Existing law requires every local public agency within its respective jurisdiction to establish and have in operation a basic system, or be part of a system, that processes 911 emergency telephone calls. Existing law requires each system to include police, firefighting, and emergency medical and ambulance services, and authorizes the system to include other emergency services, such as poison control services, suicide prevention services, and civil defense services.

Existing law requires a public safety agency that provides 911 call processing services for emergency medical response to make a connection available from the public safety agency dispatch center to an emergency medical services (EMS) providers dispatch center for the timely transmission of emergency response information. Existing law requires a public safety agency implementing an emergency medical dispatch program to perform 911 call processing services and operate the program in accordance with applicable state guidelines and regulations and the policies adopted by the local EMS agency, as specified.

This bill would require the University of California at Davis Health (UC Davis Health) to establish a program for the receipt and collection of 911 emergency call and dispatch data, in order to complete an analysis of the data for the purpose of improving emergency response services systems. The bill would require UC Davis Health to adopt uniform statewide data standards for 911 call and dispatch data, as specified, and to create a data portal that catalogs the collected data, aggregated on a statewide level, excluding any personally identifiable information. and containing only deidentified data, as defined.

Under the bill, the Emergency Medical Services Authority, the Office of Emergency Services, the Department of Health Care Access and Information, and the Department of Justice would collaborate with UC Davis Health for purposes of this program.

The bill would require any applicable entity, as specified, whether state or local, public or private, that has available to it 911 call and dispatch data to send the data to UC Davis Health. By creating new duties for local public entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would condition implementation of these provisions on an appropriation, consistent with any applicable federal or state privacy laws, and approval by the Regents of the University of California for the participation of UC Davis Health. Health, and the provisions not superseding or preempting the applicability of any existing state or federal privacy laws.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires every local public agency within its respective jurisdiction to establish and have in operation a basic system, or be part of a system, that processes 911 emergency telephone calls. Existing law requires each system to include police, firefighting, and emergency medical and ambulance services, and authorizes the system to include other emergency services, such as poison control services, suicide prevention services, and civil defense services.

Existing law requires a public safety agency that provides 911 call processing services for emergency medical response to make a connection available from the public safety agency dispatch center to an emergency medical services (EMS) providers dispatch center for the timely transmission of emergency response information. Existing law requires a public safety agency implementing an emergency medical dispatch program to perform 911 call processing services and operate the program in accordance with applicable state guidelines and regulations and the policies adopted by the local EMS agency, as specified.

This bill would require the University of California at Davis Health (UC Davis Health) to establish a program for the receipt and collection of 911 emergency call and dispatch data, in order to complete an analysis of the data for the purpose of improving emergency response services systems. The bill would require UC Davis Health to adopt uniform statewide data standards for 911 call and dispatch data, as specified, and to create a data portal that catalogs the collected data, aggregated on a statewide level, excluding any personally identifiable information.

Under the bill, the Emergency Medical Services Authority, the Office of Emergency Services, the Department of Health Care Access and Information, and the Department of Justice would collaborate with UC Davis Health for purposes of this program.

The bill would require any applicable entity, as specified, whether state or local, public or private, that has available to it 911 call and dispatch data to send the data to UC Davis Health. By creating new duties for local public entities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would condition implementation of these provisions on an appropriation, consistent with any applicable federal or state privacy laws, and approval by the Regents of the University of California for the participation of UC Davis Health.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Chris Holden, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1276

Author:(McKinnor) – As Amended Ver:May 2, 2023

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the University of California at Davis Health (UC Davis Health), in collaboration with specified state entities, to establish a program for the receipt and collection of “911” emergency call and dispatch data to complete a study for the purpose of improving emergency response services systems. The bill also requires UC Davis Health to adopt uniform statewide data standards for “911” call and dispatch data, as specified, and to create a data portal that catalogs the collected data, aggregated on a statewide level and excluding any personally identifiable information. The bill requires an applicable entity to send “911” call and dispatch data to UC Davis Health.

FISCAL EFFECT:

The University of California (UC) estimates costs in the millions of dollars annually, citing the complexity to determine and implement a statewide standard for 911 call data (General Fund). UC notes the following activities:

• Convene stakeholder meetings with state entities and 33 local emergency medical services agencies (LEMSAs) and approximately 450 Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs) that manage 911 calls to develop uniform statewide standards for 911 emergency call and dispatch data.
  
• Confer with experts to determine best data sciences and security practices for the data portal.
  
• Develop a portal that collects the aggregated de-identified data.

Ongoing costs would include employee salaries and benefits to maintain the data portal, infrastructure costs to receive regular data from PSAPs, maintenance costs for the secure data portal, and regular data analysis and reporting.

Subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates, the state would be required to reimburse local programs for their costs to implement this bill.

COMMENTS:

This bill is sponsored by Public Health Advocates. According to the author:

Data suggests that most 911 calls are for issues that fall outside the standard definition of emergencies and may require a response outside of the scope of traditional first response. There are currently no common standards for data collection and reporting, making it hard to identify the appropriate response to a 911 call. This issue has resulted in state and local governments having difficulties in allocating resources that meet the needs of community members requesting 911 services

According to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee analysis, this bill came about, in part, as a response to the Racial Identity and Profiling Act Board’s 2023 Annual Report, which includes a chapter titled “Calls for Help and Bias by Proxy.” The chapter discussed the problem of bias in the dispatch decisions being made by some 911 operators, including whether the biases are the operators’ or are due to bias by proxy, meaning the caller is biased.

UC questions whether it is an appropriate entity to implement this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Jesse Gabriel, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1276 (

Author:McKinnor) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2023

Proposed Consent (As Proposed to be Amended)

SUBJECT: Emergency response services: “911” call and dispatch data

SYNOPSIS

This bill is intended to do important work in determining whether or not there is disparate treatment of people when they reach out for emergency help through 911. Currently, the data is to study what happens when people call 911 and first responders are dispatched is not readily available. This bill intends to rectify that by doing two things:

1. It requests that the University of California Davis Medical Center create a web portal that allows them to collect and analyze de-identified 911 emergency call and dispatch data.

2. If approved by the Medical Center, it then requires state and local 911 dispatchers to submit call and dispatch data to the web portal for analysis.

The bill came about, in part, as a response to the Racial Identity and Profiling Act Board’s 2023 Annual Report, which includes a chapter entitled “Calls for Help and Bias by Proxy.” Among other issues, the chapter discussed the problem of bias in the dispatch decisions being made by some 911 operators, including whether the biases are the operators’ or are due to bias by proxy, meaning the caller is biased.

While the recent amendments address any privacy concerns related to sharing the data by clarifying the de-identification of personal information, what remains unclear in the bill as it is currently written is whether or not this is intended to be a one-time analysis or on-going data collection and analysis. The author may want to consider including clear expectations about how regularly data should be submitted, when she wants the first report completed, who the report should be made available to, whether she wants the analysis to include recommendations for improving the system, and, if the intent is for on-going analysis, how often she wants subsequent reports to be completed.

In addition, the background provided by the author’s office suggests that the intent is for the system to be one that local 911 dispatch centers can voluntarily opt in to, rather than a requirement. If that is the case, then the language in the bill should be clarified. Along with the clarification, the author may wish to consider who should be responsible for making the decision to opt in or opt out. It may be that a county-level analysis would be more useful than a city-by-city analysis.

This bill is sponsored by Public Health Advocates and is supported by a number of public health and youth advocacy organizations, including the John Burton Advocates for Youth and the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California.

This bill passed the Health Committee on a 15-0 vote with a recommendation to the consent calendar.

SUMMARY: This bill establishes a program at the University of California Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, that will establish a system for collecting and analyzing statewide 911 emergency call and dispatch data. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requests that the University of California at Davis Health (UC Davis Health), in collaboration with the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA), the Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), do the following:
   1. Establish a program to collect “911” emergency call and dispatch data, in order to complete an analysis of the data for the purpose of improving emergency response services systems.
   2. House the program in the Department of Emergency Medicine at UC Davis Health.
   3. Adopt uniform statewide data standards for “911” call and dispatch data, including, but not limited to, de-identification protocols, standards for the categories, types, and format of data collected.
   4. Create a data portal that catalogs the collected data, aggregated on a statewide level. The data portal shall contain only de-identified data, as defined.
2. Upon the establishment of the program by UC Davis Health, any applicable entity, whether state or local, public or private, that has available to it, as part of its official functions or systems, “911” call and dispatch data shall send the data to UC Davis Health. Those entities shall include, but not be limited to, local emergency medical services (EMS) agencies, EMS providers, EMSA, Cal OES, HCAI, and DOJ, if any applicable data are available.
3. Defines “de-identified data” as removing all the personal information included in 45 CFR § 164.514(b)(2)(i) with the exception of dates and geographical location information down to the street level. Location information, however, cannot contain an actual street address.
4. States that 1, 2, and 3 above shall be implemented:
   1. Subject to an appropriation made by the Legislature for the purpose of implementing this section.
   2. Subject to approval by the Regents of the University of California for the participation of UC Davis Health as described in this section.
5. States that nothing in this bill shall be construed to supersede or preempt the applicability of any existing state or federal privacy laws, including the following:
   1. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
   2. Information Practices Act of 1977.
   3. Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.
   4. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides, pursuant to the California Constitution, that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1.)
2. Establishes the Information Practices Act (IPA), which sets forth requirements that apply to state agencies that collect, maintain, and disclose personal information regarding California residents, including limitations on permissible disclosure, the rights of residents to know and access that personal information, and required accounting of disclosures of personal information. (Civ. Code § 1798, et seq.)
3. Establishes under federal law, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which sets standards for the privacy of individually identifiable health information and security standards for the protection of electronic protected health information, including, through regulations, that a HIPAA-covered entity may not condition the provision of treatment, payment, enrollment in a health plan, or eligibility for benefits on the provision of an authorization, except under specified circumstances. Provides that if HIPAA’s provisions conflict with state law, the provision that is most protective of patient privacy prevails. (42 U.S.C. § 1320d, et seq.; 45 Code Fed. Regs. Part 164.)
4. Specifies that for de-identification purposes, the following identifiers must be removed:
   1. Names.
   2. All geographic subdivisions smaller than a State, including street address, city, county, precinct, zip code, and their equivalent geocodes, except for the initial three digits of a zip code if, according to the current publicly available data from the Bureau of the Census.
      1. The geographic unit formed by combining all zip codes with the same three initial digits contains more than 20,000 people.
      2. The initial three digits of a zip code for all such geographic units containing 20,000 or fewer people is changed to 000.
   3. All elements of dates (except year) for dates directly related to an individual, including birth date, admission date, discharge date, date of death; and all ages over 89 and all elements of dates (including year) indicative of such age, except that such ages and elements may be aggregated into a single category of age 90 or older.
   4. Telephone numbers.
   5. Fax numbers.
   6. Electronic mail addresses.
   7. Social security numbers.
   8. Medical record numbers.
   9. Health plan beneficiary numbers.
   10. Account numbers.
   11. Certificate/license numbers.
   12. Vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, including license plate numbers.
   13. Device identifiers and serial numbers.
   14. Web Universal Resource Locators (URLs).
   15. Internet Protocol (IP) address numbers.
   16. Biometric identifiers, including finger and voice prints.
   17. Full face photographic images and any comparable images.
   18. Any other unique identifying number, characteristic, or code, with exceptions. (45 CFR § 164.514(b)(2)(i).)
5. Establishes the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA). (Civ. Code §§ 56 - 56.37)
6. Establishes the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). (Civ. Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199.100.)
7. Establishes the Warren-911-Emergency Assistance Act, which requires every public agency to have in operation a telephone service, which automatically connects a person dialing the digits “911” to an established public safety answering point. Defines public agency to include the state, any city or county, or any public district that provides or has authority to provide firefighting, police, ambulance, or other emergency services. Prohibits these provisions of law from prohibiting or discouraging the formation of multijurisdictional or regional system. (Gov. Code § 53100, et seq.)
8. Requires, no later than January 1, 2018, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under 4) above. (Gov. Code § 12525.5.)
9. Requires the DOJ to make available to the public, through the department’s OpenJustice Web portal, information relating to criminal statistics, to be updated at least once per year, and to present at other times as the Attorney General may approve reports on special aspects of criminal statistics. A sufficient number of copies of a downloadable summary of this information shall be annually prepared to enable the Attorney General to send a copy to the Governor and to all public officials in the state dealing with criminals and to distribute them generally in channels where they will add to the public enlightenment. This subdivision shall not be construed to require more frequent reporting by local agencies than what is required by any other law. (Pen. Code § 13010(g).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose of the bill. The author notes that data suggests that most 911 calls are for issues that fall outside the standard definition of emergencies and may require a response outside of the scope of traditional first response. There are currently no common standards for data collection and reporting, making it hard to identify the appropriate response to a 911 call. This issue has resulted in state and local governments having difficulties in allocating resources that meet the needs of community members requesting 911 services. This bill is intended to solve this problem by standardizing, collecting, and analyzing statewide 911 data.

2) Author’s statement. According to the author:

AB 1276 will create the infrastructure for cities to opt into storing 911 call data and begin the process of ensuring that emergency response systems keep pace with advancing technology while respecting the privacy of callers to uphold ethical and transparent data collection.

3) What this bill does. If the University of California Regents approve and the Legislature provides funding, this bill will do the following:

1. Require the Department of Emergency Medicine at UC Davis Health to create a system to receive and analyze information related to the nature of 911 emergency calls and the services dispatched. UC Davis Health, in collaboration with EMSA, Cal OES, HCAI, and DOJ, will be responsible for determining the type of data needed to conduct the analysis and adopting statewide standards in order to insure the data submitted is uniform.

2. Once the system is built, all 911 call centers will be required to de-identify and submit data related to the types of calls received, the locations of those calls, the first responders dispatched to provide assistance, or any other information that UC Davis Health determines is needed in order to analyze emergency response services.

3. The amendments to the bill ensure that the data that is shared with UC Davis does not include any personal information. In addition, the bill makes it clear that it will only be implemented if the UC Regents agree and if funding is included in the state budget.

4) Racial and Identity Profile Advisory (RIPA) Board. The Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 established the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) board within the DOJ (AB 953 (Weber), Chap. 466, Stats. 2015) in an effort to eliminate racial and identity profiling and to improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. The board is required to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies’ racial and identity profiling policies and practices across geographic areas in California and to annually publicize its findings and policy recommendations. State and local agencies that employ peace officers are required to annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops conducted by the agency’s peace officers with specific information regarding the nature of the stop. Citizen complaints of racial and identity profiling also must be collected and reported, including the status of the complaint. The DOJ is responsible for receiving, analyzing and reporting the information.

5) 2023 RIPA recommendations. The 2023 RIPA report includes a chapter entitled “Calls for Help and Bias by Proxy.” Among other issues, the chapter discusses the problem of bias in the dispatch decisions being made by some 911 operators, whether the biases are the operators’ or bias by proxy, meaning the caller is biased. The report uses the well- known example of a caller who became known as “BBQ Becky” who called the police twice on Black men at Lake Merritt in Oakland, California, for using charcoal grills in an area she claimed was not designated for barbecuing. The two dispatchers were critical in ensuring that the women’s calls, which appeared to involve bias by proxy, led to a non-violent outcome for the two men.

A dispatcher interacts directly with the 911 caller – hearing the voice and tone of the caller and any background noises – and can ask questions as necessary. The dispatcher then makes the choice to: i) send law enforcement; ii) send a crisis intervention team in jurisdictions that have them; iii) send out a medical or fire team; or, iv) not send out a team at all. Thus, the ability to discern whether a call is about a non-violent crisis, such as a mental health or substance abuse episode, or improperly fueled by the caller’s bias, is an important skill. Additionally, the response team relies on the information gathered by a dispatcher. That information may influence how a team responds to a particular incident and may set the stage for or prevent a volatile interaction.

The report provides numerous recommendations and best practices for law enforcement agencies, the Legislature, and local policymakers, among others. Those recommendations include, among many others, that public health officials and policymakers should treat racial and identity profiling and adverse policing as significant public health issues and recognize that police interactions can negatively impact the mental and physical health of individuals who are Black, Hispanic/Latine(x), Indigenous, and people of color; and, that law enforcement agencies and local district attorneys should create data-driven policies to improve public safety and develop innovative ways to address racial and identity profiling by eliminating pretextual stops. (Racial and Identity Profile Advisory Board 2023 Annual Report, Office of the Attorney General (Jan 1, 2023), available at https://oag.ca.gov/ab953/board/reports#current.)

6) Open data and the OpenJustice portal. An open data portal is an online repository of downloadable data in raw form that is available to the public. This tool enables researchers, civic coders, and journalists to access and study data that has generally not been publicly available.

In 2015, Attorney General Kamala Harris launched the OpenJustice initiative, an open data Web portal designed to make information available to the public through an interactive, easy-to-use web interface. This tool consists of two components. First, a data exploration section that spotlights key criminal justice indicators such as crime statistics, arrests, domestic violence incidents, and criminal justice personnel. This section allows users to look at changes over time, county specific or statewide data, and many other iterations of the data collected through the portal. The second section is an open data portal that publishes complete raw datasets that can be downloaded. (It is important to note in June of 2022 there was potential data exposure that may have caused confidential personal data to unintentionally be disclosed in connection with the firearms dashboard on the OpenJustice website.)

In March 2019, the California Department of Technology issued a technology letter to all state departments announcing a statewide open data policy. In that letter, the department describes the importance of open data:

This Open Data Policy promotes more accessible, discoverable, and usable data that impacts economic development and improves government services. In addition, open data encourages informed policy decisions, performance planning, research and scientific discoveries, and increased public participation in democratic dialogue. Open data is public data collected by the state through its routine business activities and published in a format that is easy to search, easy to download and easy to combine with other data sets from other sources; it does not include private or confidential data about individuals.[Emphasis added]. (Letter available at https://cdt.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/TL-19-01.pdf.)

7) Analysis of the bill. This bill is clearly intended to do important work in determining whether or not there is disparate treatment of people when they reach out for emergency help through 911. Do some neighborhoods receive different types of first responders than other neighborhoods? Are the outcomes of those calls different for some people than for others? Are response times different and why might that be? There are a myriad of questions that remain unanswered because of the inability to conduct a thorough analysis of the state’s emergency response system.

However, as the bill moves forward, the author should consider adding clarity and detail to the bill. One of the things that is unclear in the bill as it is currently written is whether or not this is intended to be a one-time analysis or on-going data collection and analysis. The author may want to consider including clear expectations about when they want the first reports completed, who those reports should be made available to, whether they want the analysis to include recommendations for improving the system, and, if the intent is for on-going analysis, how often they want reports to be completed.

In addition, the background provided by the author’s office suggests that the intent is for the system to be one that local 911 dispatch centers can voluntarily opt in to, rather than a requirement. If that is the case, then the language in the bill should clearly state that participating in the program is optional for local 911 dispatch centers. Along with the clarification, the author may wish to consider who should be responsible for making the decision to opt in or opt out. It may be that a county-level analysis would be more useful than a city by city analysis. In which case, the decision might rest with either the county board of supervisors. Alternatively, it maybe be that city-level participation is sufficient, in which case the author may want to make city councils responsible for deciding whether or not to participate.

Finally, the author may find that the best solution for getting on-going robust research from a wide range of experts, is to not only require UC Davis Health to analyze the data collected but also require the creation and maintainence of an open data system, similar to the DOJ’s OpenJustice portal, discussed previously.

8) Committee amendments. Committee amendments to the bill, reflected in the analysis above, are set forth below:

130300. (a) (2), (3) and (4) will be amended as follows:

(2) Adopt uniform statewide data standards for “911” call and dispatch data, including, but not limited to, de-identification protocols, standards for the categories, types, and format of data collected.

(3) Create a data portal that catalogs the collected data, aggregated on a statewide level. The data portal shall exclude any personally identifiable information. The data portal shall contain only de-identified data, as defined.

(4) “De-identified data” means data with all information included in 45 CFR § 164.514(b)(2) removed, with the exception of allowing dates and geographical location information down to the street level to remain in the data. Street level information does not include an actual street address.

This set of amendments are intended to clarify exactly what personally identifiable information needs to be de-identified. That information includes all of the information included in the section of HIPAA (see EXISTING LAW #4), with the exception of allowing dates to remain in the data, and allowing for location information that will allow researchers to aggregate the data to analyze 911 responses based on specific neighborhoods.

130300. (c) and (d) will be amended as follows:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or preempt the applicability of any existing state or federal privacy laws, including but not limited to:

(1) The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

(2) The Information Practices Act of 1977.

(3) The Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

(4) The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.

(cd) (1) This section shall be implemented subject to an appropriation made by the Legislature for the purpose of implementing this section.

(2) This section shall be implemented only to the extent not in conflict with any applicable federal or state privacy laws.

(3) This section shall be implemented subject to approval by the Regents of the University of California for the participation of UC Davis Health as described in this section.

This amendment clarifies which state and federal privacy laws cannot be superseded or preempted by this bill.

9) Related legislation. AB 953 (Weber, Chap. 466, Stats. 2015) modifies the definition of racial profiling; requires local law enforcement agencies to report specified information on stops to the AG's office; and establishes the RIPA.

AB 2425 (Irwin, Chap.418, Stats 2016) the OpenJustice Data Act, supported by former Attorney General Kamala Harris, codified the OpenJustice portal by requiring the DOJ make available to the public its mandatory criminal justice statistical reports in an open data format through the OpenJustice Web Portal.

AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan, Chap. 747, Stats. 2022) requires the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS) to appoint and convene a state 988 policy advisory group to advise CHHS on the implementation and administration of the five-year implementation plan for the 988 Suicide Prevention System. Requires the Office of Emergency Services to appoint a 988 system director and convene an advisory board to guide how 988 is implemented and made interoperable with 911, including the creation of a new surcharge for 988 to fund the crisis services. Requires health plan and insurer coverage of 988 center services when medically necessary and without prior authorization.

AB 2773 (Holden, Chap. 805, Stats. 2022) requires, beginning January 1, 2024, a peace officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop to state the reason for the stop before asking any questions related to a criminal investigation or traffic violation, unless the officer reasonably believes that withholding the reason for the stop is necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: John Burton Advocates for Youth (JBAY) states in support of the bill:

In California, approximately 28 million calls are placed to 911 each year. However, most local jurisdictions lack the resources to routinely compile and analyze their 911 data. Where data are collected and reported, the absence of common standards makes it difficult for program administrators to assess the complex types of support requested and the appropriateness of responses provided. To address these issues, AB 1276 requires state agencies to collaborate with UC Davis Health to create uniform statewide standards for 911 call and dispatch data, create a data portal cataloging collected data, and aggregate these data statewide.

Making 911 data consistent and accessible will allow decision-makers to understand service needs and appropriately allocate resources to ensure the right response at the right time.

The sponsors of the bill, Public Health Advocates, echo the sentiment of JBAY. In addition, they state:

As an organization, Public Health Advocates is driven by its core values – of those values are the commitment to using science as our guide and being bold in achieving sustainable solutions to our states most pressing issues. Currently, the 911 call data that is available isn’t enough to make strategic and sustainable decisions to improve our emergency systems in California.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, Advocacy and Leadership (APPEAL)
Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative
California Homeless Union Statewide Organizing Council
Dr. Corrine Mcintosh Sako, Psy.d.. Lmft
Jemmott Rollins Group INC.
John Burton Advocates for Youth
Justice2jobs Coalition
Latino Coalition for A Healthy California
Public Health Advocates
Sacramento Native American Health Center
Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness
Tabimoms
The Children's Partnership
Young Invincibles
Youth Forward
Youth Leadership Institute

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Julie Salley / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

Date of Hearing: April 11, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Jim Wood, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1276

Author:(McKinnor) – As Introduced Ver:February 16, 2023

SUBJECT: Emergency response services: “911” call and dispatch data.

SUMMARY: Requires the University of California at Davis Health (UC Davis Health) to establish a program for the receipt and collection of “911” emergency call and dispatch data, in order to complete an analysis of the data for the purpose of improving emergency response services systems. Requires UC Davis Health to adopt uniform statewide data standards for “911” call and dispatch data, as specified, and to create a data portal that catalogs the collected data, aggregated on a statewide level, excluding any personally identifiable information. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, UC Davis Health, in collaboration with the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA), the Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), to do all of the following:
   1. Establish a program for the receipt and collection of “911” emergency call and dispatch data, in order to complete an analysis of the data pursuant to this bill, for the purpose of improving emergency response services systems. Requires the program to be housed in the Department of Emergency Medicine of UC Davis Health;
   2. Adopt uniform statewide data standards for “911” call and dispatch data, including, but not limited to, standards for the categories, types, and format of data collected; and,
   3. Create a data portal that catalogs the collected data, aggregated on a statewide level. Requires the data portal to exclude any personally identifiable information.
      
2. Requires, upon the establishment of the program by UC Davis Health, any applicable entity, whether state or local, public or private, that has available to it, as part of its official functions or systems, “911” call and dispatch data, to send the data to UC Davis Health. Requires those entities to include, but not be limited to, local emergency medical services (EMS) agencies, EMS providers, EMSA, Cal OES, HCAI, and DOJ, if any applicable data are available.
   
3. Requires the provisions of this bill to be implemented subject to an appropriation made by the Legislature.
   
4. Requires this bill to be implemented only to the extent that it does not conflict with any applicable federal or state privacy laws.
   
5. Requires this bill to be implemented subject to approval by the Regents of the University of California for the participation of UC Davis Health.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the Warren-911-Emergency Assistance Act, which requires every public agency to have in operation a telephone service, which automatically connects a person dialing the digits “911” to an established public safety answering point. Defines public agency to include the state, any city or county, or any public district that provides or has authority to provide firefighting, police, ambulance, or other emergency services. Prohibits these provisions of law from prohibiting or discouraging the formation of multijurisdictional or regional system. [Government Code (GOV) §53100, et seq.]
   
2. Requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General (AG) data on all stops conducted by that agency’s peace officers for the preceding calendar year. [GOV §12525.5]
   
3. Requires each agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers to begin collecting data on or before July 1, 2018, and to issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2019. Requires each agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers must begin collecting data on or before January 1, 2019, and issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2020. Requires each agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers to begin collecting data on or before January 1, 2021, and issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2022. Requires each agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers to begin collecting data on or before January 1, 2022, and issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2023. [Id.]
   
4. Requires the reporting, under 3) above to include, at a minimum, the following information for each stop:
   1. The time, date, and location of the stop;
   2. The reason for the stop;
   3. The result of the stop, such as, no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest;
   4. If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited;
   5. If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
   6. The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics to be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information to not be requested from the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, only applies to the driver, unless any actions under g) below apply in relation to a passenger, in which case the characteristics must also be reported for that passenger; and,
   7. Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
      1. Whether the peace officer asked for consent to search the person, and, if so, whether consent was provided;
      2. Whether the peace officer searched the person or any property, and, if so, the basis for the search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any; and,
      3. Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing the property. [Id.]
         
5. Requires, if more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer to collect and report to the officer’s agency the information specified under 3) above. [Id.]
6. Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from reporting the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure. Requires the data reported to be available to the public, except for the badge number or other unique identifying information of the peace officer involved. Makes law enforcement agencies solely responsible for ensuring that personally identifiable information of the individual stopped or any other information that is exempt from disclosure is not transmitted to the AG in an open text field. [Id.]
7. Requires, no later than January 1, 2018, the AG, in consultation with stakeholders, including the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under 4) above. [Id.]
8. Defines, for purposes of RIPA, “peace officer,” to be limited to members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency, and California state or university educational institutions. Excludes probation officers and officers in a custodial setting from this definition. [Id.]
9. Defines “stop” to mean any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person’s body or property in the person’s possession or control. [Id.]
   
10. Requires, no later than December 31, 2023, the California Health and Human Services Agency to create a set of recommendations to support a five-year implementation plan for a comprehensive 988 suicide and crisis lifeline system. [GOV §53123.3, et seq.]
    
11. Requires the five-year implementation plan to include all of the following:
12. A state governance structure of the 988 system;
13. Standards of care for call centers, mobile crisis teams, and behavioral health crisis services, including examples of models across the state that are in accordance with the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Guidelines for Behavioral Health Crisis Care, and existing parity laws;
14. Metrics for evaluating the 988 system;
15. A framework for local implementation of statewide 988 policies, regulations, and guidelines for the coordination of the 988 crisis response system across 988 call centers, 911, county behavioral health, public health, first responders, law enforcement agencies, and other relevant entities. Requires the framework to stipulate that any local plans developed must be approved by the state governing authority and include guidelines on establishing regional agreements and contracts that appropriately link call centers, mobile crisis teams, crisis receiving and stabilization centers, and other relevant county services such as additional call lines and services;
16. Procedures for determining the annual operating budget for the purposes of establishing the rate of the 988 surcharge and how revenue will be dispersed to fund the 988 system, as specified;
17. Strategies for ensuring that the 988 crisis response system is adequately funded, including mechanisms for reimbursement of behavioral health emergency or crisis response, as specified, including, but not limited to:
    1. Seeking to maximize all available federal funding sources for the purposes of 988 implementation, including federal Medicaid reimbursement for services; federal Medicaid reimbursement for administrative expenses, including the development and maintenance of information technology to support the 988 system and crisis services; and federal grants, including the funding of mental health crisis services; and,
    2. Coordinating with the Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Health Care to ensure efficient and timely reimbursement to counties for medically necessary crisis intervention, mobile crisis, crisis receiving and stabilization, and crisis residential services by health care service plans and disability insurers, as specified.
       
18. Requires Cal OES, no later than July 16, 2022, to ensure that designated 988 centers utilize technology that allows for transfers between 988 centers, as well as between 988 centers and 911 public safety answering points. Requires Cal OES, no later than 90 days after the passage of Miles Hall Lifeline and Suicide Prevention Act, to appoint a 988 crisis hotline system director to implement and oversee the administration coordinating the emergency mental health crisis response with emergency crisis lines and establish and convene the State 988 Technical Advisory Board for purposes of advising Cal OES on the development of technical and operational standards for the 988 system that allow for coexistence with California’s 911 system and the creation of standards for 988 operators to process and dispatch the necessary mental health response and when to transfer into the 911 public answering points or points, and vice versa. Requires the board to meet no less than quarterly until December 31, 2028, and permits the board to be disbanded at the discretion of Cal OES. [GOV §53123.2]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, this bill will create the infrastructure for cities to opt into storing 911 call data and begin the process of ensuring that emergency response systems keep pace with advancing technology while respecting the privacy of callers to uphold ethical and transparent data collection. The author concludes that, the end-result of this bill, which is the collection and analysis of 911 call data, can be used to evaluate emergency response systems in a way that accounts for diverse community needs and helps to identify non-biased and culturally appropriate responses to 911 emergencies.
2. BACKGROUND.
   
   1. The Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIP Act) of 2015. In 2015, the Legislature passed AB 953 (Weber), Chapter 466, Statutes of 2015, also known as the RIP Act of 2015, which expressly prohibited racial and identity profiling by law enforcement and requires law enforcement agencies to report stop data to the DOJ. RIP Act guidelines define a “stop” as “any detention by a peace officer of a person or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the officer conducts a search. This data includes both pedestrian and vehicle stops.” A 2019 analysis of RIP Act stop data by the Public Policy Institute of California found the following: RIP Act data reveal that Black Californians have notably different experiences during stops than white Californians. Black people are more than twice as likely to be searched, even though searches of Black people are somewhat less likely to yield contraband or evidence. Black people are overrepresented in stops with no enforcement, but Black Californians are almost twice as likely to be booked into jail.
      

RIP Act stop data for 2020 showed that the most commonly reported reason for a stop (86.1%) across all racial/ethnic groups was a traffic violation, and that individuals perceived as Black or Hispanic comprised 60% of the stops reported, while just under 32% of the stops involved individuals perceived as white. The 2020 data also reflected a continuation of the previous year’s trends as well as a finding that “officers searched, detained on the curb or in a patrol car, handcuffed, and removed from vehicles more individuals perceived as Black than individuals perceived as white, even though they stopped more than double the number of individuals perceived as white than individuals perceived as Black.”

• 1. 2023 RIPA Report (the Report). The RIP Act also created an advisory board which examines RIP Act data related to a wide range of issues related to racial and identity profiling in policing and how to eliminate this unlawful practice. Over the past four years, the data collected under the RIP Act has provided empirical evidence showing disparities in policing throughout California. This year’s data demonstrates the same trends in disparities for all aspects of law enforcement stops, from the reason for stop to actions taken during stop to results of stop. Specifically, the Report analyzes the RIP Act stop data from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021, collected and reported by 58 law enforcement agencies, including the 23 largest law enforcement agencies in California. The Report also explores the negative mental health impacts of adverse law enforcement interactions on individuals and communities and contains a new focus on youth interactions with law enforcement both inside and outside of school. Some of the report findings include:
     1. Agencies reported over 3.1 million stops during the data collection period, with the California Highway Patrol conducting the most stops of any single agency (54.9%);
     2. Individuals perceived to be Hispanic/Latinx (42.4%), white (30.7%), or Black (15.0%) comprised the majority of stopped individuals;
     3. The majority of stopped individuals were perceived as either (cisgender) male (72.1%) or (cisgender) female (27.5%), together accounting for 99.7% of individuals stopped;
     4. Officers perceived 1.2% of the individuals they stopped to have one or more disabilities. Of those perceived to have a disability, the most common disability reported by officers was a mental health condition (75.1%).
     5. The most commonly reported reason for a stop across all racial/ethnic groups was a traffic violation (86.8%), followed by reasonable suspicion that the individual was engaged in criminal activity (10.5%). Relative to other racial/ethnic groups, Black individuals had the highest proportion of their stops reported as reasonable suspicion (16.2%) and the lowest proportion of their stops reported as traffic violations (80.5%).

The Report also discusses the role dispatchers play in racial and identity profiling. Dispatchers play an integral role in the response to and outcome of a call for service for a number of reasons. They serve as the conduit between the 911 caller and the response team. A dispatcher interacts directly with the 911 caller – hearing the voice and tone of the caller and any background noises – and can ask questions as necessary. The dispatcher then makes the choice to: i) send law enforcement; ii) send a crisis intervention team in jurisdictions that have them; iii) send out a medical or fire team; or, iv) not send out a team at all. Thus, the ability to discern whether a call is about a non-violent crisis, such as a mental health or substance abuse episode, or improperly fueled by bias, is an important skill. Additionally, the response team relies on the information gathered by a dispatcher. That information may influence how a team responds to a particular incident and may set the stage for or prevent a volatile interaction.

The Report provides numerous recommendations and best practices for law enforcement agencies, the Legislature, and local policymakers, among others. Those recommendations include, among many others, that public health officials and policymakers should treat racial and identity profiling and adverse policing as significant public health issues and recognize that police interactions can negatively impact the mental and physical health of individuals who are Black, Hispanic/Latine(x), Indigenous, and people of color; and, that, law enforcement agencies, and local district attorneys should create data-driven policies to improve public safety and develop innovative ways to address racial and identity profiling by eliminating pretextual stops.

• 1. National 911 analysis. According to a September 2020, Vera Institute of Justice study, “Understanding Police Enforcement: A Multicity 911 Analysis,” at least 240 million calls to 911 are made each year. Responding to these calls takes up a sizable amount of police officers’ time, even though relatively few calls stem from crimes in progress. Basic information, such as the number of calls and reasons they are made, how call volumes vary across different call types, and what happens from the time a call is placed to when an officer arrives on the scene, is unknown. The study reviewed the outcomes of police contacts initiated by 911 calls to understand what factors have the greatest contribution to 911 call responses. It also examined communications systems among call-takers, dispatchers, and police officers in the field to determine whether all information relevant to outcomes is being effectively conveyed. The study further explores whether it is possible to improve outcomes for police and civilians by identifying 911 calls that may be handled more appropriately by a response other than sending sworn officers.
     
     1. Identified Challenges related to the 911 system. The main 911 system problems identified in the study are:
        1. The 911 system’s lack of governance has resulted in inconsistent policing and call taking practices across communities;
        2. The prevalence of cell phones in a system designed for landlines makes it difficult to locate incidents;
        3. 911 hang-ups pose a significant strain on resources;
        4. A lack of data standardization in call-taking and classification makes analysis and evaluation across geographic sectors and departments difficult;
        5. Disjointed innovations in technology meant to assist practitioners have had the opposite effect;
        6. Police departments and communications centers lack the staff and funding to meet increased demand and responsibilities;
        7. The metrics researchers use to evaluate 911 processes and outcomes, namely the reliance on response time, are not good indicators of department efficacy;
        8. Over-utilization of the 911 call system for nonemergency incidents taxes limited resources;
        9. Marginalized groups do not necessarily trust the police enough to call 911, which calls into question the comprehensiveness of 911 call data and raises larger questions about access to public safety services; and,
        10. Requesting police assistance is difficult for people who speak English as a second language, those who are Deaf or hard of hearing, and some other community members.
     2. Recommendations for alternative responses. The study identified alternative responses that rely on officers’ knowledge of the communities they serve which could improve efficiency and enhance the safety of both officers and community members. The report made the following recommendations, among others:
        1. Responding to alarms: Officers spend a significant amount of their time responding to alarms. Departments may adapt alternative reporting practices to minimize the need for sworn police response. They may also use institutional knowledge and caller location to predict how long an alarm call will take, as well as the likelihood that a given alarm will be false. The large proportion of time dedicated to alarm response also suggests the need for further research and investigation on whether legislation is needed to regulate alarm companies’ standards to prevent unnecessary strains on the 911 system.
        2. De-escalation tactics trainings. Many police departments across the country have implemented de-escalation and crisis intervention tactics and trainings. These approaches can help improve responses and address root causes without the use of force. Some of these trainings, such as Crisis Intervention Team co-responder training and related approaches, are also beginning to be adapted and applied to 911 call taking and dispatching.
        3. Community health and social supports. Investments in community-based physical and mental health services, as well as social supports are a high priority. Appropriate resources are necessary to address homelessness, food insecurity and other social determinants of health and incarceration. A multi-pronged, cross-sectoral response is required that aligns with public health and safety approaches to offer prevention, early intervention, and continuity of care.
        4. Trauma-informed practice. Departments should enhance law enforcement response to children exposed to violence and childhood trauma to address their needs and reduce incidents of adverse childhood experiences that can result in heightened risks of subsequent victimization and engagement in criminal activities. An example of this may include the International Association of Chiefs of Police project to respond to children exposed to violence and trauma, as well as the associated toolkit for officers.
        5. Tracking frequent callers. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reliably identify frequent callers with most current systems, given the varied origins of calls for service, poor user documentation, and the lack of a reliable master name index. Properly identifying and mitigating frequent callers through improved call-taking practices and police responses will require data management systems that address these deficiencies.
        6. Integrate mental health clinicians into 911 call-taking and call centers. One recent innovation that has been adopted by several jurisdictions, including Tucson, Arizona, is to place specialized certified mental health clinicians in 911 call-taking centers. In Tucson, these clinicians are supported through Medicaid funding and are working to address the needs of 911 callers who are experiencing mental health conditions or crises that can be addressed more effectively by a trained mental health specialist. In many cases, these specialists are reportedly diverting calls from police and enforcement responses by providing support to people in crisis. Non-enforcement practices should be expanded, and programs like those in Tucson would benefit from further evaluation to understand the associated processes and impacts.

1. SUPPORT. Public Health Advocates (PHA) is the sponsor of this bill and states that in California, approximately 28 million calls are placed to 911 each year. However, most local jurisdictions lack the resources to routinely compile and analyze their 911 data. Where data are collected and reported, the absence of common standards makes it difficult for program administrators to assess the complex types of support requested and the appropriateness of responses provided. To address these issues, this bill requires state agencies to collaborate with UC Davis Health to create uniform statewide standards for 911 call and dispatch data, create a data portal cataloging collected data, and aggregate these data statewide. Currently, the 911 call data that is available is not enough to make strategic and sustainable decisions to improve our emergency systems in California. PHA concludes that making 911 data consistent and accessible will allow decision-makers to understand service needs and appropriately allocate resources to ensure the right response at the right time.
   
   John Burton Advocates for Youth support this bill and state that, in California, approximately 28 million calls are placed to 911 each year. However, most local jurisdictions lack the resources to routinely compile and analyze their 911 data. Where data are collected and reported, the absence of common standards makes it difficult for program administrators to assess the complex types of support requested and the appropriateness of responses provided. To address these issues, this bill requires state agencies to collaborate with UC Davis Health to create uniform statewide standards for 911 call and dispatch data, create a data portal cataloging collected data, and aggregate these data statewide. Making 911 data consistent and accessible will allow decision-makers to understand service needs and appropriately allocate resources to ensure the right response at the right time.
   
2. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
   1. AB 953 (Shirley Weber), Chapter 466, Statutes of 2015, modifies the definition of racial profiling; requires local law enforcement agencies to report specified information on stops to the AG's office; and establishes the RIPA.
   2. AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan), Chapter 747, Statutes of 2022, requires CHHSA to appoint and convene a state 988 policy advisory group (AG) to advise CHHSA on the implementation and administration of the five-year implementation plan for the 988 Suicide Prevention System. Requires the Office of Emergency Services to appoint a 988 system director and convene an advisory board to guide how 988 is implemented and made interoperable with 911, including the creation of a new surcharge for 988 to fund the crisis services. Requires health plan and insurer coverage of 988 center services when medically necessary and without prior authorization. Establishes a 988 surcharge for the 2023 and 2024 calendar years at $0.08 per access line per month, and for years beginning January 1, 2025 at an amount based on a specified formula, but not greater than $0.30 per access line per month. Appropriates $300,000 from the General Fund to the 988 State Suicide and Behavioral Health Crisis Services Fund previously the State Mental Health and Crisis Services Special Fund to the Department of Tax and Fee Administration for purposes of implementing this bill.
   3. AB 2773 (Holden), Chapter 805, Statutes of 2022, requires, beginning January 1, 2024, a peace officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop to state the reason for the stop before asking any questions related to a criminal investigation or traffic violation, unless the officer reasonably believes that withholding the reason for the stop is necessary to protect life or property from imminent threat.
3. DOUBLE REFERRAL. This bill is double-referred, upon passage of this committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection.
4. AUTHORS AMENDMENT. The author is proposing an amendment to add the Department of Public Health to the list of state departments collaborating on the program established by this bill. These amendments will be taken in Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.
5. POLICY COMMENTS.
   1. Timeline. As this bill moves forward, the Author may wish to work with UC Davis Health to provide a more specific timeline to complete an analysis of the data for the purpose of improving emergency response services systems, and to specifically require the analysis to include concrete recommendations for improvements.
   2. 988/RIPA overlap? The state is working to more robustly implement and monitor the 988 system through the State 988 Technical Advisory Board for purposes on the development of standards for the 988 system that allow for coexistence with California’s 911 system. Moving forward the author may wish to work with both the 988 Board and the RIPA Taskforce to ensure that any standards that are developed are not in conflict.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Public Health Advocates (sponsor)
Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, Advocacy and Leadership (APPEAL)

Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative

California Homeless Union Statewide Organizing Council

Jemmott Rollins Group INC.

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Justice2jobs Coalition

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California

Sacramento Native American Health Center

Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness

TabiMOMS

The Children's Partnership

Young Invincibles

Youth Forward

Youth Leadership Institute

One individual

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097