A new toolkit from the Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab gives city leaders a practical roadmap for measuring how alternative response programs are reaching eligible 911 calls, resolving incidents, connecting residents to services and making decisions around investment in programs. The three-part toolkit is built around a practical reality many cities encounter as alternative response programs grow: “key information is spread across systems, defined differently in 911 computer-aided dispatch (CAD) software and alternative response records management systems (RMS), or not captured at all.” Rather than asking cities to start from scratch, the toolkit helps programs “use existing data systems to generate clear, reliable, and accurate metrics” and build “a shared data language spoken across jurisdictions” — giving leaders a stronger foundation for managing programs, showing impact and making the case for continued investment. Here are some key findings from the toolkit’s three reports—data dictionary, guide for calculating metrics, and a FAQ for troubleshooting common data challenges:
- Identify And Track Demand. Harvard recommends that programs track “eligible 911 incidents” — meaning “the number of 911 incidents deemed eligible for the alternative response team, regardless of whether the alternative response team responded or was available to respond.” The FAQ says this metric can “inform strategic discussions on program iteration, sustainability, and growth,” and recommends programs track “alternative response eligibility and ineligibility for all [emergency] incidents … regardless of whether the alternative response team responded.”
- Capture What Happens Once A Call Comes In. The toolkit recommends collecting “two data points — incident disposition and encounter outcome — for each 911 incident to describe the outcome of the response.” Incident dispositions “describe how the program operates as a first responder in the 911 system,” while encounter outcomes show “whether the team engaged with the individual in crisis” and capture “the needs of and services delivered to the individual in crisis.” The Data Dictionary defines “engaged and offered services” to include when a team “provides a referral, voluntary transportation, and other services to clear the incident.”
- Measure Program Impact—And Use That To Make The Case For Investment. Harvard argues that the goal isn’t simply to collect more data, but to help programs “use existing data systems to generate clear, reliable, and accurate metrics” that allow cities to “compare outcomes and tell compelling stories about their impact.” The toolkit encourages jurisdictions to adopt “a shared data language spoken across jurisdictions” to strengthen “program operations, accountability, and case for investment.” By measuring everything from who is reached to what services are delivered and where additional demand exists, the toolkit gives city leaders a practical framework for demonstrating what’s working—and where programs can continue to grow.
