Frame-seeking
4.2.3 Supporting responding units
4.2.3.1 Activity description
As they make their way to the incident location, Officers begin to make sense of and plan their response to the situation. As the Conflict Management Model (Figure 1.2, Chapter One) suggests, this includes considerations of risk (threat assessment), powers and policy and tactics. Although the Officers will have received some initial details from the Controller, these are often only the bare minimum, such as an approximate location and a statement of the nature of the incident, for example "male being assaulted by two males". The first indication of the level of risk associated with the incident (both to members of the public and the responding Officers) and consequently the appropriate response, will come from the type of incident. Officers will try to gather further information through supplementary questions to the Controller. Where an offender is named by the Caller, Officers will often ask the Controller to run a check through the Police National Computer; if the person is known to the police, this will provide a summary of any previous arrests or convictions, as well as warning markers (i.e., drugs, violence, weapons or self-harm) associated with those individuals.
If the Call Handler adds updates to the log (e.g. description of an offender, their direction of travel, vehicle, etc.), these will be visible to the Controller, who passes them to the Officers. On receiving further updates from the caller, the responding units may change their tactics, for example, if the offender has left the scene Officers may decide to perform a search of the area before speaking to the victim, in the hope of quickly catching them.
WMP frequently have two Controllers working together in OCU Control Rooms, due to the high workload (Figure 4.12). When two local Controllers are working, they support the response to incidents through very close cooperation. Figure 4.13 gives excerpts from a more complex incident (a violent robbery), which demonstrates how the two local Controllers dynamically share both the radio talk group and the IMS log. Whilst one Controller notionally takes a support role, both will broadcast over the radio and each provides support to the other at various times.
Figure 4.12: Controllers working together (WMP – Bournville Lane Station, June 2008)
Figure 4.13: IMS log record of Controllers working together during an incident response [Incident: violent robbery; Source: IMS log (WMP, July 2004); Corroboration: observations and SME
interviews (WMP Control Room, 2004-2008), participant observation (Warwickshire Police, 2007- 2010)]
05:19 Controller 1: “[Officer] WITH 2 WITNESSES 1 OFFENDER IC1 MALE GREEN T” 05:51 Controller 1: “SHIRT THE OTHER IS IC1 MALE WHITE SHIRT AND TIE”
05:57 Controller 1: “BOTH MALES APPROX 20-25YRS”
06:09 Controller 1: “THE OFFENDERS HAVE MADE OFF WITH HANDBAG AND METAL” 06:17 Controller 1: “TIN WITH LARGE AMOUNT OF CASH”
06:24 Controller 1: “LAST SEEN TOWARDS [ROAD]” …
14:20 Controller 1: “THE IP HAS BEEN STRUCK AND FELL TO THE FLOOR”
14:27 Controller 1: “OFFICERS CHECKING TO ASCERTAIN IF AMBO REQUIRED.”
14:58 Controller 2: “LADY HAS BEEN KNOCKED OVER AT DOOR WHEN OFFENDERS”
15:00 Controller 2: “GAINED ENTRY”
15:15 Controller 1: “CAN SOCO ATTEND ASAP PLSE”
[Incident Switched for SOCO tasking]
15:30 Controller 1: “FROM OFFICERS THE FEMALE IP DOES NOT REQUIRE AMBO AS”
15:32 Controller 2: “PLS GET SOCO FOR THIS”
[Incident Switched for SOCO tasking] 15:39 Controller 1: “IP STATES HAS NO INJURIES”
16:06 Controller 2: “ASKING FOR AMBO ELDERLY FEEMAL BADLY SHAKEN APPROX”
16:07 Controller 2: “86 YRS”
16:23 Controller 3: Incident Switch Accepted
17:36 Controller 1: “THE OFFICERS NOW ASKING FOR AMBO AS THE IP 86YRS OLD” 17:51 Controller 1: “IS EXTREMELY DISTRESSED-UPSET”
17:54 Controller 2: “AMBO LOG [Number]” 18:34 Controller 3: “SOCO INFORMED.”
The local radio talk group is used to support urgent transmissions (Officer emergency assistance, emergency dispatch, immediate response coordination) as well as non-urgent communications (general announcements, Officer-initiated database enquiries). Figure 4.14 gives an example of this, where three different overlapping discussion ‘threads’ took place between Officers and Controllers (labelled ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’) in rapid succession. Figure 4.14 provides another demonstration of the close cooperation between the Controllers, who dynamically swap roles as they process Officer enquiries, update the IMS and review and dispatch units to new incidents.
Figure 4.14: Multiple incident ‘threads’ on a WMP local talk group
[Incident: Multiple simultaneous radio discussions, Source: observations (WMP Control Room, November 2008); Corroboration: participant observation (Warwickshire Police 2007-2010);
participant observation (WMP November – December 2008)]
Figure 4.15 shows part of the ‘Coordinate Response’ process for a break-in in progress incident, illustrating the role of the IMS and GIS in supporting response coordination, with the IMS enabling direct communications between the geographically separate local and Traffic Controllers2.
2 This is the case for WMP; Warwickshire Police Controllers are all based in the same control room.
A Mike 1: [Requests person check, gives details.] Controller 1: “Not known”
Mike 1: [Gives address] Controller 2: “Not listed.”
Mike 1: [Gives a different name]
B Officer: [Incident update: close, no crime] Controller 2: “Received.” [Updates and closes log] Controller 1: “No exact match PNC – give me his postcode.”
Mike 1 [Gives postcode]
C Controller 2: “Any unit available for an
immediate: reports of a male hitting a female at [LOCATION]?”
Mike 6: “Mike 6: en route.”
Controller 1: “Mike 1: safe to speak?” Mike 1: “Go ahead.”
Controller 1: “He is wanted for [OFFENCE].” Mike 1: “One in custody.”
Controller: [UNIT] Despatched
Controller: [UNIT] Redeployed from Incident 0250 12-04-06
Controller: Incident Switch to Terminal YMT1-YMT2-YMT3 Controller: YM...ANY DOG PLEASE
TRAFFIC: Incident Switch accepted by YMT1 TRAFFIC: NO DOG
Traffic section
Open new incident log
Review incident type, location and
priority
Request Unit Attendance
[Several Officers confirm their Availability]
Support responding Units
Controller: Incident Transfer Accepted by terminal xxxx IMS log
Incident: XXXX 999 Call Immediate Response Telephone Number: xxxxx xxxxx Caller: Miss X Location: X Road
Description: SOMEONE IS INSIDE THE HOUSE...
Request additional resources Update Incident log (automatically updates Officer Status) Support Responding units GIS Where abouts is that? Support responding Units Off [ROAD], heading out of town...
Figure 4.15: Annotated process flow for ‘Support responding units’
[Incident: burglary in progress; Source: IMS log (WMP FCC, 2008); Corroboration: IMS log review (WMP, 2008), observations (WMP Control Room, 2004-2008; Warwickshire Police Control Room,
July-September, 2009)] 4.2.3.2 Interpretation
In a similar manner to the process of ‘active listening’ used by Call Handlers, responding Officers will use what is known about an incident to cue frame-defined data collection; via a series of questions to the Controller. For example, if there is a specific location for the incident (such as a residential building) Officers may ask the Controller to check IMS for: previous emergency calls to that location, details of any persons associated with that location and any previous convictions or warning markers (e.g. for violence or weapons) associated with those individuals. The artefacts available to the Controller assist with this process, cueing Controllers to provide updates to responding Officers,
which then cues further questions. For example, the IMS will indicate if previous 999 calls have been made from a number, or if any persons named in a log are associated with previous incidents. The lack of mobile data access also means that Officers will often rely on Controllers to remind them of incident details that they have forgotten – such as house numbers, names or vehicle registration numbers – radioing the Controller as they near the scene to request that that information is repeated. Figure 4.16 gives an example of an Officer firstly asking for some clarification of where the incident location was, and then asking for the name of the company to be repeated. The Controller has pro-actively checked the location using the GIS system and unprompted provides some information to clarify where the incident location is.
Figure 4.16: Relying on the Controller for information previously given
[Controller as resource for action; Source: participant observation (Warwickshire Police, December 2008, Shift 40, Crewmate: Officer 3, Callsign: “Whiskey 3”); Corroboration: observation (WMP
Control Room 2004-2008), participant observation (WMP November – December 2008)] During participant observation sessions it became apparent that the support Controllers are able to provide is limited in nature and is highly dependent on the other demands on their time. In the vignette in Figure 4.17, Officers responding to an incident have to prompt the Controller for each piece of information. Figure 4.17 also provides an example of how the open nature of talk group communications allows other Officers to monitor and contribute relevant information.
When other Officers have knowledge that is relevant to an incident, they are often better placed to provide information than the Controller, as is shown in Figure 4.18. In this example, an Officer who is not involved in the response but who is monitoring the talk group casts doubt on the current frame (incident type) and suggests an alternative based on experience, prompting the Controller to search for corroborating information. This information influences how the attending Officers will deal with the incident, as is indicated by their update of “…we’ll go and have a chat”, rather than “Conducting
search of the garden.” Figure 4.19 provides a further example of how Officers within a Talk Group
are able to monitor radio transmissions and contribute to the sensemaking process. In this example, Whiskey 1 is able to provide local knowledge to guide Whiskey 4 and hasten the incident response, whilst Whiskey 2’s contribution forewarns the responding Officers regarding the household, which may affect the actions they take.
Whiskey 4: “Where abouts is that?” Control: “Off [Road name].”
[Officers travel to the incident scene] Whiskey 4: “TA. What is the company again?”
In reality, the high levels of talk group traffic mean that other Officers contribute to incidents in this way only infrequently. Consequently, Figures 4.18 and 4.19 represent examples of unusual radio activity, rather than the norm.
Figure 4.17: Responding Officer prompting the Controller for information
[Incident: domestic; Source: participant observation (Warwickshire Police, October 2009, Shift 58, Crewmate: Officer 4, Callsign: “Whiskey 10”); Corroboration: participant observation (Warwickshire
Police 2007-2010), participant observation (WMP November – December 2008)]
Figure 4.18: Use of talk group to question the incident frame
[Incident: domestic; Source: participant observation (Warwickshire Police, July 2010, Shift 66, Crewmate: Officer 5, Callsign: “Whiskey 1”); Corroboration: participant observation (Warwickshire
Police 2007-2010), participant observation (WMP November – December 2008)] A woman dials 999 to report that a prowler in her garden has shone a torch in her window. Whiskey 2 and Whiskey 3-5 are dispatched as an Immediate response.
Officer A: “Be aware: [NAME] lives there and calls the police every time a light goes on outside.”
Control: [Checks IMS for previous calls]
Control: “On STORM [IMS] there are 56 previous calls from [NAME]...well spotted.”
Whiskey 2: “Whiskey 2 – TA” [Arrived] [Whiskey 3-5 stands-down]
Control: “Be aware: I believe this female put a complaint in about how her last call was dealt with.” [from IMS checks]
Whiskey 2: “Yes, she’s stood in her doorway, we’ll go and have a chat.” ...
Whiskey 2: “W2; the house is secure, it would appear they’ve seen someone shine a torch
through the window. All in order. TL.” [Leaving]
Control: “Any unit for an immediate at [ADDRESS A]...Domestic?”
W2: “Whiskey 2.”
W1: “Whiskey 1...who lives there?”
Control: “Call was made by [NAME A] at [ADDRESS B].”
W1: “I want to know who lives at this address.”
Control: “I haven’t the faintest idea.”
W1: “Can you give us a clue?”
Control: “Wait one.” [Starts to run checks on the address]
Sergeant: “Whiskey 3-5: I believe it may be [NAME B].”
Control: “Yes, [NAME B] and [NAME C]...have also had calls from that address by
[NAME D].”
Control: “It may not be a domestic as previously thought...informant can also hear kids outside...” [from an update added by the Call Handler]
Figure 4.19: Use of talk group to share prior knowledge and experience
[Incident: domestic; Source: participant observation (Warwickshire Police, December 2008, Shift 40, Crewmate: Officer 3, “Callsign: Whiskey 3”); Corroboration: Control Room observations and SME interviews (WMP 2004-2008), Control Room observations and SME interviews (Warwickshire Police
July-September 2009)]
Control Room observations revealed that collaboration between co-located Controllers is not reliant on explicit communication, but is based on reciprocal monitoring and a shared deep understanding of the task at hand. Figure 4.13 displays a number of interesting features about the use of the IMS as a collaborative C2 tool:
The IMS is sometimes used for explicit as well as implicit communications (e.g. making specific resource requests to the Traffic Controllers);
Whilst the Controllers are working together, they are not always aware of the information that the other has added (e.g. duplicate requests for SOCO and ambulance);
Entries are highly compact and the IMS is used to rapidly impart information between colleagues who share common ground, rather than to present a highly polished account of events to outsiders;
The narrative of what has happened is gradually built up and refined over time (e.g. from injured person having been ‘struck’ to having ‘fallen over’). This narrative continues for several pages and can be difficult to follow, even before it is fragmented by numerous automatic IMS event entries (e.g. when officers are dispatched, when they arrive, when a log is switched to a different user, when that user accepts the log, etc.);
The IMSs used by the different emergency services are completely separate, so when Controller 2 rings the Ambulance service to request their attendance, they exchange incident numbers with the Ambulance Call Hander, so that the incident log can be identified if further calls are necessary.The Controller sends Whiskey 4 to a domestic abuse incident. By running checks in IMS for previous incidents at that address, the Controller reveals that a male residing there has previously been arrested for assaulting a female and that he has warning markers for violence towards the Police. Whiskey 2 is not involved in the response, but has been listening.
Whiskey 2: “There are two small children at that address – they will become involved if
either of their parents are arrested. By ‘involved’, I mean they will physically attack Officers.”
Whiskey 4: “Whiskey 4: We’re still trying to find this address...”
Control: “I am not sure where it is. I think that is on the new estate...-” [Address not
showing on GIS]