "$1 + $1 = $2"?