Rethinking rules for 911: Dispatching alternative responders in Denver and San Francisco

Abstract Research Summary Alternatives to police response to 911 calls have emerged as a leading public safety reform strategy. A key policy implementation challenge lies in determining whether alternative responders, police, or both are most appropriate for a given situation—a decision that largely falls to 911 call takers and dispatchers. This article examines how dispatch organizations have tried to structure these decisions through protocols and decision trees. Drawing on 39 interviews and 20 h of observations with 911 workers in San Francisco and Denver, we argue that these tools, as currently structured, are poorly suited to handle the uncertainty, subjectivity, and ambiguity that characterize many street crisis calls. In the absence of more thoughtfully designed guidance from leadership, we find that dispatch staff routinely work around the rules to attain the response they believe is most appropriate. Policy Implications Addressing the dispatch protocol issue is critical for the success of the alternative response movement. Absent workable protocols, dispatchers sometimes default to sending the police, undermining the progress alternative response promises. Applying our learnings from Denver and San Francisco, this study points to a two‐pronged approach that dispatch agencies can use to improve call diversion guidance. First, they can refine existing protocols and decision trees by grounding them in the experiential knowledge of frontline staff. Second, they can supplement these tools with more flexible forms of guidance—such as organizational value statements or collaborative decision‐making frameworks—to aid decision making when protocols reach their limits. Together, these changes can produce guidance that is more responsive to the realities of dispatch work and better aligned with the goals of alternative response.