Along with the proposed curriculum, can we please add a continuous education requirement for all dispatcher. With the every so changing technology and incident dynamics, it is becoming imperative for all dispatchers to keep learning new ways to do their job. We must put mandatory cont. education requirement in place through DCJS so it becomes a standard expectation and is consistence throughout all PSAPs. Often dispatchers will take the initial 2-week DCJS required dispatch school classes, a few mandatory VCIN/NCIC, NIMS classes and that’s all they will ever take. Having a mandatory cont. education requirement will encourage them to seek new topics they might want to explore and learn about. It will keep them updated on what’s happening in the 9-11 world. They will more engaged and make well informed decisions. 

Please adopt all proposed changes 

 Additional training objectives should be added for appropriate techniques for Fire/EMS dispatching. No where in the Curriculum is Fire and EMS dispatching mentioned. All disciplines of Public Safety should be covered within the curriculum as most dispatch more than law enforcement.

I believe that this a good start to promoting uniformity in training.  There needs to be a section added that pertains to Fire & EMS as they are public safety and most centers handle their calls as well. I would also like to see some form of continuing education/training added.  I think it would be beneficial just as it already is in law enforcement.  This would expose communications officers to new and upcoming issues/expansion in the communications field.  

I appreciate the effort of the CRC with the review and recommended changes to the performance outcomes for dispatch personnel; with a few exceptions, these recommended changes appear sound. These exceptions include the following:

• While I understand the primary intent of DCJS relates to law enforcement dispatch, the removal of language in the performance outcomes related to the dispatch of Fire and EMS resources, I feel is a mistake. The current performance outcomes provide a reasonable inclusion of Fire and EMS dispatch (understanding the primary focus of DCJS being law enforcement dispatch), and to remove any expectation of learning Fire and EMS dispatch operations seems like is a step in the incorrect direction. Some dispatcher’s training in our state only includes this initial dispatch certification class and failing to include Fire and EMS dispatch operations in the performance outcomes, especially in situations where they dispatch Fire and EMS resources, potentially places them in a situation where they are performing dispatch operations they have failed to be trained on. While, in these situations, there is an expectation the locality should provide the needed Fire and EMS dispatch training, removing it from the curriculum of the basic dispatch class taught to dispatchers in our state creates a potential void.

• While I understand the intent of the changes to the On-The-Job (OTJ) requirements; that being to assure all individuals completing the class complete all the OTJ requirements, this may create a situation where those law enforcement dispatch centers (not dispatching Fire and EMS services) and those dispatch centers that focus primarily on dispatching Fire/EMS services (with a less focus on law enforcement dispatch operations) may have difficulty in completing some of the OTJ expectations. Examples include,but are not limited, to the following: 1. how does a secondary dispatch center (focusing on law enforcement dispatch, but not handling vehicle accidents), meet the OJT requirement for processing a Telematics call?, 2. How does a dispatch center that does not have a NCIC/VCIN terminal (with this activity being handled by other dispatch centers in the region) meet the NCIC OTJ expectations?

While not necessarily directly related to these changes in the performance outcomes, would also like to thank DCJS on the ongoing efforts to add in-service training requirements for dispatch personnel in our state; this will be an addition to help assure the proficiently of those processing 9-1-1 calls and dispatching emergency services in our state.  Again, appreciate the time and effort on the recommended revisions to the curriculum and performance measures; understand this is a complicated and time-consuming process. 

Page 11, Item 1.5.3.1.7: Add "outer to inner" as well as head to toe description

Pages 14, 15, 20: What are the upcoming performance objectives to be included?

Page 17, Item 1.9.3: Does completing ICS700 and ICS100 satisfy all the sub training objectives (e.g., 1.9.3.1, 1.9.3.2)?

Page 22, Item 2.1.1.3: What is the difference between items 2.1.1.2 and 2.1.1.3? Doesn't "non-emergency" mean "routine"? Only need to have two distinctions, not three.

Page 31, item 3.4.1.6: Is this the same as a temporary detention order (TDO)?

Let me begin by saying thank you for all the work that has gone into updating the performance outcomes for dispatchers, public safety telecommunicators.  Not all PSAPs (public safety answering points) are created equal, varying in personnel size and budget.  Many public safety telecommunicators receive the required initial training from DCJS and struggle to receive additional training if at all. 

Although I understand the stance of the Board and the committee, I am disappointed to hear that the Fire and EMS performance outcomes will be removed.  It has been mentioned that an academy can add any additional information they would like to, however; some DCJS academies may not see the need to continue to include Fire and EMS in the syllabus as it is not a requirement.  If removed, we in the PSAP community will petition the academies to continue to provide the information but this may prove difficult.

Each time the 9-1-1 line rings, we answer the call blind.  It could be a domestic, a house fire, or someone who has stopped breathing.  There is currently no other required fire training for public safety telecommunicators nor does the Commonwealth require PSAPs to deliver emergency medical dispatch (EMD) as a part of consistent and best service to the community. 

I urge the Board to reconsider removing Fire and EMS from the performance outcomes. 

Again, thank you for the work that has been done.  I continue to support the efforts for in service credits and the work that has been done.

In response to the continuing education requirement that everyone is asking for, I agree Con-ed should be required however, receiving training at only the DCJS training academy will cost agencies. Most agencies have 1-4 dispatchers working a day, sending them to training at a remote site will keep them out of the center where most agencies struggle to stay fully staffed. Those of you utilizing APCO EMD are already required to receive 24 hours over 2 years however, this will not count for DCJS as they require training to take place at an approved training academy. I would fully support con-ed training if off site training was allowed much like APCO EMD at all hours of the day and night.

I agree with not including Fire and EMS training. The basic training standard is just that, initial basic training. Fire and EMS is added at the local level as required to meet local requirements. 

The ICS/NIMS requirement that is available online should not be included in class, however the prerequisite to have the classes before basic training would be appropriate and then expand on what was learned online in class.

Reference to specific equipment like TTY/TDD and COMLINC should be removed and replaced with devices used to communicate with the deaf and hard of hearing and interoperability equipment as examples. Text to 911 is not included in the training as it relates to next gen 911. Using generic terms minimizes changes required in the future. 

There is no time frame outlined in the standard for completion of basic training or each performance objective. Adding estimated times for each objective will give guidance for course length. I can only assume it will remain a roughly 40 hour course.

Overall the document is much improved.

I too appreciate the attention Communicators are being provided and thank you.  Additionally, agree that information needs to be included about Fire/Rescue.  Although every agency doesn't dispatch them, having an understanding is valuable to the overall knowledge of how each discipline works together. 

I’ll be taking a different approach and commenting on the specific objectives:

1.1.1 - Needs to be broken down to specify the historical development for consistency.  (1.1.1.1, etc)

1.1.2.2 - Training Standards (Add for Whom)

1.3.3 and 1.3.4  Demonstrate and or …….

1.4.1.4.1.3 – set time limits as needed (to vague of an objective)

1.4.4.2.2 – Avoid being evasive or playing games

1.4.2 – Demonstrate and identify how to manage 4 or more specialized calls.  (If every one needs to be conducted then definitely consider moving 1.4.2.9 under 1.5.6.1.10)

1.4.2.4.2 – Remove all together (Asking a 3rd party to assist at a scene could have logistically and legal ramifications.)

1.4.2.7 – Unable to identify exact location of call

1.4.2.6 and 1.4.2.8 – Can be merged together; all silent and open calls should be challenged for TTY/TDD

1.4.2.9.5 – Explain Instructions to caller (This is a basic class with limitation on the time-frame of scenarios, this may be handled better in a test.  Consider bring Active Shooter to a CE class).

1.4.3.3 – Establish……and the level of response.  (Most levels of response are dictated by the responder.)

1.5.3.1.1.7 – head to toe (add outside/in) description

1.5.3.2.5.1 Unusual markings on the vehicle

1.5.4.4; 1.5.4.5 and 1.5.4.6 – Needs to be removed and added to the OTJ –

1.5.4.8 – Release resources and

1.9  - If being required to provide the ICS-700 and ICS-100 certification then all of 1.9 should be removed.  If not, then consider removing the Note portion (certificates of completion).

2.1.1.2 and 2.1.1.3 – Consider combining to Non-emergency / routine LE responses.

3.4.1.1 – Add Permitted and Not-Permitted under Arrest Warrants

a. Arrest Warrant (p 32) broken down too much; not all agencies are the holder of warrants.

5.203 – Attend a VCIN/NCIC Certification Course and attain……….The agency shall produce VSP approved documentation of successful completion of the course.  (The VSP is going to an on-line certification course, confirm the agency will receive confirmation.  This statement may need to be modified or removed.)

In reading the proposed changes to the dispatcher curriculum and the decision to exclude Fire and EMS training from the academy Communications Basic Training, I find this decision to not be in the best interest of the agencies that attend the training. Most of the agencies that attend the Communications Basic course, dispatch Law Enforcement, Fire, and EMS. This training is beneficial to the communications officers that attend. Granted there are some agencies that only dispatch Law Enforcement, but the majority are multi-functional and would greatly benefit from the training if Fire/EMS were still in the program.  

I would hope for the sake of the agencies that you will reconsider this decision. I believe that this training helps create well rounded dispatchers and they have a better understanding of all facets of their job.

I appreciate all your hard work to better the training for communications. It’s my hope that the Board reconsiders removing Fire and EMS from the performance outcomes.

To the CRC Dispatcher Review Committee,

On behalf of Orange Emergency Communications Center, I’d like to thank you for the tremendous task that you have accomplished with the review of the Proposed Minimum Training Performance Outcomes for Dispatchers.  The amount of effort and time that was spent reviewing the documents and the information submitted shows in the language changes proposed.

Much of the proposed changes are well written and welcomed (Text to 911!). Much of the language meets or exceeds the National APCO ANSI Standard APCO ANS 3.103.2.2015 Minimum Training Standards for Public Safety Telecommunicators.  As we know, dispatching is an ever-evolving profession with technology changing daily.

Orange ECC, however, does not support the removal of Fire/EMS language. As specified in the document it is noted that dispatchers need to anticipate the needs of the Officers in various situations.  Providing dispatchers with a basic understanding of Fire/EMS terms and functions will only serve to enhance LE communications not take away.  The historic tenure of teaching Fire/EMS lends itself to this mentality.

Additionally, there are some specific sections where some further language is required for clarification. I have provided specfic examples below. 

1. Identify the historical development of the role of the dispatcher.  

              What does the CRC see as the historical evolution?   Is this referring to when 911 was introduced and how?

1.1.3. Identify the dispatcher’s responsibilities and the important role they play in officer safety. the role they play in dispatch operations

              Recommend change the language to be more inclusive, since this section is talking about the large picture of dispatching. 

b. Active listening – receiving – understanding/analyze value of words – the ability to paraphrase/rework/repeat/mirror caller’s requests/needs

                   This section here validates the need for Dispatchers to have a basic understanding of Fire/EMS and LE operations.   To understand the request/need it is important that a dispatcher can understand the difference between types of calls.

1.2.3.4. Specialized equipment (e.g. text to 911, voice over IP, and social media

              Add in Apps, there are various apps that are now being used to contact 911

Performance Outcome 1.4. Demonstrate dispatcher telephone techniques, call control, and information dissemination.

 Training Objectives Related to 1.4.

1. Given a practical exercise, demonstrate telephone techniques including call handling.

2. Given a practical exercise, demonstrate how to manage specialized calls.

3. Given a practical or written exercise, explain the importance of call control and information dissemination.

 4. Given a practical or written exercise, describe the call type using the classification process – Emergency, Non-emergency, and Routine   (Remove the word Routine )

                   This section here displays the need for Dispatchers to have a basic understanding of Fire/EMS and LE operations.   To be able to effectively call handle a dispatcher must have a basic understanding of the various call types/scenarios.  These include Fire/EMS call types. 

Further, many calls require multi-faceted responses from various agencies example a suicidal subject or domestic violence issue with Injuries would require EMS as well as LE.  Understanding that this is part of the call taking process and dispatch matrix is imperative to a well-rounded LE Dispatcher.  

1.4.2.8. Telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD)/ or hearing/ speech impaired teletype writer (TTY)

Performance Outcome 3.1.

3.1.1.3. Define the following terms per 47 U.S.C. § 225:

3.1.1.3.1 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD)

3.1.1.3.2. Telecommunications relay services

In regard to TTY/TDD this is considered older technology, while still relevant due to ADA laws, expand on the use of Text to 911.

3.5.1. Identify three different circumstances dispatchers and emergency communication agencies can be potentially held liable:

3.5.1.1. Failure to train

3.5.1.2. Equipment failure 35

3.5.1.3. Insufficient staffing (e.g. failure to maintain minimum staffing levels) add in failure to terminate

3.5.1.4. Improperly trained staff

 3.5.1.5. Inappropriate and no response to caller

 3.5.1.6. Inefficient response to caller

3.5.1.7. Improper, misuse and/or disclosure of confidential information

 3.5.1.8. Failure to follow procedure or use of improper or outdated procedures

3.5.1.9. Failure to document and maintain accurate records

Remove the word three – list shows more than three.

Add in Misfeasance, malfeasance, non-feasance

Add in the different types of negligence, negligent hiring, training etc. etc 

On the Job Training

There are many various dispatch agencies within the Commonwealth, ranging from Primary PSAP’s too non-traditional agencies such as airports, or Universities.  OTJ is a vital piece of training, however, due to the diverse communications centers in the Commonwealth, continue to recommend that the agency only need to complete the OTJ section that is specific to them. For example some agencies do not have a CAD system or a voice logging recorder. 

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Virginia Chapter of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (VA APCO), thank you to the CRC for the detailed and extensive work on this revision of the Minimum Training Performance Outcomes for Dispatchers. We are grateful for and appreciate the ongoing commitment and hard work of the CJSB, its various committees, and DCJS and its staff. 

Overall, we find the newly proposed minimum standard to be a general advancement of the training standards for Virginia's public safety telecommunicators (PSTs, or "dispatchers"). With these comments, however, we request reconsideration of the removal of basic training related to fire and emergency medical service (EMS) communications.

We appreciate that training standards promulgated by the Department of Criminal Justice Services, situated and authorized as it is in Virginia code, do not require training of non-law-enforcement functions. However, we assert here that optimal operation of any law enforcement function inherently requires basic understanding of the multi-functional components of that response, including fire and EMS. We further appreciate that this standard is only the minimum, and that academies are free and encouraged to train beyond it. However, we believe inclusion of basic fire and EMS communications are, indeed, minimum requirements for law enforcement telecommunications in the twenty first century, just as basic law enforcement concepts are critical to optimal fire and EMS communications operations.

To support our position, we refer reviewers to the following sections in the proposed standard:

**Criteria 1.2.2 - "typical components of communications centers"

Typical communications centers in Virginia include multi-discipline public safety communication, justifying basic education about fire and EMS functions, terminology, operations, and communications. We recommend APCO International's ANSI Standard (APCO ANS 3.103.2.2015) minimum training standards document as a well-rounded reference and source of material, available at https://www.apcointl.org/doc/911-resources/apco-standards/75-minimum-training-standards-for-public-safety-telecommunicators/file.html.

**Outcome 1.5 - "Identify call-taking and appropriate dispatching techniques"

The introduction of the term "multi-functional dexterity" in section 1.5 is laudable and apt. Taken in context with "typical" communications centers, additional basic training, namely fire and EMS basics, are required to achieve the outcome. Law-only telecommunicators will, by definition, be required to analyze requests for assistance via 9-1-1 for fire and medical needs. Calls which may be dispatched by a separate fire or EMS agency will require triage and/or handoff by the law enforcement telecommunicator. Time is of the essence and multi-functional familiarity will decrease delays between services, improving safety outcomes for the public.

**Criteria 1.5.4 - "Identify the appropriate techniques for dispatching law enforcement officers during time/life critical incidents"

The modern and correct effort to encourage and enable interoperable communications requires multi-functional  intercommunication between law enforcement and fire and EMS units on scene and, by definition, with telecommunicators. Notwithstanding the "dispatcher" terminology, the work of the telecommunicator involves significantly more than initial identification and dispatch of resources. As the proposed curriculum demonstrates, the telecommunicator's involvement is constant and critical. This will include interoperable communications with non-law entities, meaning basic understanding of such functions is essential. While "plain language" is a basis for working with unfamiliar units, it is not by itself a substitute for understanding the core functions of public safety or sufficient for consistent operation under stress and during critical incidents. Fundamental understanding of multi-function, multi-discipline public safety operation is central to optimal law enforcement performance.

**Outcome 1.9 - "Identify calls for service related to disaster(s) or potential disaster(s) and various rescue operations"

Outcome 1.9 includes Incident Command System (ICS) training, which is absolutely necessary and should be included. However, the context of the section is "disaster(s) or potential disaster(s) and various rescue operations." This incorrectly and narrowly associates ICS with only rescue and disaster operations. Relegating it conceptually to only "bad day" events unnecessarily reinforces the inconsistent application of ICS, which should be applied and utilized across incidents and events of all sizes and scopes. Please adjust language to make clear the universal application of ICS to public safety responses. Consistent with comments above on Criteria 1.5.4, we find full and efficient implementation of and operation within multi-function incident command systems benefits from basic familiarity with multi-disciplinary public safety operations. Given the limited time available in any course, we recommend considering requiring basic ICS coursework as prerequisite to the DCJS basic curriculum, specifically NIMS 700a and 800b, as well as ICS 100 and 200. These courses are required for most Virginia telecommunicators and are available online. Class time during DCJS basic dispatcher courses can be utilized to integrate NIMS and ICS training with basic telecommunications, helping contextualize incident command structures and operations within the PSAP.

**Section 5.3 - "Operate radio equipment"

Section 5.3 helpfully includes on-the-job training related to interoperable communications, including but not limited to COMLINC, referring to current and future iterations of Virginia interoperability solutions. Such systems, consistent with the Commonwealth's goal to improve public safety communications outcomes, implicitly include basic communications with fire and EMS units and associated knowledge, skills, and abilities.

**Various, including Criteria 1.4.2.8 and OJT 5.113 - TDD and services or deaf and hard of hearing (unrelated to fire or EMS)

We recognize that text-to-911, while not fully deployed, will be required by July 1, 2020 in each Virginia PSAP. (See 2018 General Assembly Senate Bill 418, which becomes law July 1, 2018.) While TDD and TRS are still the official and required forms of emergency communication with the deaf and hard of hearing community, we recommend inclusion of basic text-to-911 concepts based on widespread adoption and the new 2020 statutory deadline for providing text services in the Commonwealth.

Please accept these comments and suggestions in the context of the Board's appreciation of the hard work to date and to come, as well as the open and frequent communication and collaboration with DCJS staff. It is through relationships and partnerships like these that we collectively work to advance public safety communications in the Commonwealth. Thank you again for your time, commitment, and consideration.

First and foremost I want to express my gratitude for the attention to this document. As a telecommunicator I appreciate the ability to express my input. It is exciting to see the ammendment address next generation 911. Here in Orange, we utilize the text-to-911 software on every wireless call recieved and contact is not made. With the industry ever-changing, it is necessary to be mindful of frequently updating documents such as Performance Outcomes. 

I was dissapointed to see the removal of instruction regarding Fire/EMS. I feel it would be a disservice to withhold that training from a newly hired telecommunicator. Just this year, Orange County Sheriff's Office merged with the Orange County 911 Center with an extremely expedited date. The merge combined telecommunicators with no Fire/EMS experence with those of no law enforcement experience. Had the telecommunicators not had the basic foundation of fire/EMS, the merge would not have been as successful. Fortunatly, through great leadership and training, our expedited merge went smoothly. 

I was able to attend a few of the CRC meetings in a support role to our training academy director.  During these meetings the curriculum and the OJT checklists were reviewed.  The material was clearly dated and much required removal.  DCJS was insistant that they would not be the regulatory agency as it related to Fire/EMS.  We all agree that obtaining training for our staff is the most important goal.  I am of the opinion that if DCJS is not willing to support that aspect of our jobs (Fire/EMS) we will need to find an alternative.  They were clear that if it listed on the OJT checklist in order to become DCJS certified each employee must complete ALL items on the checklist; whereas historically it was marked as not applicable which allowed agencies that did not dispatch law enforcement to still be certified. Given this, even if the references to Fire/EMS were left in the curriculum DCJS will not allow certification without completing ALL aspects of the OJT checklist which in turn would eliminate any strictly Fire/EMS agency from being completely certified. 

My current concerns with the proprosed curriculum is where, in the interest of consistent training from academy to academy, we find the information to support the objectives/talking points.  It should be from one source and that said we have to be mindful that we are not pulling it from copyrighted material...as you read the curriculum there are some objectives/talking points that after another review require further clarification...

I too appreciate all of the effort put forth in this project and hope that in the end we can reach a solution that is best for our front line staff and set them up for success and not failure. 

Please consider adding fire and rescue components to the proposed changes. I work in an agency that dispatches for both Law Enforcement and Fire/Rescue agencies and it extremely important to include non-law enforcement agency training especially as we look to the future. It is becoming more common that agencies consolidate and work with multiple agencies within 1 communications center. Including fire and rescue standards will help with transition and more consistent training.

Thank you for you diligent and hard work on these standards and I look forward to the outcome.

I appreciate the effort that was put into reviewing the Proposed Minimum Training Performance Outcomes for Dispatchers. It is vital that basic fire/EMS training be mandatory for all communications officers to be well-rounded in the communications field. The more knowledge a communications officer has, the better they are able to understand, obtain, and relay information to other agencies and the responders, which in turn helps the citizens. We have many situations in our field that require a response from many responders. For instance, a shooting requires law enforcement, first responders from the engine company, and EMS personnel; a domestic might need a medic and LE response; or a structure fire where fire and EMS are dispatched. Communications needs to anticipate the needs of the responders in all situations and have the tools and training available to gather the correct, pertinent information needed when call taking. Providing LE dispatchers with a basic understanding of Fire/EMS terminology enhances law enforcement communications and serves as a basis for questioning citizens in the event of an incident that requires multiple responders. I urge you to reconsider removing the fire/EMS language from the minimum training standards.