U. S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 


Building a 311 System:
A Case Study of 
the City of Minneapolis

Prepared by the City of Minneapolis in cooperation with The MACRO GROUP


This report was prepared by the City of Minneapolis in cooperation with the MACRO GROUP, Inc.  The federal project manager was Debra Cohen, Ph.D., of the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office).
This report was supported by Grant Number 2003-CK-WX-K060 awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.  References to specific organizations, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement of the product by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice.  Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.  
The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication.  Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. 

Building a 311 System:
A Case Study of 
the City of Minneapolis

Contents
 
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY											1
RESULTS MINNEAPOLIS											1
WHY 311? 												1
CALLING 311												2
WHOM WE SERVE												2
SERVICE REQUESTS											2
KNOWLEDGE BASE												2
INTERFACES WITH CITY SYSTEMS										3
311 BUDGET												3
311 CALL CENTER BUILD-OUT										3
MARKETING AND EDUCATION											3
EFFECT ON 911												4
HOMELAND SECURITY											4
Minneapolis I-35W Bridge Collapse 									4
EFFECT ON POLICING											5
LESSONS LEARNED												6
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR 2006										7

2. 311 INITIATIVE OVERVIEW										10
311 INITIATIVE DESCRIPTION										10
The Evolution of 311											10
Minneapolis Comprehensive Approach to 311								12
NEEDS AND GOALS OF THE 311 SYSTEM									13
How 311 Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables Have Been Met						16
POPULATIONS SERVED BY 311										18
Citizens												18
Businesses and their Employees										19
Visitors												19
INITIATIVE TIMELINE											19
Background												19
Yearly Timelines											20
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES											25
CALL MANAGEMENT												26
311 and 911 Call Coordination										26
Minneapolis 311 Call Center  Online Instructions							27
Minneapolis 911 Emergency Communications Center  Online Instructions					27
Minneapolis 311 Call Center Call Management Flow  Illustration 		
Call Management Flow for the Minneapolis 911 Emergency Communications Center  Flowchart				

3. 311 CITIZEN RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (CRM) SYSTEM							30
SERVICE DELIVERY IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS								30
Example 1:  Police E-Reports  Service Request								31
Example 2:  Abandoned Vehicles										39
Example 3:  Impound Lot											49
Example 4:  Requests for Information/Knowledge Base							52
Interfaces												54
Example 5: Sidewalk Database Interface 									54
Example 6: House Inspections KIVA Interface 								55
Example 7: Animal Control CHAMELEON Interface 								56
CALL TRACKING AND ROUTING										59
311 Opportunities											59
EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE PURCHASES									62
311 Call Center Costs											62
Original and Revised Start-Up Costs									62
Work Station Specifications										63
Power Requirements											65
Diagram of Technical Infrastructure									65
Cabinet and Rack Layout  										66
311 Call Center Data Center and Telecommunications Room  						67

4. 311 CALL CENTER											68
311 FACILITY BUILD-OUT											68
Location												68
Time Frame												69
Furniture and Design											69
Telephones												69
Computer Workstations											69
Power Backup												69
Call Center Floor Plan  										70
Physical Back-Up for 911 										71
TELECOM													73
Administrative and Institutional Communications Technology						74
Public Safety Communications Technology									74
Call Recording Technology										74

5. STAFFING, TRAINING, AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT								75
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION STAFFING								76
DEVELOPMENT THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION TRAINING								78
IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT STAFFING									79
IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT TRAINING COURSES AND OBJECTIVES						80
QUALITY ASSURANCE INDEXING										81

6. MARKETING AND EDUCATION										85
MARKETING AND EDUCATION											85
EXTERNAL MARKETING CAMPAIGN										85
LRT Wrap												85
Transtop Messages											86
Utility Bill Insert											87
Citywide Magnet Mailer											88
Fleet Decals												90
Employee Buttons											90
Telephone Book 												91
Stickers												91
Government Access Broadcasts and City Web Site								92
The Big Launch												93
Free Media												93
INTERNAL MARKETING CAMPAIGN										93
Employee Education											93
Citywide Kickoff											93

7. BUDGET												94
TOTAL COSTS												94
PAYING FOR IT												94

8. IMPACT OF THE 311 INITIATIVE										95
Major Milestones 											95
2006 CALL STATISTICSMINNEAPOLIS 311									96
Top 10 Knowledge Base Inquiries, 2006  									99
Mapping  Service Requests 										99
2006 SERVICE REQUESTS BY DEPARTMENT/TYPE					   	  		102
IMPACT ON 911										   		108
Impact of the 311 System on the 911 System Resources and Effectiveness					108
HOMELAND SECURITY AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT					     	     			110
POLICING PRACTICES									     		111
Current Service Requests								     		111
Future Service Requests									     		113
Other Changes Resulting from 311 Implementation					     			114

9. LESSONS LEARNED								 	     		115
VISION AND GOALS										     	115
GOALS FOR CITIZENS EXPERIENCE WITH 311						     			115
GOALS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES AND STAKEHOLDERS						     		115
CITY CULTURE										     		116
LEADERSHIP											     	116
BUDGET											     		116
COMMUNICATIONS										     		117
STAFFING											     	117
PROJECT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION							     		118
311 FACILITY BUILD-OUTLESSONS LEARNED
APPENDIXES											     	121
A. EVALUATION CRITERIA OF A SUCCESSFUL 311 IMPLEMENTATION			     			121
B. 311 POSITION DESCRIPTION AND JOB DUTIES					     			122
Customer Service Agent I. 								     		122
Customer Service Agent II. 								     		123
Shift Supervisor311 Call Center							     		124
Administrative Analyst II. 								     		125
C. TRAINING 										     		125
Examples of 311 Training Calendar Courses for Customer Care Academy 	     				125
D. 2005 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 			     				129
E. 2003 RESIDENT SATISFACTION SURVEYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 			     				134
F. 2001 CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS CITIZEN SURVEYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 		     				142
2006 Employee Satisfaction Results							     		149
G. All Knowledge Base Communities 							     		150 









Executive Summary

The Minneapolis 311 Call Center opened in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 4, 2006 with a robust knowledge base, dozens of city services ready for callers to request, and a full complement of trained 311 customer service agents (CSA), supervisors, analysts, and managers in place.  The first year of operations has shown that 311 was very successful and well-received by Minneapolis citizens, visitors, and commuters, as evidenced by the high number of calls taken in the 311 Call Center for information about the city, as well calls requesting specific services.  
Results Minneapolis
The new 311 solution, a combination of the police-operated and city-operated models, is a results-management program intended to afford the city the benefits of secure business operations that will help control costs, minimize risks, and improve performance in serving the citizens of Minneapolis. The system uses Citizen Relationship Management (CRM) software from Lagan Technologies, and will enable Minneapolis to better coordinate operations, making its departments more responsive and efficient in handling constituent requests. It will also provide service request routing from one department to another, enabling consistent hand-off or follow-up on citizen inquiries. Reporting and monitoring features offer city management the information needed to make decisions more quickly and efficiently.
 
Why 311?
Studies of Minneapolis city services conducted prior to the establishment of a 311 system revealed a lack of consistency, coordination, and citizen focus when handling requests for information and service. According to these studies, more than 16,000 calls came into the city daily, more than 1,400 calls were abandoned by callers, and 20 to 30 percent of the calls were misrouted (varied by department).  More than 60 percent of calls to police were misdirects.  Recent citizen surveys indicated that the ease of getting in touch with city employees and the timeliness of response were the lowest rated characteristics of interaction.  In addition, experts answered routine questions and routed calls to other departments, wasting valuable city resources.  Citizens received conflicting information or instructions from employees, and 30 to 40 percent of 911 calls were not dispatched because they were non-emergency response calls.  Calls to the citys general number exceeded 22,000 per year. Eleven call centers housed more than 90 city staff who answered citizen calls, excluding 911 operators. 
The city recognized opportunities to correct these problems and improve citizen satisfaction by establishing a 311 Call Center. The citys goals were to accomplish the following: 
  Reduce or eliminate abandoned calls

  Reduce or eliminate misrouted calls
  Reduce the amount of numbers listed in the blue-page directories of the telephone book
  Offload non-emergency calls from 911
  Provide consistent information to citizens
  Offer both standard and extended hours of operation
  Consolidate some or all of the individual call centers
  Improve call-tracking capabilities to better analyze citizen needs for service.

Calling 311
The city has rolled 14 telephone numbers and call centers to 311 so far, and many of the phone numbers have been removed from the telephone book.  The following departments currently roll to the 311 Call Center during business hours:
  	City Hall Operators

  	Impound Lot

  	Graffiti Hotline

  	Animal Control

  	Housing Inspections

  	Community Planning and Economic Development  Zoning

  	City Clerk

  	Police Administration

  	Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center (MECC) Administration

  	Police Precincts

  	Police E-Reports  

  	Regulatory Services

  	Environmental Health
  	Budget Office

  	Various TTY/TDD numbers.

The citys 311 Call Center is staffed by 26 CSAs who answer 311 phone calls and e-mails Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.  Calls on weekends and after hours are routed by IVR instructions to various 24x7 phones if the caller wishes to speak with someone.  Voice messages may be left for the 311 CSAs and are entered into the CRM Frontlink application the next business day.  The caller may also be directed to the citys web site for information needs or to use the self-serve option for several service requests.  
Whom We Serve
The city serves nearly 380,000 constituents plus 150,000 daily commuters, and hosts 30,000 additional evening visitors.  

Service Requests 
By December 31, 2006, a total of 261 classifications had been configured in the Lagan Frontlink application.  Classifications include 171 true service requests (calls resulting in a case), and 90 inquiries (classification calls that will be classified and counted, but do not result in the creation of a case).  If many calls for service are received that do not already have a service request, the city could look at ways to disseminate this information by new or more effective means.

Knowledge Base
A comprehensive knowledge base was created as part of the 311 project using the Lagan Knowledge Tool. Fifty- four percent of all calls to 311 are for information only, and of those, 22.6 percent are related to Public Safety, 13.2 percent about Housing, 12.8 percent about Licenses and Permits, and 12.5 percent for Garbage and Recycling.  Other categories in the knowledge base include Community and Social Services, Parks and Recreation, Snow, Animals, Traffic and Parking Services, Leisure, Libraries, Government Partners (Hennepin County, suburbs, state of Minnesota, federal government), Commercial Property, Residential Property, Sidewalks, and Schools.

Interfaces with City Systems
The first phase of the CRM/311 project developed direct interfaces between the CRM application and the following departmental application systems: Public Works/Sidewalk database to track snow and ice complaints, Housing Inspections application to track housing complaints, and Animal Control application to track animal complaints.  311 operators also have direct access to several existing city systems such as Computer Aided Towing System (CATS)/Abandoned Vehicles and police E-Reports, as well as the city web site. Since opening the 311 Call Center, the Regulatory Services Housing division and the Fire Departments KIVA system have been added.

311 Budget
The $2.6 million annual operating cost is budget neutral. All city departments will fund Minneapolis 311. The contributions will be in proportion to the amount of work the 311 Call Center will handle for each department.   
Total project implementation cost for Minneapolis 311 was just short of $6.2 million.  Software costs were about half of the total ($3.2 million), professional services ($1.8 million), and facility build-out ($1.2 million).  The grant received from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office`) covered most of the cost of computer workstations ($74,999) and a portion of the Frontlink CRM licenses ($175,000).  Additional funding sources included Business Information Services (BIS) capital ($1.6 million), department allocations ($1.1 million), 911 surcharge ($300,000), 2004 rollover funds ($1.3 million), and internal short-term loans ($1.7 million).

311 Call Center Build-Out
The 311 Call Center occupies the entire third floor of the Third Precinct building and is located 4 miles south of downtown.  The total space of the 311 Call Center is approximately 5,500 square feet.  All offices and workstations in the 311 Call Center are integrated into the call center Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) and Procenter software. This allows for increased call-answering capabilities in case of an emergency.   311 agent workstations are configured with two Dell flat-screen monitors and CPU that allows agents to have multiple applications open on their desktop and to navigate easily between applications to maximize the information presented.    The 311 Call Center has full uninterrupted power supply (UPS) and generator backup for mission-critical functions in case of a power outage.  Twelve workstations at 311 are dual 311/911 workstations.  In case of an emergency at the 911 facility at City Hall, 911 dispatchers and operators can be relocated to the 311 center to perform 911 functions. Six of the 12 workstations are configured to function as 911 operator workstations and the other six are configured to function as 911 dispatch workstations. 

Marketing and Education
The city planned and executed an extensive marketing campaign to publicize the availability of 311, which began several weeks before the opening of the 311 Call Center, and continued into the summer and fall of 2006.  Some parts of the campaign still continue.  
Educating the employees about the new 311 Call Center was an important part of the success of this project.  Outreach to all employees was conducted, as was direct communication between city leaders, such as the mayor, city coordinator, assistant city coordinator for 911/311, the 311 Call Center assistant director, department directors, City Council members, and other formal and informal leaders within the city.

Effect on 911
911 staff expect changes in the number and types of calls they will receive.  They have already experienced an anecdotal decrease in calls about abandoned vehicles, snow emergencies, and callers wanting to make a police report (Police E-Reports).  Despite the fact that Minneapolis experienced an overall increase in crime in late 2005 and throughout 2006, calls to 911 decreased 4.3 percent in 2006.  Other cities have experienced increases in calls to 911 after a 311 system has been implemented because more calls could get through to the emergency line.  This also may be the case in Minneapolis.  The impact of reduced non-emergency calls into the 911 Call Center (reduction of 17 percent for the year), provided the relief to 911 that was hoped for.  The citys commitment to coordination between 911 and 311 operations is underscored by organizing both departments under the city coordinators office.  The assistant city coordinator for 911/311 is responsible for both the 911 and 311 Call Centers and reports directly to the city coordinator.

Homeland Security 
The day-to-day focus of the 311 Call Center is on routine city services and answering questions, but the reality is that it is crucial to emergency preparedness.  The citys Homeland Security and Crisis Management plan, a coordinated effort led by the director of regulatory services in close collaboration with the fire department and police department, has been updated to incorporate 311 as an integral part of the citys response to a natural or man-made disaster.  The 311 system has been implemented into the Minneapolis Business Continuity Plan.  This plan is based on the National Incident Management System and reflects an all-hazard approach to emergency preparedness.  Within this planning framework, the city has recognized the critical role that communications play in disaster readiness, response, and recovery.  
Minneapolis I-35W Bridge Collapse
The crisis management capabilities of Minneapolis 311 were fully tested following the collapse of the I-35W Bridge on August 1, 2007. 
Minneapolis 311 was able to field hundreds of calls and e-mails related to the non-emergency aspects of the bridge collapse, including the following:  
Information

  	General public information about the bridge collapse 

  	Road closure information

  	Alternate route information

  	Public viewing of the site

  	Red Cross referrals

  	Where and how to make charitable contributions to the city.
Request tracking

  	Media requests

  	Eye witness reports

  	Missing person and victim information

  	Vehicle and personal property information

  	Tracking and reporting offers for donated services 

  	Tracking and reporting services for fees

  	Recording and tracking of expressions of condolences and sympathies from well-wishers

  	Recording and tracking public opinion 

  	Traffic control complaints.
 
Figure 1.1: Collapsed I-35W Bridge. 
Effect on Policing
There has already been a significant impact on the Minneapolis Police Department.  The following service requests for police are in place: 
 

  	E-Reports (formerly Teleserve)

  	Copies of police reports (transfer to Police Records)

  	Suspicious activity reports

  	Homicide tips

  	Request for canine appearance 

  	Request for crime statistics (neighborhood or citywide)

  	Parking violation complaint

  	National Night Out

  	Graffiti complaint/reporting

  	911 transcript requests.
The following service requests are in the planning or development stage:

  	Request for ride-along

  	Crime prevention specialist assistance request

  	Seized vehicles search

  	Complaints about a police officer

  	Request for meeting with the chief

  	Request for the chief to appear at an event.
Precinct telephones now have a call routing function that enables callers to transfer to 311 without talking to the desk officer first, thereby reducing the number of non-emergency and nonpolice-related calls taken by precinct desk officers.  E-Reports capabilities at 311 could help the police department become even more proactive.  There is a move in the department to reduce the reliance on calls for service and reactivity and the department anticipates that 311 will play a vital role in this effort. 
Lessons Learned
The lessons learned from implementing a comprehensive effort such as this range from the simple and straightforward to the complex.  The city wishes to share some of the lessons it has learned in the hope that other cities embarking on a 311 project will be able to learn and profit from its experiences.
Lessons learned include the following:

  	Create clear, specific vision and scope statements for an initiative; communicate often.

  	Develop a city culture that will ensure the success of 311.

  	Use city leaders to consistently promote the 311 project.

  	Develop a budget that will ensure participation and buy-in from all departments.

  	Communicate with city staff throughout the life of the project.
  	Staff the project with committed and qualified city staff and contractors.

  	Make a transition plan to transfer knowledge from contractors to staff.

  	Provide for initial and ongoing training of new 311 staff and end users.

  	Develop a comprehensive project plan to manage all aspects of the project with milestones for assessment and project review.
  	Define common terms to use in the project.

  	Define requirements thoroughly for core functionality, inputs/outputs, and common data. 

  	Prioritize service requests.

  	Gather interface and reporting requirements, which have a significant impact on the system design, before other development work is begun.

  	Gather reporting requirements that will be used to measure enterprise-wide results.

  	Involve GIS/mapping resources early in the project.

  	Establish a single common address system for all city systems.

  	Track and communicate all issues and effects on development and implementation.

  	Develop a strong sense of collaboration in the development team.

  	Identify at least one liaison between the project and each department or division.

  	Ensure free communication among all levels of the organization.

  	Develop and implement a plan to continue work after the project has been launched.
Summary Statistics for 2006
2006 Monthly Call Volume and Service Level
Figure 1.2: Monthly Call Volume and Service Level, 2006.
Figure 1.3: 311 Call Resolution, 2006.
       
Figure 1.4: Top Knowledge Base Inquiries, 2006
Figure 1.5: Top 10 Knowledge Base Inquiries, 2006.
* 61,270 Cases were entered in Frontlink during 2006
*   7,343 Police e-Reports entered by 311
Figure 1.6 shows the improved efficiency that CSAs were able to capture during the course of the first year of operations:
Figure 1.6: 311 Call Center Talk Time, 2006 (in seconds).

1


0
5000
1,0000
1,5000
2,0000
2,5000
3,0000
3,5000
4,0000

50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Call Volume
Service Level
Linear (Service Level)
Linear (Call Volume)

 
 Knowledge Base
 Service Request
 First Call Resolution
 
January
 48%
 12%
 60%
 
February
 49%
 15%
 64%
 
March
 54%
 15%
 69%
 
April
 52%
 17%
 69%
 
May
 52%
 18%
 70%
 
June
 53%
 17%
 70%
 
July
 55%
 16%
 71%
 
August
 53%
 17%
 70%
 
September
 55%
 17%
 72%
 
October
 56%
 16%
 72%
 
November
 57%
 15%
 72%
 
December
 57%
 15%
 72%
 
Year to Date
 54%
 16%
 70%
 



Area
 %
 
Public Safety
 22.6%
 
Housing 
 13.2%
 
Licenses and Permits
 12.8%
 
Garbage and Recycling
 12.5%
 
Government Partners
 8.0%
 
Residential Property
 6.6%
 
Traffic and Parking
 6.5%
 
Animals
 6.3%
 
Multicommunity Questions
 5.8%
 
Community and Social Services
 5.7%
 
100.0%
 



Rank
 Department Name
 Service Request Type
 Number of Service Requests
 
1
 PW Solid Waste & Recycling
 Graffiti Complaint/Reporting
 9,631
 
2
 Regulatory Services
 Exterior Nuisance Complaint
 7,976
 
3
 Police
 Abandoned Vehicle
 6,815
 
4
 Regulatory Services
 Animal Complaint
 5,041
 
5
 Police
 Parking Violation Complaint
 4,119
 
6
 Regulatory services
 Residential Conditions Complaint
 3,700
 
7
 PW Streets & Malls
 Sidewalk Snow & Ice Complaint
 7,461
 
8
 Regulatory Services
 Residential Abandoned Vehicle
 1,648
 
9
 PW Traffic & Parking Services
 Street Light Trouble
 1,221
 
10
 PW Streets & Malls
 Pothole
 1,151
 



170
162
150
150
150
140
138
129
132
132
124
130

60
80
100
120
140
160
180

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

311 Initiative Overview

311 Initiative Description
Since 1996, the City of Minneapolis had considered using 311 as a method of improving service delivery to its citizens.  City leaders visited Baltimore in 1997 and 2001 to examine its city-state initiative and 311 Call Center.  Leaders also visited Houston and Dallas, both of which were considering implementation of 311 for their cities.  
In addition, a research study assessed the possibilities for a coordinated service delivery method in Minneapolis.  This study revealed a lack of consistency, cross-functional coordination, and citizen focus when handling requests for information and service.  Among 911, 13 citywide call centers, 11 voice response units, and general department inquiries the study revealed that the city handled more than 16,000 calls a day (not including business-related cell phone usage).  Many of these calls were misrouted, dropped, or sent to voice mail.  A significant percentage of callers gave up and ended the call before they had the information they needed.   
Research into existing systems also found that departments used a wide variety of methods to collect, track, and act on service requests from citizens.  These ranged from sticky-notes stuck on computer screens to Microsoft Access databases to very sophisticated call management systems.  City leaders recognized the need to more efficiently and effectively manage the services the city delivered and to improve cross-functional coordination for services requiring the participation of several departments.
In response to this need for improved citizen service and coordinated response, the city applied for and received a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) in 2003.  This grant, along with significant investments of time and funding from city departments, led to the development of Minnesotas first 311 Call Center and Citizen Relationship Management (CRM) system.  The 311 Call Center opened on January 4, 2006 with a robust knowledge base; 96 services are available for which callers can request action.  A full complement of trained 311 customer service agents (CSA), supervisors, analysts, and management was in place and ready for the grand opening.   The first year of operations showed that 311 was very successful and was well-received by Minneapolis citizens, visitors, and commuters, as evidenced by the growing number of calls taken in the 311 Call Center for information about the city as well as calls requesting specific services.  
Upon completion of the first phase of its 311 Call Center and CRM initiative, the city is complying with the requirements of the COPS Office grant by completing this assessment.  In addition, city leaders have taken the opportunity to examine the implementation of the successful citywide initiative to discover and make recommendations on best practices for future enterprise-wide projects.  
 
The Evolution of 311
It is well-publicized that 911 is the number to call in emergencies.  But ask anyone who answers a 911 phone, and the call taker will tell you anecdotally that many calls arent actual emergencies: What time is it? My sink is backed up. My neighbor put a fence on my property. Where is the city jail?  Did the city declare a snow emergency?
In late 1996, the Baltimore (Maryland) Police Department implemented 311 as a pilot to handle non-emergency police calls.  In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the three-digit number 311 for non-emergencies.  As of 2008, more than 50 cities and counties across the nation have implemented a 311 number to handle calls for police non-emergencies as well as other inquiries and requests for government services (see Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Nonexhaustive List of Cities and Counties with 311 Service. 
(Provided by the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office)
311 implementations have been focused on one of two areas:

1.  Operated by the police department to field non-emergency calls, to help reduce the number of non-emergency 911 calls received (Baltimore, Maryland; San Jose, California; Bethel, Alaska; Detroit, Michigan; Las Vegas, Nevada; Austin, Texas)

2.  Operated by the city (public works, independent service agency, etc.) to field so-called city service calls such as potholes, fallen trees, noise complaints, street or traffic signals not working, etc. (Chicago, Illinois; New York, New York; Houston, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Hampton, Virginia) 
Minneapolis Comprehensive Approach to 311
The Minneapolis 311 Call Center was implemented to streamline municipal processes and provide the citys 400,000 citizens as well as visitors with quick, easy access to municipal information and the citys non-emergency services, including non-emergency police services.  The Minneapolis solution combines the focus of both the police-operated model and the city-operated model.  
The new 311 solution is a results-management program intended to afford the city the benefits of secure business operations that will help control costs, minimize risks, and achieve improved performance in serving the citizens of Minneapolis. The system uses CRM software by Lagan Technologies that will enable Minneapolis to better coordinate operations, making its departments more responsive and efficient in handling constituent requests. It will also provide service request routing from one department to another, enabling consistent hand-off or follow-up on citizen inquiries. Reporting and monitoring features will offer city management the information needed to make decisions more quickly and efficiently.
Our new 311 system has so many benefits, not just for city departments, but especially for the residents, who now have a simple, streamlined way to access city information and services, said Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. 
In addition, the 311 Call Center will alleviate call demands on the citys existing 911 Center, keeping those lines open for truly life-threatening events requiring immediate response. According to recent national studies, up to 60 percent of calls to 911 lines can actually be non-emergency calls. Creating a separate 311 system specifically for nonemergency requests can reduce the burden on 911 systems by more than 40 percent.
The new 311 system handles questions about city services and nonemergency crimes such as theft from motor vehicles, identity theft, threatening phone calls, damaged property, or suspicious activity where there is no suspect on scene or the incident is not in progress.  
The citys commitment to coordination between 911 and 311 operations is underscored by organizing both departments under the city coordinators office.  The assistant city coordinator for 911/311 is responsible for both the 911 and 311 Call Centers and reports directly to the city coordinator.
 
Needs and Goals of the 311 System
The City of Minneapolis intends to leverage the 311 project to both improve citizen satisfaction with city services and improve efficiencies within the city, using data from 311 to help effect changes in how the city is organized and operates.  At the most basic level, the city needs a system to support its goals and commitments made to citizens, including the following:
  	Build communities where all people feel safe and trust the citys public safety professionals and systems.

  	Maintain the physical infrastructure to ensure a healthy, vital, and safe city.

  	Deliver consistently high-quality city services at a good value to its taxpayers.

  	Create an environment that maximizes economic development opportunities within Minneapolis by focusing on the citys physical and human assets.
According to the 2003 grant application submitted to the COPS Office, Minneapolis had several goals, objectives, and deliverables for the 311 system.  They are summarized in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2: 311 System Goals, Objectives, Deliverables, % Complete.
Other Deliverables:
  	Share lessons learned with other communities and provide a catalyst for new 311 services
  	Develop a management information system for Public Works
  	Become the front -end to CPEDs one-stop services
  	Create online permitting services
  	Support the increase in service requests for health and human services
  	Upgrade the city telephone system to improve call center management software
  	Provide new telephone services such as skills routing, web chat, and call recording
  	Leverage multilingual resources to reduce language barriers
  	Personalize correspondence and surveys to citizens to ensure random, candid feedback on services.
The city has also developed long-term program evaluation objectives as part of the COPS Office grant application. These evaluation objectives are included verbatim in Appendix A.

How 311 Goals, Objectives, and Deliverables Have Been Met
Goal: Improve Citizen Satisfaction through Ease of Use and Access to 311
The city established one telephone number for all city services, available 24x7. The telephones are staffed 16 hours a day, Monday through Friday, with voice mail available during nonstaffed hours.  It is simple to use and easy to remember.  A central body handles the calls.  Telephone, web, and e-mail requests are handled equally well by the integration of the 311 system with a consolidated e-mail system for general requests, and web access for general information and certain limited service requests.  
A large majority of calls are for information only, and they are being answered very well by the customer service agents (CSA).  It is rare that an answer cannot be found either in the Knowledge Base, on the city web site, or on the Internet generally.  Language lines throughout the city were consolidated so citizens who do not speak English can call one number for all service and information requests.
CSAs give tracking numbers to callers so they can follow the progress of their service request.  Service level expectations are available to CSAs for service requests.  Citizen satisfaction has not yet been measured, so information cannot be shared with city departments at this early juncture.
Goal: Consolidate Existing Resources/Develop Efficiencies
It is anticipated that cost efficiencies will fund the ongoing operations of the 311 Call Center, although those efficiencies are not yet fully realized.  
The CRM software contains real-time information and maintains a history of activity by name, address, and tracking number. 
A central call intake, management, and resolution center was created for the 311 project, and many existing call centers and voice response units were consolidated.  
Goal: Improve Service Request Routing and Tracking
This goal has been very well metservice requests are routinely tracked and requests are made to a central location and routed electronically to subject matter experts through the CRM system.  Telephone, web, and e-mail requests are streamlined to provide the same measure of service to the citizen.  Simple requests for information are routinely managed by 311 CSAs through the use of the Lagan Knowledge Base.  A central data repository about service fulfillment is an integral part of the 311/CRM system.  Over time, reports may be developed that will enable analysis of emerging crime trends; however, the ability to create reports based on property data could be hampered by the problems with the property database in the CRM system. 

Goal: Improve City Services through Results Management
Results Minneapolis was launched in June 2006.The long-term goal will require a culture change in city leadership and staff.   311 data are available to assist with the results management process, and there is a strong desire among city leaders to use this and other measurable objectives to launch continuous improvement processes throughout the city.

Goal: Use 311 to Improve Homeland Security
The 311 Call Center, located in the Third Police Precinct just 4 miles south of downtown, is positioned as the 911 backup center should the 911 center ever be damaged or become inoperable.  While an actual emergency requiring the use of the 311 Call Center as the backup for the 911 center has not occurred, it is prepared to do so.  Homeland Security plans will be updated to include the use of the 311 Call Center during an actual emergency, and plans are underway to simulate a disaster requiring use of the 311 Call Center as a 911 backup.

Goal: Improve 911/Dispatch Services
The Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center (MECC) staff are cautiously optimistic about citizen use of 311 for nonemergency calls.  Early indications were that nonemergency calls to 911 were down significantly during the first year of 311 operations.  Calls to the nonemergency lines in 911 were reduced 17 percent compared to 2005.  Additionally, in the first 2 months of 2007, that reduction was 34 percent compared to January and February 2006.  311 and 911 call data will continue to be used to determine the extent that 311 has affected nonemergency calls to 911.  These data will be used in ongoing process improvement and communications efforts. 
Police E-Reports, the system used by citizens and CSAs to record certain low-level crimes, is one of the many success stories of the 311 implementation in Minneapolis.  The ability of 311 CSAs to handle certain low-level crime reports through the Police E-Reports program will have a positive effect on the need for police to respond to low-priority calls and reports for which there is not enough information to investigate. More information about this can be found on pages 4150).  The police department anticipates that squad dispatch to nonemergency situations will continue to decrease because of Police E-Reports, and data will be collected to prove or disprove this theory.  Early in this decade, there was some thought that the MECC could be used by surrounding suburbs as a way to consolidate 911 efforts.  These plans have not progressed, and it is unclear if they will be restarted after 311 is well underway. Physical capacity will improve as calls to 911 from Minneapolis callers decrease.  

Goal: Improve Policing Capabilities
Crime Prevention staff have been cut substantially in recent years because of decreasing city budgets.  Thanks to the implementation of 311, some of the many important duties of crime-prevention professionals can now be handled centrally, including calls about suspicious activity in neighborhoods.  In the past, these calls were made directly to precinct crime-prevention officers; now they are managed through the CRM system, enabling precinct staff to collect historical information on crimes such as loitering, prostitution, drug dealing, and so on.  Information about these activities is sent through the CRM system, eliminating the need for officers to continuously staff crime-prevention telephone lines.  Over time, reports may be developed that will enable analysis of emerging crime trends; however, the ability to create reports based on property data could be hampered by the problems with the property database in the CRM system.
Other Deliverables:
  	Share lessons learned with other communities and provide a catalyst for new 311 services
  	This report and assessment of the citys lessons learned about 311 will be shared with other cities in Minnesota as well as others around the country that are considering implementing 311.
  	Develop a management information system for Public Works
  	The 311/CRM did not become the work order management system that the Public Works department leadership was seeking.  While the 311/CRM system is very well suited for tracking many requests for city services, it does not fill 
the needs of Public Works to manage service delivery proactively.
  	Become the front end to CPEDs one-stop services
   Main telephone numbers for both the Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Zoning and the Development Review were rolled into 311 during 2006 and 311 knowledge base and service request capabilities were expanded to accommodate these changes. CPED Zoning has 13 service requests and Minneapolis Development Review (formerly One Stop) has seven.
  	Provide a service to citizens and residents of Minneapolis facing a potential mortgage foreclosure	
  	During 2006, an opportunity presented itself for Minneapolis 311 to partner with CPED and act as a referral resource for Minneapolis residents potentially facing mortgage foreclosure.  This referral service networks both local and national resources that can assist residents in preventing foreclosures.
  	Create online permitting services.
  	Online permitting for certain construction and housing work has been done on a very limited basis as a part of a separate city project.  Regulatory Services, which manages the project, is interested in increasing its use of 311 for parts of its work, perhaps for issuing certain permits.
  	Support the increase in service requests for Health and Human Services
  	Calls for Health and Human Services information are handled in several ways.  Specific request for assistance are routed to the appropriate ombudsmen.  311/CRM staff worked with the states 211/First Call for Help project to determine which Health and Human Services requests could be directed to 211.   The city has experienced increased requests for help in these areas during the past few years, and anticipates that calls to 311 will lead to better and more responsive services to citizens in need.
  	Upgrade the city telephone system to improve call center management software
  	The entire city telephone system was replaced as a tangential part of the 311 project.  The new system was implemented in close coordination with the development of the 311 Call Center, leading to efficiencies in telephony installation at the center.
  	Provide new telephone services such as skills routing, web chat, and call recording
  	Call recording, done routinely to maintain quality, is an important part of the 311 Call Center.  
  	Skills-based routing has been used in selected circumstances (e.g., during a recent snow emergency) to route questions to appropriated call takers.
  	Leverage multilingual resources to reduce language barriers
  	The 311 Call Center uses Language Line, Incorporated, which provides translation services in many languages.  In addition, the center staff includes people who are fluent in Spanish, Hmong, and other languages. The 311 Call Center is also equipped with TTY capability (a web service called TextNet) to provide the highest quality services to deaf and hard-of-hearing citizens.

Populations Served by 311
The city serves nearly 380,000 constituents plus 150,000 daily commuters, and hosts 30,000 evening visitors.  

Citizens
Minneapolis is the largest city in Minnesota and the county seat of Hennepin County. It adjoins Saint Paul, the states capital and second-largest city. Together they form the core of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the 15th-largest agglomeration in the country and roughly 65th-largest in the world, with more than 3,000,000 residents. In the 2000 census, the citys population of 382,618 made it the 47th-largest city in the United States. In 2004 estimates, the number had decreased to 373,943.
While Minneapolis residents have been largely of northern and eastern European descent during the past 150 years, the city also has one of the largest Native American populations in the United States. After the Vietnam War, Minneapolis became a destination city for Hmong and Vietnamese refugees. More recently, a large influx of Somali refugees has modified Minneapoliss ethnic makeup. Smaller populations of Laotians, Cambodians, Ethiopians, and others can also be found in the city.  The racial makeup of the city is approximately 65 percent White, 18 percent African-American, 7.63 percent Hispanic/Latino of any race, 2 percent Native American, 6 percent Asian, 0.08 percent Pacific Islander, 4.13 percent from other races, and 4.36 percent from two or more races. 
The downtown population has been booming in the last decade as new condominiums are completed and warehouses are converted to loft-style housing. The U.S. Census recorded 20,201 residents in the city center in 2000, but an estimate just 5 years later in January 2005 put the number at 29,350, fully recovering from losses in the 1960s and 1970s. Considering the number of new condos in development, the downtown district could reach 40,000 by 2010. Still, the people living downtown are greatly outnumbered by commuters, who bring the daytime downtown population up to about 165,000 each weekday.
The census of 2000 showed that 382,618 people, 162,352 households, and 73,870 families resided in the city.  Of the 162,352 households, 22.6 percent included children under the age of 18, 29.0 percent were married couples living together, 12.3 percent had a female householder with no husband present, and 54.5 percent were nonfamilies. Individuals made up 40.3 percent of all households and 8.0 percent of all households consisted of someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.25 people and the average family size was 3.15 people.
Twenty-two percent of Minneapolitans were under the age of 18: 14 percent were ages 18 to 24; 37 percent, ages 25 to 44; 18 percent ages 45 to 64; and 9 percent were ages 65 or older. The median age was 31 years.  Thirty-seven percent of residents 25 years and older had at least a bachelors degree.
In 2000, the median household income in the city was $37,974, and the median income for a family was $48,602. Males had a median income of $35,216 compared to $30,663 for females. The per capita income for the city was $22,685, with 16.9 percent of the population, 11.9 percent of families, 25 percent of people under the age of 18, and 10.9 percent age 65 and older living below the poverty line

Businesses and their Employees
The city is home to many regional, national, and international corporations such as Target, Cargill, Super Valu, U.S. Bancorp, Xcel Energy, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, PepsiAmericas Inc., Bemis Co. Inc., Ameriprise Financial, Piper Jaffray, and Fair Isaac Corporation.   Most employees from these corporations commute into the city, contributing to the additional 160,000 people coming in to work in the city each day.

Visitors
Minneapolis receives 30,000 visitors daily to its thriving arts, sports, outdoors, and night life. Such attractions as the Minneapolis Metrodome, Convention Center, and the Target Center are busy many nights each week with Vikings football, University of Minnesota Gophers football, Twins baseball, or Timberwolves basketball games, concerts, conventions, and shows.  Just across the river at the University of Minnesota, many other sports fans attend Gopher basketball and hockey games throughout the fall and winter.  
Minneapolis is home to many arts attractions, such as the Minneapolis Institute of Art, Childrens Theatre, Minnesota Orchestra, the Walker Art Center, Guthrie Theatre, and the historic Hennepin Avenue Theatre District.  Minneapolis boasts more theater seats per capita than any other city except New York, featuring more than 30 venues and nearly 100 theater groups.  Downtown Minneapolis, particularly the revitalized Block E on Hennepin Avenue, is home to a booming nightlife of bars, restaurants, and music clubs.
In addition, Minneapolis has hundreds of miles of hiking and biking trails, winding around the many lakes close to downtown and the Mississippi River, which cuts through the city just east of downtown.  
 
Initiative Timeline
Background
In 2002, the City of Minneapolis secured internationally known business consultants McKinsey and Company to conduct an audit of the citys services and how the delivery system might be improved.  The results of the McKinsey Report showed that the city failed to provide a customer service orientation and coordination/consistency between and within departments and prompted the city to pursue a Citizen Relationship Management (CRM)/311 solution.  The goal was to create a single point of contact for requesting information or services from city departments and provide a systematic way to provide service even if the service involved multiple responders and/or departments.  
The timelines and narratives provided in this section describe the effort to accomplish the following:
  	Build and open the 311 Call Center
  	Develop and install the software needed to record calls for service and provide knowledgeable answers to inquiries from city residents and visitors
  	Install a state-of-the-art telephone system to accommodate call volumes to the 311 Call Center and other city offices
  	Establish the 311 Call Center as a backup to the citys 911 operation.

Yearly Timelines
The CRM/311 Initiative became a city project in the last quarter of 2003.  The efforts to gather requirements, install and configure a CRM package, build the 311 Call Center, and install a new state-of-the-art telephone system were subprojects within the overall initiative, which spanned 4 years.  Timelines illustrating the effort and accomplishments for the entire initiative depict each year separately to clarify the activities of the various subprojects (Figures 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6).  The physical subprojects (building the Call Center and installing the telephone systems) are shown in Figure 2.6 in a separate timeline.

Figure 2.3: Minneapolis CRM/311 Project Timeline, 2003.

January 1September 30, 2003: Project planning began in earnest.  During the first 9 months of 2003, a citywide 311 Operational Readiness Assessment was performed.  Project team members created documents detailing the overall CRM strategy, a CRM business plan, and attempted to identify opportunities for return on investment.  The project was scheduled and prioritized with other city projects; staff planning strategies and a pre-implementation checklist was created.  Project sponsors were identified and a steering committee was formed.
Other planning activities included developing a methodology for documenting, reviewing, and refining business processes; identifying departments and divisions that would participate in a pilot for CRM; and establishing a project funding model.  Part of the funding model identified the opportunity to apply for a grant from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) of the U.S. Department of Justice.  
October 1November 30, 2003: The project was staffed with business analysts who met with management and subject matter experts from three departments to document business processes.  The departments participating in this effort were Public Works, Police, and the Mayors Office.  The results of the documentation were used in the formation of a request for proposal (RFP) for a CRM package application.  
December 1December 15, 2003: The RFP was drafted, reviewed by the steering committee, and finalized.  
December 16, 2003: The RFP was published and distributed.  The deadline for responses was January 22, 2004.
Figure 2.4: Minneapolis CRM/311 Project Timeline, 2004. 
January 121, 2004: The project team began planning for the next phase of the project, which included vendor evaluation, additional technology assessment and alignment, contract negotiations, and plans for development and additional staffing.  Vendor questions regarding the RFP were answered.
January 2231, 2004: Seven vendors delivered their responses to the RFP to the City of Minneapolis.  The project team narrowed the field to three vendors who appeared able to deliver a desirable CRM solution: Motorola, PeopleSoft, and Unisys/Lagan.  
Business scenarios were written and provided to the three vendors for inclusion in their product demonstrations.  Vendor product demonstrations were scheduled for February.
 
February 12, 2004: Vendor product demonstrations were held.  The product demonstrations were attended by a wide variety of city and contract staff, including representatives from all pilot departments, project sponsors, and BIS (Business Information Services).  
February 13March 25, 2004: Representatives who attended the product demonstrations rated each vendor in a variety of areas, including core functionality, product ease of use, ability to customize the product to the citys needs, technical architecture, and the vendors solutions for the business scenarios provided by the city.  In addition, the core project team factored in each vendors cost and pricing models. The project team also interviewed the vendors clients in various cities who had installed the CRM packages under consideration.  The interviews included not only U.S. cities, but also installations in England and even New Zealand. Scores were tallied and votes were fairly evenly split between Motorola and Unisys/Lagan.  
March 26, 2004: After factoring in considerations of pricing and physical location, Motorola was chosen as the vendor to provide a CRM package application and to assist in developing and implementing the package application.
March 27June 30, 2004: Contract negotiations with Motorola and city personnel took place.  The contract was signed near the end of June and pre-implementation planning began.  During this time, the project manager moved to another position within the city, but business analysts continued their work documenting pilot department business processes. Plans were begun for the build-out of the 311 Call Center adjacent to the Minneapolis Police Departments Third Precinct in south-central Minneapolis.
July 1August 31, 2004: Motorola arrived on site to oversee installation of middleware and network/firewall changes to accommodate package implementation.  The city had opted for an application service provider (ASP) delivery model, with the application and database hosted on servers at Motorolas Schaumburg, Illinois, facility.  A contractor was hired to fill the role as the citys project manager.  Final business process reviews were completed for 50 service requests that would be included for the pilot departments in Phase I development.  Training of configuration managers and train-the-trainer classes were held.  
September 1December 31, 2004: Development using the Motorola application began and 50 service requests were configured into the system.  The soft launch for Police Non-Emergency, Mayors Office, and various Public Works divisions was completed.  Approximately 30 service requests were live for internal use by the end of December 2004.
In October, issues were raised concerning the promised functionality of the Motorola application.  Problems included the inability to adequately launch e-mails from the application, printing and document formatting, bugs found in the configuration tool and in the ASP service delivery, and the general clunky look and feel of the end-user application.
Figure 2.5: Two Timelines Must Be Presented for 2005.  One Timeline Represents CRM Project Activity while the Other Represents the Significant Efforts for Building the 311 Call Center and the New 
Telephone Installation.
January 1April 9, 2005: Development using the Motorola application continued.  Talks with Motorola management were initiated concerning the problems with the application.  After many meetings and much discussion, the city determined that the Motorola application would not meet the citys needs as specified in the contract.  The decision was made to pursue contract negotiations with the runner-up vendor, Unisys/Lagan.
A new business process engineering team was hired to document business processes for all city departments and the CaseWise business process modeling tool was purchased to assist in this effort.  
Through astute negotiations of the Motorola contract, the city was able to change vendors with only a minor effect on budget and schedules.  The project team looked forward with renewed excitement regarding the development effort using the Lagan Frontlink package.
A knowledge management team was formed to gather, organize, and load city knowledge and frequently asked questions (FAQ) using the Knowledge Base management tool that was purchased in conjunction with the Frontlink application.
The city hired Steven Bosacker to head the new Results Minneapolis initiative, underscoring the citys commitment to CRM, the 311 Call Center, and customer service.
On April 7, 2005, a citywide Minneapolis One-Call Event was held at the Minneapolis Convention Center to introduce all city departments to the CRM/311 initiative.  Of the more than 400 people who were invited, more than 250 attended.
  
Active planning began for the Telecom upgrade and the 311 Call Center build-out at the Minneapolis Police Departments Third Precinct.
April 10May 31, 2005: Contract negotiations with Unisys/Lagan began and were made final during this time.  The business process engineering team continued documenting and analyzing requirements for the pilot departments, as well as departments slated for Phase II development.  Plans were made to help the development team transition from the Motorola product to the Lagan Frontlink application.
June 1July 31, 2005: Unisys and Lagan team members were assembled.  Software and servers were installed at the Unisys Managed Services sites in Eagan and Roseville, Minnesota.  Configuration and System Administration training was provided by Lagan for the project team.  The new PBX phone system was installed at City Hall.
August 1October 31, 2005: Development of service requests, interfaces to one back-office system (Public Works Sidewalk Division), and data loads for master data (property and citizen) were completed.  Plans were finalized for the 311 Call Center build-out and construction began on August 15.
Human Resources created job descriptions and the 311 Call Center began staffing by first hiring three supervisors, and eventually hiring 25 customer service agents. Job fairs were held in August at the 311 Call Center and at City Hall.  
Don Stickney (previously the city contract CRM project manager) was hired as a city employee to run the 311 Call Center, reporting to the John Dejung, the assistant city coordinator for 911/311. Mr. Stickneys duties as project manager were shifted to the project manager for Unisys/Lagan.
November 1, 2005: Phase I soft launch for Public Works Sidewalk division and the Mayors Office was completed.  
November 2December 31, 2005: During November and December, 50 service requests were implemented. Training curriculum was developed internally for both call agent and end-user classes and the 311 supervisors and customer service agents were trained.  Training classes were held up to three times a week for department personnel working service requests. Three positions in application support staff were hired to replace contract project team members.
Development for Phase II service requests continued.  Including the original 50 service requests, 196 service requests or call classifications were implemented before the January 4, 2006 go-live date.
The 311 Call Center build-out was completed. The new IPDA phone system and application were implemented for 311 (call accounting, CRM, Pro Center, e-WFM, and call recording).
Figure 2.6: Minneapolis CRM/311 Project Timeline, 2006.
January 4, 2006: The Minneapolis 311 Call Center opened its doors and telephone lines.  During the first day of operation, 1,069 calls were received, resulting in 252 service requests.
January 5, 2006Present: Development work continues on additional service requests.  To date, more than 170 types of service requests or call classifications have been implemented in the Lagan Frontlink application. Thirteen service requests have been configured for self-service on the citys web site.
The new PBX phone system was put into production for all city sites.  In May 2006, the new 911 telephone system was installed, including a redundant/backup telephone switch at the 311 Call Center.
The business process engineering team and the application support staff continue to identify and define new business processes and service requests for City of Minneapolis departments.
 
Participating Agencies
All public organizations are under sustained pressure to deliver better service at lower cost.  Individuals, as customers and employees, have increased expectations about the level and quality of service they can expect to receive.  A key element in meeting this challenge is to create the organizational capacity to perform differently.  One way to do this is by implementing a shared service solution for functions in various departments. This offers a means to cut costs, increase efficiency, and improve cooperation.
Sixteen city departments participated in funding the 311 Call Center; all city departments participated in developing the knowledge base.
Figure 2.7: City Departments and Divisions Participating in the 311 Call Center. 

Call Management  

311 and 911 Call Coordination
A 311 call might actually be an emergency and a 911 call might not be an emergency. Using the rules outlined on the web pages shown in Figures 2.8 and 2.9, the 911 and 311 customer service agents are trained to recognize situations as emergency or non-emergency and respond to the calls accordingly. 
 If the 311 Call Center receives a call that is deemed an emergency, it is immediately transferred to 911.  The 311 customer service agent remains on the line until the 911 operator answers the call. On the other hand, if the 911 Emergency Communications Center receives a call reporting a situation that is not an emergency, the caller is transferred to the 311 Call Center or asked to hang up and dial 311.  Figures 2.10 and 2.11 illustrate these processes.
The Minneapolis 311 Call Center is not yet a 24x7 operation, so after-hours non-emergency calls to 911 may be routed to the 311 voice message system.  Callers can leave messages that the 311 customer service agents will enter during the next shift.  Five non-emergency city numbers are staffed 24x7: the Street Division 24-hour number, the Water Division 24-hour number, Animal Control, the Impound Lot, and Police Non-Emergency Dispatch.
Minneapolis 311 Call Center  Online Instructions 
Figure 2.8: Instructions for the Minneapolis 311 Call Center.
Minneapolis 911 Emergency Communications CenterOnline Instructions
Figure 2.9: Instructions for the Minneapolis 911 Emergency Communications Center.
Figure 2.10: Call Management Flow for the Minneapolis 311 Call Center.
Figure 2.11: Call Management Flow for the Minneapolis 911 Emergency Communications Center.
 

City / County
 
Akron, Ohio
 
Albuquerque, New Mexico
 
Austin, Texas
 
Baltimore, Maryland
 
Berkeley, California
 
Bethel, Alaska
 
Birmingham, Alabama
 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina
 
Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
Chicago, Illinois
 
Columbia, South Carolina
 
Columbia County, Georgia
 
Columbus Consolidated Government, Georgia
 
Columbus, Ohio
 
Dallas, Texas
 
Danbury, Connecticut
 
DeKalb County, Georgia
 
Denver, Colorado 
 
Detroit, Michigan
 
Dukes County, Massachusetts
 
Fort Wayne, Indiana
 
Hampton, Virginia
 
Harford County, Maryland
 
Hartford, Connecticut
 
Henderson, Nevada
 
Houston, Texas 
 
Kansas City, Missouri 
 
Knoxville, Tennessee 
 
Las Vegas, Nevada*
 
Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky 
 
Little Rock, Arkansas 
 
Los Alamos County, New Mexico
 
Los Angeles, California 
 
Louisville, Kentucky
 
Miami-Dade, Florida
 
Minneapolis, Minnesota
 
Mobile, Alabama
 
Nashville/Davidson County, Tennessee
 
New Orleans, Louisiana
 
City / County
 
New York, New York
 
North Hempstead, New York
 
Orange County, Florida
 
Pueblo, Colorado
 
Riverside, California
 
Rochester, New York
 
Sacramento, California
 
Saginaw, Michigan
 
San Antonio, Texas
 
San Francisco, California
 
San Jos, California
 
Savannah, Georgia 
 
Somerville, Massachusetts
 
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
 
Virginia Beach, Virginia
 
Washington, D.C.
 
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
 


Goals
 Objectives
 Deliverable
 % complete
 
Improve citizen satisfaction through ease of use and access to 311
 A central body in the city handles citizen questions and concerns
 One telephone number to access services 
 100
 
Simplified access to city non-emergency services and information
 24x7 access to city services
 50
 
Phone, web, e-mail, fax, walk-in, and kiosk access to city services
 Service level expectations are set at the time of service request
 90
 
Citizen satisfaction with city services is improved
 Requests for information are resolved by 311
 90
 
Citizen satisfaction is measured and shared between 311 and city departments
 Tracking number given to callers to track request through completion
 90
 
Consolidate existing resources/develop efficiencies
 Obtain cost efficiencies to fund ongoing operations
 Pool existing resources in a central call intake, management, and resolution system
 90
 
Central source of real-time information and history of activity
 Consolidate existing call centers and voice response units
 60
 
Improve service request routing and tracking
 Improve service request traceability 
 Requests for service are tracked by a universally deployed tool
 75
 
Improve internal request handling
 Service requests are routed to the appropriate department
 90
 
Integrate phone, web, counter, and kiosk services
 Service requests can be routed for cross-departmental collaboration
 25
 
Simple information requests are handled by 311 rather than transferring to other, more costly, department experts
 90
 
A central data repository about service fulfillment and historical data by property is created
 50
 
Improve city services through results management
 Monitor timeliness of service delivery
 Record and track responses to improve processes, people, and technology
 25
 
Provide accountability for timely service
 Develop performance measures to support implementation of a results-based accountability model
 75
 
Use data to facilitate long-term planning and development of goals and priorities for the city
 Develop enterprise standards and eliminate shadow and duplicate systems by creating a single front-end CRM tool
 75
 
Improve management reporting capability (trends, service peaks, cross-functional analysis)
 50
 
Use 311 to improve homeland security
 Offer accurate information about disaster situations: where to go for help, what to do, where to find shelter, how to find a missing person
 Locate facilities in another precinct so 311 can be the secondary emergency response site in case the main 911 center is destroyed
 100
 
Act as the single point of contact during a disaster
 90
 
Use to dispatch emergency personnel to emergency sites in case of disaster
 90
 
Improve 911/dispatch services
 Handle nonemergency questions and keep 911 open for true emergencies in a crisis
 Reduce nonemergency calls to 911 by 33%
 25
 
Eliminate the need for police dispatch for low priority calls (10,400 per year)
 Offload nonemergency calls to 911 (1/3 of all calls)
 50
 
Decrease police dispatches to non-emergency situations
 Provide real-time information to first respondersreverse 911, e-mail listserv, etc.)
 25
 
Improve ability to respond to 911 emergency calls
 Expand 911 services to nearby suburbs
 0
 
Develop 911 emergency overflow and backup capability
 90
 
Improve policing capabilities
 Offset reduction in CCP/Safe officers
 Track suspicious activity and provide a repository of problem properties by address
 100
 
Track and flag emerging trends in activity, including disease outbreaks and suspicious activity
 Take Police E-Report  calls to improve customer service 
 100
 
Streamline business processes to offset reductions in Public Safety staff
 Provide real-time information to officers to enhance tactical response and non-emergency requests
 0
 



Minneapolis CRM/311
Project Timeline

2003

1/1/2003  9/30/2003
Pre-Project Analysis
Project Study
Obtain City Buy-in to Begin CRM / 311Project
Approval from Major, City Council, Major Stakeholders

10/1/2003  12/12/2003
GatherCity Requirements
for CRM / 311

2/1/2003

3/1/2003

12/1/2003

11/1/2003

10/1/2003

9/1/2003

8/1/2003

7/1/2003

6/1/2003

5/1/2003

4/1/2003

1/1/2003

12/31/2003

7/1/2003
Submit DOJ Grant
Application

10/15/2003
CRM/311 Project
Kickoff

12/16/2003
RFP Published

Minneapolis CRM/311
Project Timeline

2004

1/22/2004
Proposal
Response
Deadline

3/26/2004
Motorola
Selected as
CRM Vendor

9/1/2004  12/12/2004
Motorola Phase 1
Development

7/1/2004  9/1/2004
Motorola Software
Setup and Training

4/1/2004  6/30/2004
Motorola Contract
Negotiations

12/1/2004

11/1/2004

10/1/2004

9/1/2004

8/1/2003

7/1/2004

6/1/2004

5/1/2004

4/1/2004

3/1/2004

2/1/2004

1/1/2004

12/31/2004

12/8/2004
Motorola
Soft Launch
Go-Live

6/30/2004
Motorola
Contract
Signed

3/1/2004
Receive DOJ
Grant

2/12/2004
Vendor
Demos
Completed

10/29/2004
Issues Raised
Concerning
Promised
Motorola Functionality

Minneapolis CRM/311
Project Timeline

2005

1/1/2005  3/15/2005
Motorola
Phase II
Development

4/1/2005  6/31/2005
Lagan/Unisys
Contract
Negotiations

6/1/2005  7/31/2005
Lagan/Unisys
Software/Hardware
Setup and Training

8/1/2005  10/31/2005
Lagan/Unisys
Phase I & Phase II
Development

11/1/2005  12/31/2005
Phase II
Development and
End-User Training

2/1/2005

3/1/2005

4/1/2005

5/1/2005

6/1/2005

7/1/2005

8/1/2005

9/1/2005

10/1/2005

11/1/2005

12/1/2005

1/1/2005

12/31/2005

11/1/2005
Lagan
Soft Launch
Go-Live

6/14/2005
Lagan/Unisys
Contract
Finalized and Signed

4/9/2005
Decision Made
to End Contract
with Motorola

Minneapolis 311 Consolidated
Call Center BuildOut and Staffing
and
Telecom Project

2005

9/1/2005  12/31/2005
Call Center
Supervisors
and Agents Hired and Trained
		

6/1/2005
Architect Contracts
Finalized

1/31/2005
Brick and Mortar
work complete

8/15/2005
Layouts and Design
Finalized and Approved

12/1/2005

11/1/2005

10/1/2005

9/1/2005

8/1/2005

7/1/2005

6/1/2005

5/1/2005

4/1/2005

3/1/2005

2/1/2005

1/1/2005

12/31/2005

7/1/2005
PBX phone
system for
City Hall
installed

3/1/2005
Planning for Buil-out
and Telecom Upgrade begins

11/1/2005
Construction
Complete

8/16/2005
Construction Begins
includes Furniture
Electrical
Mechanical Components

11/15/2005
IDPA Phones and
applications implemented for 311

Minneapolis CRM/311
Project Timeline

2006

4/1/2006  12/31/2006
City Resources
Support/
Additional Service Request
and Interface Development

1/1/2006  3/31/2006
Begin Phase III - 
Web Intake for
Self Service

4/10/2006
Unisys Project
Completed

10/1/2003  12/12/2003
GatherCity Requirements
for CRM / 311

2/1/2006

3/1/2006

4/1/2006

7/1/2006

8/1/2006

9/1/2006

10/1/2006

11/1/2006

12/1/2006

5/1/2006

6/1/2006

1/1/2006

12/31/2006

7/14/2006
DOJ
Grant Report
Due
Six Month Update

5/15/2006
New 911 Phone
System
Installed

1/1/2006
311 Call Center
Go-Live

12/31/2006
DOJ
Grant Report
Due
One Year Update

OFFICE OF 
RESPONSIBILITY
 DEPARTMENT
 DIVISION
 

City Assessor
 Assessor
 Assessor Administration
 

City Coordinator
 Emergency Communications
 MECC Administration
 
311
 
911
 
Human Resources
 Employment
 
Benefits
 
Training
 
Regulatory Services
 Animal Control
 
Business Licensing
 
Environmental Health and Food Safety
 
Housing Inspections
 
Truth in Sale of Housing
 
Risk Management
 Risk Management Administration
 

City Council
 City Council
 All Wards
 

Community Planning and Economic Development
 Planning
 Community Planning
 
Planning
 
Zoning
 

Fire Department
 Fire Administration
 Fire Administration
 

Health and Family Support
 Senior Services
 Senior Ombudsman
 
Advocacy
 Housing 
 
Tax Services
 
Research and Statistics
 

Mayor
 Mayor
 Administration and Scheduling
 
Constituent Services
 

Police Department
 Police Administration
 Administration
 
Investigations (Citywide)
 
ISAC
 
Community Policing
 Community Crime Prevention (CCP)/Safety for Everyone (SAFE) Precinct Units 
 
K-9 Unit
 
Police E-Reports 
 
Traffic Control
 
Public Works
 Engineering Services
 Right-of-Way
 
 
 Field Services
 Bridge Services
 
Sidewalk Services
 
Street Maintenance and Repair
 
Traffic and Parking Services
 Street Lighting
 
Traffic Signals and Signs
 
Parking Services
 
Transportation
 
Impound Lot
 
Utility Services
 Sewer
 
Water
 





Knowledge Base
Escalation

Minneapolis 311
this is [name], how May We Help?

Call to 311 Call
Center in placed

Search KB and provide answer to info

Information

Info Not Found

Info Found

End 311 Call

Is there anything else I can help you with?

No

Repeat questioning from the beginning

Yes

Customer
Satisfied
Continue

Click Followup and enter case identification #

Call Intake - Service Requests or Complaints

Followup

Re-Enter Request

Not Satisfied
Enter Complaint

General
Complaint / 
Compliment

Emergency
- Transfer
to 911

Compliment

Service Request
or Complaint

Call Intake - 
Service Requests
or Complaints

Transfer to 911
Interaction
Ended


311 Citizen Relationship Management (CRM) System
Service Delivery in the City of Minneapolis
By January 4, 2006, 196 classifications had been configured in the Lagan Frontlink application, including 137 true service requests (calls resulting in a case) and 59 call classifications (calls that were classified and counted, but did not result in the creation of a case).  By the end of 2006, the list had grown to 261 comprising 89 call classifications and 172 service requests.  
Call classifications, whether a case is created or not, are beneficial for a number of reasons.  Call classifications allow the city to analyze the types of calls received, which may show that the city needed to improve communications with citizens concerning certain events or conditions.  For example, a citizen might call 311 to ask who represents his area on the City Council.  He is not asking for a service, but would like to know how to track his representatives votes on particular issues. By classifying the call and counting the number of requests to look up, the council representative by ward, the following conclusions could be made:
  	If the city receives many calls about a particular subject, it could look at ways to disseminate this information by new or more effective means.  Perhaps using yearly mailing inserts in utility bills or revamping the citys public web site would make the information easier to find.  If few calls are received, either the public may be able to find the information easily, or the citys government is not visible enough to the public.  These facts could result in an effort by the city to survey citizens and engage the public in city government more actively.
  	Some participating departments were not sure if a particular service warranted creation of a case and instead wanted to have the call transferred to their department.  Call classification allows the city to classify these transfers to monitor the volume and nature of calls without taking a case.  Analysis may eventually result in creating cases for these calls as a more efficient means of dealing with the requested service.
  	The tracking mechanism of the knowledge base is another tool for analyzing types of calls.  Calls for information can be tracked to better understand why people call 311.  By analyzing all types of calls, the city will be able to provide timely and appropriate service to citizens, commuters, and visitors. 

Examples of Service Requests
This section describes seven service requests (including an information request and three service requests that use an interface to a back office system) as examples of the types of services provided by the city through the 311 system.  The examples illustrate the power of CRM to satisfy caller needs and streamline the citys response.  The examples provide the following information:
  	How the service was provided before the 311 Call Center opened.

  	The challenges faced in providing the service before the 311 Call Center opened.

  	How the service currently is provided using the 311 Call Center for service requests.

  	The benefits realized by the new, improved service delivery.

  	The benefits realized by the implementation of a city knowledge base.

Example 1:  Police E-Reports Service Request
Before the Minneapolis 311 Call Center opened, non-emergency police reports (Teleserve reports) were taken by civilian employees of the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) or community service officers (CSO) in training.   Police E-Reports include 16 crimes that do not require dispatching a squad. See Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Non-Emergency Police E-Reports.
* Conditional, if victim indicates that there was a possibility that the property was stolen, a report is logged as a Mysterious Disappearance (Property), CAPRS Code MISDIS, Category of Theft/Lost Property.
The business flow and narrative in Figure 3.2 describe the process for taking nonemergency crime reports before the 311 Call Center was opened.  For purposes of this report, the flow and narrative for obtaining a copy of a police report are not included.

Figure 3.2:  Pre-311 Call Center Process for Taking Non-Emergency Crime Reports.

INCIDENT TYPE
 CAPRS 
CODE
 CATEGORY
 

Damage to Property (Other)
 DAMPRP
 Damage to Property
 
Damage to Motor Vehicle
 DAMMV
 Damage to Property
 

Defrauding an Innkeeper
 INKEEP
 Failure to Pay
 
No Pay (Gasoline)
 NOPAY
 Failure to Pay
 
Failure to Pay Taxi Fare
 TAXIFR
 Failure to Pay
 

Theft from Motor Vehicle
 TFMV
 Theft/Lost Property
 
Theft from Building
 TFBLDG
 Theft/Lost Property
 
Theft from Coin-Operated Device
 COINOP
 Theft/Lost Property
 
Theft (Other)
 THEFT
 Theft/Lost Property
 
Property Lost (No crime)*
 LOSTPR
 Theft/Lost Property
 

Violation of Restraining Order
 RORDER
 Personal Safety
 
Visitation Rights Violation
 VIVIOL
 Personal Safety
 
Harassing/Obscene Calls
 HARASS
 Personal Safety
 

Credit Card/ATM Fraud
 CCATM
 Fraud
 
Identity Theft 
 IDFRD
 Fraud
 
Theft by Swindle
 THFTSW
 Fraud
 


		



PROCESS
 DESCRIPTION
 

Victim calls MPD Teleserve number and leaves voice message.
 Victims are directed by 911 or the precincts to call the citys Teleserve number to report crimes that do not require dispatching a police squad to take the report.
 
Listen to daily messages.
 MPD office personnel listen to messages left the previous day, or during the weekend and record the call and contact information in a manual log for each day.
 
Contact victim. 
 MPD office personnel use the manual call log sheets by day and attempt to call the victim at the contact number(s) listed.
 
Contact not made?
 Note that a call was attempted on the log sheet. 
 
Callback was final attempt at contact?
 Note on the log that a final call was made.
 
Contact made?
 Interview victim.
 
Call meets validity criteria?
 Verify that the reporting party is reporting an actual crime, that the crime occurred within the Minneapolis city limits and that the crime meets the reporting criteria and does not require the dispatch of a police squad car.  Also, determine if the victim still wishes to make a police report.
 
Does not meet validity criteria, or victim does not wish to make report?
 The victim is referred to another agency or advised.  Call is terminated and an entry is made in the manual log concerning the final outcome.
 
Meets validity criteria?
 Begin taking a report.
 
Enter case.
 Obtain CAD and CAPRS case numbers and enter details of the case in CAPRS.
 
Give case number to the victim.
 The CAPRS case number is given to the victim.  The victim is advised how to obtain a copy of the report, if needed, from Police Records.
 
Update manual log.
 Make a note on the manual log that contact was made and note the CAPRS and CAD case numbers.
 



Listening to messages, entering the messages on a manual log, and attempting callbacks was a time-consuming and cumbersome process fraught with problems, as described in the following cases:
Figures 3.3 and 3.4 depict 1 week of call resolution.  Approximately 50 percent of calls for nonemergency incidents result in no report.  Weekly graphs from February 2005 through August 2005 were consistent with these results.  Nonemergency crimes were being under-reported and some victims were not receiving needed services. 

Figure 3.3: Teleserve Call Resolution.

Figure 3.4: CAPRS Reports Taken and Not Taken.

The opening of the 311 Call Center allowed the City of Minneapolis to review the Teleserve procedures to provide better solutions and service to victims of non-emergency crimes.  The new procedures offer timeliness and flexibility for victims to obtain a police report.  The 311 Call Center partnered with the MPD and the web development group at the City of Minneapolis to provide this improved service.  Now, victims can use a self-serve option to report five different crime types, or they can connect to an operator who will take the report for any Police E-Reports-designated crime.  In addition to public reports, the MPD offers a secure web reporting option for MPD partners.  

Figure 3.5 lists the incident types and the methods now available for reporting.

Figure 3.5: Incident Types and Reporting Methods.

* Reporting Methods:   SS = Self Serve  Public Web; 311 = 311 Call Center Agents; MP = MPD Partners.

Figure 3.6 is a breakdown of Police E-Reports taken through the public web site or the 311 Call Center by month, beginning in April 2006.  This report is produced from Version 2 of E-Reports application and was not available prior to April 2006.
FIGURE 3.6: E-REPORT NUMBERS FROM 04/01/2006 THROUGH 12/31/2006
*MPD Partner functions have not yet been implemented.

Figure 3.7 describes the process used by the 311 Call Center to take nonemergency crime reports by the business flow and narrative.  For purposes of this report, the flow and narrative for Obtaining a Copy of a Police Report is not included).

Figure 3.7: 311 Call Center Process for Taking Non-Emergency Crime Reports.
Example 2:  Abandoned Vehicles
Before the Minneapolis 311 Call Center opened, calls concerning abandoned vehicles were taken by a variety of city departments, and could potentially be routed to any of five city departments, depending on the location of the vehicle.  See Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8: Routing of Abandoned Vehicle Calls, Pre-311 Call Center.
The difficulty in reporting an abandoned vehicle was frustrating for both the reporting party and the city departments because the public was not aware of the split of duties among city departments and boards.  Traffic Control alone was receiving more than 7,000 calls a year for abandoned vehicles.  Statistics from other departments concerning call volumes are not available, but are presumed to be significant, based on the volume for Traffic Control.

Figures 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11 describe the procedures for handling abandoned vehicles before the 311 Call Center was opened.

Figure 3.9: Traffic Controls Procedure for Handling Abandoned Vehicles on Public Rights-of-Way, 
Pre-311 Call Center.

Figure 3.10: Public Works Property Services Procedure for Handling Abandoned Vehicles on City-Owned Property, Pre-311 Call Center.

Figure 3.11: Procedure for Handling Abandoned Vehicles on Private Property, Pre-311 Call Center.

Figure 3.12: Procedure for Abandoned Vehicle Re-Inspection, Pre-311 Call Center.

PROBLEM
 RESULT
 
Victim could not be understood.
 No callback attempted in some cases, if contact phone numbers were not clear.
 
Victim left incomplete contact information.
 No callback attempted in most cases, unless the name was clear.  Sometimes, office personnel would attempt to look up a phone number if they could understand the name.
 
Crime was not committed in an MPD jurisdiction. 
 The victim was not calling the correct agency (e.g., the victim should have called the Airport Police Department, St. Paul Police Department, Mall of America Police Unit). 
 
Crime committed needs a report made by a dispatched squad.
 The victim was calling for a crime that should have resulted in a squad dispatch (e.g., burglary, sexual assault or misconduct, automobile accident).
 
Victim becomes impatient waiting for Teleserve to contact him.
 The victim could call again, resulting in a duplicate log entry.
 
Large volume of voice messages create backlog. 
 At times, the backlog of cases grew to more than 3 weeks.
 
Victim does not have information about the crime readily available when contacted.
 At the time Teleserve staff made contact, the victim did not have the necessary information at his or her disposal to make the report (e.g., serial numbers, addresses, inventories).
 
Victim has already made a report by other means.
 By the time the Teleserve staff made contact, the victim had already gone to his or her precinct to file the report.  This wastes the time of Teleserve personnel and precinct personnel.
 
Reports are not taken in a timely manner.
 By the time the Teleserve staff made contact, the victim indicated it was too late to file the report (e.g., insurance claim, credit card liability exemption).
 




WEEK OF 6/26/2005
 
ADVISED
 46
 
DUPLICATE
 1
 
REFERRED
 12
 
ALREADY FILED
 11
 
NEED FOLLOWUP
 0
 
REPORT
 107
 
BAD INFO
 12
 
CANCELED
 19
 
FINAL CALL
 33
 
OPEN
 0
 
TOTAL
 241
 




TRIAGED  NO REPORT
 59
 
REPORT TAKEN
 118
 
ABANDONED  NO REPORT
 64
 
NOT YET RESOLVED
 0
 
TOTAL
 241
 



INCIDENT TYPE
 CAPRS CODE
 CATEGORY
 
REPORTING METHOD*
 
Damage to Property (Other)
 DAMPRP
 Damage to Property
 SS, 311, MP 
 
Damage to Motor Vehicle
 DAMMV
 Damage to Property
 SS, 311, MP
 
Theft from Motor Vehicle
 TFMV
 Theft/Lost Property
 SS, 311, MP
 
Theft (Other)
 THEFT
 Theft/Lost Property
 SS, 311, MP
 
Property Lost (No crime)
 LOSTPR
 Theft/Lost Property
 SS, 311 MP
 

Defrauding an Innkeeper
 INKEEP
 Failure to Pay
 311, MP
 
No Pay (Gasoline)
 NOPAY
 Failure to Pay
 311, MP
 
Failure to Pay Taxi Fare
 TAXIFR
 Failure to Pay
 311, MP
 
Theft from Building
 TFBLDG
 Theft/Lost Property
 311, MP
 
Theft from Coin-Operated Device
 COINOP
 Theft/Lost Property
 311, MP
 
Harassing/Obscene Phone Calls
 HARASS
 Personal Safety
 311, MP
 
Credit Card/ATM Fraud
 CCATM
 Fraud
 311, MP
 
Identity Theft 
 IDFRD
 Fraud
 311, MP
 
Theft by Swindle
 THFTSW
 Fraud
 311, MP
 

Violation of Restraining Order
 RORDER
 Personal Safety
 311
 
Visitation Rights Violation
 VIVIOL
 Personal Safety
 311
 




INCIDENT TYPE
 PUBLIC WEB
 311 CALL CENTER
 MPD*
PARTNER
 TOTAL 
E-REPORT S
 TOTAL ALL REPORTS
 % TAKEN THROUGH E-REPORTS  SYSTEM
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
DAMMV
 1615
 2030
 0
 3645
 7295
 50%
 
DAMPRP
 162
 288
 0
 450
 3629
 12%
 
INKEEP
 0
 2
 0
 2
 21
 9.5%
 
NOPAY
 0
 13
 0
 13
 47
 28%
 
TAXIFR
 0
 3
 0
 3
 55
 55%
 
TFMV
 645
 346
 0
 991
 5293
 19%
 
TBLDG
 7
 137
 0
 144
 584
 25%
 
COINOP
 0
 6
 0
 6
 33
 18%
 
THEFT
 983
 1278
 0
 2261
 6285
 36%
 
LOSTPR
 516
 597
 0
 1113
 1389
 80%
 
RORDER
 0
 51
 0
 51
 294
 17%
 
VIVIOL
 0
 23
 0
 23
 36
 64%
 
HARASS
 0
 152
 0
 152
 403
 38%
 
CCATM
 3
 127
 0
 130
 530
 25%
 
IDFRD
 4
 106
 0
 110
 337
 33%
 
THFTSW
 0
 29
 0
 29
 183
 16%
 
FORG
 3
 12
 0
 15
 434
 3%
 

TOTAL
 3938
 5200
 0
 9138
 26848
 34%
PROCESS
 DESCRIPTION
 
Call to 311 Call Center.
 Victim calls 311 Call Center to report a nonemergency crime with no squad dispatch.  
 
Call meets validity criteria?
 Verify that the party is reporting an actual crime, that the crime occurred within the Minneapolis city limits, and that the crime meets the reporting criteria and does not require the dispatch of a police squad car. Agents will probe the caller with predetermined questions and sometimes the investigating department will need to validate further.
 
Call does not meet validity criteria?
 Redirect victim.  If the call is not valid, redirect the call for the reporting party, as required.
 
Use Police E-Reports  to take report.
 Use Police E-Reports version 2 to take report.
 

NOTE: When the report is taken, the system displays the CAPRS Case Number (generated by an interface to a database with reserved CAD and corresponding CAPRS case numbers).
 

NOTE: Version 1 is the Self-Service Public Web Application; Version 2 is the 311 Call Center Web Application; and Version 3 is MPD Police Partners Web Application.
 
Notify caller about how to obtain a Police Report.
 Notify caller about how to obtain a Police Report.
 
Provide caller with the CAPRS Case Number.
VEHICLE LOCATION
 DEPARTMENT OF JURISDICTION
 

Public right-of-way (i.e., city streets, alleys, and sidewalks)
 Traffic Control
 
City-owned residential property (i.e., condemned or used for city business purposes)
 Public Works Property Services
 
Residential (private) property
 Housing Inspections
 
Park property (i.e., parks and parkways maintained by the Park Board)
 Park Board
 
Commercial property
 Business Licensing or Business Owner
PROCESS
 HANDLED BY
 SYSTEM USED
 TOWED BY
 PROCESS SUMMARY
 
Abandoned VehiclesPublic Property 
 Traffic Control
 72-Hour DB
 Impound Lot
 Complaints are entered into an access database, printed, and put in bins for Traffic Control agents. The agent picks up the complaint, goes to the site, chalks the tire, and leaves a 72-Hour Notice. He or she makes a note on the complaint form and returns it to the office so that the 72-Hour DB can be updated. Seventy-two hours later the office generates those that have hit 72 hours and places them in a bin for the Traffic Control agent who returns to the site to see if the chalk is still there. If so, he or she radios the office to call the Impound Lot to request a tow. If the chalk is gone, he or she notes GOA (Gone on Arrival) on the printout and returns it to the Office to update the DB. The forms are then filed.
PROCESS
 HANDLED BY
 SYSTEM USED
 TOWED BY
 PROCESS SUMMARY
 
Abandoned VehiclesCity Property
 Property Services
 Maximo (Work Order)
 Cedar Towing Company

This flow was documented to include the assumption that a 311 CSA was the starting point. In reality, Property Services receives calls and determines whether it belongs to Public Works for PW Right of Way (ROW). If so, it is transferred to the Street division. If it is in the realm of Property Services, personnel at the Royalston City facility are notified to generate a work order for a foreman to distribute to a crew to investigate. The crew investigates and calls the towing company to remove the car.  The towing company updates the work order by hand and returns it to Royalston personnel who close the work order on Maximo.
PROCESS
 HANDLED BY
 SYSTEM USED
 TOWED BY
 PROCESS SUMMARY
 
Abandoned VehiclesPrivate Property
 Housing Inspections
 KIVAPre 311
 Impound Lot

Inspections enter the complaint into KIVA to generate an Inspection Work Order. The inspector goes to the site and if the vehicle is not there, the Work Order is coded and closed when the inspector returns to the office. If a vehicle is at the site, the inspector completes two placards and takes a photo of the vehicle. He leaves one placard on the vehicle and takes the second placard and photos to the office, noting Placard on the Work Order. If this is a second visit, no placard is left on the vehicle and the Work Order is coded to indicate Order  No Placard. Housing Inspections personnel enter the results into KIVA. If no violation, the order is closed. If coded No Placard, office support generates a letter from KIVA to the owner of the property. If coded Placard, a letter is not generated.
7 to 10 days later, re-inspection Work Orders (839s) are generated automatically for those coded Placard and No Placard.  Upon re-inspection, if a violation does not exist, the Work Order is noted. If a violation still exists, the inspectors repeat the process of determining whether to leave a placard and the Work Order is noted.  Housing Inspections personnel update KIVA with the results of the re-inspection.
If the Work Order is coded AUTHTOW, the Housing Inspections office staff call a contractor to tow the vehicle. The contractor indicates when this is complete and the case is closed in KIVA. If the Work Order is noted to re-inspect (presuming a placard is left on the vehicle again)   KIVA generates another work order in 72 hours. The inspector re-inspects in 72 hours and updates the work order. At this time, either a violation exists or the AUTHTOW process is followed.
With the opening of the 311 Call Center, the City of Minneapolis was able to review department procedures for dealing with abandoned vehicles in order to provide better solutions and service for handling the reports.  Where back office processes did not necessarily need to change, streamlining the front office process to take the report and route to the correct department was crucial for the success of the 311 Call Center.  Scripting and navigation to the proper service request had to be easy for the customer service agents to follow and allow them to gather enough information to route the request to the proper department.  To date, abandoned vehicle cases logged into the Frontlink application number more than 6,800 for public property and more than 1,600 for private property.
The method of case routing was facilitated by the MPD Traffic Control Unit.  Because the Park Board, Public Works Property Services, and the University of Minnesota Police Force were not participating in the first phases of the 311 initiative, Traffic Control staff volunteered to accept reports on city-owned, Park Board, and University of Minnesota property.  They would review the request and forward it by fax or telephone to the appropriate agency.  This meant that the scripting was not needlessly complex because the operator determines only whether the vehicle is on the street, alley, or sidewalk (public), or if it is in a yard or driveway (private). 

Traffic Control also agreed to triage any cases that should go to Business Licensing (abandoned vehicle on commercial property) to the Business Licensing work queue in the Frontlink application.  This method was agreed on because very few calls come in for this scenario and Traffic Control could make the determination for case routing more efficiently than the 311 customer service agent.  In fact, there was no business process for Business Licensing because of the infrequency of this type of complaint.
Additional benefits for handling abandoned vehicles were realized.  Traffic Control was able to eliminate its Access database to track tire chalking and instead use the Frontlink application as the repository for tracking tasks.  Instead of calling the Impound Lot when ordering a tow, in most cases Traffic Control simply moves the case to the work queue for the Impound Lot, notifying the lot to send a city contractor tow to the location.  In the future, if the Impound Lot wishes to give system access to its towing contractors, it could eliminate the need to use the radio for tows.  
To summarize, citizens may now call the 311 Call Center to report an abandoned vehicle and the request is routed to one of two departments for triage and case resolution.  This process supplants the previous process, where citizens were directed to many different departments within the city, or asked to call other agencies or independent boards.  The process now embraces the Minneapolis 311 Call Center vision, which states:
With one call, Minneapolis citizens get
around-the-clock, customer-friendly access to

City services and information
The City provides a timely response, efficient service delivery
and continuous improvement of services based on
an improved ability to measure and track performance.

Figure 3.13 describes the procedure used today for routing cases of abandoned vehicles.

Figure 3.13: Current Procedure for Routing Cases of Abandoned Vehicles.

Example 3:  Impound Lot
The following reports are from various local news stories covering a snowstorm that hit Minneapolis beginning in the late evening hours of Sunday, March 12, 2006 through Monday, March 13, 2006:
A winter Snowstorm brought nearly a foot of snow to the Twin Cities, southern Minnesota and western Wisconsin.  
First comes the snow, and then comes the tow.  Hundreds of people in Minneapolis and St. Paul are dealing with impound lots, after their cars were towed because of the snow emergency.
Also, if you think your car has been towed in Minneapolis, you can call 311.  Callers can also find out what they need to do to get their vehicle out of the impound lot.  
On Tuesday, 311 agents have answered nearly 1,500 calls, which is a record number of calls to 311 in a single day.
- WCCO 4 TV 
Tow trucks worked all night and into the morning to clear vehicles from the streets of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

If your car ends up at one of the impound lots, youll need to bring along a few things: 
Make sure you have proof of insurance, your registration or title, your license plate number or Vehicles Identification Number, and a picture ID. 
Vehicle collection began at 9 p.m. Monday night and continued through the night.  
- KSTP  5 Eyewitness News
Meanwhile, hundreds of drivers in both Minneapolis and St. Paul woke up to a missing car this morning. Snow emergencies in both cities remain in effect, so the ticketing and the towing keep going.
- KMSP Fox 9 News
Its almost a Twin Cities law of nature; when it snows and a snow emergency is declared, improperly parked cars will be towed so City plows can clear the streets.  
From 9 p.m. Monday until 7 a.m. Tuesday, 440 cars were towed in Saint Paul. In Minneapolis, City administrators figure there are 200,000 cars routinely parked on streets 
Ninety-five percent of those car owners comply with snow emergency parking rules. That leaves 10,000 that will be ticketed but because there arent enough tow trucks, only 2,000 of those ticketed will be in the tow truck parade to the impound lot.  
In Minneapolis more than 1,100 vehicles were towed. 
Mike Kennedy of the Minneapolis Public Works Department says those numbers dont tell the whole story, We wont see that in the numbers, and its simply because we dont have the capacity to tow all the violators that are out there.
Kennedy says City contractors can only tow about 2,000 cars, about 25 percent of those that are ticketed.   
- KARE 11 TV
Figure 3.14: Two Views of Vehicles Towed After a Snowstorm.
A City of Minneapolis ordinance states that a snow emergency may be declared when conditions warrant that effective and complete plowing can be accomplished only when vehicles are not parked on the street. The declaration of a snow emergency is the trigger that initiates a predefined set of parking regulations that allow for the complete plowing of streets.

Snow and Ice Control

The Street Maintenance and Repair Division (also known as the Street Division) of Minneapolis Public Works plows snow and deals with ice. From early November to late March, staff monitor roadway and weather conditions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and can respond to winter conditions at any time with a variety of equipment and personnel. Proper and timely response to winter weather conditions is paramount to the safety of the traveling public, the economic viability of the city, and neighborhood livability.

When do we plow?

Public Works considers all winter precipitation, whether a freezing drizzle or a storm that drops 14 inches of snow, as a form of winter weather emergency, and dispatches crews to  respond to the conditions. The response may range from a few sand or salt trucks to cover freezing bridge decks, to a full mobilization of up to 100 snow plows in a publicly declared snow emergency. Plow operators and support staff may work continuous back-to-back 12-hour shifts, as necessary. Public Works is responsible for snow and ice control on 1,040 miles of streets, 57 miles of parkways, 3,700 alleys (about 400 miles), 100 dead end-streets and cul-de-sacs, 250 bridge sidewalks, and 7 pedestrian bridges. 

Towing

During winter snow emergencies, cars are towed to the Minneapolis Impound Lot if they impede the plowing of city streets.  Call volumes increase dramatically for many city phone numbers, including calls to 911, police precincts, the Street Division, and the Impound Lot.  Many calls come from people whose cars have been towed and who want to know if their car is in the Impound Lot and the requirements for releasing the car (cost, identification, documents needed).  
The spike in calls to 911 and the five police precincts may hamper the ability of people to report true emergencies in need of police, fire, or medical dispatch.  Increased calls to the Street Division and Impound Lot interfere with the staffs ability to perform their jobs because personnel may be answering questions and calming the caller.  At times, the telephones become so busy at the Impound Lot and Street Division that many calls are simply abandoned.
Opening the 311 Call Center allowed the Minneapolis to improve the assistance to citizens and visitors regarding the rules and regulations enforced during winter weather events and the location of their car if it had been towed.   The 311 customer service agents have access to the Impound Lot Inventory System (CATS), so when people call 311 to locate their car or receive information about the impound car release process, they receive a timely and helpful response.  Figure 3.15 shows the number of calls taken by 311 for the Impound Lot in 2006.  During a major snowstorm in March, calls peaked at almost 4,500.

Figure 3.15: Calls Regarding Towed Cars Peaked During a March 2006 Snowstorm.

Example 4:  Requests for Information/Knowledge Base
Before the 311/CRM was implemented, calls for information were made to either the citys general information line or directly to the department that had the information.   A call to the city operator was transferred within seconds to a department for assistance.  Many of these callers were put into voice mail, and a lesser percentage was transferred to the incorrect person or department, sometimes leading to frustration on the part of the caller.  Two operators worked full time answering these calls to the city, averaging more than 200 calls per operator each day.  They also handled the e-mails that came to the citys general e-mail address.
Most city departments had staff who routinely answered calls from the departments general numbers.  In many instances, the same questions were asked several times a day, causing staffers to repeat the same information over and over.  These general numbers, along with several others, now roll over into the 311 Call Center where customer service agents are trained to answer questions.  This saves many hours a week for the subject matter experts and other staff who previously answered repetitive questions.
In response to the need for one telephone number where citizens can get all their questions answered, a comprehensive knowledge base was created using the Lagan Knowledge Tool.  Several communities were created based on research into other 311 systems and calls for information made to the City of Minneapolis. Knowledge gathered from web sites, hard-copy documents, and interviews with subject matter experts was added to each community.  Now, if unsure which community to search, a customer service agent can perform a multicommunity search.  Appendix G lists several knowledge base communities and the questions and answers are covered in each category. Figure 3.16 illustrates the procedure for adding information to the knowledge base. 
When a call is made to 311 for information, the CSA searches the appropriate community in the Knowledge Base for the answer.  Fifty percent of all calls to 311 are for information only, and of those, 25 percent are related to Public Safety, 16 percent to Housing, 13 percent to Licenses and Permits, and 11 percent are for Traffic and Parking.  Other communities in the knowledge base include Community and Social Services, Parks and Recreation, Snow, Animals, Garbage and Recycling, Leisure, Libraries, Government Partners (Hennepin County, suburbs, state of Minnesota, federal government), Commercial Property, 
Sidewalks, and Schools.
In addition to working closely with the citys subject matter experts, 311 knowledge analysts worked with the statewide 211 system in determining how to handle requests for social services information.  Many calls can be transferred directly to 211 for immediate and accurate help.  Although the 311 Call Center does not provide the social services directly, CSAs are prepared to assist callers with questions about parks, recreation, schools (including colleges), arts, sports, leisure, parking ramps, jail inmates, courts, and corrections.  Citizens generally are not aware that these services are provided by entities outside the city, but they do expect a 311 Call Center to answer questions about services within the city.
Figure 3.16: Knowledge Base Escalation Flowchart.

Interfaces
The Minneapolis CRM/311 initiative began with the effort to document and flow business processes for each department participating in the pilot phase of the initiative or slated to participate in future phases of the project.
The business process engineering team met with representatives from city departments to create workflows and narratives and took the following approach to identify potential interfaces with existing application systems:
  	Document the current business process
  	Identify all application systems or tools used in the process
  	Determine if the application system or tool could be replaced using functionality provided by a CRM application
  	Determine if the application system or tool provided data or functionality that could not be replaced by a CRM application.
After a business process was documented, it was examined to determine if the process was customer-facing (a citizen would call 311 to request the service).  When the need for an interface regarding customer-facing business processes was discussed with the department, and it was determined that the current application system or tool functionality could not be replaced by a CRM application, an interface would be considered.   
The following are characteristics of an application system or tool that may require an interface:

  	Application provides additional functionality that is not included in the core discipline of a CRM application (i.e., financial functions, complex work order management, permit issuance).
  	Application has substantial city resources invested (i.e., large, industry-leading vendor packages, applications interfacing to other city, county, or state systems, interfaces to existing hand-held devices).
  	Application provides reports to external entities for legal or regulatory purposes.
The first phase of the CRM/311 project identified three potential interfaces between the CRM application and departmental application systems:  

1. Public Works Sidewalk Services Division application to track snow and ice complaints (sidewalk database).

2.	 Regulatory Services Housing Inspections application to track housing complaints (KIVA).

3.	 Regulatory Services Animal Control application to track animal complaints (CHAMELEON).

Example 
5:  Sidewalk Database Interface
By ordinance, Minneapolis requires that property owners build and maintain the public sidewalks along city streets (City Charter, Chapter 8, sections 12 and 13). Public sidewalks provide safe passage for pedestrians, including wheelchair and other disabled users, and help maintain strong neighborhoods and prevent degradation of green space.  During the winter months, the city requires homeowners to remove snow and ice from their sidewalks within 24 hours after a snowfall, while apartment and commercial building owners much clear their sidewalks within 4 daytime hours.  If the city receives a complaint that a sidewalk is not properly cleared, crews inspect the sidewalk and inform property owners of the situation. If the sidewalk has not been cleared upon re-inspection, a citation is issued and crews will remove snow and ice from the sidewalk. Property owners are billed for this service. 

The Sidewalk Snow and Ice Complaint Process
The Public Works Sidewalk Services Division handles complaints about snow and ice on public sidewalks, but also takes a proactive approach by inspecting city sidewalks daily during the winter months.  
Complaints about unshoveled sidewalks are received in two ways:  Either a citizen calls 311 to report an unshoveled or icy sidewalk and the complaint is entered into the Frontlink application and the transaction is interfaced to the sidewalk database for case handling, or a sidewalk inspector discovers an unshoveled or icy sidewalk during daily inspections, enters the case into a hand-held Blackberry from which it is uploaded to the sidewalk database.  
The sidewalk database tracks snow and ice complaints for inspection and re-inspection, sends warning letters to property owners, and tracks snow removal ordered by the city so that  the property owner can be billed.  When the city needs to clear a sidewalk, the Sidewalk Services Division issues a work order to the Street Maintenance and Repair Division.
An interface was needed between Frontlink and the sidewalk database because Frontlink could not provide the functionality to generate warning letters and billing.  The interface allows the sidewalk inspectors to continue to do field reporting using their hand-held devices.  It was an advantage to enter all cases into Frontlink because it was an easy way to send a work order to the Street Division.  Through the interface, snow and ice complaints are now maintained in both the Frontlink application and the sidewalk database, enabling street department workers to access their cases in their own database, while simultaneously allowing 311 to see that information in CRM in a format that is best for assisting callers.

How It Works
  	Snow and ice complaints reported to the 311 Call Center are entered into Frontlink and the case is immediately sent to the sidewalk database, creating an identical case that is cross-referenced to the Frontlink case.
  	Snow and ice complaints entered into a Blackberry and uploaded to the sidewalk database are immediately sent to the Frontlink application, creating a Frontlink case with a cross reference to the sidewalk database case.
  	As the inspector works the case in the sidewalk database (sends a warning letter, issues a citation, etc.), updates regarding the status of the case are interfaced to Frontlink, keeping the cases in synch.
  	Upon re-inspection, if the sidewalk is not cleared, the inspector updates the case in the sidewalk database and the interface sends a transaction to Frontlink to move the case into the Street Divisions work queue and creates a work order for the case.
  	The Street Division receives the case and removes the snow.  The street department updates the work order and returns the case to the Sidewalk Division work queue.  
  	When the Sidewalk Division sees the case returned from the Street Division, it can close the case and bill the property owner.
Example 6:  Housing Inspections KIVA Interface
By ordinance, Minneapolis requires that property owners and occupants maintain sanitary and safe homes or dwelling units to protect public health, safety, and welfare.  (City Charter, Title 12, Chapter 244). The citys public web site provides information about the housing maintenance code, addressing common residential violations such as garbage and litter, general disrepair, graffiti, grass and weeds, inoperable vehicles, missing or unreadable addresses, parking, and poor housing hygiene.
 
The Housing Inspections Complaint Process
The Regulatory Services Housing Inspections Division handles complaints about conditions on private property, both inside and out.  A concerned citizen can file a complaint through the 311 Call Center.  In addition, the Housing Inspections Division takes a proactive approach by performing several area sweeps during the year to identify housing condition problems.  
When a citizen calls the 311 Call Center to report unhealthy or unsafe conditions in a single or multifamily dwelling, the complaint is entered into the Frontlink application and the transaction is interfaced to the KIVA application for work order issuance and case handling.  At this time, department-reported condition complaints from area sweeps are not entered into Frontlink, but are entered directly into KIVA by the inspectors.  Those cases are not sent to Frontlink, as was done with sidewalk snow and ice complaints.
The KIVA application tracks housing condition complaints for inspection and re-inspection, sending warning letters and orders to property owners, and tracks cases through the housing code enforcement process.  This includes cases that make their way into the District Court system. 
An interface was needed between Frontlink and KIVA because Frontlink could not provide the functionality for automated work order generation and robust case tracking.  The city has a long-term contract with the KIVA vendor, and the KIVA application is used by other divisions within the Regulatory Services Department.  The investment by the city and Regulatory Services in the use of the KIVA application is substantial.  Building an interface allowed the Housing Inspections Division to continue to use the KIVA application and its capabilities with no disruption to current cases, while allowing the public to call the 311 Call Center with housing complaints.

How It Works
  	Housing complaints reported to the 311 Call Center are entered into Frontlink and immediately interfaced to an intermediate storage table in the KIVA database. 
  	After 11 p.m. each day, cases in the intermediate storage table are processed through a batch procedure and created in the KIVA database.  Cases rejected because of invalid data are corrected and reprocessed in the next cycle.
  	Before 8 a.m. the next day, the KIVA application generates work orders for the housing inspectors investigation.
  	As the inspector works the case in the KIVA application (first inspection, send a warning letter, issue orders, etc.), updates on the status of the case are interfaced to Frontlink.  These updates to Frontlink are also processed through a batch procedure every night.
  	Housing complaint cases remain open in both KIVA and Frontlink until the issue is resolved.
 
Example 7:  Animal Control CHAMELEON Interface
By ordinance and under the direction of the Department of Health, designated inspectors enforce provisions of the City Code as they pertain to animals.  City Charter, Title 4, Chapter 62.  Code 1960, As Amend.,  812.020; Ord. of 6-13-75,  2,.  For more information, visit  www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=11490&sid=23.  Readers accessing this link will be taken directly to the search page, where they can type in 812.020 in the search box.  Click on the response, Chapter 62.  IN GENERAL., and see the section for 62.20 Animal control officer; animal wardens. 
The goal of the Regulatory Services Animal Control Division is to provide the highest quality services to residents, business owners, and visitors for dealing with domestic pets and wildlife. Minneapolis animal control officers respond promptly to citizen complaints about dog bites, stray animals, and other such concerns. 
The citys public web site provides the information about the role of the animal control officer in protecting stray, abused, or injured animals; responding to calls about neglected or lost animals; and providing other animal-related services. www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/animal-control/about.asp.

The Animal Control Complaint Process
The Regulatory Services Animal Control Division handles complaints and issues regarding both domestic and wild animals.  When a citizen calls the 311 Call Center about an animal, the complaint is entered into the Frontlink application and the transaction is interfaced to the CHAMELEON application for work order issuance and case handling.  Any calls taken directly by the Animal Control Division are entered into CHAMELEON.  Those cases are not sent to Frontlink, as was done with sidewalk snow and ice complaints.
The CHAMELEON application tracks animal complaints for investigation and enforcement.  An interface was needed between Frontlink and CHAMELEON because Frontlink could not provide the functionality extending cases into ongoing investigations, as the CHAMELEON application can provide.  The CHAMELEON application has industry-wide recognition and is highly customized to handle animal-related complaints and other day-to-day activities for animal control officers and the animal shelter that is run by the City of Minneapolis.  Building an interface allowed the Animal Control Division to continue to use the CHAMELEON application and its capabilities with no disruption to current cases, while allowing the public to call the 311 Call Center with animal complaints.

How It Works
  	Animal complaints reported to the 311 Call Center are entered into Frontlink and immediately interfaced to an intermediate storage table in the CHAMELEON database. 
  	The intermediate storage table contains a database trigger that initiates a stored procedure (developed by CHAMELEON) to update the CHAMELEON database appropriately.
  	Any updates made to the case in CHAMELEON are stored in another intermediate storage table as a case result.
  	The 311 Database Listener periodically checks the intermediate storage table for results and interfaces these case results to the Frontlink application.
  	Rows are deleted from the intermediate storage tables as they are processed.
  	Animal complaint cases remain open in both CHAMELEON and Frontlink until the issue is resolved or a follow-on case is created in CHAMELEON.  Follow-on cases (extending the investigation of the original complaint) are not interfaced to Frontlink at this time.
 
Interface Diagrams
Figures 3.17 and 3.18 show high-level pictures of how interfaces work between Frontlink and a back-office application.

Figure 3.17: Department Application Case Creation.

igure 3.18: Frontlink Case Creation and Update.

Call Tracking and Routing
During the past few years, city studies of the level of service delivery to Minneapolis citizens, visitors, and business owners revealed a lack of consistency, coordination, and citizen focus when handling requests for information and service.  The findings provided a glimpse of the past shortcomings:
  	More than 16,000 calls were received by the city each day 
  	More than 1,400 calls were abandoned by callers each day
  	20 to 30 percent of calls were misrouted (varied by department)
  	Police reported between 60 to 85 percent of their calls as misdirects
  	Experts answered routine questions and route calls to other departments
  	Citizens may have received conflicting information or instructions from employees
  	30 to 40 percent of 911 calls were not dispatched because they are nonemergency response calls
  	Inconsistent hours of operation and service standards
  	Calls to 612.673.3000 exceeded 22,000 after-hours per year. Citizens were actively seeking assistance after normal business hours when no one was available to answer their questions or address their concerns
  	Eleven call centers housed 90 customer service agents (excluding 911 emergency customer service agents)
  	Inconsistent tracking tools or none at all.
2003 Resident Satisfaction Survey
  	Calling the city for service or information
  	25 percent did not have a positive experience  
  	19 percent  did not get a timely response
Appendixes D and E contain executive summaries of the 2005 and 2003 surveys.
2001 Resident Satisfaction Survey
  	Calling the city for service or information
  	24 percent  were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the time it took to reach the right person
  	19 percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the level of helpfulness
See Appendix F for an executive summary of this survey.

311 Opportunities
The city recognized opportunities to correct these problems and improve citizen satisfaction through the opening of a 311 Call Center.  The citys goals were as follows:
  	Reduce or eliminate abandoned calls
  	Reduce or eliminate misrouted calls
  	Reduce number of telephones listed in the blue-page directories of the telephone book
  	Offload nonemergency calls from 911
  	Provide consistent information to citizens
  	Offer standard and extended hours of operation
  	Consolidate some or all of the individual call centers
  	Improve call-tracking capabilities to better analyze citizen needs for service.
The citys 311 Call Center is open Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.  Calls on weekends and after hours are routed by IVR instructions to various 24x7 telephones if the caller wishes to speak to someone.  Voice messages may be left for the 311 customer service agents and are entered into the CRM Frontlink application the next business day.  The caller may also be directed to the citys web site for information or to use the self-serve option for several service requests.
The city has rolled 13 department telephones, call centers, or hot lines to 311, with plans to roll others as the departments begin using 311 Call Center services.  These telephone numbers have been removed or changed to reflect 311 in the telephone book blue pages as of the next publishing date.  Telephone numbers currently rolling to the 311 Call Center during business hours include the following:
  	City Hall operators
  	Impound Lot
  	Graffiti Hotline
  	Animal Control
  	Housing Inspections
  	Community Planning and Economic DevelopmentZoning
  	City Clerk
  	Police Administration
  	MECC Administration
  	Police First Precinct
  	Police Second Precinct
  	Police Third Precinct
  	Police Fourth Precinct
  	Police Fifth Precinct
  	Police E-Reports  
  	Minneapolis Development Review
  	Utility Billing (IVR Personal Assistance Option)
  	348-SNOW (IVR Personal Assistance Option)
  	Environmental Management
  	CCP/SAFE (Community Crime Prevention)
  	City Council reception room
  	National Night Out telephone line
  	Various TTY/TDD numbers.
 
Figure 3.19 illustrates the opportunities for call routing and tracking within the City of Minneapolis.

Figure 3.19: Opportunities for Call Routing and Tracking.

Equipment and Software Purchases
311 Call Center Costs
Figure 3.20 is a breakdown of the Minneapolis 311 start-up costs and a summary of how the city paid for the endeavor. The following concerns were taken into consideration:
  	Software and hardware needed for the Minneapolis 311 Call Center and back office operations were installed by Unisys and Lagan.  
  	Servers required for the application install were delivered and installed approximately 6 weeks after the start of the project, resulting in a delay for development.
  	Software was installed in early August 2005. 
  	All workstations for the 311 Call Center were installed in November 2005.
  	Frontlink Customer Service Portal (CSP) installation for the 311 Call Center required installation of a new Java Run-Time unit on each machine.
  	Frontlink Service Request Portal (SRP) installation for the back office case handlers required no special installation; the application is accessed via a web link.
  	All hardware (servers and workstations) are supported via the citys managed service agreement with Unisys.
  	Frontlink CSP installation for City Council aides and the Mayors Office was completed in January 2006.
  	The $2.6 million annual operating cost is budget neutral. All city departments will fund Minneapolis 311, with each contribution in proportion to the amount of work the 311 Call Center handles for each department. 
  	The grant received by the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office covered most of the cost of computer workstations ($74,999) and a portion of the Frontlink CRM licenses ($175,000).
Original and Revised Start-Up Costs 
Figure 3.20:  A Comparison of Original and Revised Start-Up Costs.

Workstation Specifications
ProCenter Agents Workstation Requirements
  	Windows NT 4.0 Workstation w/Service Pack 5
  	Other Software:  Client for Microsoft Networks
Figure 3.21: Hardware Specifications, ProCenter Agents Workstations. 

Considerations
  	Due to poor memory management with Windows 95 and 98SE and the resource requirements with the Agent and Supervisor desktop, Windows 2000 and Windows XP should be used.
  	The CPU, memory, and hard drive space requirements are dependent on actual applications usage, i.e., Business Applications, E-mail, Office, etc.
  	Network conditions such as latency and congestion can affect the performance of the HiPath ProCenter client application. The customer is responsible for necessary upgrades or enhancements to the LAN infrastructure in order to accommodate the additional load presented by the HiPath ProCenter. Siemens can offer professional services to perform a network analysis as a separate engagement.
  	PCs should be loaded with the latest patch volumes for software, including Winsock 2.X.
  	If installing HiPath ProCenter client application on a Windows 95 OSR2 or Windows NT 4.0 machine, Internet Explorer 4.01 or higher must be installed.
 
HiPath ProCenter Agent PC
It is the customers responsibility to provide the agent PC.  The agent PC must meet the following criteria if the Agent Application is to be used.
Software Specifications:  
Operating System:  
Windows 95 OS2Not Recommended because of poor memory management
Windows 98 Second EditionNot Recommended because of poor memory management
Windows XP Professional
Windows 2000 Professional or Server with Service Pack 2 minimum
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation with Service Pack 5
Other Software:  Client for Microsoft Networks; Browser Desktop requires Microsoft Internet Explorer (5.0 or higher) or Netscape Navigator (4.73 or higher).
Figure 3.22: Hardware Specifications, HiPath ProProCenter Agent PC. 

Considerations
  	Windows 2000 and Windows XP should be used because to poor memory management with Windows 95 and 98SE and the resource requirements with the Agent and Supervisor desktop. 
  	The CPU, memory, and hard drive space requirements are dependent on actual applications usage, i.e., Business Applications, E-mail, Office, etc.
  	Network conditions such as latency and congestion can affect the performance of the HiPath ProCenter client application. The customer is responsible for necessary upgrades or enhancements to the LAN infrastructure in order to accommodate the additional load presented by the HiPath ProCenter. Siemens can offer professional services to perform a network analysis as a separate engagement.
  	PCs should be loaded with the latest patch volumes for software, including Winsock 2.X. 
  	If installing HiPath ProCenter client application on a Windows 95 OSR2 or Windows NT 4.0 machine, Internet Explorer 4.01 or higher must be installed.
 
Power Requirements
IBM xSeries 205 Server Power Requirements (Base/Auxiliary Server)
Rated Input Voltage (low range/high range)         90 to 137 V AC/ 180 to 265 V AC
Rated Line Frequency      50 to 60 Hz
Rated Input Current         0.08 kVA/ 0.053kVA
IBM xSeries 235 Server Power Requirements (Enterprise/Central Reporting Server)
Rated Input Voltage (low range/high range)         90 to 137 V AC/ 180 to 265 V AC
Rated Line Frequency       50 to 60 Hz
Rated Input Current          0.08 kVA/ 0.053kVA
Diagram of Technical Infrastructure
Figure 3.23: CRM WOM Environment.
Cabinet and Rack Layout
Figure 3.24: Cabinet and Rack Layout.
311 Call Center Data Center and Telecommunications Room
Figure 3.25: 311 Call Center Data Center and Telecommunications Room.
 


3,500

2,500

1,500

0
500
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
4,500

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

MONTH



311 CCC BUILD-OUT 05
 ORIGINAL ESTIMATE
 REVISED FORECAST
 
PCs
 $75,000
 $110,000
 
Furniture
 $126,500
 $183,400
 
Electrical Wiring
 $4,800
 Included in General Build-out
 
Brick and Mortar/Build-out
 $21,750
 Included in General Build-out
 
Telephone System (911)
 $300,000
 $300,000
 
Emergency Generator
 $125,000
 UPS
 $38,600
 
Move/Overhead/ Contingency/PM
 $415,455
 General Build-out
 $231,640
 
 
 Telecom
 $145,900
 
Network Infrastructure
 $24,000 
 Data Network
 $55,900
 
TOTAL
 $1,092,505 
 $1,065,440
 



Item
 Qty
 Description
 
CPU
 Pentium III 400 MHz or higher
 
Memory
 256 MB total
 
Storage Devices
 1
 100 MB available on hard drive 3.5 Floppy Disk Drive (Note: Required only for the machine that runs the Administrator application.)
 
Network Interfaces
 1
 10/100 MB Ethernet card or 16/4 MB Token-Ring card, depending on the network topology
 
Peripherals
 1
1
1
1
 Monitor and video controller - SVGA 800x600 min.
Keyboard  101
CD-ROM  IDE 24X min. (Note: The CD-ROM is not required if the installation of the Agent Desktop, Supervisor Desktop and the Reporter is done via the network.)
Mouse or other compatible pointing device
 


Item
 QTY
 Description
 
CPU
 Pentium III 300 MHz or higher
 
Memory
 128 MB total
 
Storage Devices
 100 MB available on hard drive
 
Network Interfaces
 1
 10/100 MB Ethernet card or 16/4 MB Token-Ring card depending on the network topology
 
Peripherals
 1
1
1
1
 Monitor and video controller - SVGA 800x600 min.
Keyboard  101
CD-ROM  IDE 24X min. (Note: The CD-ROM is not required if the installation of the Agent Desktop is done via the network.)
Mouse or other compatible pointing device
City of Minneapolis 311 Call Center and 911 Backup
Draft Rack Layouts

911 Cabinet

Com Rack 1

Com Rack 2

311 Cabinet


311 Call Center311 Facility Build-Out
Location
The Minneapolis 311 Consolidated Contact Center occupies the entire floor (5,500 square feet) of the Minneapolis Police Departments Third Precinct building at 3000 Minnehaha Avenue South (Figure 4.1).  The floor was added to the building as part of a remodeling project that was completed in 2004 (see Figure 4.2 for a photo of the exterior of the building). 
Figure 4.1: Location of the 311 Call Center.

Time Frame
The 311 facility build-out project began in April 2005. All design decisions were completed in July 2005 and physical construction began in August 2005. The 311 space was occupied in November 2005 and the months of November and December allowed for facility shakedown and testing. The facility was officially opened on January 4, 2006. See Figures 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7.

Furniture and Design
Steelcase provided the modular furniture for the call center.  Furniture layout was designed to maximize the call center agents visual and work environment considerations. The 42-inch-high cubicle walls allow agents to collaborate and consult easily with each other while responding to customer calls. There are 23 agent workstations and three supervisor workstations. The three supervisor workstations are integrated into the overall contact center design. Contact center workstations are power-adjustable to accommodate sitting or standing and the chairs are fully adjustable. 
Support staff modular offices are equipped with 64-inch-high walls and single-monitor workstations. Additionally, eight training workstations configured to mimic the 311 agent workstations. 
Design considerations for future growth were accommodated by minimizing fixed-wall construction and using modular demountable wall construction. Additionally, demountable wall design includes transparent panels which aid in the feeling of openness. The center has a large conference room that can accommodate up to 20 people for team and larger group meetings and a smaller conference for meetings of two to five people (see the floor plan in Figure 4.3). 

Telephones
All offices and workstations in the 311 Call Center are integrated into the call center ACD and ProCenter software, allowing for increased call-answering capabilities in an emergency.     
    
Computer Workstations
311 agent workstations are configured with two Dell flat screen monitors and a CPU, which allows agents to have multiple applications open on their desktops and to navigate easily between applications and maximize the information presented.    

Power Backup

The 311 Call Center has full UPS and generator backup for mission-critical functions in case of a power outage.
Figure 4.2: 311 Call Center Exterior. 
Call Center Floor Plan
The 311 Call Center occupies a complete floor in the Third Precinct building.
Figure 4.3: Call Center Floor Plan.
Physical Back-Up for 911
Twelve workstations at 311 are dual 311/911 workstations. In case of an emergency at the 911 facility at City Hall, 911 dispatchers and operators could be relocated to the 311 Call Center to perform 911 functions. Six of the 12 workstations are configured to function as 911 operator workstations and the other six are configured to function as 911 dispatch workstations (Figure 4.4). The 311 Call Center is located 4 miles from the downtown 911 facility. 

Figure 4.4: A 311 Call Center Workstation.

Figure 4.5: 311 Call Center Staff.

Figure 4.5: 311 Call Center Entryway with Banners.

Figure 4.6: Mayor Rybak and City Council Members at the 311 Call Center Opening.

Telecom  
The City of Minneapolis has implemented a number of integrated technology initiatives that will effectively remap and optimize the infrastructure that supports Public Safetys nonemergency and internal communications.  
City Services Access (311) Communications Technology
In an effort to completely redefine the customer experience associated with city services and to increase accountability of city resources, the City of Minneapolis has launched a new single number 311; to access services for citizens, businesses and visitors.  This multimedia contact center leverages a Siemens HiPath ProCenter suite of multimedia contact center features including the AspecteWorkforce Management System that works in conjunction with ProCenter to add an additional level of management and reporting for forecasting contact volumes and staffing.
Minneapolis 311 also implemented a state-of-the-art solution to provide improved access for the hearing impaired community. The Textnet solution is an automated digital TTY telephone system that is functionally equivalent to the automated telephone systems available for voice callers. This solution is capable of providing enterprise-wide functionality in an integrated contact center environment. 

Administrative and Institutional Communications Technology
The city has upgraded its primary telecommunications system to the Siemens HiPath 4000 platform.  This IP/TDM system offers what Siemens calls persistent resiliency across the solution. It is a holistic approach that recognizes the importance of application survivability and business continuity in the event of a failure at the component, application, and system or network level.  
This provides the city with access to a wide range of HiPath applications, such as Siemens OpenScape work group collaboration tools, Xpressions unified messaging, the HiPath MobileOffice Suite of mobility applications, and the HiPath ProCenter suite of multimedia contact center solutions; clients such as optiPoint IP phones and soft clients; and additional resiliency and management applications such as HiPath QoS Manager.  An integrated IntegraTrak call accounting system collects, analyzes, and tracks voice and data usage including legacy voice, VoIP, cell phones, IP gateway devices and phones, and calling cards. Detailed call accounting reports are available to the 311 Center managers via this IntegraTrak application. 
The citys central telecommunications system modules, associated application servers, and network connections are housed in a new hardened underground City Hall Communications Hub that is backed up by multiple sources of power, an independent UPS, and a standby generator.  The telecommunications environment is protected by an emergency power shut-off system, an integrated fire alarm and suppression system, electronic card access, and video security monitoring.  The system is distributed through an IP network to 20 institutional locations, 5 police precincts, and 19 fire stations.  

Public Safety Communications Technology

Public Safety communications technology is similarly undergoing a significant redesign.  The citys Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center (MECC) implemented a new CML Sentinel 911 System that will be integrated with a new TriTech CAD system.  This platform provides one-button transfers for voice and data, extensive wireless-specific call-handling features, audio and visual incoming call alerts, dynamic call status indicators, and intelligent call prompting.  
The system is fully compliant with National Emergency Number Association (NENA) standards and readily integrates with other public safety applications including ALI databases, CAD, mapping, and radio dispatch solutions.  It facilitates high-volume wireless call-handling with selective answer, auto ALI rebid, XY coordinates display, one-button call-back to wireless callers, and manual ESN updates.  The CML system also automatically presents call-takers with dynamic buttons for response agencies for a callers location, increasing the speed of transfers and response.  The city leveraged the introduction of the new 311 Contact Center to create a fully redundant and integrated 911 Backup and Overflow facility as a part of its commitment to emergency preparedness.  A second CML Sentinel 911 system is being implemented at the 311 Call Center and the two facilities are linked by a redundant communication network delivered over diverse routes.  Further business continuity is ensured because the 311 Call Center is supported by a backup UPS system and an on-site generator.  Emergency Trunks and ALI Circuits are fed to both the MECC 911 and 311 Call Center sites from two independent Telco Central Offices with two independent Selective Routers providing additional levels of security and reliability for Public Safety communications.

Call Recording Technology
The MECC 911, 311 Call Center, and City Hall network locations have been equipped with Higher Ground Call Logger Recording equipment that is networked to a back-up storage device located below City Hall.  At 311 Call Center, this system is also cataloging a live capture of all screen-based information for use in problem resolution, training, and continuous improvement programs.  The recordings are accessible through a private secure network and authentication software that allows authorized users to utilize this audio and visual documentation in court and investigative proceedings.

Staffing, Training, and Quality Improvement
Successful system and process implementations, whether they involve custom development or package configuration, means ensuring that development and support staff and end users have been trained in their required duties and use of the system.  
The citys effort to configure and install a citizen relationship management (CRM) package (Frontlink) and implement the 311 Call Center involved two phases of staffing and training: 
  	Development through Implementation Phase
  	Staffing
  	Leadership team 
  	Project management team
  	City resources 
  	Supplemental contract staff 
  	Vendor staff 
  	Technical support staff
  	Training staff (from Human Resources department)
  	Training
  	Introductory methodology and project organization
  	CaseWise training course
  	Product configuration training
  	Frontlink Script Flow course
  	Frontlink Configuration course
  	Eform Configuration course  (not offered to the city)
  	Systems Administration course
  	Portlet Configuration course
  	Self-Service Configuration course (provided for Unisys resources)
  	Knowledge Base training course
  	Train-the-Trainer course
  	Implementation and Support Phase
  	Staffing
  	Call Center manager
  	Call Center administrative assistant
  	Call Center supervisors
  	Customer Service Agent I
  	Customer Service Agent II
  	Application support staff
  	Knowledge support staff
  	Reporting support staff
  	Training
  	Call Center supervisor 
  	Call Agent training 
  	COGNOS, Inc. training 
  	SQL training
  	Supplemental configuration and Script Flow course
  	Supplemental system administrator and Portlet configuration course
  	End user case handling training

Development through Implementation Staffing
The staffing for development through implementation consisted of assorted city, vendor, and contract resources filling a variety of roles (Figure 5.1). MOC = Minneapolis One Call; BIS = Business Information Services. 
The organization chart in Figure 5.2 shows the Minneapolis One Call project team structure.
Figure 5.1: Development through Implementation Staffing. 
Figure 5.2: Minneapolis One Call Project Team Structure.

Development through Implementation Training

After contracts were signed with Unisys and Lagan, members of the project team attended a week-long training session that covered configuration and scripting with the Frontlink product.   
The project officially began with a 1-day kickoff presentation that introduced the Unisys/Lagan methodology and project organization.  The timeline in Figure 5.3 illustrates the various training activities through development and implementation.  Appendix C contains information about subject matter expert training and customer service training components. 
Figure 5.3: Development and Implementation Training Timeline.

Implementation and Support Staffing

The staffing for the implementation and support phase is an ongoing activity.  The 311 Call Center is fully staffed at this time with customer service agents, supervisors, and management.  Day-to-day operations are managed by 311 Call Center management; reporting to the assistant city coordinator for 911/311 and the city coordinator.  
The MOC Owners Group and the MOC Leadership Committee were replaced by a smaller strategic advisory group to oversee the course and direction of the 311 Call Center, ongoing development and support, and the development of reporting for the Results Minneapolis initiative, of which the 311 Call Center and the Frontlink application are components.  
Some city staff provide ongoing development and support and the city continues to supplement employee application support staff with a number of contract resources.  Application support is managed jointly by BIS and 311 Call Center Management, with input from city departments. 
The Results Minneapolis initiative is now mature and gains 311/CRM information from the 311 Center staff to augment information obtained through other departments and systems. 
Figure 5.5: Minneapolis 311/CRM Support Structure.

Implementation and Support Training Courses and Objectives

During August and September 2005, the assistant director of the 311 Call Center began planning for staffing and created a detailed plan for training 311 Call Center supervisors and customer service agents.    
Curriculum had to be developed internally for both call agent and end-user training. In early November 2005, 311 Call Center supervisors and the professional trainers from the Human Resources Department attended train-the-trainer classes after which Human Resources developed a curriculum based on what the attendees learned in the classes. 
 
From mid-November 2005 through mid-January 2006, the Human Resources Department conducted training in end-user department case-handling and knowledge-base skills for existing personnel, offering three to five classes per week.  New personnel and departments that later joined the 311/CRM process received training through the rest of the year.  Continuing courses were offered weekly through March 2006 and then twice a month until the end of 2006.  Class registration is available online through the citys employee self-serve web site.
In addition to 311 Call Center supervisors and agents, application support staff were hired during November and December 2005.  Application support staff received Lagan configuration and Script Flow training, as well as other types of technical training. The timeline in Figure 5.7 documents Call Center and application support staffing and training, and end-user training. 

Figure 5.7: Call Center, Application Support, and End-User Training.
Appendix B contains job descriptions for Call Center customer service agents, supervisors, and analysts.

Quality Assurance Indexing

The following is a description of the Minneapolis 311 Call Centers Quality Assurance Process.
The Quality Assurance Program for the Minneapolis 311 Call Center is vitally important to ensure our continued excellent delivery of our information and services.  
 
The Minneapolis 311 Call Center utilizes a program which allows us to consistently review our processes and our work for quality. This review will allow us to find ways to continuously improve what we do and to be able to better serve both our internal and external customers. We have invested in the Higher Ground application that records both voice and screen captures of all our customer interactions. Associated with that software is the ability to do scorings that will help us quantify the quality of our interactions with our customers.

Quality Assurance Process
   Random Sampling of Recorded Calls
   Calls graded up to 30 dimensions
   Scoring
	- Greeting & Qualifying
	- Effective utilization of tools
	- Active Listening & Customer Relations
	- Closing 
	- Overall
   Quality Score Index/Employee Performance Appraisal

311 QSI Grade Sheet
Station Name:			Station Number:		
Graded By:			On:					Points
Form Used:								Excellent: 5 pts
Phone Number:			On:					Good:	3 pts
									Fair: 1 pt
									Poor: 0 pts
Not Applicable: NA
									Yes: 5 pts
									No: 0 pts
Greeting
Did the agent use: Minneapolis 311, this is _____, how can we help??
Yes	No	NA
===============================================================
Tab: Qualify
Were there additional probing questions?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Did the agent re-state customers request?
Yes	No	NA
Were effective navigation skills used?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Lead with the Best
Was the Knowledge Base used correctly?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was the correct service request used?
Yes	No	NA
Was the service request completed accurately?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was there correct spelling and grammar used?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was there a warm transfer?
Yes	No	NA
Was the call transfer a smooth process?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was there correct use of script flow?
Yes	No	NA
Listening
Was the agent attentive to the customer?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Did the agent refrain from interrupting the customer?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Did the agent ask permission to place customer on hold?
Yes	No	NA
Did the agent acknowledge customer during excessive hold?
Yes	No	NA
===============================================================Tab: Customer Relation
Was the agent non-judgmental; avoided placing blame, sighing, raised voice?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Did the agent avoid the use of slang and acronyms?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Did the agent convey sincerity?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Did the agent enunciate words?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was the call paced well?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Closing
Was the service request reference number offered?
Yes	No	NA
Was the SLA offered?
Yes	No	NA
Did the agent ask if there was further assistance needed?
Yes	No	NA
Did the agent use: Thank you for calling the City of Minneapolis?
Yes	No	NA
Overall
Did the agent display conscious competence?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Were the proper resources used?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was the call handled accurately?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was positive phrasing used?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was all the information provided?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Was the information given correct?
Excellent     Good     Fair     Poor     NA
Comments  Overall:

ROLE
 COMPANY
 
Application Administration
 CityBIS
 
Training
 CityHuman Resources
 
MOC Owners Group
 CityBIS
 
Business Process
 VendorLagan
 
MOC Owners Group
 CityBISResults Minneapolis
 
Knowledge Base
 CityBIS
 
MOC Owners Group
 CityCity CoordinatorMECC
 
MOC Leadership Committee
 CityBIS
 
MOC Leadership Committee
 CityCity CoordinatorFinance
 
Knowledge Base
 ContractorVirtelligence, Inc.
 
MOC Owners Group
 CityPublic Works
 
MOC Leadership Committee
 ContractorrClient, LLC
 
MOC Owners Group
 CityMayors Office
 
MOC Leadership Committee
 CityHuman Resources
 
MOC Project Management
 VendorLagan
 
MOC Project Management
 CityBIS
 
Training
 VendorLagan
 
Technology Infrastructure
 VendorLagan
 
MOC Project Management
 CityPublic Works
 
Configuration
 ContractorThe Macro Group, Inc.
 
MOC Project Management
 VendorUnisys
 
Business Process
 ContractorLandis Consulting Solutions
 
Technology Infrastructure
 CityBIS
 
MOC Owners Group
 CityBIS
 
Business Process
 ContractorLandis Consulting Solutions
 
Interfaces
 ContractorIndependent
 
Technology Infrastructure
 VendorLagan
 
MOC Owners Group
 CityCity Coordinator
 
MOC Leadership Committee
 CityMinneapolis Police Department
 
MOC Project Management
 CityBIS
 
Technology Infrastructure 
 VendorUnisys
 
MOC Leadership Committee
 CityCity CoordinatorCommunications
 
Training
 CityHuman Resources
 
Interfaces
 CityBIS
 
Configuration
 VendorUnisys
 
Interfaces
 ContractorThe Macro Group, Inc.
 
Interfaces
 VendorLagan
 
Knowledge
 ContractorThe Macro Group, Inc.
 
MOC Leadership Committee
 CityPublic Works
 
Configuration
 ContractorThe Macro Group, Inc.
 
MOC Project Management
 ContractorThe Macro Group, Inc.
 
Configuration
 VendorLagan
 
MOC Project Management
 VendorUnisys
 
Configuration
 ContractorThe Macro Group, Inc.
 
Configuration
 CityPublic Works
 
MOC Project Management
 CityBIS
 




Minneapolis One Call
Owners Group

Minneapolis One Call
Leadership
Committee

Project Management
Team

Business Process & Service Request
Configuration Team

Knowledge
Management
Team

Trainer & End-User Education
Team

Technology
Infrastructure & Application 
Support Team

Minneapolis CRM/311
Development and Implementation Training

2005

6/16/2005
Project Kickoff
Methodology and
Organization

11/1/2005
Train the Trainer
Course

5/16/2005
CaseWise Training

12/1/2005

11/1/2005

10/1/2005

9/1/2005

8/1/2005

7/1/2005

6/1/2005

5/1/2005

4/1/2005

3/1/2005

2/1/2005

1/1/2005

12/31/2005

12/18/2005
Self Service
Configuration
Training

8/10/2005
Knowledge Base
Training

10/10/2005
Portlet Configuration
Training

6/6/2005
Lagan Configuration
and
Scriptflow Training

2006

9/1/2006

8/1/2006

2/1/2006

3/1/2006

4/1/2006

5/1/2006

6/1/2006

7/1/2006

10/1/2006

11/1/2006

12/1/2006

1/1/2006

12/31/2006

1/21/2006
System Administrator
Training


Minneapolis CRM/311
Development and Implementation Training

2005

10/3/2005  12/31/2005
Call Center Supervisiors,
Customer Service Agents
Application Support
Staff hired
End-user training begins

3/1/2005

4/1/2005

5/1/2005

6/1/2005

7/1/2005

8/1/2005

9/1/2005

10/1/2005

11/1/2005

12/1/2005

2/1/2005

1/1/2005

12/31/2005

11/1/2005
Train the Trainer
Course
311 Supervisiors
and Human Resources

12/20/2005
XML
Training

2006

4/25/2006
Portlet Configuration
System Administration
Training
(supplemental)

1/1/2006  12/31/2006
On-going
End-User Training

2/1/2006  2/28/2006
Knowledge Base Training
and Knowledge Transfer

12/1/2006

11/1/2006

10/1/2006

9/1/2006

8/1/2006

7/1/2006

6/1/2006

5/1/2006

4/1/2006

3/1/2006

2/1/2006

1/1/2006

12/31/2006

4/19/2006
COGNOS
Training

3/29/2006
Configuration
Scriptflow
Training
(supplemental)

2/3/2006
eWorkforce
Management
Training

1/23/2006
SQL
Training


Marketing and Education
Marketing and Education
The city planned and executed an extensive marketing campaign to publicize the availability of 311 several weeks before the opening of the 311 Call Center.  The campaign continued into the summer and fall of 2006, and is ongoing.  
Educating the employees about the new 311 Call Center was an important part of the success of the project.  Outreach to all employees was conducted, as was direct communication between city leaders, such as the mayor, city coordinator, assistant city coordinator for 911/311, and the 311 Call Center assistant director, department directors, City Council members, and other formal and informal leaders in the city.
External Marketing Campaign
The goal of the Minneapolis 311 public marketing campaign was to communicate that Minneapolis had simplified the process of requesting city services and information. The short- and long-term objectives of the campaign were to increase awareness of 311 among residents and businesses, reduce nonemergency calls to 911, reduce the volume of direct calls to city departments, gain full understanding of 311 services among residents and businesses, and gain recognition for Minneapolis outstanding customer service.
Target audiences were all residents of Minneapolis, including the citys large limited-English-proficiency population and special needs residents; visitors; people who work, go to school, shop, and come to Minneapolis for entertainment; out-of-state travelers; businesses; and the greater metro area and state (including lawmakers).
Several messages were projected for this effort. The City of Minneapolis is making a revolutionary improvement to customer service was the attention-getting message, followed by more specific information about how the city was making these improvements.  Messages included the following:
  	Getting information and nonemergency service is as easy as dialing 311
  	Throw out the blue pages from your phone book
  	Call 311 for all nonemergency needs (how to apply for a parade permit, street light is out, where can I pay my utility bill, and so on) 
  	Continue to call 911 for emergencies.
These messages and the following methods were chosen by Minneapolis Communications professionals deliberately.  Diverse approaches were needed to reach diverse audiences, and it was necessary to keep the message in front of people for several months.  The methods needed to be affordable, yet address as many audiences as possible over the longest period of time.  Communications staff attempted to recognize and use opportunities to change behavior.
The methods used were varied and intended to reach the broadest audience possible, considering the message each tool delivers, the audience reached by the tools selected, and the cost of distribution of each tool.  The approaches included advertising on the light rail transit trains and bus shelters, inserts in utility bills, a refrigerator magnet, postcards, a decal on the citys fleet vehicles, a button for employees who work with the public, stickers, government access broadcasts on cable television, and messages on the citys web site. 

LRT Wrap

Starting in January 2006, several light rail transit (LRT) trains that travel from downtown Minneapolis to the airports and on to the Mall of America were wrapped with the 311 message (Figure 6.1). The message conveyed was that Minneapolis was revolutionizing the way it did it business.
Figure 6.1: Wrapped LRT Trains Project a High-Impact Statement about 311.
The intended audiences for the LRT wrap included Minneapolis residents who live in the vicinity of the routes, people both from inside the city and metro area who commute by train or along routes and out-of-state visitors who use LRT from airport/travel into downtown.  Media coverage of the train also helped reach residents and nonresidents in the extended metro area and state, including lawmakers.  Businesses were also a target of this portion of the campaign.
The LRT wrap had two phases within the 3-month display.  The first phase was the novelty phase when media coverage and water cooler talk would occur.  The second phase would solidify awareness of 311. The gimmick status will have worn off for many, but most will see it over and over again, driving home awareness. It was estimated that the LRT train wrap would generate more than seven million impressions per month. 
The cost of the LRT Wrap included $20,000 for the wrap completed by a California company, and $10,000 per month for 3 month minimum (this is a discounted rate which saves $6,000).  There was no cost for media coverage of wrap.  This investment was approximately one-third of cost of whole public education package.

Transtop Messages

Transtop (bus shelter) messages (Figure 6.2) were placed in north and northeast Minneapolis, where LRT trains do not run, and were seen by residents, commuters, and businesses.  An estimated 234,600 impressions per day resulted.  During the 3 months that the panels were on display, they were rotated to different locations within north and northeast Minneapolis, as well as downtown, to provide fresh impact. Again, the intended outcome was to increase awareness of calling 311 for information and nonemergency services.

Figure 6.2: Bus Shelter Displays Were Rotated Among Several Locations in North and Northeast Minneapolis.

Utility Bill Insert

Inserts were sent with customers utility bills in January and June 2006, serving as another reminder about the new 311 Call Center (Figure 6.3). Specific messages included the following:
  	Reminder that citizens can call one telephone number, 311, for all nonemergency requests
  	Explanation of how 311 works, with examples
  	Continue to call 911 for all emergencies.
Costs for the utility bill inserts were very low because the initial design was done in house by Communications Department staff and completed and printed by Unisys, as a part of its contract with the city to provide technical/IT support.  In addition to the mailings in January and June 2006, follow-up inserts were planned out for 3 years to announce changes, improvements, and benchmarks. 
Figure 6.3: Utility Customers Received Special 311 Inserts with their Utility Bills.

Citywide Magnet Mailer

In April and May 2006, all 172,000 households in Minneapolis were sent a refrigerator magnet mailer as an ongoing reminder about the 311 Call Center. The refrigerator magnet is another way to make the message stick.  Research has indicated that generally 90 percent of all households have refrigerator magnets, and that families open their refrigerators 20 times per day.  If only 20 percent of recipients put the magnet on the refrigerator, the 311 message could be seen as often as 680,000 per day.  Total cost of this effort was approximately $48,000, including services donated by Unisys, and the impact is expected to have lasting duration.

Figure 6.4: The Refrigerator Magnet Is in English and Six Additional Languages to Reflect the Citys Diverse Population.

Fleet Decals
311 decals were placed on most city fleet vehicles and are associated with the services the vehicles provide (see Figure 6.5).  Audiences mainly include residents who see fleet vehicles working or parked in their neighborhoods, as well as commuters and visitors.  These 311 decals are permanent, similar to the permanent 911 decals on city fleet vehicles, and convey the following messages:
  	311 is a city service (fleet decals establish that the service or product is provided by the company or organization advertised on the door of the vehicle)
  	311 is here to stay (attaching decals is an indication of established product or service)
  	Basic information about 311 as the number to call for non-emergency service.
The cost for placing the decals on 925 light, non-emergency vehicles in the citys fleet was about $2 to $3 per vehicle.  Since the decals are permanent, their impact will be of lasting duration. 
 
Figure 6.5: A Permanent Decal on the Citys Vehicles Reminds People about the 311 Call Center.

Employee Buttons
Employee buttons promote one-on-one education and awareness as long as employees who have contact with the public continue to wear the button. The audience for buttons is anyone who has contact with an employee wearing a button.  One thousand fifteen hundred buttons were produced at a cost of less than $600.  Duration will be as long as employees continue to wear the buttons.  Messages related through employee buttons include the following:
  	311 is about customer service
  	Were proud to be at your service
  	Ask me about 311.

Telephone Book
The message (see Figure 6.6) in the Blue Pages (government section) of the telephone book includes the following:
  	311 is your one number for information or nonemergency service
  	Call 911 for all emergencies.
The audience for the phone book will be anyone who looks up a number in the blue pages.  Many direct phone numbers are or will be no longer be listed in the Blue Pages, which will significantly simplify the callers choices and decrease the frustration of trying to determine the correct number to call.

Figure 6.6: The Listing of City Offices in the Blue Pages of the Telephone 

Book Highlights the 311 Call Center.

Stickers
Stickers were distributed to city leaders and elected officials to pass out to constituents, callers, and others at public events and other city venues (Figure 6.7). The stickers cost less than $500 for sheets of 100.  This was considered a low-impact activity that will be useful until 311 is no longer a novelty.  The messages these stickers convey include these:
  	Were excited and proud of 311
  	Ask me about 311
  	Were glad youre using 311
  	I called 311.

Figure 6.7: Example of Sticker.

Government Access Broadcasts and City Web Site
Government access broadcasts on cable television and the citys web site messages reach a broad audience.  They are significant routes to people who have limited proficiency in the English language because the both the broadcasts and information on the web is available in several languages, including Somali, Hmong, and Spanish, as are the broadcasts. Messages include the following:
  	What is 311; how does it work: what can you use it for?
  	311 is for everyone (multiple languages, information about translation services available through 311).
Information about 311 is displayed on the citys home page. Both the web site (see Figure 6.8) and the cable broadcasts are ongoing efforts to help increase awareness of 311 among citizens.

Figure 6.8:  Information About the 311 Call Center Is Featured Prominently on the Citys Home Page.

The Big Launch

On January 4, 2006, the 311 Call Center was officially opened and publicized with a planned media event at the centers location in the Third Precinct building.  All elected city officials were invited, as were media, department heads, assistant city coordinators, and appropriate division directors.  Vendors Lagan and Unisys were on hand, as well. The 311-wrapped LRT train carried everyone to the Call Center.  The mayor, city council committee chair, project manager, and results manager made brief comments, followed by a demonstration of 311.  Lagan and Unisys officials as well as customer service agents answered questions.  Refreshments were served.  A media packet, which included a fact sheet, photos of train wrap and the bus shelter panel, the first utility bill insert, and the button, were distributed at the event.


Free Media

In addition to the earned media attention from the opening day event, the city received newspaper coverage from local neighborhood weeklies.  No advertising was purchased in either neighborhood newspapers or the Star Tribune because the advertising is very expensive and has a very limited duration.
Advertising was not purchased on radio or television both because these outlets provided coverage in the form of newscasts and because the city would have been paying to broadcast to a much larger audience than was relevant.  The television viewing area is nearly 3 million people but the target audience was much smaller.  

Internal Marketing Campaign

Employee Education
City employees learned about the 311 Call Center and CRM system in a variety of ways.  Some staff were directly involved in system development, some department and division directors were on leadership or management committees overseeing development, and others learned of the 311 initiative through word of mouth.  The project manager reached out directly to departments and divisions by conducting presentations at various department and division staff meetings.

Citywide Kickoff
In April 2005, an unprecedented city-wide event was held at the Minneapolis Convention Center to publicize the concept of 311 to city employees.  Several hundred city employees attended, and learned first-hand from city leaders what to expect from this new endeavor. A video used by the City of Chicago introduced the concept of single number for accessing city services, as well as how service delivery could be changed through implementation of a CRM system.  Business leaders spoke to the audience about the importance of using tax resources wisely and effectively to best serve constituents, and how 311/CRM could improve outcomes for service delivery.  This 3-hour presentation was generally well-received and appreciated by city employees, and worked well to introduce the concept of 311 to them.


Budget
Total 
Costs

Total cost of the 311 project was $6,089,440 (see Figure 7.1) and covered the development of CRM software, professional services and expenses, and the 311 facility build-out and preparation.  The project was paid for through several funding sources: Business Information Services (BIS) capital, a grant from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, a surcharge on the citys 911 system, 2004 money left over from city departments, and an internal short-term loan, for a total of $6,319,000 (Figure 7.2). 
Figure 7.1: 311 ProjectTotal Costs.
Paying for It 
Figure 7.1: Sources of Funds to Pay for the 311 Project.

ITEM
 AMOUNT
 
CRM software  
 
Serves as the interface between the 311 customer service agents and the knowledge database. 
 $3,208,000
 
Professional Services and Expenses 
 
To make Minneapolis 311 work, designers needed a map of the citys business processes. This cost covers that work so the technology could be configured properly. 
 $1,816,000
 
311 Facility Build-out and Preparation
 
Includes the 311Call Center, computer hardware, workstations, and other furnishings. 
 $1,065,440
 
TOTAL
 $6,089,440



FUNDING SOURCE
 AMOUNT
 
BIS Capital
 $1,600,000
 
Department Allocations
All city departments helped pay for the start-up costs out of their annual operating budgets, based on the number of employees. 
 $1,071,000
 
Federal Grant
A grant from the U.S. Department of Justices Office of Community Oriented Policing Services paid for hardware and software to better equip the 311 Call Center and to help Minneapolis improve its emergency response.
 $300,000
 
911 Surcharge
Minneapolis is among the recipients of 911surcharge money that telephone companies collect from customers. This revenue helped make the 311 Call Center a back-up for the citys 911 Call Center downtown. 
 $300,000
 
2004 Rollover Funds
Unspent money many city departments had at the end of the 2004 fiscal year. 

 $1,300,000
 
Internal Short-Term Loan
The cost of the software is more in the first years of the project. This internal loan evens out the costs of the software to departments, and is paid back by department contributions through 2008. 
 $1,749,000
 
TOTAL
 $6,319,000
 



Impact of the 311 Initiative
Major Milestones
Figure 8.1 is a summary timeline of the major milestones for Minneapolis 311 during its first year of operation.
Figure 8.1:  311 Milestones, 2006.
2006 Call StatisticsMinneapolis 311
Figures 8.2 through 8.8 provide a variety of statistics related to the 311 Call Center broken down by month:  call volume and service level; call resolution; time spent handling calls; call volume forecasts; staffing level Full-Time Equivalents (FTE); and abandoned calls.  
As the 311 Call takers became more knowledgeable and experienced, they needed less time to handle a call.
Figure 8.4: 311 call Talk Time, 2006. 
Figure 8.5: 311 Call Volume, 20062007 Forecasts.
Figure 8.7: 311 Staffing FTEs, 

2006.
Figure 8.8:  Abandoned 311 Calls, 2006 
Top 10 Knowledge Base Inquiries, 

2006
Figure 8.9 lists, by percentage, the most frequently requested information, in order of popularity.

Figure 8.9: Top 10 Knowledge Base Inquires 2006

Mapping Service Requests
Figure 8.10, Graffiti Service Requests, and Figure 8.11, Street Light Service Requests, illustrate locations in the city where requests for those services were called in to the 311 Call Center.  The City of Minneapolis can produce call intake maps for other topics, such as abandoned vehicles and animal-related calls.  Maps such as these give police and city departments an overall picture of specific situations, helping them focus on problem areas and target their resources. 

Figure 8.10: Graffiti Service Requests, 2006.

Figure 8.11: Map of Street Light Service Requests, 2006.

2006 Service Requests by Department and Type
To properly analyze call volume patterns over time, the City of Minneapolis broke out all calls by month and by type of call, as illustrated in Figure 8.12.

Figure 8.12: Service Requests by Department and Type, 2006.

Impact on 911
A 311 call actually might be an emergency, and a 911 call might not be an emergency.  Using the rules outlined previously, 911 and 311 customer service agents for the city are trained to recognize situations as emergency or nonemergency and respond accordingly.  
If the 311 Call Center receives a call that is deemed an emergency, it is immediately transferred to 911.  The 311 customer service agent remains on the line until the 911 operator answers.
On the other hand, if 911 Emergency Communications receives a call reporting a nonemergency situation, the caller is transferred or referred to the 311 Call Center.   The Minneapolis 311 Call Center is not yet a 7x24 operation. Nonemergency calls to 911 that come in after hours for the 311 Call Center may be routed to the 311 voice message system.  Callers can leave messages that the 311 customer service agents will enter during the next shift.  Five nonemergency city numbers are staffed on a 7x24 basis: Street Department, Water Department, Utility Billing, Animal Control, and the Impound Lot.
Impact of the 311 System on 911 System Resources and Effectiveness
The 911 Center has three numbers the public can call to report an emergency or request nonemergency assistance.  Two are widely publicized911 and its nonemergency alternative, 612.348.2345.  A numberto reach the internal Minneapolis Emergency Communications Center  (MECC), 612.673.2345is used almost exclusively by city employees in City Hall and by police needing to talk to a dispatcher or be transferred to another number.
	
As expected, the 911 staff saw changes in the number and types of calls they received on these telephone lines, such as fewer calls about abandoned vehicles or snow emergencies, or callers wanting to make a police report (Police E-Reports).  Actual call volumes recorded in the first quarter of 2006, however, did not clearly indicate a change or pattern of change.  911 calls increased significantly in the first quarter compared to 2005 and was attributed by police and emergency personnel to an increase in crime in certain sectors of the city.  Minneapolis was experiencing an overall increase in crimes in late 2005 and into 2006, and this was reflected in calls to 911.   Other cities have experienced increases in calls to 911 after 311 was implemented because more calls could get through to the emergency line.  This also may have been the case in Minneapolis.  By the end of the year, calls to 911 had increased slightlyonly 1.1 percent).  See Figure 8.14  
Calls to the police nonemergency number decreased significantly 2006: 17.1 percent (see Figure 8.15).  This telephone number was designated (pre-311) as the number that citizens should call to report, for example, an abandoned vehicle or a crime, or inquire about snow emergencies and other city issues that may or may not be related to public safety.  It remains in place because Minnesota statute requires that the 911 trunks have to be backed by traditional telephone lines
Calls to the MECC were not affected by 311 in the first quarter of 2006.  The number of calls to this line throughout 2006 was relatively stable, with a slight decrease in February (see Figure 8.15).  Since this number is well-known to city staffers, they may continue to use it to reach the 911 Center. 
Minneapolis old CAD system did not track calls by type, if the call was an emergency or if a squad was sent.   More data analysis became possible after the new CAD system was installed in March 2007.
On the strength of the 17.1 percent decrease in nonemergency calls, the overall call volume into the 911 Center (all three telephone numbers) decreased by 4.3 percent or about 30,000 calls.
As is true for most 311 system implementations, it was hoped that Minneapolis 311 would reduce, or slow the growth of, 911 calls.  As the figures below show, the annual growth of 911 calls from 20042005 (before implementation) was 6.3 percent, whereas the growth from 20052006 was just 1.1 percent.
Number of 2006 311 Calls Transferred to 911: 895
Figure 8.13: Volume of 911 Calls Before and After 311 Was Activated.
Figure 8.14: Volume of Nonemergency and MECC Calls Received Before and After 311 Was Activated.
*Beginning in May 2006, the counts for the nonemergency lines (673-2345) could not be separated out because of the installation of a new E-911 phone system.  The combined totals are shown in the fourth, 348.2345, column.

Homeland Security and Crisis Management

The day-to-day focus of the 311 Call Center is to provide information about, and answers to, routine city services, but the reality is that it is crucial to emergency preparedness.  The 311 Call Center is organizationally housed in the 911/311 Department and is fully equipped to receive and process 911 calls, enter them into the citys CAD system, and dispatch emergency calls. The 311 Call Center is housed in the Minneapolis Police Departments Third Precinct headquarters building.
The 311 Call Center has taken over the police departments nonemergency call center and is able to track suspicious activity trends that might not otherwise be correlated with trends that would dictate action/dispatch through calls to 911.  
The 311 Call Center is earmarked to switch gears to become a tip line call center if high-volume tips occur such as was the case in the Montgomery County, Maryland, sniper situation a few years ago.  The call center will take nonemergency calls following a natural or manmade disaster and will team with the 911 Center and the citys MECC to coordinate rapid response. There already have been examples of how 311 complements 911 efforts in times of crisis, such as the I-35 Bridge Collapse, which occurred on August 1, 2007.
The 311 Call Center has reduced the volume of phone calls into the 911 Center,  allowing those call takers and dispatchers to focus on the true emergencies, while 311 routinely takes the calls that formerly ended up interrupting or distracting the 911 call takers. 
The city installed a new E-911 phone system in May 2006, and emergency preparedness exercises were conducted to coincide with the installation.  Tabletop exercises included evacuating the 911 Center and moving 911 operations to the 311 Call Center in the Third Precinct.  
The citys Homeland Security and Crisis Management Plan, a coordinated effort led by the director of regulatory services in close collaboration with the fire department and police department, has been updated to incorporate 311 as an integral part of the citys response to a natural or man-made disaster.  This plan is based on the National Incident Management System and reflects an all-hazard approach to emergency preparedness.  Within this planning framework, the city has recognized the critical role that communications play in disaster readiness, response, and recovery.  
 
Minneapolis I-35W Bridge Collapse
The Crisis Management capabilities of Minneapolis 311 were fully tested following the collapse of the I-35W Bridge on August 1, 2007. 
Minneapolis 311 was able to field hundreds of calls and e-mails related to the nonemergency aspects of the bridge collapse. These contacts included the following:  
  	Information
  	General public information regarding the bridge collapse 
  	Road closures
  	Alternate routes
  	Public viewing of the site
  	Red Cross referrals
  	Where and how to make charitable contributions to the city
  	Request tracking
  	Media 
  	Eye witness reports
  	Missing person and victim information
  	Vehicle and personal property information
  	Tracking and reporting offers for donated services 
  	Tracking and reporting services for fees
  	Recording and tracking of expressions of condolences and sympathies from well-wishers
  	Recording and tracking of public opinions 
  	Traffic control complaints

Policing Practices
Current Service Requests
Even in the very early in the life of the 311 Call Center, it had a significant impact on the Minneapolis Police Department.  Today, the following service requests for police are in place:  
  	E-Reports (formerly Teleserve)
  	Copies of Police Reports (transfer to Police Records)
  	Suspicious Activity Reports
  	Homicide Tips
  	Request for Canine Appearance 
  	Requests for Crime Statistics (neighborhood or citywide)
  	Parking Violation Complaints
  	National Night Out.

Police E-Reports 
The addition of E-Reports to the 311 service request mix has led to dramatic changes in the response to low-level crimes or certain crimes without a suspect.  Often a crime victim must make a police report before he or she can submit an insurance claim, and there is no need for a squad to respond.  In the past, callers were directed to voice mail and it could be weeks before they were contacted by police staffers.  More information about Teleserve/E-Reports can be found in the section titled Police E-Reports Service Request in Chapter 3.

Copies of Police Reports
Requests for copies of police reports can be taken by 311, eliminating the need for a caller to search the blue pages to find the correct direct number.  Currently, a call for a police report is transferred to Police Records, but plans for taking the actual request are underway.


Suspicious Activity Reports and Homicide Tips

Suspicious activity reports, including calls about suspected drug dealing and prostitution, are now taken by 311 instead of by individual precincts.   This is leading to better tracking ability because calls are going to one central location.  Homicide tips, including other violent crime tips, will help investigators to track the tips and manage homicide, sexual assault, and aggravated assault cases, for example.

Request for Canine Appearance
The Minneapolis Canine Unit receives many requests for a canine officer and his or her dog to appear at various events.  Previously, the precincts, officers, or the Canine Unit received these calls; now all are managed by the 311 Call Center.

Request for Crime Statistics

The 311 Call Center also handles requests for crime statistics.  The customer service agents either direct callers to the citys web site where crime statistics can be downloaded directly, or forward callers to the Crime Analysis unit if the information is not available on the web site.
 
Parking Violation Complaints
Service requests for the Parking and Traffic Services Unit of the Police Department are among the most common calls for service to 311.  In 2006, the 311 Call Center received 4,119 parking violation complaints that subsequently were investigated by Parking and Traffic services.  These, along with abandoned vehicle calls, which totaled 6,815, are examples of some of the early successes of 311.  Callers are surprised by the speed at which vehicles are tagged or towed following a call to 311.  Parking and Traffic Services staffs are eager and willing users of the CRM system, as evidenced by the high level of service provided to 311 callers.
 
National Night Out
For the fourth time in the last 5 years, Minneapolis was top-ranked among large cities for its National Night Out efforts when 46,000 Minneapolis residents gathered at more than 840 neighborhood and community National Night Out celebrations citywide. Turnout was 21 percent higher than in 2004. National Night Out activities help build and maintain Minneapolis extensive network of neighborhood watch block clubs by giving people an opportunity to get together with neighbors, build relationships, meet new people, and discuss issues and plan for the future. 
Because of its inherent impact on police/community relations and crime prevention, National Night Out has remained a priority for the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), even in the face of deep budget cuts. This year, three permanent MPD staff devoted significant time to National Night Out, beginning in February.  Staffing for National Night Out has remained substantial, even as full-time crime prevention positions have been cut by more than 70 percent since 2002.  Most aspects of National Night Out are coordinated by the Community Crime Prevention/SAFE (CCP/SAFE) Central unit of the MPD, but many city departments from the mayor, City Council and Public Works to Communications, Elections and Fire helped with various aspects of this years campaign.  
Service requests designed to help staff organize the National Night Out events around the city have greatly improved the citys ability to coordinate this huge, multi-organizational effort.  Currently, e-mail and voice messages are the primary methods by which National Night Out is organized.  With 311 service requests in place, requests for National Night Out planning packets, help from CCP staff, street closing requests, and so on, can be done through a single call to 311 rather than several separate calls to staff members.  It is anticipated that over time this partnership with 311 will lead to even greater participation in National Night Out among citizens, as limited staff will have more time to assist neighborhoods rather than answering telephones.

Requests for Information
Half of all callers to 311 are requesting information only.  Of these, nearly one in four calls was about public safety in 2006.  The 311/CRM Knowledge Base has extensive information about the Minneapolis Police Department, courts, jail, county corrections, juvenile justice, and so on.   Plans for analyzing the effect of 311 on the police department phone call volume are underway and are planned for completion by calendar year-end.
Future Service Requests
The following service requests were in the planning or development stage as of June 2008
  	Request for Ride-Along
  	Crime Prevention Specialist Assistance Request
  	Seized Vehicles Search
  	Complaints About a Police Officer
  	Request for Meeting with the Chief
  	Request for the Chief to Appear at an Event.

Request for Ride-Along
Ride-alongs are a popular activity for prospective law enforcement students, neighborhood activists, and others interested in learning about policing first hand.  There is no central point of contact to request a ride-along, either department-wide or in the precincts.  Developing a service request for ride-alongs will assist the citizen and the department, streamlining the process and making it easier for the citizen to follow up to determine the status of the request.

Crime Prevention Specialist Assistance Request

CCP/SAFE staff, who generally are civilians working out of precincts, field many, many calls from neighborhood organizations, block clubs, businesses, and individuals about crime-prevention initiatives.  These calls are made directly to CCP/SAFE staff, to the operations manager, or to precincts.  Enabling citizens to call 311 for these requests will free the crime-prevention staff to work directly on issues, rather than to field and return telephone calls.  Requests for service or information can be reviewed at a time convenient for the staffers, allowing them to better manage their time and limited resources in the field.

Seized Vehicles Search

The police department and impound lot both get a substantial number of calls about vehicles that have been seized as part of a forfeiture action or as part of an investigation.  After the vehicle is no longer needed as evidence, the owner may claim it and have it returned, but most citizens do not know where to start in searching for the vehicle or information on when it would be available for return.  This service request will eliminate the need for callers to discover on their own the correct numbers or personnel to call about seized vehicles, and will decrease the number of misdirected calls to various police department telephone numbers.

Complaints About a Police Officer
There is significant interest by police department management in providing a service request to complain about officer conduct.  Complaints of this nature currently are placed with the chiefs office, the precinct, a commander or supervisor, the Mayors Office or council members office, the citizen review board, internal affairs, or to the officer directly.  This service request would help greatly both to reduce confusion among callers and to better track the number and types of complaints about officers.

Requests for a Meeting with the Chief or Appearance at an Event

Finally, service requests for meeting with the chief and requests for the chief to attend events will be completed.  The chiefs office and precincts receive calls regularly requesting such meeting with citizens, business people, and others about pressing issues, as well as requests for the chief to attend community or business events.  Service requests for both fire chief and mayor have already been completed, enabling 311 to emulate them for the police chief.
Other Changes Resulting from 311 Implementation
Other changes in the way the police department conducts business are taking place as a result of the 311 implementation.
The First Precinct, located in downtown Minneapolis, receives a large number of misdirected calls because it is the first number listed under Minneapolis Police in the telephone book.  Even 411 operators routinely transfer all calls for police to this number.  Front desk officers in the First Precinct are very busy with walk-up traffic and monitoring the numerous cameras that track activity in key downtown areas.   Eliminating unwanted calls will enable the officers to spend their valuable time helping citizens and preventing crime.  To this end, a call director placed in the First Precinct directs callers to 311 for many questions.  In the first week alone, 81 calls were rerouted to 311. Subsequently, call directors were installed in the remaining four precincts. By years end, 3,857 calls from the First Precinct had been rerouted to 311 and 9,057 calls were rerouted from all five precincts.
 
Once enhanced E-Reports capabilities have been implemented, the police department will be examining how this service could be used to help the department become even more proactive.  There is a move in the department to reduce the reliance on calls for service, and reactivity, and officials anticipate that 311 will play a vital role in this effort.  Possibilities include expanding E-Reports  to those crimes that have a very low solvability rating, such as certain burglaries.  Citizens now believe that a squad will be dispatched for crimes like these, so a communications effort will be needed to help citizens understand that by not responding to these kinds of calls, police officers will be more able to help prevent and intervene in crimes that occur on the street.
Many telephone numbers are listed under Minneapolis Police in the telephone book and callers very often dial the wrong number when trying to call various sections of the police department.  Callers are unsure of who to talk to, they are transferred, retransferred, and sent to voice mail which may not get checked for a day or two.  In the future, 311 will help direct callers to the right section or unit on the first try.  
These are the beginning steps in making the police department more user-friendly and efficient.  Other plans will be developed by a core group of lieutenants, sergeants, and civilians in the coming months.  Initially a reluctant player in the move to 311, the police department has realized significant improvements in its ability to protect the public and is a willing and eager participant in the effort to use 311 to become more productive.


2006 Monthly Call Volume and Service Level


NUMBER OF CALLS

SERVICE LEVEL %

0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000

50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Call Volume
Service Level
Linear (Service Level)
Linear (Call Volume)

Figure 8.3: 2006 Call Resolution Levels

 
 Knowledge Base
 Service Request
 First Call Resolution
 
January
 48%
 12%
 60%
 
February
 49%
 15%
 64%
 
March
 54%
 15%
 69%
 
April
 52%
 17%
 69%
 
May
 52%
 18%
 70%
 
June
 53%
 17%
 70%
 
July
 55%
 16%
 71%
 
August
 53%
 17%
 70%
 
September
 55%
 17%
 72%
 
October
 56%
 16%
 72%
 



(Seconds)

170
162
150
150
150
140
138
129
132
132
124
130

60
80
100
120
140
160
180

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

NUMBER OF CALLS

0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

MONTH

2006
2007

10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Actual
Budget

3.5

PERCENTAGE

2.5

1.5

0
0.5
1
2
3
4
4.5

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

MONTH

Area
 %
 
Public Safety
 22.6
 
Housing
 13.2
 
Licenses and Permits
 12.8
 
Garbage and Recycling
 12.5
 
Government Partners
 8.0
 
Residential Property
 6.6
 
Traffic and Parking
 6.5
 
Animals
 6.3
 
Multi Community Questions
 5.8
 
Community and Social Services
 5.7
 
100.0
 





JAN
2006
 FEB 2006
 MARCH 2006
 APRIL 2006
 MAY 2006
 JUNE 2006
 JULY 2006
 AUG 2006
 SEPT 2006
 OCT 2006
 NOV 2006
 DEC 2006
 Yearly Total
 
CPED
 Campaign Sign Complaint
 52
 5
 4
  
  
  
  
 6
 4
 2
 10
 17
 100
 
Zoning Ordinance Question
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 2
 26
 31
 59
 
Zoning Ordinance Complaint
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 5
 3
 8
 
Request Meeting with a Planner
 15
 48
 186
 137
 132
 96
 90
 100
 94
 90
 73
 52
 1,113
 
Request Callback - Zoning Classification
 36
 63
 60
 21
 45
 39
 30
 28
 25
 24
 11
 17
 399
 
Request Callback - Flood Plain Designation
 1
 3
 3
 3
 2
 2
 1
 2
  
 1
 1
 3
 22
 
Request Application - Land Use / Zoning Change
 4
 3
 3
 9
 4
 2
 4
 5
 2
 4
 3
 1
 44
 
Request Callback - Setback/Height Requirements
 11
 9
 11
 18
 13
 5
 12
 13
 9
 8
 6
 7
 122
 
Request Application - Rebuild / Flood Plain Letter
 1
 3
 2
 1
 1
 6
 2
 4
  
 1
  
  
 21
 
Fire
 Fire Rig Visit Request
 1
 4
 7
 10
 40
 53
 91
 48
 36
 32
 1
 1
 324
 
Fire Department Complaint
 5
  
 2
 1
 1
 2
 3
  
 1
  
  
 1
 16
 
Fire Report Records Request
  
  
 1
 1
 8
 3
 1
 6
 2
 3
 2
  
 27
 
Fire Statistical Records Request
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
  
 1
  
  
  
 2
 
Residential Conditions Complaint HOD
 24
 21
 35
 35
 46
 49
 53
 66
 38
 36
 41
 16
 460
 
Request Fire Chief Attendance at Event
 1
  
  
  
 2
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
 4
 
Fire Historical Employment Record Request
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 
Residential Conditions Complaint HOD Tenant
 37
 46
 46
 49
 51
 58
 64
 70
 69
 104
 83
 63
 740
 



JAN 2006
 FEB 2006
 MARCH 2006
 APRIL 2006
 MAY 2006
 JUNE 2006
 JULY 2006
 AUG 2006
 SEPT 2006
 OCT 2006
 NOV 2006
 DEC 2006
 Yearly Total
 
Police
 Abandoned Vehicle
 408
 623
 631
 451
 538
 723
 647
 753
 614
 593
 419
 415
 6,815
 
Suspicious Activity
  
 4
 36
 56
 99
 134
 92
 92
 70
 64
 34
 47
 728
 
K9 Appearance Request
  
  
 1
 1
 5
 5
 5
 4
 6
 1
  
  
 28
 
General Crime Stat Request
  
  
 1
  
  
 1
  
  
  
 1
 1
 1
 5
 
Parking Violation Complaint
 153
 205
 321
 273
 368
 395
 358
 409
 434
 522
 367
 314
 4,119
 
Neighborhood Crime Stat Request
  
  
 3
 1
 2
  
  
 1
  
  
  
 2
 9
 
Traffic Control Ticket Complaint
  
 2
 3
  
 1
 1
 2
 1
 1
 2
  
  
 13
 
Traffic Control Officer Complaint
 5
 2
 2
 4
 2
 5
 1
 6
 4
 4
 1
 8
 44
 
Request Traffic Control Services for Event
  
  
 1
  
 1
  
  
  
 1
  
 2
 4
 9
 
Finance
 Risk Mgmt Callback Request
  
  
 1
  
 1
 2
  
  
 1
 1
  
  
 6
 
Duplicate Water Bill Request
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 4
 5
 
Risk Mgmt Claim form Request
  
  
 1
 1
 1
 2
  
  
  
 2
  
  
 7
 
Utility Billing General Inquiry
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 3
 3
 6
 
Meter Reading / Service Appointment
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 2
 2
 
Change Request - Mailing Address or Name
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 2
 1
 3
 
Start Utility Service - Move In / Buy Property
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 6
 6
 
Assessor
 Homestead Fraud Report
  
  
 1
 1
  
 1
  
 1
  
 1
  
 1
 6
 
Assessor Callback Request
  
  
 1
  
 2
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
 4
 
Homestead Removal Request
  
  
 1
 2
  
  
  
  
 1
  
 1
  
 5
 
311 & 911
 MECC/911
 17
 16
 40
 31
 33
 37
 52
 75
 37
 34
 30
 19
 421
 
Complaint
 77
 43
 46
 30
 39
 22
 24
 31
 20
 39
 27
 27
 425
 
Compliment
 5
 6
 9
 13
 6
 9
 15
 10
 5
 5
 5
 6
 94
 
Unanswered Question
 128
 133
 104
 44
 51
 43
 17
 38
 37
 29
 30
 23
 677
 
311 Dialing Complaint
  
  
  
 1
 6
 4
 2
 2
 2
 2
 1
  
 20
 
311 Application Support
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 18
 8
 15
 14
 55
 
New or Missing Service Request
 16
 7
 1
 6
 5
 2
 4
 5
 7
 1
 2
  
 56
 
JAN 2006
 FEB 2006
 MARCH 2006
 APRIL 2006
 MAY 2006
 JUNE 2006
 JULY 2006
 AUG 2006
 SEPT 2006
 OCT 2006
 NOV 2006
 DEC 2006
 Yearly Total
 
City Clerk
 Absentee Ballot Application Request
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 62
 45
 167
  
  
 274
 
City Council
 Request Callback from Council Representative
 1
 3
 1
  
 1
 4
  
 1
 1
 1
 1
 2
 16
 
Mayors Office
 Meeting with Mayor
  
 1
  
 1
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 3
 
Letter or Proclamation
  
  
  
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 
Citizen Opinion on Issue
 8
 23
 43
 17
 20
 10
 6
 13
 8
 20
 5
 17
 190
 
Mayor Attendance at Event
  
  
  
 1
 1
 2
  
  
  
 2
  
  
 6
 
Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 55
 51
 107
 
Mayors Position on Policy or Program
 1
  
 1
  
  
  
  
  
 1
  
  
  
 3
 
Human Resources
 Benefits Callback
  
 1
 1
 1
 3
  
  
  
  
 2
  
  
 8
 
Application Status Request
 1
 1
 2
 4
 2
 2
 2
  
 3
 2
  
 2
 21
 
Hiring Notification Request
 5
 17
 16
 8
 6
 2
 5
 5
 1
 4
 5
 5
 79
 
PW Streets & Malls
Regulatory Services
 Pothole
 113
 59
 106
 162
 288
 146
 73
 81
 45
 41
 21
 16
 1,151
 
Trees Down
 1
  
 3
 2
 2
 5
 2
 1
 1
 1
  
 2
 20
 
Sand Barrel
 3
 3
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 2
 8
 
Special Sweep
 1
  
 7
 16
 14
 18
 16
 13
 9
 5
 17
 1
 117
 
Chemical Spill
  
 2
 1
 2
 3
 5
 4
 5
 5
 1
 3
 1
 32
 
Power line Down
 5
 2
 10
 3
 5
 3
  
 4
 1
 3
 4
 2
 42
 
Bridge Complaint
  
 1
  
 1
 2
 6
  
 3
 2
 1
 3
 1
 20
 
Plaza Use Permit
  
  
  
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 
Snow & Ice Complaint
 52
 23
 84
 1
  
 1
  
  
  
  
 1
 21
 183
 
Alley Brush Complaint
  
  
  
 1
 4
 9
 11
 2
  
  
  
  
 27
 
Grass & Weed Complaint
  
  
 1
 1
 7
 9
 6
 7
 4
  
  
  
 35
 
Repair Notice Question
  
  
  
  
 183
 86
 120
 28
 6
 3
 2
 2
 430
 
General Street Complaint
 26
 8
 22
 21
 44
 16
 15
 14
 9
 14
 11
 7
 207
 
Request Call from Inspector
  
 4
 1
 4
 14
 12
 4
 13
 7
 4
 3
 6
 72
 
Barricade Pickup / Placement
 4
  
  
 9
 10
 3
 5
 9
 14
 12
 8
 8
 82
 
Debris in the Street or Alley
 23
 40
 59
 59
 50
 95
 103
 101
 44
 64
 62
 32
 732
 
Sidewalk Snow & Ice Complaint
 687
 1,045
 636
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 93
 2,461
 
Sidewalk Structural Complaint
 8
 8
 28
 46
 46
 55
 33
 29
 28
 14
 9
 65
 369
 
Sidewalk Obstruction Complaint
 11
 10
 26
 9
 8
 14
 9
 38
 17
 11
 15
 9
 177
 
Sidewalk Snow & Sand Letter Question
  
 1
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 2
 
Copy of Permit
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 11
 8
 19
 
Permitted Work
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 2
 16
 8
 26
 
Permit Issuance
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 3
 41
 31
 75
 
Animal Complaint
  
  
 258
 590
 586
 670
 583
 698
 490
 482
 356
 328
 5,041
 
Unpermitted Work
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 4
 24
 18
 46
 
Permit Fee Inquiry
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 10
 31
 26
 67
 
False Burglar Alarm
  
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 
Licensing Complaint
 19
 21
 36
 72
 65
 78
 59
 43
 36
 30
 10
 5
 474
 
Taxi Service Complaint
 2
 7
 6
  
 7
 7
 4
 8
 5
 9
 8
 3
 66
 
CCS Supervisor Callback
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 28
 20
 49
 
Full TISH Report Request
  
 2
 2
 5
 6
 2
 5
 3
 1
 5
 7
 2
 40
 
Repair Checklist Request
  
 1
  
 20
 20
 21
 13
 21
 23
 15
 1
  
 135
 
List of Evaluators Request
  
  
  
 2
 6
 5
 1
 1
 2
 1
  
 2
 20
 
Exterior Nuisance Complaint
 205
 216
 384
 500
 1,308
 1,210
 948
 1,246
 818
 507
 303
 331
 7,976
 
Records Management Specialist
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 3
 3
 6
 
Residential Abandoned Vehicle
 82
 127
 214
 163
 179
 171
 165
 143
 110
 110
 95
 89
 1,648
 
Trade License Callback Request
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
  
 1
 
Certificate of Approval Request
  
 1
 3
 9
 11
 14
 10
 10
 8
 10
 8
 4
 88
 
Smoking Ban Violation Complaint
 3
 1
 5
 2
 2
  
 2
  
 1
 1
 4
  
 21
 
Certificate of Occupancy Request
  
  
  
 1
 1
 1
 2
 1
  
  
 2
 5
 13
 
Residential Conditions Complaint
 194
 151
 282
 328
 440
 499
 451
 464
 315
 236
 196
 144
 3,700
 
Business License Callback Request
 1
 3
 4
 1
 1
  
  
  
  
 1
 1
  
 12
 
Vacant Building / Open to Trespass
 19
 20
 30
 41
 34
 28
 16
 41
 22
 36
 21
 33
 341
 
Business License Application Request
  
 1
 2
  
  
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
 4
 
Commercial Exterior with Residential
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
  
 1
 
Certificate of Code Compliance Request
  
  
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 
JAN 2006
 FEB 2006
 MARCH 2006
 APRIL 2006
 MAY 2006
 JUNE 2006
 JULY 2006
 AUG 2006
 SEPT 2006
 OCT 2006
 NOV 2006
 DEC 2006
 Yearly Total
 
PW Streets & Malls
Regulatory Services
(contd)
 Food Safety Community Education Request
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 
Residential Conditions Complaint Tenant
 36
 41
 55
 51
 67
 84
 76
 59
 74
 81
 52
 61
 737
 
Acknowledgement of Responsibility Request
  
  
  
 1
 2
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 3
 
Permanent Liquor License Callback Request
 1
 2
  
  
 1
  
  
 1
  
  
 3
  
 8
 
Vacant Building / Open to Trespass Boarded
 8
 4
 19
 15
 28
 27
 12
 19
 18
 24
 16
 18
 208
 
Commercial Food Safety/Sanitation Complaint
 14
 8
 14
 10
 7
 9
 3
 2
 4
 7
 3
 6
 87
 
PW Sewer Maintenance
 Sewer Issues
 21
 9
 6
 21
 55
 52
 38
 40
 46
 25
 22
 33
 368
 
PW Equipment Services
 City Vehicle / Driver Issue
 5
 2
 12
 9
 7
 11
 5
 6
 10
 11
 9
 3
 90
 
Health & Family Support
 Tenant Complaint
  
 2
 2
 1
 1
  
 1
 1
  
 2
 4
 1
 15
 
Landlord Complaint
  
 5
 5
 4
 12
 12
 9
 10
 9
 5
 3
 6
 80
 
PW Engineering Services
 Encroachment Permit
  
  
  
 1
  
  
  
  
 1
 1
 1
  
 4
 
Banner / Seasonal Decoration Permit
 2
 1
 2
  
  
 1
  
  
 1
  
  
  
 7
 
PW Solid Waste & Recycling
 Graffiti complaint / reporting
  
  
  
 818
 875
 953
 1,064
 1,649
 1,263
 1,088
 923
 998
 9,631
 
PW Traffic & Parking Services
 Speed Wagon
  
  
 1
 3
 2
 5
 1
 2
  
  
  
 1
 15
 
Bicycle Lane Issue
  
  
 2
 1
 2
 3
  
  
  
  
  
  
 8
 
Street Light - New
 5
 3
 3
 7
 6
 12
 2
 6
 2
 6
 6
 3
 61
 
Traffic Sign - New
 15
 27
 33
 22
 54
 44
 34
 40
 28
 20
 24
 19
 360
 
Bus Stop Move/Remove
  
  
 1
 1
 2
 1
  
  
  
  
  
  
 5
 
Pedestrian Complaint
  
  
  
 2
 2
 2
 4
  
 3
 1
 1
 1
 16
 
Street Light Trouble
 139
 80
 108
 90
 94
 92
 92
 83
 62
 148
 131
 102
 1,221
 
Parking Meter Problem
 1
 11
 16
 30
 38
 29
 31
 67
 58
 67
 60
 42
 450
 
Traffic Sign - Repair
 33
 45
 44
 41
 47
 59
 51
 37
 24
 25
 17
 20
 443
 
Parking Ramp/Lot Issue
 2
 2
  
  
 1
  
  
 3
 1
  
  
 1
 10
 
Traffic Sign - Removal
 2
 2
 9
 1
 4
 9
 5
 9
 6
 8
 4
 9
 68
 
Traffic Signal Trouble
 50
 57
 116
 98
 119
 118
 108
 101
 96
 88
 76
 62
 1,089
 
Bicycle Trail Map Request
  
 1
  
  
 2
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 3
 
Commercial Disability Zone
  
 1
  
 1
 1
  
  
 1
 2
  
  
  
 6
 
Residential Disability Zone
  
 3
 3
 3
 10
 9
 5
 5
 11
 2
 3
 8
 62
 
Traffic Signal Timing Issue
 17
 19
 15
 29
 43
 49
 19
 38
 36
 28
 40
 20
 353
 
Tran stop Bus Shelter Issue
  
  
  
  
 2
 2
 2
 2
 1
 4
  
 1
 14
 
Street Traffic Calming Issues
  
 4
 1
 11
 14
 23
 5
 4
 6
 4
 3
 1
 76
 
Neighborhood Parking Information
 14
 6
 7
 8
 11
 6
 5
 4
 6
 4
 5
 3
 79
 
Bicycle Rack Installation Program
  
  
  
  
 1
 1
 6
  
 1
 1
  
 1
 11
 
Bicycle Trail Improvement Request
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 1
  
  
  
 1
 
Race / Parade Application Request
  
 1
 1
  
  
  
  
  
 1
 1
  
  
 4
 
Traffic Signal - New/Modification
 4
 2
 1
 5
 7
 7
 6
 3
 5
 4
 3
 3
 50
 
PW Water Treatment & Distribution Services
 Water Main Break
 1
  
 3
 1
 4
 2
 2
 6
 7
 2
 6
 2
 36
 
Hydrant Use Permit
  
  
  
  
 1
  
 1
  
 1
  
  
  
 3
 
Water Service Issue
  
  
 1
 6
 8
 5
 8
 12
 5
 4
 4
 2
 55
 
Water Quality Issues
  
  
 4
 18
 9
 8
 16
 24
 10
 20
 20
 10
 139
 
Hydrant - Out of Service
  
 1
 1
 2
 7
 4
 7
 3
 4
 6
  
 1
 36
 
Hydrant Garden Use Permit
  
  
  
 1
 2
 1
 1
  
  
  
  
  
 5
 
Monthly Totals
 2,842
 3,388
 4,325
 4,616
 6,435
 6,554
 5,863
 7,122
 5,424
 5,139
 4,035
 3,952
 59,695
 



911
 2004
 2005
 2006
 
January
 31,638
 32,337
 37,581
 
February
 30,424
 30,810
 32,495
 
March
 34,881
 36,601
 38,236
 
April
 38,120
 37,070
 41,805
 
May
    41,020
 43,227
 48,255
 
June
 43,060
 47,915
 48,021
 
July
 45,322
 45,380
 47,492     
 
August
 42,813
 46,477
 45,732
 
September
 42,080
 45,103
 40,396
 
October
 35,215
 43,658
 37,759
 
November
 35,215
 38,126
 35,386
 
December
 34,100
 36,165
 34,979
 
TOTALS
 453,888
 482,869
 488,137
 



348-2345
  
  
  
 673-2345
  
  
 
2004
 2005
 2006
 2004
 2005
 2006
 
January
 14,544
 12,546
 12,954
 2,608
 2,737
 2,885
 
February
 12,080
 11,332
 11,925
 2,561
 2,690
 2,398
 
March
 13,343
 12,824
 13,335
 2,934
 2,975
 2,833
 
April
 13,812
 12,091
 13,623
 2,966
 2,825
 2647
 
May
 14,537
 14,278
 14,407
 2,901
 3,013
 *
 
June
 14,623
 15,984
 14,922
 3,277
 3,271
 *
 
July
 15,527
 15,093
 13,588
 3,262
 2,906
 *
 
August
 14,707
 15,086
 13,025
 3,277
 3,141
 *
 
September
 14,730
 14,684
 11,889
 3,100
 3,354
 *
 
October
 13,003
 14,644
 11,775
 2,945
 3,295
 *
 
November
 13,003
 13,644
 11,076
 2,945
 2,855
 *
 
December
 12,867
 13,573
 10,395
 3,029
 2,861
 *
 
TOTALS
 166,776
 165,779
 152,914
 35,805
 35,923
 *
 




Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned
The lessons learned from implementing a comprehensive effort such as this range from the simple and straightforward to the complex.  The following are some of the lessons learned by the City of Minneapolis in the hope that other cities embarking on a 311 project will learn and profit from its experiences.

Vision and Goals
Create a clear, specific, and compelling vision statement for your 311 initiative, one that simply states your vision and scope and clearly outlines the initiative goals and objectives (what we will accomplish), and the scope or magnitude of the initiative (what we will deliver and how it will be delivered).  The Minneapolis 311 mission statement is Minneapolis 311 Call Center will serve as the single point of contact to the City of Minneapolis for all nonemergency requests for information and services.   A statement such as this is clear to both citizens and employees, is the start to a successful strategy for communicating with the public, and will help develop buy-in from both employees and stakeholders in the city.
Goals for Citizens Experience with 311
311 can be implemented in a variety of ways, each of which affects the citizen or 311 user differently.  In interviews and surveys with the City of Minneapolis executives, department heads, and end users, the following goals for the public were identified:
  	Improve constituent experience and satisfaction with city government and services.
  	Provide outstanding customer service by being accurate, but efficient.
  	Improve service delivery.
  	Give consistent and accurate information to citizens.
  	Accurately answer common or general questions about the citys departments.
  	Provide one point of contact for people to call with questions or requests for service.
  	Enable the city to respond to citizens requests, give feedback, track progress, and decrease call volume by setting service-level targets and communicating them.
  	Reduce or eliminate the calls to the city that end up in voice mail or are rerouted numerous times to the wrong staff person.
  	Help elected officials communicate with constituents about both specific and general issues.

Goals for City Employees and Stakeholders
It is critical to the success of a 311 implementation that the people most affected by a new system clearly understand the scope of the project as well as their roles and the impact on their daily work.  City staff and stakeholders identified the following goals for employees:
  	Allow workers to concentrate on their real jobs.
  	Collect complete and accurate information and give it to departments so that employees could handle the problem.
  	Answer repetitive calls instead of having the department answer them.
  	Free resources to work on special programs and projects.
  	Get away from being task-driven toward becoming outcome-oriented and results-oriented.
  	Help departments during times of high volume of calls.
  	Reduce the number of misrouted calls taken by staff.
  	Reduce duplication of effort by multiple departments dealing with the same problem.
  	Answer calls the departments should not be receiving.
People managing the initiative should review the vision and scope statements periodically to ensure that the vision and scope are on track.  If the vision or scope has changed, the managers must communicate the change to all parties involved.

City Culture
It is important to recognize the culture of the organization, how a change such as a 311 implementation will be received, and whether it will be embraced.  If a city culture does not embrace change or take risks, workers must be encouraged to take chances and management should reward risk taking and not punish failures. In a conflict-averse and nonsupportive culture, people are more likely to hide out if they dont understand their role.  A business culture, which has process improvement, measurements, reports, and an enterprise philosophy, will be more successful at an enterprise-wide initiative than one that is mired in process and in complying with rules and ordinances.  Sustainable culture change is an ongoing process and must be integrated into the 311 implementation effort if it is to be successful.  Changes in city culture must be led by city administrators and elected officials and need to be a top priority.

Leadership

Deep and wide involvement of city leaders, elected officials, and even business leaders is important to the development and implementation of a successful 311 initiative.  A high level of visibility not only helps city employees understand the importance of the venture, but also helps the citizens realize that their leadership is embarking on a new project designed to improve services and use resources more efficiently.  Such leadership is important not only at the projects kickoff, but throughout the development and implementation stages, as well.  City staff and project team members will believe that they are involved in an important process when they see the leadership of the city engaged over a long period.   The involvement of city leaders will also spur department managers to stay engaged, which, in turn, will help those most affected understand and appreciate the changes in the way they do their work.   

Budget

There are many ways to fund an enterprise-wide initiative such as a 311 Call Center, and opinions on this subject diverged in Minneapolis.  
Some managers believed that 311 should be a city service purchased by departments, similar to how some IT and central office functions are funded.  They thought that if it were funded at the enterprise level, department directors would not care as much about the quality of service because they would have significantly reduced influence on the quality of service they received.  Paying for the service would help guarantee high quality because department managers would want a good return on their investment.
Others believed that a separate funding source should have been identified or created at the enterprise level to assure city-wide acceptance, reduce the potential for arguments over which department funded the project, and ensure that some departments did not receive preferential treatment because of their share of the investment.  This enterprise-level funding could come from cost savings in previous years in the form of rollover budgets, or from projected revenue increases during previous years.
However the project is ultimately funded, communicating this is important to the success of the endeavor.   The more city staff know and understand how the project is funded and how this funding structure will affect their department and jobs, the easier it will be for them to accept and embrace the concept and participate in its creation.  
Transparency and honesty are also critical when discussing the savings and cost benefits of the project.  A 311 Call Center could end up costing the city more than the previous system of managing calls for service because the number of calls that actually get through and result in a request can be expected to increase.  This increase in calls for service can lead to increase in workload and could eventually result in a need to add staff to certain functions.   

Communication

Communications throughout the life of a project and beyond must be regular, consistent, and informative, and must be provided at all levels of management and staff.  Without transparent and honest communication throughout the enterprise, an initiative such as 311 is in danger of failure, or at least of unmet expectations. A common message outlining the vision and goals of a 311 initiative should be communicated early in the life of the project.  If done well, expectations will be properly set, employees and management will understand how the initiative will affect them and their work, and fear of and resistance to the project will be reduced.  Common talking points for department leaders and elected officials, regular e-mail updates to the affected staff, a web presence with up-to-date information, group presentations by 311 management to departments and divisions, and one-to-one communications between 311 management and city leaders are effective ways to communicate.   
Specifically, city staff should be updated regularly on the issues and resolutions, status of departments service request development, benefits, and limitations of 311, priorities for implementation and how those were set, the project calendar, whether the project is on schedule, changes in scope or goals, next steps, people to contact for each portion of the project, and answers to their concerns.  City leaders must be visible in this communication effort because employees need to see that this project is embraced at the highest levels.  
External communications to the citizenry also is vital to the success of the 311 project.  Pre-launch blitzes aimed at potential users, ongoing awareness campaigns, and pulse marketing will improve awareness and use of 311 as an important tool for citizens, visitors, and commuters.

Staffing

City personnel are a critical staffing component. A city employee should be assigned to the call center as project manager to represent city interests.  Furthermore, existing employees or new hires should be assigned as support staff to work with temporary project teams consisting of contract staff during the development and implementation of the application.  It is a given that contract staff will transition off a project, so the timetable for that transition must allow adequate time to assign staff for knowledge transfer and support.  Support staff should work with contract development staff to ease the transition.   If the initiative affects departmental staffing, these issues must be recognized and mitigated by city management.  As new people join the project, whether they are city staff or contractors, the team needs to make sure that roles and responsibilities are reevaluated and that all project members understand the changes.
If city employees working for an end-user department are also staffing a city project, their roles and responsibilities must be made clear.  These employees should serve in an advisory or liaison capacity and should not be assigned tasks that are beyond their skills or are critical milestones for the project.  City employees can find themselves overscheduled if their roles on this project are not clear to all involved.
Training for back-office users in departments should be scheduled on a just-in-time basis, and cover the specific service requests those staff will be using.  
Finally, the new staff should be hired several months ahead of the opening of the 311 Call Center.  In addition to training sessions to help the new hires understand the city, training on the call center system, requests for service, and how to answer general questions must be thorough.  Ongoing training and communication between city departments and 311 operators help improve quality in a very tangible and meaningful way, and help keep the communication lines open between 311 and departments.
If a vendor package solution is purchased, contracts should require the vendor to be on site, as least part-time, for the entire implementation, and not just during the installation of the package or pilot phases.  Access to vendor resources after implementation should be required. Contracts should explicitly state the level of direct support to the city, even if the vendor (the entity that creates and maintains the software) has partnered with another entity.  Computer application support should be provided and staffed by the citys IT organization, not by a vendor or contractor. 
Project Planning and 
Implementation

Project plans must encompass all components or facets of the project.  Individual teams may create project plans that manage their work more explicitly and granularly, but an overall project plan must be created to manage all aspects of the project at a summary level.  Periodic assessment and review of the project should be included in the project plan; this will ensure that the project is on track.  Any problems uncovered in an assessment or issues raised prior to the assessment must be resolved before the project continues.  These issues should also be communicated to department staff who will be affected. 
Additional lessons learned about aspects of planning and implementing a project are as follows: 
  	Define requirements for core functionality, inputs and outputs, common data, and common terms prior to development and implementation.  Lack of adequate requirements means delays or errors in development and implementation down the road. 
  	Identify, analyze, and design interfaces, whether automated or manual, before other development work is begun because interface requirements may drive decisions for other aspects of the design. 
  	Prioritize service requests based on known and understood criteria, such as call volume, complexity of requests, cost savings (if any), or improvement in service to the customer.
  	Engage the GIS/mapping function of the city early in the project. 
  	Gather all reporting requirements early so that the system can immediately begin providing enterprise-wide information that is useful to ongoing improvement to city services, developing measurable goals and outcomes, determining changes in staffing and budget levels, and other results measures, as needed. 
  	Establish a common address system for the entire city.  The citizen name database  is also vital and should be chosen carefully if there is more than one in the city. 
  	 Dedicate a resource to track and manage issues to ensure their resolution to the satisfaction of all parties.  If an issue cannot be resolved to full satisfaction, the resource managing the issues must document the effects on the project in full detail, and communicate these issues to project sponsors and affected department leaders and staff, as needed.  Issues may be raised in project status meetings, but the discussion and resolution of any issue should be discussed in meetings called solely for the purpose of resolving the issue.  The project manager, representing the interests of the city, must communicate to upper management any issues that require resolution by the management team.  Resolutions and decisions provided by upper management must then be communicated clearly to the project team, affected departments, and staff. 
  	Function as a team. Although individual project members may be given tasks to complete independently, work should not be divided in such a way that there is no communication between teams or individuals.  Division of duties may be adjusted periodically to alleviate bottlenecks and deviation from schedule.  As part of the team effort, close communication with subject matter experts in each department is needed.  At least one department or division liaison should be identified to lead the efforts in that unit; using existing staff to do this frees the development team members to concentrate on their work, and eliminates the need for them to play roles in public relations, marketing,  and development.
Upper management must reach out to project team members in order to maintain the communication channels and continue to show support for the project.  The hierarchy of an organization should not prohibit communication between levels.  This may be accomplished by one-on-one meetings or by scheduled status meetings with upper management to be attended by all levels of the project team.  
  	Require both knowledge resources and configuration team members to participate in developing service requests for departments.  The city staff involved in assisting with service request design should be identified early and contacted by their management before the project team asks them to participate.  When possible, the 311 Call Center should provide staff to help evaluate the usability of each service request as it is being developed.  Make sure adequate time is allocated for testing service requests before putting them in the test or production environment.  Allow ample time between the time that 311 staff are trained and the service requests go live, to ensure that all 311 operators are comfortable with the service requests. 
  	Determine the go-live date for the 311 project by the readiness of the product, not by outside factors such as politics or artificial deadlines.  After the project has been launched initially, the work of a 311 Call Center is not complete.  Consider this a continuous process improvement.  Personnel should be in place to continue to add service requests and to refine those that are already in production.  A plan for new service requests and interfaces, as well as a plan for fixing existing system limitations, should be in place and communicated when the project goes live.  Ongoing and refresher training is also an important part of this plan. 
Figure 9.1 summarizes lessons learned from the 311 Facility Build-Out.  The lessons learned were compiled from the 311 management staff and a call center builder/contractor, hired by the city for the 311 Call Center build-out.  
Figure 9.1: 311 Facility Build-OutLessons Learned.

115

POSITIVE
 NEGATIVE
 
Design
 
Grade: A
 
   Ambient Light
   Articulating workstations
   Direct/indirect lighting
   Layout process
   Proximity to light rail
   Sound
   White noise
   Storage limitations
   Limited growth
   Proximity of entry area into 311 creates noise for call center agents
 
Infrastructure
 
Grade: B
 
   Good shakedown for electric and HVAC
   Pleased with demountable walls for 
   long-term flexibility and aesthetics
   Flexible design to layout of technical room
   Cabling
   Elevator slow and undependable
   Limited space in technology room
   No floor access for call center cable
   This is not a call center facility so it was about as good as possible
 
Workspaces
 
Grade: B
 
   Articulating/customizable
   Look nice
   Clever thermostat  design
   Good lighting
   Chairs are very good
   Supervisor locations should be in cubes for some privacy
   Seem a little small
   Cable management
   Some unneeded electric/cable box
   Articulating arms problems
   CPU hangers/CPU locations
 
Technology
 
Grade: B-
 
   Good monitors, TVs pending use
   Initial app reactions are positive
   Software
   Pleased with rerouting of 311
   Remote inspector seems to be working well.
   UPS and generator backup worked well during a power outage
   Like ladder racks, cabinets, etc.
   Logon issuesnot available e-mail and hard drive for existing  employees
   CPUs too large for under desks
   No single sign on
   New departments need a BIS liaison assigned
   311 cell coverage needs to be realigned.
   Need more SRs in test
   Bathroom lighting was not included in backup power plans
   Building access
 
Amenities
 
 
   Restrooms are nice
   Break area is well-equipped
   Employee parking is free and available on the street
   Elevator is undependable
   Intercity mail delivery is slow
   Need a wall in break area to control noise when employees are on break
   Have had some challenges getting HVAC adjusted properly
 
Budget
 

   Good to have contingency built in
   Shift from ASP to managed services
   Accurate forecasts are a challenge
   Budget reporting is weak
   City needs project budget tracking capability

Appendixes

Appendixes
Appendix A: Evaluation Criteria of a Successful 311 Implementation.
The following long-term evaluation criteria are quoted directly from the citys 2003 Grant Application for the Enhancement of Community Policing solicitation from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Program Evaluations  What impact did the program make to the City?
311 is an enterprise endeavor and an integral component of the Citys current initiatives and direction.  Expectations are that the project will be evaluated on the basis of meeting the Citys stated goals against realized outcomes and results.   Measurements will span across law enforcement and city departments.  For example:  
  	Has the program resulted in improving community relations with the City?
  	Has the program encouraged citizens to report community concerns and part 2 crimes?
  	Has suspicious activity decreased as a result of program?
  	What improvements have been made to internal coordination (e.g., it takes less time to respond to a citizen)?
  	Is the Citys physical infrastructure healthy and safe?
  	Has the cost of delivering services decreased or has the value of the services improved?
  	Has the City leveraged other technology investments, like GIS, to analyze trends in citizens demands?
Homeland Security Evaluations  Is the City prepared and responsive in times of crisis?
The City employs dedicated staff in case of large-scale emergency issues.  There are several ways the City will measure improvement as a result of implementing a 311 system:
  	How have tabletop exercises improved by using 311 as a communication conduit?
  	Has the number of calls to 911 decreased, especially in times of natural or manmade disasters?
  	Has there been an increase in positive feedback from block club leaders after the implementation of a 311 system?  
  	Have we increased virtual communications (email listservs) with the community in times of crisis and has it helped organize responses to needy areas?
  	Improve the Citys established CODEFOR program with incident reports generated by the 311 system.
  	Expansion of tracking to include Part 2 crimes (e.g., vandalism, drug related crimes).  Has it further encouraged the reporting of suspicious activity?
  	Create a predictive model based on incidents to determine proper action to curb criminal activity.

City Management Evaluations  How well is the City Operating?
In accordance with departments business plans and service level agreements, the City will be able to benchmark and gauge how well the City operates.  For example, several types of activities that can be extracted from the system are:
  	Increase in the number of automated workflow management processes
  	Increase of system usage (increased access to information)
  	Reduction in duplicate data entry
  	Improved management reporting (workload management, monitoring citizens request for service, and quality assurance reviews).
  	Integration with existing technology (e.g., direct connection to GIS tools)

Customer Service Evaluations  How are services perceived by the citizen?
Ultimately, the Citys success will be witnessed by citizens and government partners.  Evaluating improvements in customer service will include:
  	Access point usage (web sit hits, 311 calls, kiosk usage, etc.)
  	Number of complaints and percentage decrease over time
  	Number of requests for services and information completed within service level agreements
  	Feedback on surveys, neighborhood group meetings, etc.

Appendix B: 311 Position Information and Job Duties 
3-1-1 CUSTOMER SERVICE AGENT I
POSITION INFORMATION:
The Customer Service Agent I will receive and process all non-emergency calls for service; including government services, city services and all Blue Page number calls from residents, businesses and visitors inquiring about services, report problems or check on the status of issues. The hours of the Call Center are anticipated to be 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through Friday, with several shifts available.
  
Job Duties: 
(Including, but not limited to the following)
  	Answer the Citys 3-1-1 line and provide service. 
  	Provide callers with employee telephone numbers, transferring them to other extensions for assistance when necessary. 
  	Answer questions callers have regarding City services, providing directions to City facilities, hours of operation, etc. 
  	Deal directly with the public over the phone in giving out general information, answering questions and gathering facts and pertinent information regarding various City Services, problems and complaints. 
  	Provide general information and telephone numbers for various City, County, State and Federal offices and other agencies. 
  	Answer employee questions about internal functions and procedures and provide solutions to problems.  May refer more complex questions to appropriate staff. 
  	Relay calls of an emergency nature to 9-1-1 emergency communication personnel. 
  	Enter information obtained from callers onto a computerized intake form and electronically forward requests to appropriate City departments for response and resolution. 
  	Provide information regarding City programs and services, special events and other City sponsored activities. 
  	Maintain various records, books and ledgers. 
  	Monitor office supply inventory and initiate requisitions. 
  	Perform activities related to processing customer requests, i.e., searching courthouse records for property ownership verification, collecting registration fees, answering and updating calls for service, answering questions from field personnel via telephone and computer terminal, etc. 
  	Maintain and update the inter-departmental City telephone directory. 
  	Determine priority of calls based on the nature of the event and which agency should respond to the call. 
 
3-1-1 CUSTOMER SERVICE AGENT II 
POSITION INFORMATION:
The Customer Service Agent II will receive and process non-emergency calls for government services, city services and all Blue Page number calls from residents, businesses and visitors; and function in a lead worker capacity over Customer Service Agents I assisting in the coordination of daily work assignments, monitoring call center operations, preparing reports on shift activities, etc.   
Job Duties:  
(Including, but not limited to the following)
  	Monitor call center operations and report equipment problems, staff issues and other concerns to supervisors. 
  	Advise staff as to problems or changes in daily operations. 
  	Prepare summary, statistical and comparative reports on shift activity. 
  	Provide technical assistance to operators and perform basic maintenance of computer system and office equipment, such as backing up data or replacing paper, ink, etc. 
  	Assist in the coordination of daily assignments and contact center emergency activities.
  	Perform a variety of office support activities such as preparing payroll forms, purchase orders, correspondence, reports, compliance letters, etc. 
  	Maintain various records, books and ledgers. 
  	Assist in training new employees in both classroom and hands-on phases of the job.  
  	Perform a variety of activities related to processing customer requests such as searching courthouse records for property ownership verification, collecting registration fees, answering and updating calls for service and answering questions from field personnel via telephone and computer terminal, etc. 
  	Maintain and update the inter-departmental City telephone directory. 
  	Answer the Citys 311 line and provide service. 
  	Provide callers with employee telephone numbers, transferring them to other extensions for assistance when necessary. 
  	Answer questions from callers regarding City services and proving directions to City facilities.
  	Deal directly with the public in person and over the phone in giving out general information, answering questions and gathering facts and pertinent information regarding various City services, problems and complaints. 
  	Provide general information and telephone numbers for various City, County, State and Federal offices and other agencies. 
  	Answer employee questions about internal functions and procedures and provide solutions to problems; referring more complex problems to appropriate staff. 
  	Relay calls of emergency nature to 911 emergency communication personnel. 
  	Enter information obtained from callers onto a computerized intake form and electronically forward requests to appropriate City departments for response and resolution. 
  	Provide information regarding City programs and services, special events and other City sponsored activities. 

SHIFT SUPERVISOR, 311 CALL CENTER 
POSITION INFORMATION:
This position will function as a shift supervisor taking responsibility for the operation of an assigned shift of Customer Service Agents involved in processing all non-emergency calls for service for government services, city services and Blue Page number calls. The hours of the Call Center are anticipated to be 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., Monday through Friday, with several shifts available.
Job Duties:  
(Including, but not limited to the following)
  	Supervise the operation of the 311 Call Center during an assigned shift. 
  	Structure work assignments for subordinates and decide who will perform which duties during an assigned shift. 
  	Prepare work schedules, schedule work position assignments, replace late or absent employees to maintain staffing levels and maintain attendance records. 
  	Answer operational and procedural questions.  
  	Interpret departmental policies and procedures, City Ordinances, City Council actions and State laws for customers, the public and others.
  	Prepare and conduct hands-on training sessions for employees. 
  	Investigate complaints on service delivery and make recommendations. 
  	Relieve subordinates for lunch, breaks, meetings, training, etc. and assist in all operational functions when workload demands. 
  	Monitor equipment and take appropriate action when breakdowns occur. 
  	Determine course of action to take in emergency and non-emergency atypical situations. 
  	Evaluate employee performance and recommend further training as necessary. 
  	Complete performance appraisals and salary reviews for subordinate personnel.  Monitor employee work products and provide feedback or progressive discipline. 
  	Conduct quality assurance reviews for 311 Call Center work.
  	Review center-wide performance measures and take appropriate action to attain or exceed goals. 
  	Perform minor maintenance on center equipment including, but not limited to changing master audiotapes, providing computer dumps and collecting statistics. 
  	Maintain operational procedures manual covering all types of emergency and non-emergency situations in accordance with accepted practice and dictates. 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST II 
POSITION INFORMATION:
Conduct investigative studies and analysis of various operations and make recommendations regarding organizational structure, methods and procedures and work coordination aimed at efficiency, economy and desired controls.
Specific Job Duties (311 Call Center):
  	Research, analyze, gather, organize and make available information needed to support the 311 centers responses to citizen and customer questions and requests for information.
  	Identify and communicate gaps and/or inaccuracies in enterprise knowledge base.
  	Facilitate and function as liaison between 311, Business Information Systems (BIS) and departments for developing and maintaining the City-wide knowledge base.
  	Conduct quality assurance reviews of 311 center work.
  	Provide input into employee performance based upon Quality Assurance observations and reviews.
  	Provide analysis and recommendations for improvement to City website.
  	Maintain overall configuration and functionality of the knowledge search tool.
  	Provide back-up responsibilities to other Administrative staff.

Appendix C: Training.
Examples of  311 Training Calendar Courses for Customer Care Academy (Dec 2005)
For 311 Supervisors: 
  	Supervisor Welcome/Getting Settled and Office Tour/Personal Benefits/HRIS Self-Service and Supervisor
  	City Tour and Government Overview /CRM Login/Employee ID Badges
  	Ethics/Respect in the Workplace/Drugs and Alcohol Prevention Policy
  	311 Vision, Goals and Objectives and Culture/Business Plan
  	Benefits/Data Practices
  	Website Navigation/Outlook Mail Management
  	Performance Management
  	Labor Relations
  	Midwest EAP Drugs and Alcohol/Effectively Handling Stress in the Workplace
  	Building A High Performance Team (Its Your Center)
  	Orienting Your New Employees
  	IMAC Process and Tech Support
  	SOPs 
  	Foundational Understandings of Internal and External Customer Service
  	Leaderships Role in Customer Service
  	CRM Train the Trainer
  	Delivering Excellent Customer Service
  	Managing Diversity
  	Cultural Awareness
  	911 Overview
  	Knowledge Base Orientation: E-learning training/tutorials and time management
  	Working with the Citys Diverse Communities
  	Community Visits
  	Build Excellent Customer Service Workshop for CSAs
  	Communicating with Tact and Finesse
  	Problem Solving and Decision Making
  	City Hall Tour and Government Overview
  	Communicating with the Media  Introduction
  	Coaching and Individual Development Planning
  	Progressive Discipline and Data Documentation
  	Good to Great

For Customer Service Agents (CSAs)

  	Orientation
  	Team Building
  	Cultural Awareness
  	Learn new phone system
  	Cultural Awareness
  	Repetitive Stress Injury Training
  	Settle In/Office Tour
  	E-learning assessments for Agents including: MS Word/Outlook 02
  	911 Overview
  	Knowledge Base Orientation: E-learning training/tutorials and time management
  	ProCenter practice/scenarios/TTY/Language Line
  	City Web site navigation practice
  	Public Works - Water Overview: GIS Overview and Orientation
  	Traffic and Parking Services Overview
  	Working with the Citys Diverse Communities
  	Delivering Excellent Customer Service
  	Telephone Skills
  	Email Etiquette
  	Communicating with Tact and Finesse
  	Simulations
  	Community Visits
  	Problem Solving and Decision-Making
  	City Hall Tour and Government Overview
  	Mail Management
  	City-wide New Employee Orientation
  	Communicating with the Media  Introduction
  	Operator Training
  	Service Request and Knowledge Practice
  	Handling Difficult and Demanding Customers
  	Good to Great

Ongoing Subject Matter Expert Training (as of 2006)

  	Knowledge Base Training with Consultant
  	Ergonomics Training with Risk Management
  	Teleserve Report Training
  	Workforce Director (Timekeeping and Payroll) Training
  	Housing Inspections Training
  	Elections Training
  	Community and Public Health Initiatives
  	211 Training
  	Policy and Procedure Training
  	CNAP (Property Information) Training
  	Impound Lot Training
  	MuniCode Training
  	Utility Billing Training
  	Graffiti Training
  	Traffic Control (Parking Violations) Training
  	Housing (Problem Properties) Training
  	Environmental Services (Pollution Complaints)
  	Development Review (One Stop) Training
  	Home Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention
  	Truth in Taxation Statement Training
  	Public Works (Lights and Signals) Training
  	United Way (211) Seasonal Changes 
  	TISH Refresher/Unpermitted work/Q&A
  	Environmental Services 
  	Warm Transfers/S.O.P. script for qualifying calls
Ongoing Customer Service Training Components (as of 2006)

121

311 Customer Service Training Components
 CSAs 1 and 2
 Specialized, Technical Employees
 311 Team Leadership (CSA 2s)
 311 Supervisors
 311 Manager
 Owners
 
Business Communications
  
 
Business Telephone Skills
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
Business Writing Skills (e-mail, letter, memo)
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
Verbal Communication Skills
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
MicroSoft Basics (Word, Outlook)
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
Cross Cultural Communication
 x
 x
 
LEP and Understanding Accented Speakers
 x
 x
 
ADA Training
 x
 x
 x
 
Presentation/Train-the-Trainer Skills
 x
 x
 
Customer Service Orientation
  
 
Delivering Excellent Customer Service 
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
Customer Conflict Management 
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
Dealing with Difficult Customers
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
Developing Cultural Awareness
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
Working with the Citys Diverse Communities
 x
 x
 x
 x
 
Personal Effectiveness
 
Time Management and Work Prioritization
 x
 x
 
Decision Making and Problem Resolution
 x
 x
 
Managing Your Own Stress
 x
 x
 
Managing a Diverse Workforce
 x
 x
 
Team Work Skills
 x
 x
 
RSI Training
 x
 x
 x
 
311 Specific Training
 
Understanding the City of Minneapolis
 
Government 
 x
 
Organization
 x
 
Services/Areas/Geography
 x
 
How to use Customer Relationship Management (CRM) System
 x
 x
 x
 
CRM Configuration Manager Training
 x
 
CRM Knowledge Base Configuration Training
 x
 
How to Use ProCenter Scheduling and Forecasting
 x
 x
 x
 
How to Use ProCenter Agent
 x
 x
 
How to use ProCenter Supervisor
 x
 x
 x
 
Customer Service Performance Metrics and Survey Methods
 x
  
 x
 x
 
Stress Management for Supervisors and Managers
 x
 x
 
New Employee Orientation
 x
 HR
 
311 Employee Performance Criteria
 x
 x
 
311/911 Coordination
 x
 x
 
311 Simulation Training
 x
 x
 
Reverse 911
 x
 x
 
QA and Recording System
 x
 x

Appendix D: 2005 Resident Satisfaction SurveyExecutive Summary.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The City of Minneapolis contracted with National Research Center, Inc., to conduct a community-wide resident survey. This survey is the third time the City has undertaken a random sample telephone survey. Respondents were asked their opinions on major challenges facing the City, importance of City services, satisfaction with City services and other general perceptions of the City. 
Overall, how did the respondents perceive the Quality of Life in Minneapolis? 
When respondents were asked to rate Minneapolis and their neighborhood as places to live, more than 80% reported each was good and two in five respondents rated each as very good. This result has been relatively consistent over time. 

Figure 1: Quality of Life.

According to the respondents, what are the three big challenges the City faces in the next five years? What are the three challenges that received less attention?
    Top three challenges** 
 Percent of respondents* 
 Bottom three challenges 
 Percent of respondents 
 
Public Safety 
 50% 
 City Government 
 11% 
 
Education 
 44% 
 Growth 
 12% 
 
Transportation 
 40% 
 Job Opportunities 
 20% 
 


* Total may exceed 100% as respondents were able to choose more than one response. 
** 65% of respondents reported items that could not be coded to a specific category.  
With what three services were respondents most satisfied? Least satisfied?
Three most satisfied 
 Percent of respondents with very satisfied or satisfied ratings 
 Three least satisfied 
 Percent of respondents rating very satisfied or satisfied 
 
Garbage collection and recycling programs 
 93% (36% very satisfied, 57% satisfied) 
 Affordable housing development 
 54% (6% very satisfied, 48% satisfied) 
 
Fire protection and emergency medical response 
 98% (28% very satisfied, 70% satisfied) 
 Repairing streets and alleys 
 70% (8% very satisfied, 62% satisfied) 
 
Providing park and recreation services 
 91% (32% very satisfied, 59% satisfied) 
 Dealing with problem businesses and unkempt properties 
 73% (8% very satisfied, 65% satisfied) 
 


What three services did the respondents rate as important? Least important?
Three most important 
 Percent of respondents with extremely important ratings 
 Three least important 
 Percent of respondents with extremely important ratings 
 
Fire protection and emergency medical response 
 77% 
 Animal control services 
 21% 
 
Providing quality drinking water 
 69% 
 Cleaning up graffiti 
 27% 
 
Police services 
 69% 
 Revitalizing Downtown 
 29% 
 


How did respondents view the balance between satisfaction and priorities? What services did they view as highly important and with high satisfaction? What services were high in importance, but lower in satisfaction? 
What positive trends are seen in the report? 
Perception of safety in downtown has increased since 2001: 86% of respondents report feeling very safe or somewhat safe in downtown. In 2001, 81% of respondents reported feeling very safe or somewhat safe. 
Figure 14: Safety of Downtown Minneapolis
Despite significant financial challenges, satisfaction ratings with City services remained similar to past surveys: Almost all services maintained relatively consistent rating compared to prior survey results. 
Four services showed statistically significant improvement in perceptions: providing quality drinking water, keeping streets clean, dealing with problem businesses and unkempt properties, and affordable housing development. 
Only one servicerepairing streets and alleysshowed a statistically significant decline in perceived satisfaction. 
Perceptions of City Government on specific areas have improved: Statistically significant improvement was seen in the citys efforts to: 
  Provide meaningful opportunities for citizens to give in input on important issues 
  Inform residents on major issues in the City of Minneapolis 
  Effectively plan for the future. 

What opportunities for improvement does the report highlight? 
Perceptions vary based on what community planning district the respondent identified as where they live: On most all of the questions, variability in responses is clear between the Citys eleven community planning districts.  
Perception of Police services: Overall, perceptions of police services were toward the middle of the list of services the City provides: 81% of the respondents rated their satisfaction as very satisfied or satisfied. The highest of all services on the list was rated 93% of respondents stating satisfied or very satisfied, while the lowest service was rated 54% of respondents stating satisfied or very satisfied. 
When respondents who had contact with the police department staff were asked to rate their satisfaction with the professionalism of the staff, 79% reported being satisfied or very satisfied. This result was similar to prior surveys. Responses of satisfied or very satisfied for fire department professionalism were at 97% for those who had contact with fire department staff. 
When respondents who experienced discrimination dealing with the City were asked what department was involved, the police department was the leading department cited (61%). 
The ease of getting in touch with employees and the timeliness of response were the lowest rated characteristics in interactions with City employees: The ease of getting in touch with employees was rated good or very good by 65% of respondents. Timely response was rated good or very good by 70% of respondents. In contrast, employee respectfulness, employee courteousness, and willingness to seek foreign language or sign language interpreting were rated good or very good by 83%, 81%, and 78% of respondents, respectively. 

Where there any surprising findings? 
In general, responses to the survey were relatively consistent with responses in prior surveys. Several interesting findings drew notice from early reviewers of the report: 
  Response on property tax increases to maintain or improve city services: Although 56% of the respondents agreed with the statement on increasing property taxes, this amount has declined overtime. 
Agreement with Property Tax Increases to Maintain or Improve City Services Compared Over Time
  The low importance of cleaning up graffiti: In the service importance rankings, cleaning up graffiti was second to last on the list of city services. 

What are the citys next steps? 
The timing of the survey was constructed to correspond with citywide strategic planning by elected leadership. The City will use these results as important performance measures in department business plans. 
For Further Information: 
The full residents survey can be found on the Citys web site (www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us). Briefings on specific policy areas also are on the web.
Appendix E: 2003 Resident Satisfaction SurveyExecutive Summary.

Resident Satisfaction Survey 
2003
 
Executive Summary 

Prepared by 
Market Line Research

1313 5th Street SE

Minneapolis, MN 								
January 2004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURVEY OBJECTIVES
The City of Minneapolis is committed to engaging its residents in planning for the future. This survey is a key component of these engagement efforts. Over the past several years, the City of Minneapolis has committed to improving the way it sets priorities, both at the Citywide level and at the department level. Information in this survey provides the opportunity to track program and service changes over time. Department-specific data from this study can supplement ongoing efforts at business planning and performance measurement.
The survey was designed to achieve the following objectives:
  Measure resident satisfaction with City services and perceptions about key quality of life indicators, which serve as departmental performance measures.
  Gather resident information on resident priorities, which will inform the citywide strategic planning/goal setting process as well as departments business planning efforts,
  Gauge resident need for services, their expectations regarding the level of those services, and their willingness to pay for service enhancements or maintenance of existing services,
  Gather information about residents knowledge about City services, and
  Determine how residents currently access and prefer to access City information
This random-sample telephone survey was conducted by MarketLine Research, at their call center in Minneapolis, during the period September 6 through October 22, 2003. The ending sample of 800 residents has a margin of error of 3.5%.
A similar survey was conducted in the late fall 2001. The 2003 survey is patterned after the original 2001 survey and retains a significant number of questions from the first survey  allowing for tracking performance and making year-to-year comparisons.

METHODOLOGY

Data Weighting

Weighting is a statistical adjustment made in cases of under-representation or over-representation of segments within survey data sets. Collected data sets are weighted to known population parameters. All weighting in this study is based 2000 Census figures for the City of Minneapolis.

Sample Management
Data for this study was collected through telephone surveys of 800 randomly selected households. Respondents within households were selected using the last birthday technique (interviewer asks to speak with the person 18 years of age or older that had the most recent birthday in the household to ensure that the adult from each household who was interviewed was selected at random). At least four callbacks were made for each telephone number.

Non-English Interviews
To achieve the best level of resident representation, interviews were conducted in English, Hmong, Somali and Spanish languages. All English interviews were completed using MarketLines computer-aided telephone interviewing system (CATI). Non-English surveys were translated to the target language, conducted wholly in the target language and recorded on paper. A total of 3 Hmong, 3 Somali and 10 Spanish interviews were completed during the course of non-English attempted survey calling.

Descriptive Analysis and Significance Testing

Most of the data discussions in this report include descriptive statistics on each survey question, especially mean scores and respondent percentages within categories of response. A 4-point scale was used extensively throughout the survey to provide respondents (and survey sponsors) an easily understood and unambiguous division of response categories. Scales lacking midpoints were used to encourage respondents to make a rating in one direction or another, rather than provide a neutral response. 
Only those instances where the level of statistical significance is .05 or greater are reported as statistically significant. (.05 is a commonly used cutoff for significance testing.) In plain language this means differences between any two groups being compared will occur by chance or sampling error in only five of every 100 instances. A statistically significant difference does not necessarily imply that the difference is a meaningful one. Small, but statistically significant, differences may have no practical policy implications.

2001 to 2003 Differences

Several key questions in the 2003 Residents Survey dealing with performance are based on questions used in the first 2001 Citizen Survey. They are identical in structure and content and allow for ongoing tracking of performance measures over time. Response comparisons are between 800 surveyed residents in 2003 and 1210 surveyed residents from 2001. Significance testing was conducted at 95% confidence level 5%.
QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT

Rating of Minneapolis as a Place to Live

89% of survey respondents rate Minneapolis as a very good (47%) or good (42%) place to live. 9% responded only fair, and 2% rated Minneapolis as a poor place to live. This rating was statistically significantly higher than the 2001 survey when 86% of respondents rated the City as a good or very good place to live.
Perceived Change in MinneapolisPast Two Years
When asked how the City has changed over the last two years as a place to live, 19% responded that the City has gotten better, 53% responded that it has stayed the same, and 29% stated that it has gotten worse. This rating was statistically significantly lower than in the 2001 survey, where the responses were 33%, 52%, and 15% respectively.

Challenges Facing the City

When asked their opinion of what are the three biggest challenges facing the City over the next five years, public safety was the most frequently mentioned response (37%), followed by managing City government (33%). Transportation-related issues (28%), education (25%), economic development (21%) and housing (21%) were also mentioned frequently.
In the 2001 survey, housing was the most frequently mentioned response (39%), followed by public safety (31%), transportation (25%), and education (25%). Managing City government was noted by 17% of respondents.

Discrimination

16% of survey respondents reported that they had personally experience discrimination within the past 12 months. Discrimination occurred most frequently in situations where respondents were seeking service in a restaurant or store (40%), followed by in getting a job or at work (35%), in dealing with the City (35%), and in getting housing (11%). Race was the most likely reason given for feeling discriminated against (49% of those reporting discrimination). These results closely mirror the 2001 survey.
Rating of Neighborhood as a Place to Live
80% of respondents rated their neighborhood as a very good (40%) or good (40%) place to live. 14% responded only fair, and 5% rated their neighborhood as a poor place to live. There were no statistically significant changes from the 2001 survey.

Neighborhood Perception and Image

To assess neighborhood conditions, citizens were asked their level of agreement (strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree) with the following five statements:
  People in my neighborhood look out for one another.
74% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement regarding community connectedness. There were no statistically significant changes from the 2001 survey.
  My neighborhood is a safe place to live.
82% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that their neighborhood is a safe place to live. There were no statistically significant changes from the 2001 survey.
  My neighborhood has a good selection of stores and services meeting my needs.
69% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement regarding commercial variety in their neighborhoods. There were no statistically significant changes from the 2001 survey.
  My neighborhood is clean and well maintained.
82% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement regarding the cleanliness of their neighborhoods. There were no statistically significant changes from the 2001 survey.
  Street lighting in my neighborhood is adequate.
80% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that street lighting in their neighborhood is adequate. This question was not asked in the 2001 survey.

Downtown Usage and Image
7% of survey respondents reported living downtown; 15% reported working downtown; 60% of respondents reported going downtown at least once per month.
When asked what are the major reasons that keep them from spending more time downtown, 33% of responses related to parking. Other responses included preferring other shopping areas (16%), nowhere to go (15%), traffic (12%), expensive (10%), and safety (7%).

ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Level and Means of Contact with the City

38% of respondent reported contacting the City in the past year to get information or services. The telephone was the most frequently used method of contact (83%). Other ways of contacting the City included the Citys website (32%), in person (24%), by email (13%), and by mail (10%). In 2001, 38% reported contacting the City, with 91% of those using the phone, 24% in person, 18% by internet, and 10% in person.

Quality of Contact
Those respondents who reported contacting the City for information or services were then asked three yes/no follow-up questions. 75% reported that they were able to reach the right person quickly and easily; 81% reported that they received a timely response; and 94% stated that they were treated courteously. The 2001 survey asked related, but not comparable, follow-up questions.

SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES

Public Safety Contact

50% of respondents had contact with one or more of Minneapolis public safety services in the past two years. 39% had contact with the police; 13% had contact with the Fire Department; and 33% had contact with 911. The 2001 survey asked a similar question, but the time period was 3 years. The majority of contacts with public safety service providers are viewed favorably by Minneapolis residents. When asked how satisfied were they with the professionalism of the public safety officials, 98% of those having contact with fire fighters were either satisfied or very satisfied; 79% of those having contact with police officers were either satisfied or very satisfied; and 89% of those having contact with 911 operators were either satisfied or very satisfied. There were no statistically significant changes from the 2001 survey.

Snow Emergency Services

85% of respondents reported having no problems following snow emergency rules. For the 14% who reported having problems, understanding the odd/even side directions was noted most frequently (65%). Other problems included not knowing when snow emergencies are declared (44%); having few alternatives for moving their car (14%); not know which routes are snow emergency routes (12%); and not understanding the rules due to language barriers (1%). The 2001 survey did not ask snow emergency questions in a comparable manner.
Radio and television were the most preferred sources to receive snow emergency parking information (84% responded they would like to get snow emergency information from these sources). Response to other sources of information includes the following: signage (68%), 348-SNOW (57%), the snow emergency brochure (48%), the City Calendar (42%), newspapers (40%), and the City website or email notice (39%).

DELIVERY OF CITY SERVICES  SATISFACTION, LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE AND SUPPORT FOR TAX/FEE INCREASES.

Respondents rated their satisfaction with twelve basic services provided by the City of Minneapolis (very satisfied = 4, satisfied = 3, dissatisfied = 2, and very dissatisfied = 1).
After expressing their satisfaction with each service they were then asked to provide an opinion on the level of importance of 17 services. (Many of these services were the same as those rated for satisfaction. Additional services were added to address all of the City Goals, as well as the parks and libraries). Importance was measured on a 10-point scale, with 10 being most important and 1 being least important.
After rating the importance of each service, respondents were asked to prioritize their five highest-rated servicesstating their most important, then least important, most important of the remaining, and so on until all five were ranked in order of importance.
Finally, respondents were asked their opinion as to whether they agreed that taxes or fees should be raised to maintain or improve the five services they rated most important.
The following table summarizes the results of these questions. The services are sorted by the order in which they ranked for the question related to level of importance. How the service ranked for each of the other questions is shown in parentheses.

Basic City Service
 Avg. level of
importance
(10 pt scale)
 % respondents
ranking service
1st, 2nd or 3rd
 % supporting or
strongly supporting
tax/fee increase to
maintain/improve
service*
 % satisfied or very
satisfied
 
Providing fire protection and emergency medical response
 9.44
 47.0 (2nd)
 71% (1st)
 90% (2nd)
 
Providing police services
 9.14
 47.3 (1st)
 70% (4th)
 81% (4th)
 
Providing quality drinking water and sewer services
 
(Satisfaction asked only of drinking water)
 8.96
 29.9 (4th)
 68% (5th)
 81% (4th)
 
Protecting the health and well-being of
 
residents
 8.71
 30.5 (3rd)
 63% (6th)
 n/a
 
Protecting the Citys natural environment, including air, water & land
 8.69
 23.7 (5th)
 71% (1st)
 77% (9th)
 
Providing garbage collection and recycling programs
 8.46
 9.0 (11th)
 55% (10th)
 91% (1st)
 
Providing library services
 8.23
 12.3 (9th)
 59% (8th)
 n/a
 
Snowplowing City streets
 8.12
 7.8 (14th)
 51% (13th)
 81% (4th)
 
Providing parks and recreation services
 7.97
 8.4 (12th)
 61% (7th)
 n/a
 
Ensuring Minneapolis existing housing is well maintained
 7.95
 8.1 (13th)
 54% (12th)
 n/a
 
Promoting job growth and training
 7.91
 13.9 (7th)
 55% (10th)
 n/a
 
Preserving and providing affordable housing to low & moderate income residents
 7.81
 19.7 (6th)
 71% (1st)
 45% (12th)
 
Preparing for disasters
 7.80
 10.3 (10th)
 59% (8th)
 n/a
 
Strengthening relationships among our diverse communities
 7.76
 13.6 (8th)
 46% (15th)
 n/a
 
Providing & maintaining streets, alleys & bridges
 7.75
 5.0 (16th)
 50% (14th)
 81% (4th)
 
Dealing with problem businesses & unkempt  properties
 7.43
 5.2 (15th)
 37% (16th)
 59% (11th)
 
Revitalizing neighborhood commercial areas
 7.22
 3.7 (17th)
 46% (15th)
 72% (10th)
 
Keeping streets clean
 n/a
 n/a
 n/a
 85% (3rd )
 
Providing safe movement for pedestrians and motorists
 n/a
 n/a
 n/a
 78% (8th)
 


*Note: This question was only asked for those services rated in the respondents top five services in level of importance.
The questions related to level of importance in light of financial challenges and ranking the top 5 services were new for the 2003 survey. In 2001, prioritization of City services was addressed with a question related to whether more attention and resources should be focused on a particular service in the future. In 2001, preserving and providing affordable housing to low-income residents was ranked first.
Many services were rated similarly in terms of satisfaction in the 2001 survey. The following services saw a statistically significant positive change (the % of 2001 respondents that were satisfied or very satisfied with the service is shown in parentheses): Protecting the Citys natural environment (72%); revitalizing neighborhood commercial areas (66%); snowplowing City streets (75%); and keeping streets clean (82%). Providing police services (85% satisfied in 2001; 81% satisfied in 2003) saw a statistically significant decline in satisfaction.

Efficiencies in City Government
When asked if there were any areas where the City could be more efficient or reduce services, 44% of respondents replied there were not any areas, 16% noted areas where services could be improved or enhanced, 14% responded dont know, 9% noted areas where other jurisdictions could be more efficient, and 7% offered suggestions for more efficiently managing City government. This question was not asked in 2001.

ENGAGEMENT IN CITY GOVERNMENT
When asked whether they had been involved in City government decision-making over the past two years (other than voting), 13% of survey participants replied yes. When asked what the City could do to encourage more public involvement, 37% responded dont know, 19% responded providing better notification of meetings, 15% offered suggestions for enhancing meetings, and 8% suggested enhancing communication and listening to peoples opinions. These questions were new to the 2003 survey.

ASSESSMENT OF CITY GOVERNANCE
Respondents were asked a series of five questions to measure citizen perceptions of the performance of City government. They were asked how they would rate Minneapolis City government on the following issues:
  Communicating with its citizens
41% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or good at communicating with its citizens. 44% responded only fair, and 13% responded poor. The 2003 rating was statistically significantly lower than in 2001, where 49% of respondents rated the City as very good or good.
  Representing and providing for the needs of all its citizens
46% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or good at representing and providing for the needs of all its citizens. 40% responded only fair, and 11% responded poor. There were no statistically significantly changes from the 2001 survey.
  Effectively planning for the future
39% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or good at effectively planning for the future. 41% responded only fair, and 14% responded poor. The 2003 rating was statistically significantly lower than in 2001, where 50% of respondents rated the City as very good or good.
  Providing value for your tax dollars
51% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or good at providing value for their tax dollars. 33% responded only fair, and 13% responded poor. There were no statistically significantly changes from the 2001 survey.
  Providing meaningful opportunities for citizens to give input on important issues
45% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or good at providing meaningful opportunities for citizens to give input on important issues. 39% responded only fair, and 13% responded poor. This question was not included in the 2001 survey.

SUPPORT FOR ADDITIONAL NEEDED HOUSING BY LOCATION
Respondents were told that the City is projecting the need for 26,000 additional housing units by 2030most of these are expected to be in multi-family apartment or condominium buildings. They were then asked their level of support for locating this new housing in three types of areas. 80% either supported or strongly supported locating this new housing along LRT and bus lines. 75% either supported or strongly supported dispersing the new housing throughout neighborhoods. 68% either supported or strongly supported locating the new housing in major activity areas such as Downtown, Uptown or Stadium Village.

Appendix F: 2001 City of Minneapolis Citizen SurveyExecutive Summary.

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
CITIZEN SURVEY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 2002
BACKGROUND

In April 1999, the City of Minneapolis committed to a new model of performance measurement for the city  a major element of this model focuses on engaging citizens in the Citys outcomes. The Minneapolis Citizen Survey is a key component of these engagement efforts.
The survey development process was overseen by a Citizen Survey staff development team, representing several departments of City government. MarketLine Research staff met with all City Department Heads or their representatives to understand departments information needs and to receive direction on how the survey could assist current departmental performance measurement efforts.
From these discussions a draft survey was presented to the City for review and comment. The survey was pre-tested on November 9th, the day following City elections. Subsequently, 1,210 telephone interviews were conducted with Minneapolis citizens from November 11, 2001 through January 4, 2002. Interviews ranged in length from 11 minutes to over 62 minutes: the average interview length was just over 20 minutes.

STUDY OBJECTIVES
The survey was designed to achieve the following objectives:
   To measure citizen satisfaction with City services and perceptions about key quality of life indicators. Collected information will be used as a baseline from which to compare future survey results,
   To gather citizen information on citizen priorities, which will inform the citywide strategic planning/goal setting process as well as departments business planning efforts.,
   To gauge citizen need for services, their expectations regarding the level of those services, and their willingness to pay for service enhancements or maintenance of existing services
   To gather information about citizens knowledge and behavior
   To determine how citizens get their information about the City.

METHODOLOGY
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT

Data for this study was collected through telephone surveys of 1,210 randomly selected households. Respondents within households were selected using the last birthday technique (interviewer asks to speak with the person 18 years of age or older that had the most recent birthday in the household). At least four callbacks were made for each telephone number.
As with all surveys, this research is subject to sampling error. The ending sample of 1,210 interviews provided a maximum margin of error of +/- 2.8% at the citywide level. The error margin is larger for subsamples.(1Throughout this study, tests of statistical significance were not performed on sub-samples that did not meet the minimum requirements of the analytical procedures used )
The goal based on research design was to maintain a maximum sampling error of plus or minus 10% at a 95 percent level of confidence within each community sub-sample. 
To achieve this goal for each of the Citys 11 communities, a minimum of 100 residents within each community were interviewed providing a maximum margin of error of +/- 9.8%. In achieving a random selection of 100 citizens from each community, over sampling resulted. Ending samples within each community were subsequently weighted back to reflect 2000 Census population figures for each community.

SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION

Data collection was conducted at MarketLine Research located adjacent to Dinkytown near the University of Minnesota. To achieve the best level of citizen representation, interviews were conducted in English, Hmong, Somali, and Spanish languages. All English interviews were completed using MarketLines computer-aided telephone interviewing system (CATI). Non-English surveys were translated to the target language, conducted wholly in the target language and recorded on paper.

DATA WEIGHTING

Gender, housing, and income makeup of the ending sample is representative (within a +/- 5% margin) of the 2000 Census. Data for community population, ethnicity, and age segments were over- and underrepresented. Subsequently, it was adjusted slightly by statistical weighting to match current estimates for population, ethnicity, and age groupings.

CONSIDERATIONS
The data gathered in the course of this study provides opportunities for management to evaluate key operational and performance areas both citywide and on a community by community basis.
The data provides opportunities to examine:
   Delivery of City services
   Best methods for providing information to citizens
   Satisfaction with received services
   Desired future service requirements and citizen priorities
   Citizen support levels for additional service requests
   Individual community priorities.
Information in this Citizen Survey provides a baseline against which the opportunity to track program and service changes over time can be realized. Department specific data from this study can supplement ongoing efforts at performance measurement. Most important, communication of this studys key findings offers a unique tool for building upon, strengthening and focusing attention on the Citys citizen engagement process already underway.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD RATINGS

86% of respondents rate Minneapolis as a good (44%) or very good (42%) place to live. 11% responded only fair, and 3% rated Minneapolis as a poor place to live.
Following the question asking citizens to rate the City as a place to live, survey participants were asked how they would rate their neighborhood as a place to live (using the same scale). 79% rated their neighborhoods as good or very good, but there were greater disparities among respondents from the different communities. Citizens in the Phillips (35% good or very good) and Near North (54% good or very good) Communities are statistically significantly more likely to view their neighborhoods less favorably than do citizens citywide. In contrast, citizens who live in the Southwest Community (96% good or very good) are significantly more likely to view their neighborhoods more favorably than do citizens citywide.

ATTACHMENT TO MINNEAPOLIS

When asked if they thought they would be living in the City five years from now, 66% of respondents said yes, whereas 25% think they will be living some place else.

CHALLENGES FACING THE CITY

When asked their opinion of what are the three biggest challenges facing the City in the next five years, housing was the most frequently mentioned response, followed closely by public safety, transportation, and education.
The issues mentioned most often by citizens were:
   Housing/Affordability/Availability/Condition
39% of respondents noted housing as a major challenge facing the City. Some described the challenge as affordable housing for all incomes (18%) while others mentioned housing in general as an issue (16%). 2% specifically mentioned homelessness.
   Crime/Public Safety
Public safety issues in general were mentioned by 31% of all citizens. Although many different types of crimes or public safety issues were mentioned, no particular type of crime (i.e., drugs, gangs, neighborhood safety) was mentioned by at least 5% of the citizens.
   Transportation
25% of the citizens mentioned some type of transportation issue as a major challenge in the future. The two transportation issues mentioned most often were public transportation/mass transit (9%) and traffic congestion (8%).
   Education
25% of respondents mentioned education as a major challenge facing Minneapolis.
Other challenges of note include the following:
   Although managing City government was mentioned as a challenge by 17% of the citizens, they described this challenge in many different ways. More than half mentioned some fiscal responsibility including taxes in general, real estate/business taxes, balancing the budget, and funding for neighborhoods.
   15% of all the citizens interviewed were not able to think of at least one challenge facing the City in the next five years.

PERCEPTION OF CITYS HOUSING SELECTION

When asked whether Minneapolis residents have a good choice of different housing types, 60% agreed or strongly agreed, whereas 35% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

PERCEIVED CHANGE IN MINNEAPOLIS IN THE PAST 3 YEARS

When asked how the City has changed in the last 3 years as a place to live, 33% responded that the City has gotten better, 52% said stayed the same, and 15% responded gotten worse.

DOWNTOWN USE AND PERCEPTIONS

When asked questions about downtown Minneapolis, 17% of those surveyed reported that they work downtown. 63% of respondents visit downtown for non-work-related purposes at least once per month, whereas 11% responded they never go downtown for non-work-related purposes. 74% of citizens who go downtown feel safe walking through downtown in the evening, and 85% consider downtown to be clean.

DISCRIMINATION IN MINNEAPOLIS

16% of survey respondents reported that they had personally experienced discrimination in the past 12 months. Discrimination occurred most frequently in situations were citizens where seeking service in a store or restaurant. Race was the most likely reason given for feeling discriminated against (52% of those reporting discrimination). Gender and age were the second most frequently reported reasons (12% each).

NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONSPERCEPTION OF QUALITY

To assess neighborhood conditions, citizens were asked their level of agreement (strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree) with the following five statements:
   People in my neighborhood look out for one another.
73% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement regarding community connectedness. Residents in Southwest and Nokomis communities are statistically more likely to feel connected than do all residents citywide, whereas residents in the Near North and University communities are statistically less likely to feel connected than do all residents citywide.
   My neighborhood is a safe place to live.
82% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that their neighborhood is a safe place to live. Residents in the Southwest, Nokomis, University, and Calhoun-Isles Communities are statistically more likely to view their neighborhoods as safe than are all City residents as a group. Residents in Phillips and Near North Communities are statistically less likely to view their neighborhoods as safe than are citywide residents as a group.
   My neighborhood has a good selection of stores and services meeting my needs.
69% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement regarding commercial variety in their neighborhoods. Residents in the Calhoun-Isles Community are statistically more likely to feel their neighborhood has a good selection of stores and services than are all residents citywide. Conversely, residents in Camden and Near North Communities are statistically less likely to feel their neighborhoods have a good selection of stores and services.
   My neighborhood is clean and well maintained.
81% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement regarding the cleanliness of their neighborhoods. Residents in the Southwest, Nokomis, and Calhoun-Isles Communities are statistically more likely to feel their neighborhoods are clean and well maintained than are statistically all residents citywide. Residents in the Phillips, Powderhorn, and Near North Communities are statistically less likely to see their neighborhoods as clean and well-maintained.
   Traffic speeds in my neighborhood are not a problem.
64% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that traffic speeds are not a problem in their neighborhoods. Residents in the Near North Community are statistically more likely to feel traffic speeds in their neighborhoods are a problem compared to how residents citywide view traffic.

NEIGHBORHOOD IRRITANTS

When asked the open-ended question regarding what two things bothered them the most about their neighborhood, the most frequent responses included the following: crime (20%), issues related to City services (16%), noise pollution (15%), traffic (15%), and cleanliness (15%).

NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAM (NRP)

59% of respondents reported being familiar with the NRP. When those familiar with NRP were asked to rate the impact of NRP on their neighborhood, 59% said it had very positive or positive impact. 65% noted that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement Because of the NRP, City residents have more influence on how important issues are addressed, public services delivered, and public funds used.

CITIZEN CONTACT WITH THE CITY IN THE PAST YEAR

38% of respondents noted that they have contacted the City for information or services in the last year. Of those who reported such contact, 74% reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with the time it took to reach the right person. 79% reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with the helpfulness of City employees.

INFORMATION ACCESS

63% of respondents said that they use the Internet. 23% stated that they have visited the Citys website. Of those who have visited the Citys website, 93% would find it helpful to access information about a City department or service, 90% would find it helpful to access information regarding City regulations or policies and City Council actions, 84% would find it helpful to access information about their neighborhood, 84% would find it helpful to report a problem such as bad street pavement or a missing sign, 79% would find it helpful to acquire a permit or license, and 78% would find it helpful to apply for a City job.
When asked whether they use the City Calendar, 47% reported they used it, 48% reported they did not use it, and 5% did not recall receiving it.

SNOW EMERGENCY INFORMATION

Radio and television were the most preferred sources to receive snow emergency parking information (90% responded they would like to get snow emergency information from that source), conversely the least preferred source is the newspaper (46%). Response to other sources of information include the following: signage (73%), 348-SNOW (66%), the snow emergency brochure (56%), the City Calendar (59%), the City website (49%).
When asked the open ended question What could the City do to help you comply with parking restrictions during a snow emergency, almost 40% of respondents either didnt think it was a problem for them or werent able to make a suggestion. 25% of respondents mentioned some type of notification, and 21% mentioned more frequent and/or clearer signage.

CITIZEN CONTACTS WITH MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES

55% of respondents had contact with one or more of Minneapolis public safety services in the past three years. 45% had contact with the police; 13% had contact with the Fire Department; and 33% had contact with 911.
The majority of contacts with Public Safety service providers are viewed favorably by Minneapolis citizens. When asked how satisfied were they with the professionalism of the public safety officials, 96% of those having contact with fire fighters were either satisfied or very satisfied; 78% of those having contact with police officers were either satisfied or very satisfied; and 90% of those having contact with 911 operators were either satisfied or very satisfied.

DELIVERY OF CITY SERVICESSATISFACTION, INTEREST AND SUPPORT

Citizens rated fifteen (15) basic services provided by the City of Minneapolis. After citizens expressed their satisfaction with each service (very satisfied = 4, satisfied = 3, dissatisfied = 2, and very dissatisfied = 1), they were then asked to provide an opinion on how much attention and resources the City should devote to each service area in the future. They were given the choices of a lot more attention (4 points), more attention (3 points), some attention (2 points), or a lot less attention (1 point).
The following table provides the average score for each of the fifteen services.
Area of Service
 Average
Level of
Satisfaction
(4 pt. scale)
 Average
Level of
Attention
(4 pt. Scale)
 
Preserving and providing affordable housing for low-income residents
 2.27
 3.08
 
Protecting the environment, including air, water and land
 2.83
 2.83
 
Reducing the impacts of airport noise
 2.71
 2.51
 
Preparing for disasters
 2.97
 2.67
 
Revitalizing downtown
 2.91
 2.35
 
Revitalizing neighborhood commercial areas
 2.80
 2.74
 
Snowplowing City streets
 2.86
 2.58
 
Repairing streets and alleys
 2.70
 2.72
 
Keeping streets clean
 2.93
 2.46
 
Cleaning up graffiti
 2.84
 2.47
 
Dealing with problem businesses and unkempt properties
 2.69
 2.75
 
Providing garbage collection and recycling programs
 3.27
 2.29
 
Providing animal control services
 3.05
 2.16
 
Providing police services
 3.05
 2.63
 
Providing fire protection and emergency medical response
 3.30
 2.46
 


Preserving and providing affordable housing for low-income residents stood out as the service that had the highest level of interest in terms of future attention and the lowest level of current satisfaction.
For those services on which a respondent thought more or a lot more attention should be focused in the future, the question was asked as to whether they would agree that property taxes should be increased to maintain or improve that service. Preserving and providing affordable housing for low-income residents and protecting the environment had the most support. Animal control services had the least support.

SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES PROVIDED BY OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES

Although the Mayor and City Council are not responsible for Minneapolis parks, schools, and libraries, because these systems play such a strong role in quality of life for our residents, a question was included in the survey regarding citizen satisfaction. 90% of respondents reported they were either satisfied or very satisfied with Minneapolis efforts at maintaining parks and providing recreational opportunities; 88% were expressed satisfaction library services, and 62% were either satisfied or very satisfied with public education in Minneapolis.

REACTION TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES

To help guide planning for criminal justice reform, three questions were asked regarding citizen support. 85% of respondents supported the ability of offenders of minor crimes to be able to do community service instead of jail time. 85% supported providing treatment and counseling in addition to jail time. 84% of respondents agreed with the statement Not all offenders of minor crimes are able to pay their fines to avoid jail time. For offenders unable to pay, a program should be set up to allow them to work off the fine to avoid jail time.

CITIZEN ASSESSMENT OF CITY GOVERNANCE
Citizens were asked a series of four questions to measure citizen perceptions of the performance of City Government. They were asked how they would rate Minneapolis City government on the following issues:

Communicating with its citizens?
49% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or
good at communicating with its citizens. 36% responded only fair, and 12% responded poor.
Representing and providing for the needs of all its citizens?
48% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or good at representing and providing for the needs of all its citizens. 37% responded only fair, and 12% responded poor.

Effectively planning for the future?
49% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or good at effectively planning for the future. 34% responded only fair, and 10% responded poor.

Providing value for your tax dollars?
54% of respondents replied that Minneapolis City government was either very good or good at providing value for their tax dollars. 32% responded only fair, and 11% responded poor.
A full reporting of the survey results is available online at www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us.

Questions regarding the survey may be forwarded to:
Leslie Krueger
Performance Management & Business Planning Coordinator
City of Minneapolis
350 South 5th Street  Room 301M
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612.673.3258
leslie.krueger@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

2006 Employee Satisfaction Results
Employee Satisfaction Survey Results
   Survey Response Rate
   City 68%
   311 106%
   How satisfied are you with your job?
   City 68% Favorable
   311 82% Favorable
   Track record of diverse hiring
   City 62% Favorable
   311 94% Favorable
   Im proud to tell people I work for the City.
   City 63% Favorable
   311 94% Favorable
   I have confidence in the future of my department
   City 54% Favorable
   311 100% Favorable

Appendix G. All Knowledge Base Communities
Animals
 Any information relating to animals and animal control.
 
Business Development
 Information on starting and running a successful business in Minneapolis.  Business Finance Programs.  Loans and Grants for Minneapolis Businesses.  Minneapolis Business Toolbox.  City of Minneapolis Business Associations.  Business Licensing and Requirements.   The Minneapolis Empowerment Zone. Living Wage and Job Linkage Programs.
 
City Administration
 City Directory - Departments and Services Directory (DSD).  City Budget, Bonds, Levies, TIF, Finance.  Purchasing, Procurement, RFPs, Bids, Contractors.  Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable for city.  Payroll.  Treasury. Tax ID numbers.  
 
Commercial Property
 Commercial Zoning information, maps and Minneapolis Zoning Code.  CNAP Property Information and Lookup.
 
Community and Social Services
 Any type of social service/government assistance information.  Services covered by United Way 211.  Information which supports those in need, often financially. Government/community-sponsored programs.  Nonprofits helping people.
 
Education
 Information on Minneapolis Schools, both public and private.  Preschool, K-12, colleges, universities, technical colleges.  Education associations.  Government education programs.  Community education.
 
Elected Officials
 Information on any government representative to Minneapolis city residents, including state senators and representatives, congress, Minneapolis Mayor, Minneapolis City Council, Hennepin County Commissioners, Park Board, other boards and commissions.
 
Elections and Voting
 Any information on where and how to vote in Minneapolis.  Candidate information.  District Finder.  Election, Ward, Precinct and Legislative maps.  
 
Employment
 How to gain employment with the City of Minneapolis. City of Minneapolis Jobs. Minneapolis city employee benefits. Hiring status.  Job classification information.  Employment verification. Civil Service Rules and information. Unemployment insurance, Minnesota Job Bank, Minnesota Workforce, Career resources and counseling. METP (Minneapolis Employment & Training Program), Youth job programs, STEP-UP, Nontraditional womens jobs, MFIP, Welfare to Work, TEAMS,  DEED (Department of Employment & Economic Development).
 
Environment
 Environmental Complaints and Issues.  Air, land, water quality.  Sustainability Initiatives. Green Neighborhoods. CSO (Combined Sewer Overflow).
 
Garbage and Recycling
 What to do with list. Garbage Collection.  Large Item Collection, Problem Materials and Major Appliances.  Disposal of Household Debris.  Recycling Collection. Yard Waste Collection. Report Illegal Dumping.  Composting.   Voucher Program. Clean City Programs. Free Woodchip Distribution Sites. Graffiti removal, information, hotline. 
 
Getting Around
 General information on public and private modes of transportation.  MetroTransit (MTC) including bus and train (LRT) information.  Taxis and limos. Amtrack. MSP Airport, Airline information. Commuting/commuter information.  Bicycling. 
 
Government Partners
 Hennepin County, Boards and Commissions in Minneapolis, State of Minnesota Departments and Agencies. Federal Government including Military, Social Security, US Postal Service.  Other metro counties: Washington County, Dakota County, Anoka County, Ramsey County, Chisago County, Scott County, Carver County.  Association of Minnesota Counties. League of Minnesota Cities. Metropolitan Council.  City County Federal Credit Union. 
 
Health and Food Safety
 Environmental Health.  Health Services.  Minneapolis Smoking Ban Information.  Food Permits & Food Licensing.  
 
Housing
 Housing Inspections and common violations.  Landlord/tenant issues.  Minneapolis Public Housing. Housing Link. 
 
Legal and Civil Rights
 Civil Rights including: Discrimination complaints; Domestic Partner Registration; Police misconduct complaints; Civilian Review Authority (CRA); SUBP (Small & Underutilized Business Programs); Affirmative Action; CERT (Central Certification Program).  City Attorney, City Code of Ordinances.  Risk Management and claims against the City.  All court information including: Conciliation Court, Family Court, Small Claims Court, Civil Court.  Legal Aid Society.
 
Leisure activities and events
 Arts, Entertainment, Landmarks, Museums, Tours, Sports, Recreation, Destinations.  Annual Events such as: Aquatennial, Minnesota State Fair, Fringe Festival, Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Vikings, Minnesota Wild, Minnesota Timberwolves, Minnesota Gopher Sports, Twin Cities Marathon, Twin Cities Pride, Uptown Art Fair, May Day Parade, City of Lakes Loppet, Reserve the Minneapolis City Hall Rotunda for Events.
 
Libraries
 General information on all libraries in Minneapolis, both public and private.
 
Licenses and Permits
 Information on any and all permits and licenses.
 
Mayor and Council
 All information on the Mayor of Minneapolis and the City Council.
 
Media
 TV, Radio, Print (newspapers, magazines, etc.)
 
Neighborhoods and Community Planning
 Minneapolis neighborhood groups, community centers and maps.  Information on community planning by the city. Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP).
 
Parks and Recreation
 Information on services provided by the Park Board.  Golf, gardens, parks, recreation centers and events, lakes, beaches, canoes, kayaks, picnic areas, youth sports leagues, adult sports and activities, aquatic programs, pools, swimming lessons, outdoor concerts, environmental programs, ice rinks, skiing, tubing, weddings, pavilions, park passes, trees/forestry, amusement parks.
 
Public Safety
 Anything relating to Police, Sheriff, Fire and National Security. FEMA. Emergency Medical Services. Poison Control.  McGruff Houses. Block Clubs.  Police Precincts.  Traffic violations. Stop on Red. Criminal Court. Criminal Records. Community prosecution.  Jail, bail. Crime, abuse, violence, theft, graffiti.     . 
 
Residential Property
 Information on physical property and structures.  Zoning information on residential property including how the property is zoned and what can be done on the property.  What is needed to change structures and/or uses of private property?  Residential zoning maps and code.   Procedures for buying a vacant lot. CityLiving Mortgage & Home Improvement Programs. Community Planner Assignments/Expertise map. Heritage Preservation Commission.
 
Snow
 Winter parking basics and rules, snow plowing basics, snow shoveling rules.  Free sidewalk sand.  Snow emergency parking rules. Snow Emergency Routes Map.  Parkway system map.
 
Streets and Sidewalks
 Any information relating to Minneapolis city streets and sidewalks, their maintenance and safety.
 
Taxes and Assessments
 Information on income, property and sales taxes.  Property assessment information.  Special assessments on properties.  Fees.  
 
Traffic and Parking
 Downtown parking ramp locations, contacts and general information.  Disability parking. Critical parking permits.  Parking meters (regulations and maps). Parking violation info. Traffic Alerts/Lane Closures.  Downtown maps. Street maps.  Impound lot, towing, vehicle auction. Bicycles, biking, bike maps. 
 
Utilities
 Any information on utility billing including payments, water meters, water bill, garbage bill, sewer bill, stormwater fees.  Utility companies including Gopher State One Call, CenterPoint Energy, Xcel Energy, Qwest.
 
Water and Sewers
 Sanitary sewers.  Storm drains.  Stormwater management, flooding.  Wastewater treatment, drinking water.
 



77
78
76
74
72
71

Overall, how do you rate the City of Minneapolis at a place to live?

2005

2003

2001

Overall, how do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live?

0
20
40
60
80
100

Average Rating on the 100 Point Scale (0=Poor, 100=Very Good)



Not very safe
10%

Somewhat
Safe
55%

Not at all
Safe
4%

Very Safe
31%

To what extent do you agree or disagree that property taxes or fees should be increased to maintain or improve City services?

56%
59%
63%

2005

2003

2001

0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%

Percent of Respondents Reporting Strong Agree or Agree



For More Information

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770. 

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.