Introduction

On behalf of the Austin Police Department, BerryDunn (a national consulting firm) is conducting an evaluation of the traditional police calls for service (CFS) model in use. It is possible, and perhaps likely, that certain CFS might be better addressed through non-traditional methods. As part of this process, BerryDunn has worked collaboratively with the Police Department to analyze the full range of CFS types the police department currently responds to, for the purpose of assessing their potential to be diverted to other resources, both internally and externally. The APD will use the feedback from this survey to help inform future CFS response discussions.

The overall CFS evaluation process involves internal discussions with police staff and City officials, external conversations with service providers, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders, and direct feedback from the community. This survey has been designed to collect critical information, and it is an important part of the CFS evaluation process. Accordingly, the Austin Police Department and BerryDunn thank you in advance for taking the time to complete it, and for helping shape the future of public safety for the City of Austin.
This survey is broken into two primary parts:
  • Section One: This section examines various criminal incidents that could be diverted internally within the Police Department to either a telephone response unit (TRU), which takes various reports over the phone, or to an online web-based crime reporting portal. Some of these CFS types could also be diverted to a non-sworn staff member who would respond to the scene to take a report. Note that the CFS types in this section generally involve incidents that are not in progress, those where the suspect is no longer present, and/or instances where there is no evidence (or minimal evidence) to be collected. The Police Department will continue to send a sworn officer to in-progress or otherwise dangerous incidents and those requiring substantial evidence collection.
  • Section Two: This section examines various service-related incidents. Similar to Section One, these incidents may involve internal diversion to a TRU or online reporting, and/or response by a non-sworn staff member. In addition, some of these CFS types might also involve diversion to external resources and/or service providers; they could also include a joint response with the Police Department. Again, similar to Section One, the Police Department will not divert any CFS types if there is a known risk or expected danger to the responders, based on the circumstances of the reported event. In these instances, the Police Department will continue to send a sworn officer.
Please keep this information in mind as you complete the survey and thank you again in advance for your participation in this important process.

T