Long Term Governance of Regional CAD/RMS Projects Total Run Time: 20:16:00 [intro music] Dan Hawkins: The following is another in a series of recorded audio interviews on lessons learned and best practices from projects funded through COPS Technology Grants. These podcasts are presented by SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, through funding from the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, under Cooperative Agreement 2007-CK-WX-K002. Today's topic is long-term governance of regional CAD [Computer Aided Dispatch] and RMS [Records Management System] projects. Our guest is Tod Dahle, support services captain for the Fargo Police Department in North Dakota. I'm Dan Hawkins, a public-safety technology specialist for SEARCH and moderator for this podcast. Fargo Police Department received a COPS 2007 Technology Grant to put in a regional computer-aided dispatch and records-management system. This CAD/RMS will serve the Red River Regional Dispatch Center and agencies it supports through two counties in two states: North Dakota and Minnesota. Red River Regional Dispatch Center is the first in the country to serve a multi-state area. Its staff and participating agencies have over seven years of experience with regional projects and their governance. Tod, welcome. Can you tell us a bit about the regional CAD/RMS project and share your background with it? Tod Dahle: Well, the foundation of it is the Red River Regional Dispatch Center, which has been a joint operation in a two-county, two-state area for several years. It's been sharing a custom-made RMS program for the last few years. A steering committee was developed to search out potential advances in that a few years back, and we went out to see whether or not we should continue to develop our own project or should we buy an off-the-shelf product. So, I became involved in that several years ago, as the chair of that initial committee, doing that first search. Dan: What has your role been with the project throughout? Tod: I've continued on as the steering-committee chair throughout the project. And after our initial search began, the COPS Grant funding came out and I put in the application for that, and we received that grant, which allowed us to really move forward with the whole process. And I've continued on, to date, that as the chair of that committee. Dan: OK. Can you tell us a bit about the governance of the dispatch center itself and how that is involved since it was put into place? Tod: Since the organization's been functioning now for a while, it has had a joint-powers agreement in place for some time: to help it to deal with all matters relating to the operation of the dispatch center. This one is a little bit exceptional in its scope and cost. So there was a memorandum of understanding that was created in addition to that because there were some different funding issues that were created by this project that would be larger than any other project that the center has undertaken up to this date. So, I think those two primary agreements and then, really, just the solid working relationship that all of the agencies have is what has set the foundation for it. Dan: A JPA [Joint Powers of Authority] between different counties, different municipalities in two different states are fairly unusual. How would you describe that JPA? Is that different than others you may have within the state proper? Tod: I'm sure there are some differences, just for what you had mentioned, as far is it involving two different states and two different counties and all the different jurisdictions that are involved. It was certainly a complicated operation to get started in the first place. Prior to the development of the Red River Regional Dispatch Center, each of these agencies had their own dispatch centers, right down to fire departments having separate dispatchers from police in some cases. So, when this came together, it solved a lot of issues, but that groundwork had to be developed through that joint-powers agreement. Dan: Understood. I'd like to talk about some of the unique aspects of the project, more technically, about what may be involved. But did the MOU for the CAD/RMS project focus mainly on the financial aspects of it or deal with the financial aspects of it? Tod: That was certainly the primary focus of that agreement. Because of the scope of the project, the ongoing costs that would be created by it, the upfront matching costs for the grant, all of that had to be worked out before we could sign off on it and agree to move forward with the project. Dan: How does the project's governance structure fit within the center's board of authority, as it's called? Tod: Well, there is the board of authority, which is the primary managers of the center, the overseers I guess you'd call it. And the steering committee operates underneath that level, with representatives from all the respective agencies participating. And then, if issues come up to the steering committee, votes are taken, then recommendations are made to the board if the decision is outside what the steering committee feels comfortable making. Dan: Does the steering committee have any substructure, or does it operate as a committee of the whole all the time? Tod: It really does, for the most part, operate as a committee of the whole. There's no executive committee within the steering committee. The only thing that would be within that is, if it comes right down to a vote where it was not developed through consensus, then agencies have a vote and not necessarily every person participating on the committee. Dan: Is the steering committee going to stick around or go away after the system is implemented? Tod: We foresee the steering committee continuing to operate, perhaps in a less-frequent manner than it is now. But I think we all understand there's going to be decisions that have to be made, issues that come up, and unless that framework is still there, we would just have to recreate it again. So, I foresee the steering committee continuing to operate. Dan: Well, from what you said, it sounds like the steering committee's most of the decisions are made by consensus. Formally, how are costs and decision-making authority split between participants? Tod: So far it's been... well, there's two ways, I guess. There was initial match money that the agencies agreed to split equally. But the majority of the costs, especially ongoing costs for support are based on device counts. So it is based on the size and user number for each different agency. Dan: How does the committee get involved in change management, for example, in the project, if you have some need that comes up by an agency, how's the committee get involved in choosing or mitigating that? Tod: Well, we've had to work through that a few times. Generally, there's a discussion. We work through it during the meeting, try to make decisions that are fair, understanding that in certain situations part of this project will benefit one agency more than another. But that has to be set aside, realizing that there is a large benefit for everyone involved in the end. So, we do work through those sometimes, where an agency will come forward with a request and the steering committee's faced with making that choice. If that agency doesn't care for the decision made by the steering committee, it can appeal it to the board of authority, but for the most part, that has not happened. Dan: Do you have any examples of where this has come up? Tod: We've had requests for additional modifications to software or pieces of equipment that have been requested by a specific agency. And in some cases, those have been approved, but in some cases, they haven't been. Dan: Well, as more and more agencies across the country are regionalizing communications and dispatch services, these types of challenges are faced elsewhere, but few of them cross state lines. What sort of challenges have you seen arise with your multi-state CAD/RMS project? Tod: I think the first challenge that popped up for us was really in developing the RFP [Request For Proposal]. That was a pretty significant project for us. We hired a consultant to come in and help us with that. We're fortunate to have a really solid IT [Information Technology] staff that also helped us work through that. And we contacted quite a number of vendors, thinking that we would receive quite a few replies, but understanding that there was some additional complexity because of the multi-state piece. And in the end, only three vendors replied to our RFP, which was a little surprising for us. Dan: Why do you think it's a challenge to them? Is it a matter of territories that their staff work in, or are there technical issues? Tod: I think it's mostly been technical issues. There have been some requirements that differ from one state to the other. There are issues like where an officer who wants to run a driver's license checks in North Dakota that has to be run through the North Dakota system. Even though the dispatch center operates in a multi-state environment, the request goes in through the dispatch center and is directed towards North Dakota. The same on the Minnesota side: a Minnesota request has to be directed back to Minnesota. And there are other issues that made it unique, and very few vendors had taken on that. In fact, I don't believe there's more than a handful of situations where this has arisen in the country. Dan: I imagine that each of the states are on their own separate tracks about modernizing or changing their core systems that serve individual agencies. Do they seem to be coordinated fairly well in what you have to interface to, both directions? Tod: Well, there's been some coordination, and then some frustrations, where one state will agree to allow us to operate in one manner and the other state won't. One that recently came up was in making entries and queries in NCIC [National Crime Information Center]. The state of North Dakota is requiring us to do it in a different manner than Minnesota, which has caused a problem for our software vendor. And though we can rectify that, that'll be another example of where we have to do things differently from one state to the other. In most situations, it's been all right, but it certainly has been more complicated because we use different software in different states. Accident software in North Dakota is different than the accident software in Minnesota. And the same with traffic-citation software: it is different in North Dakota than it is in Minnesota. So, all of that has made it more complicated. Fortunately, we've had a good working relationship with the organizations and, for the most part, the states. Dan: I imagine those complications have financial implications. Do the states have different funding challenges? Tod: They do. Anything that comes up that requires an additional cost, it seems like anywhere within the state of Minnesota, is very difficult. Their budget situation is relatively dire, which has made it difficult for local funding for the agencies in our group, as well as, I would think that the entire state of Minnesota. The state of North Dakota has been dealing with a budget surplus, so funding issues haven't been quite as dire, but the state is still very careful about making expenditures that they don't feel are necessary. Dan: The region has had a successful radio project in recent years as well, and in prior discussions, you'd mentioned how that has helped prepare the steering committee and participants for regional governance. Can you share with us a little bit about that project, and perhaps what you learned about project management, staffing by virtue of it? Tod: We learned a lot from that. And that project was a multi-million-dollar radio-interoperability project that I think was underestimated initially by the agencies who were participating. They felt, if they hired a consultant, that person would help them work through it. But in the end, that wasn't enough. And ultimately, a real project coordinator was hired, which really allowed that project to move forward much more rapidly and finally be resolved successfully. We took a lot of lessons, not only that but other parts of that project where lessons were learned, we were able to apply that to this project. And one of the things we did right away was we did hire a consultant, but we also hired a project manager immediately, to represent our wishes and desires, to work in concert with the consultant, instead of leaning so heavily on a paid consultant. I think that was one of the real successes for us was having that project manager in place to help us. Dan: I gather from what you say that the project manager was brought on staff as opposed to being a hired project manager from an outside company? Tod: We did look at a few different possibilities before this person was hired, and we did look at hiring a company that would just provide project management for us. But, when we bounced cost, convenience, and our needs, we ultimately decided to hire a person directly to work for us instead of through another company. And fortunately, I think that's worked out for us. The search for a project manager was actually a fairly challenging exercise as well, but I think we have the right person in place now. Dan: I understand there's been some additional IT staff...information-services support staff that's been brought in to help on the project. Will the steering committee have more responsibility for directing that staff after the project manager is gone? Tod: They will work in concert with one another, I think. I think there may be some more direction, although I do think that the IS staff will be largely self-sufficient, handling day-to-day issues with the project. But when issues come forward that require some type of decision to be made, on a particular expenditure or a direction, then the steering committee would step in to assist in that decision. Dan: Well, as many of us know, the river that separates the states, the Red River, is notorious for flooding, including record levels in Fargo last year, I understand. I imagine that the shared problem that you have across both sides, both states, brings the region together in many ways, despite the legal boundaries between the two. Have past and in expectation of future disasters affected governance over emergency services in general and projects like yours? Tod: I hesitate to say I've noticed anything significant. I think it's just continued to foster the working relationship between both states, both counties, and all the agencies that are involved, especially when dealing with something as significant as a flood, which really ignores state lines, county lines, and jurisdictions. The only way that this area has been successful is by working together. But I haven't seen a direct impact on the agencies involved in this project. Dan: I imagine that zoning decisions, work on dikes and such, on either side, will affect the other. You must have some degree of regional cooperation that goes on, just to minimize the impact on the other states as well. Tod: They do. They have a regional committee that's working together, representing both states on how they're going to work through solutions for this flooding problem that exists here. They've been working their way through Army Corps of Engineers recommendations on diversions or levees and what is a long term solution. And both states have to come to an agreement before they can move forward. And, fortunately, they've had a lot of practice in doing that. I think they're making the right decisions, but it will be a slow, difficult process. Dan: In closing, Tod, what are your takeaway messages for long term governance of regional CAD and RMS projects? Tod: I think one thing we were fortunate on is we already had a background and a foundation developed from prior projects that really helped us be successful with this project. I think other agencies, who don't have that foundation are going to have to spend more time working on those agreements with each other, doing their homework, making sure that the foundation is properly laid, so that they know how to deal with issues when they come up. Because there's going to be a multitude of problems that no one foresees, and if you don't have that set up in advance, if you don't have the agreements in place, if you don't have a structure for making decisions, it's going to be a quagmire. Dan: Is there some way to institutionalize those lessons you learned, or does it depend just on the people who have been involved? Tod: I think the people who are involved have a lot to do with it, but, I think in our example, I think it's institutionalized. It's just understood that the agencies will work together. We have the dispatch center, which is shared by the different jurisdictions. But that's extended on to any number of projects, including our regional SWAT team, bomb squad, regional HAZMAT. All the projects, just from a cost-effectiveness standpoint, have been regionalized, because it doesn't make any sense to duplicate those efforts. So, I think it's truly institutionalized here. Dan: Tod, I appreciate your time, and thank you for sharing the lessons that you've learned and best practices that have developed there within the region. Thank you very much for being with us today. Tod: It was my pleasure. Dan: You've been listening to a SEARCH podcast on long-term governance of regional CAD and RMS projects. We'd like to thank our guest, Tod Dahle, support services captain for the Fargo Police Department. This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement 2007-CK-WX-K002, by the US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or opinions expressed in this podcast, or those of the guest and moderator, do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice. [music] Transcription by CastingWords p.