An examination of the municipal 311 system

Abstract

Government accountability and responsiveness are foundational concerns of public managers, citizens, the media, and advocacy organizations. Technologies provide viable alternatives for increasing citizen access to government and improving government's responses to the issues of greatest concern to citizens, and the implementation of non-emergency 311 systems have shown tremendous potential in this regard. This paper, therefore, examines municipal 311 systems in terms of accountability and responsiveness functions, namely usability, services provided, internal operations, and measurable outputs. A survey of fourteen municipalities with 311 systems throughout the United States results in the identification of best practices in each of the four research categories.

Full text

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BEHAVIOR, 12 (2), 218-236 SUMMER 2009
AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM
Richard W. Schwester, Tony Carrizales and Marc Holzer*
ABSTRACT. Government accountability and responsiveness are foundational
concerns of public managers, citizens, the media, and advocacy
organizations. Technologies provide viable alternatives for increasing citizen
access to government and improving government’s responses to the issues
of greatest concern to citizens, and the implementation of non-emergency
311 systems have shown tremendous potential in this regard. This paper,
therefore, examines municipal 311 systems in terms of accountability and
responsiveness functions, namely usability, services provided, internal
operations, and measurable outputs. A survey of fourteen municipalities with
311 systems throughout the United States results in the identification of
best practices in each of the four research categories.
INTRODUCTION
Government accountability and responsiveness are foundational
concerns of public managers, citizens, the media, and advocacy
organizations. Finding appropriate ways to monitor government
performance, to provide mechanisms for citizen feedback and
complaints and to document government responsiveness in terms of
timeliness and service quality are basic threads in the development
of the field of public administration. Technologies provide viable
alternatives for increasing citizen access to government, improving
-----------------------------------------
* Richard W. Schwester, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of public
administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. His research interests
include the use of technology in governance. Tony Carrizales, Ph.D., is an
Assistant Professor, School of Management, Marist College. His research
interests include e-government and diversity in the public sector. Marc
Holzer, Ph.D., is Dean and Board of Governors Professor, School of Public
Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University – Newark, and the Executive
Director of the National Center for Public Productivity and the E-Governance
Institute. His research interests include public performance measurement
and e-government.
Copyright © 2009 by Pracademics Press

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 219
government’s responsiveness to the issues of greatest concern to
citizens, and holding government more accountable. The
implementation of non-emergency 311 systems has shown
tremendous potential in this regard. This paper, therefore, examines
municipal 311 systems in terms of accountability and responsiveness
functions, namely usability, services provided, internal operations,
and measurable outputs.
BACKGOUND INFORMATION
Origins of the Municipal 311 System
The municipal 311 system was initially envisioned as a means of
alleviating 911 congestion resulting from high numbers of non-
emergency calls. Non-emergency calls to 911 delay the delivery of
emergency services, causing backlogs and inefficiencies for law
enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical technicians.
This leads to frustration and sometimes deadly consequences for
callers with true emergencies. By 1996, an estimated 50 to 90
percent of 911 calls were deemed non-emergency calls (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2006). At that time, President Clinton
challenged the Department of Justice (DOJ) to relieve 911 systems of
congestion. The White House and the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) of the DOJ sought corrective action,
requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set
aside 311 for use as a national help number for non-emergencies
(Solomon & Uchida, 2003). In 1997, the FCC established the
abbreviated telephone number 311 for non-emergency local
government services (City of Oakland, 2002).
Baltimore was the first city to implement a 311 system, and it
was specifically designed to siphon non-emergency calls away from
911 and create more opportunities for police officers to engage in
community and problem-oriented policing activities (Mazerolle, Rogan,
Frank, and Famega, 2003). Subsequent to 311’s implementation, the
Baltimore Police Department noted less strain on the city’s 911
system; that is, the average amount of time for a 911 operator to
answer an emergency call decreased by 50 percent, the number of
911 callers that hung up without ever speaking to a 911 operator
decreased by 50 percent, the number of 911 callers receiving a
recorded message (as opposed to speaking with a live operator)
decreased from 18 percent to four and the amount of time between

220 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
incoming 911 calls doubled from 70 seconds to 143 (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2006).
Frustrations with local government services, however, increased
the demand for 311 systems that go beyond alleviating 911
congestion. Cities throughout the U.S. began exploring 311 as a
means of consolidating its non-emergency service requests (Welsh,
2001). For example, in 1997 Dallas consolidated 28 customer
service numbers and seven call centers into a single 311 non-
emergency call center. This allowed citizens to call 311 for a host of
city services, including Animal control (e.g. animal cruelty,
unrestrained animal, noisy animal); Sanitation (e.g. missed garbage,
illegal dumping); Streets (e.g. street and shoulder repair, storm drain
cleaning); Public works and transportation (e.g. illegal parking, street
lighting, traffic signals); Code compliance (e.g. junk auto, high weeds,
property damage, litter, graffiti); Economic development (e.g. building
permits); Parks (e.g. tree trimming, park maintenance); Environmental
and health services (e.g. noise pollution, air pollution); Housing (e.g.
human services, housing programs); and Water (e.g. main break,
sewer leak, burst pipe). The Dallas non-emergency call system was
designed to provide citizens with accurate information about city
services, eliminate bureaucratic red-tape, and provide citizens with
the services they needed in a timely and efficient manner.
Several cities began emulating the Dallas model. New York, for
example, implemented 311 in 2003 to provide residents with quick
and easy access to all government services and information. The 311
system provides a low-maintenance point of access for determining
whom to contact when a resident has a question, complaint, or wants
to request a service. Before 311, New York residents were forced to
thumb through an eleven-page directory of city government phone
numbers. Also, New York’s system allows residents to track the
progress of their requests, which serves as an accountability
mechanism (Holzer, 2007). While developed as a response to
overburdened 911 call centers, 311 has emerged as an innovative
information and service delivery tool that promotes greater
governmental responsiveness and accountability.
A Tool of Governmental Responsiveness and Accountability
Berman (1997) argues that the relationship between government
and citizens is strained, the result of citizens feeling disconnected

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 221
from government, as well as the perception that government service
delivery is inadequate. As a result, citizens have become increasingly
cynical toward government. In the hopes of reversing this trend,
technology has been viewed as a means of cultivating a
governmental landscape where information is more accessible,
people feel better connected to government, and services are
provided with greater effectiveness and efficiency -- thus enabling a
more responsive and accountable government. The use of technology
as it relates to government service delivery and information access is
typically discussed in the context of e-government. According to
Calista and Melitski (2007, p. 12) e-government “provides
governmental services electronically, usually over the internet to
customers, to reduce their physical character by recreating the
virtually.” Cloete (2003) argues that effective government is a
function of accepting technological innovations. Implementing
Internet-based services and other technological service delivery
applications may better enable governments to meet their service
delivery goals. Some of the earliest developments included policy
and regulatory information simply posted online. Soon thereafter,
government forms were made available for download from city
websites. Finally, some of the earliest dimensions of e-government
included bi-directional communications of citizens requesting general
municipal information via e-mail or electronic request forms.
West (2004), however, argues that e-government has failed to
reach its potential from an information access and a service delivery
standpoint. This may be attributable, in part, to the digital divide.
Despite the potential benefits of e-government and Internet-based
applications, there are segments of the population that are without
web access and web-related skills (Norris, 2001). And even though
the online population is increasingly reflective of communities in
general, the digital divide means that many are excluded. Those
segments of the population typically excluded are lower income
individuals and senior citizens.
As an alternative to Internet-based e-government applications,
311 call centers provide new opportunities for enhanced service
delivery and communication with citizens (Fleming & Barnhouse,
2006). The 311 systems can potentially improve the strained
relationship between government and citizens insofar as these
systems allow residents to make service requests and provide

222 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
feedback regarding the fulfillment of those requests (Barnhouse,
2008; Kavanagh, 2007). Government responsiveness may be
enhanced simply because a resident can dial 311 and ask the
department of public works to fill a pothole on his or her street.
Accountability may be enhanced because if that pothole is not filled
properly or in a timely manner, that resident can dial 311 to lodge a
complaint. Through 311, government is merely a phone call away
(Fulla, 2007). In addition to fielding information and service requests
and being able to track whether those requests are fulfilled, 311 can
be used to measure government performance. Chattanooga’s 311
regularly makes available performance data collected via 311, which
serves to enhance accountability (Eichenthal, 2005). Baltimore’s 311
system serves as an information feed to its CitiStat program -- a
performance-based management system that uses computer pin
mapping technology to chart agencies’ performance on a bi-weekly
basis. Performance data collected via 311 may help governments to
determine where increased resources should be allocated or predict
potential service delivery problems. As such, Kiviat (2005, p. 1)
argues that “311 callers are helping to build more intelligent, more
responsive cities.”
METHODS
The following data represent survey responses from
municipalities having implemented 311 non-emergency systems. At
the time of this survey, 32 municipal 311 systems were identified, of
which data were obtained from 14: Chattanooga (TN), Hampton (VA),
Louisville (KY), Austin (TX), Orlando (FL), Somerville (MA), Rochester
(NY), Riverside (CA), San Jose (CA), Akron (OH), Minneapolis (MN),
Houston (TX), San Antonio (TX), and Birmingham (AL). This research
evaluates municipal 311 systems based on four specific categories:
usability, services, operations, and system measures. These
categories measure responsiveness and accountability functions of
311 systems. Table 1 provides a summary description and shows
how each 311 category is scored. Appendix A provides additional
information.
Usability
The first category, Usability, highlights the relationship between
the caller and 311 system’s usability. This category has ten key

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 223
TABLE 1
311 System Evaluation Criteria:
Responsiveness and Accountability Functions
concepts with a scoring scale of “0” and “1” for each concept. When
citizens call into a 311 system, the ease of use is a critical part of the
experience and bears on sustained use by citizens. Transfers to other
departments or within the 311 system may be a necessary aspect of
the system, but excessive transfers can become a deterrent to future
use of the system. In addition, a short wait-time and being able to
speak to a live operator all represent a higher standard of usability
performance within a 311 system. Some questions highlight coding
into the scoring scale of “0” and “1”: What are the hours for call-in
live operation? (The response to this question can vary from 8am to
5pm, five days a week, to 24/7 with live operators. For any 311
system that practiced 24/7 hours of live operation, a score of “1” was
assigned.) Are callers notified of their expected wait time or position
within the queue? (“Yes” was scored as a “1.”) “How many calls are
unable to be addressed because of language barriers?” was
assessed in terms of percentage of incoming calls. A response of less
311 Categor
y
Key
Concepts
Raw
Score
Weighted
Score
Keywords
Usability 10 10 20
User-friendly, wait-time
notification, multi-lingual, call-
in hours, call routing, citizen
tracking
Services 18 36 40
Health, social, and community
services, housing, legal,
transportation, permits,
sanitation, utility, visitors and
employment
Operations 13 10 20
Call routing, database,
training, walk-in inquires,
online, self-service web
channel
System
Measures 8 8 20
Busiest time of day, calls per
agent, feedback system,
security/privacy, population,
average wait time
Total 49 64 100

224 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
than five percent was reported as a “1.” Finally, two questions were
associated with tracking and whether citizens were able to track the
service request via call-in service number, the web, or by an
automated IVR.
Services
The second category, Services, represents the broad range of
deliverables by the 311 system. In some cases call-in requests may
be seeking information only, while in other cases call-in requests
require processing so that a particular service can be addressed. The
number of services offered varies with each municipality’s 311
systems, but some of the most prominent associated with public
services are included in the scoring and surveying. A total of 18
service possibilities were included in the survey, with possible scores
of “0,” “1,” and “2.” For service requests that are addressable by the
311 center, without transfer, the 311 system receives a score of “2.”
Those addressable by the 311 system via transfer or by merely
providing information received a score of “1.”
Operations
The third category, Operations, focuses on the internal operations
of the 311 system. There are 10 key concepts associated with the
category of Operations, each with a possible score of “1” for a total
raw score of ten. The area of internal operations includes call routing
and the ability to route based upon time of day or week. The ability to
have walk-in and online service requests via call centers and
websites also represent the operations of a 311 system. The ability of
the 311 system to automatically determine service area based on
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and physical address
information is included as well. Responses to the question, “What is
the length of the initial training for 311 staff?” range from a few days
to eight weeks of training. Those responses were coded so that 10
days or fewer resulted in a score of “0” and any period of training that
went beyond 10 days was a score of “1.”
System Measures
The fourth category is System Measures. This category covers
much of the data associated with measurable outputs by the 311
system. This does not include whether the system was utilizing

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 225
performance measurement based on the data collected by the 311
systems. Some questions associated with a performance score
include the percentage of calls handled by an Interactive Voice
Response (IVR) system. A level of ten percent or lower received a
score of “1.” The average number of calls received per agent in an
eight-hour period is another system measure, with responses
averaging 100 or more receiving a score of “1.” Finally, the existence
of a feedback mechanism for citizens, average wait time, and
whether a 311 system has a security/privacy policy was taken into
account as well.
RESULTS
Usability
Survey data regarding 311 system usability indicate that
Somerville, Louisville, Orlando, Houston, San Antonio all have
relatively high performance scores in this area. Somerville and
Louisville each received usability scores of eight, while Orlando,
Houston, and San Antonio received scores of seven (of a possible
score of 10). In contrast, Akron and San Jose both received scores of
three. All but one of the 14 municipalities (Austin) have 311 systems
where calls are transferred to other individuals within the 311 call
center, and if a caller is transferred, that person is connected to a live
person rather than being placed in another queue. Only Birmingham
tracks calls after a transfer takes place. Of the 14 municipal 311
systems, only Hampton, Somerville, Houston, and San Antonio notify
callers regarding their position in the queue or their expected wait
time. Not all 311 call centers operate 24/7, but for those that do
there is an increase in accountability by government for its citizens.
Governments that have chosen to incorporate 311 systems have
created “added value” to their interactions with citizens by extending
access and hours of operation (Eagle, 2004). Louisville, Somerville,
Rochester, San Jose, and San Antonio provide 24/7 live 311
operation. Of the remaining nine municipalities that do not provide
24/7 live service, five provide an automated information system.
Eight of the 14 municipal systems provide multi-lingual assistance.
Twelve municipal systems afford citizens the ability to track service
requests. Of those twelve, nine municipalities maintain a call-in
service number, while the remaining three use web-based tracking.

226 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
Service
Our survey focused on the following service areas: animal control,
child and youth services, community services, education, emergency
issues, health issues, housing services, legal aid, motor
vehicle/transportation, parks and recreation, permit information,
public safety, sanitation and street repair, senior citizen issues, utility
issues, visitor information, and employment information. Results
indicate that Hampton received the highest service score (27 out of a
possible total score of 36). Somerville, Minneapolis, and Louisville all
scored well, having merited section scores of 26, 25, and 24,
respectively. Hampton, Somerville, Minneapolis, and Louisville
received the highest service scores not only because these 311
systems provide a multitude of services, but also because they are
able to process many of the service requests internally (Table 2). This
is in contrast to other systems that handle service requests via
transfer or merely provide information about such services. Table 3
below provides summary information regarding the types of service
addressed via 311.
TABLE 2
311 System Performance Scores
Municipality
(Alpha Order)
Raw Scores
Usability
(out of 10)
Services
(out of 36)
Operations
(out of 10)
System
Measures
(out of 8)
Akron, OH 3 11 5 1
Austin, TX 5 19 3 2
Birmingham, AL 6 16 9 3
Chattanooga, TN 5 14 9 4
Hampton, VA 5 27 7 5
Houston, TX 7 17 6 6
Louisville, KY 8 24 5 2
Minneapolis, MN 6 25 7 5
Orlando, FL 7 18 7 3
Riverside, CA 4 17 7 1
Rochester, NY 5 10 2 4
San Antonio, TX 7 21 7 4
San Jose, CA 3 17 3 2
Somerville, MA 8 26 6 4

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 227
TABLE 3
Services Areas Addressed via 311
Service
Service
Area
Addressed
n = 14
Processe
d
Internally
n = 14
Process via
Transfer or
Provide
Information
n = 14
Not
Addressed
n = 14
Street Repair 14 9 5 0
Permit Information 14 2 12 0
Emergency and 13 1 12 1
Sanitation 13 7 6 1
Senior Citizen Issues 13 1 12 1
Utility Issues 13 4 9 1
Employment Information 13 1 12 1
Public Safety 12 2 11 2
Animal Control 12 9 3 2
Health Issues 12 1 11 2
Parks and Recreation 12 3 9 2
Housing 11 2 9 3
Child and Youth Services 11 1 10 3
Community Service 11 2 9 3
Motor
Vehicle/Transportation 10
1 9 4
Visitor Information 8 0 8 6
Education 8 0 8 6
Legal Aid 6 0 6 8
Operations
Birmingham and Chattanooga received the highest operations
score (9 out of possible 10). Hampton, Orlando, Riverside, and
Minneapolis scored favorably in this performance area as well, all
having received scores of seven. Rochester scored poorly, having
received an operations score of two. More specifically, the data
indicate that only Chattanooga, Hampton, and San Antonio are able
to route calls to multiple locations based on geographic area from
which the call originated. Nine of the 14 of the municipalities
surveyed are able to route calls based upon time of the day or the day
of the week. Five of the municipalities are unable to route calls based
on time or day. Ten of the 14 systems include online internet
submissions/requests, while eight call centers allow for walk-in

228 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
inquiries. Nine of the systems have methods in place to drive simple
requests for information through a self-service or web channel.
The vast majority of 311 call centers underscore staff training, as
12 of 14 municipalities provide at least two weeks of such capacity
building training. Minneapolis and Orlando provide eight weeks of
training, while Louisville and Houston provide six weeks. Seven 311
systems have technology that supports tracking service requests
through telephony or electronic channels for citizens, while nine have
systems that automatically determine service areas based upon GIS
or physical address information.
System Measures
Houston received a system measures score of six (out of eight)
and both Minneapolis and Hampton received scores of five. In
contrast, Riverside and Akron received scores of one. The data
further indicate the majority of the 311 systems emphasize keeping
caller wait time to a minimum. Specifically, nine of the 14 systems
have average wait times that are 60 seconds or less. Accountability
and security/ privacy are points of emphasis as well. Nine call center
systems provide mechanisms whereby citizens can provide feedback
regarding the quality of 311’s customer service. Moreover, eight
municipalities have security/privacy policies. Only Chattanooga,
Minneapolis, and Houston have 311 systems that perform
“intelligent” capture of information learned on an ongoing basis in the
course of delivering information and services.
Summary of Survey Results
Overall, the data indicate that Hampton and Somerville’s 311 call
center systems were most highly rated, each receiving a total
performance score of 44 out of a possible 65. Minneapolis was close
behind, receiving a score of 43. Louisville and San Antonio fared well,
as both merited scores of 39. In contrast, Akron and Rochester
received scores of 20 and 21, respectively. From a usability
perspective, Louisville and Somerville are models in that both
systems allow for transfers to other people in the 311 center/group
or to other departments. Also, when a caller is transferred, that
person does not go back into another queue; rather, they are directed
to a live person. Somerville further notifies callers as to their expected
wait time or their position in the queue. Louisville, Somerville, Austin,

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 229
Rochester, and San Antonio provide 24/7 service. Of the remaining
nine municipalities that do not provided 24/7 311 service, four
provide an automated information system. The growing diversity of
the American population increases the need for multi-lingual caller
center representatives. As such, eight systems have agents in place
that are multi-lingual. Furthermore, giving callers the ability to track
service requests is an important usability function of 311. Twelve of
the municipal systems examined here provide such a function (Table
4).
In terms of services, Hampton, Louisville, Somerville, and
Minneapolis have best practices. The common thread among these
municipal systems is that they are able to process a significant
number of service requests directly through their 311 call centers. In
other words, they do not have to transfer a caller to another
department in the hopes that the service request will eventually be
filled. Directly processing a service request is far more efficient and
convenient for the citizen, thereby enhancing responsiveness.
With regard to operations, Chattanooga and Birmingham received
the highest operations scores (9 out of possible 10). Hampton,
TABLE 4
Summary Scores
Municipality Total Raw Score
(out of 64)
Weighted Score
(out of 100)
Somerville, MA 44 66.89
Hampton, VA 44 66.50
Minneapolis, MN 43 66.28
San Antonio, TX 39 61.33
Houston, TX 36 59.89
Louisville, KY 39 57.67
Orlando, FL 35 55.50
Birmingham, AL 34 55.28
Chattanooga, TN 32 53.56
Riverside, CA 29 43.39
Austin, TX 29 42.11
San Jose, CA 25 35.89
Rochester, NY 21 35.11
Akron, OH 20 30.72

230 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
Orlando, Riverside, and Minneapolis scored favorably in this
performance area as well. Some of the common threads among
these six municipal systems include: call routing based upon time of
day or day of week; the 311 center database is SQL in nature; the
311 system includes online internet submissions/ requests; the
system technology tracks service requests through telephony and/or
electronic channels. Furthermore, each of these best practices, with
the exception of Riverside (10 days), require at least two weeks of
training for call center representatives. Minneapolis and Orlando
require eight weeks of training. Finally, the better 311 systems: (1)
keep caller wait times to a minimum, (2) ensure that only a small
percentage of calls are handled via Interactive Voice Response, as
opposed to a live agent, (3) provide callers with a means of providing
customer service feedback, and (4) have a means of safeguarding a
caller’s privacy.
CONCLUSION
Based on our survey of existing 311 systems, we have
synthesized criteria for an effective 311 system. Those systems which
are most effective culminate in a government’s effort to be both
responsive and accountable to its public. The following criteria are
categorized into three functional areas: usability, operations, and
system measures. These criteria help 311 systems meet both
accountability and responsiveness expectations. Having a system
that is 24/7, for example, will only help increase government
accountability. Similarly, the ability to utilize feedback measures
integrated into a system allowing for a better understanding of
where and how often incidents occur, will only improve
responsiveness. Overall, the following criteria is not an exhaustive list,
but have been noted as critical to optimal performance by 311
systems.
Usability
- Providing 24/7 access to 311 with a live operator. Such access to
a live operator enables citizens to contact the city at any time,
and provides citizens with the feeling that the city is there to
address their issues at any time.
- Clear goal for wait time from the time the IVR ends to the time a
call is answered by a live operator. This establishes a benchmark

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 231
for performance for the city’s call center. It also ensures that a
prompt response to callers is a priority of the 311 system.
- Notifying callers as to their position in the queue or expected wait
time. This provides information to and demonstrates
consideration for the caller.
- Caller receives a tracking number for incident. The tracking
number tells the caller their issue has a unique identification
number and that the caller can refer to it in future
communications.
- Provide multi-lingual assistance which allows non-English
speaking callers to communicate with the 311 system and
receive the same service as English speaking callers.
Operations
- Capability for IVR messages. While IVR messages affect the time
it takes for a caller to contact a live operator, these messages
usually address the most common reasons callers contact the
311 system. Overall, this reduces the time for callers to receive
the information they need. IVR messages should be used only
after careful consideration.
- GIS capability. The primary use of GIS capability in 311 systems
is to insure the information received about an address is correct
so that the issue can be resolved. This capability is not intended
to interfere with the privacy of callers.
- Capability of handling service requests. An advanced 311 system
would have the capability of handling service requests via the call
center directly. At a minimum, the system should be capable of
transferring callers to the appropriate individuals and/or agencies.
This enables the caller to speak directly to the individual and/or
agency that can address the caller’s issue.
- Insuring proper training of staff. Proper training is critical to the
successful operation of a 311 system.
- Use of Internet for access to system and tracking of incident by
caller. A 311 system that has Internet access will encourage more
use of the system by citizens who prefer that mode of

232 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
communication. It will also provide ease of communication to
track a specific issue.
- Interaction of 311 and 911. The interaction of the 311 and 911
systems is essential to refer callers who have dialed the wrong
service. Emergency calls made to the 311 system can be quickly
routed to the 911 system.
System Measures
- Providing callers with a feedback mechanism regarding the
quality of a 311 system. Feedback on citizen experience with the
system provides knowledge of what is and what is not working.
This enables the system to be improved and will increase
participation and citizen involvement with the 311 system.
- Supporting the capture of information on the performance of
agencies in resolving the issues raised by callers to the 311
system. Was the problem fixed and how long did it take to fix it?
The capability of capturing performance information of agencies
should be incorporated into a 311 system in the planning stages
whether or not this information is collected in the initial phase of
the system. Once performance information is in a 311 system, it
can be more easily activated in a later phase of the system than
modifying the system to collect this data.
- Determining how to use the 311 system to measure agency
performance in responding to caller incidents. Data from the 311
system can be used to establish performance standards and
improve the functioning of government.
According to Butterfield (2006), 311 systems were initially viewed
with skepticism by the technology industry. However, the interest and
growth in 311 implementation says a great deal about the potential
of this innovative use of an existing technology, namely the ability to
positively alter the relationship between government and citizens
(Peterson, 2006). The impetus for continued 311 growth is that
public officials have observed the benefits of 311 systems in terms of
citizen accessibility, responsiveness to the concerns of citizens,
improved management of government services, and enhanced
accountability and performance of these services. This research
indicates that the cities of Hampton Somerville and Minneapolis have
implemented 311 systems that incorporate a number of functional

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 233
elements that contribute to their cities being more responsive to
citizen information and service needs, as well as ensuring that such
needs are met adequately and in a timely manner. Future studies
should perhaps go beyond the functional aspects of 311, examining
the impact of 311 on citizens’ perceptions of governmental
responsiveness and accountability.
REFERENCES
Barnhouse, B. (2008). “Lynwood: One Call City Hall.” Call 311:
Connecting Citizens to Local Government Case Study Series.
Washington, DC: International City/County Management
Association.
Berman, E. (1997). “Dealing with Cynical Citizens.” Public
Administration Review, 57 (2): 105-112.
Butterfield, E. (2006). “311 systems come of age.” Washington
Technology. 21(3). [On-line]. Available at
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/21_3/27973-
1.html. (Retrieved April 28, 2008).
Calista, D., & Melitski, J. (2007). “E-government and E-governance:
Converging Constructs of Public Sector Information and
Communications Technologies.” Public Administration Quarterly,
32 (1): 87-120.
City of Oakland. (2002). “Moving Oakland Forward.” City Manager
Summit Recommendations. [On-line]. Available at
http://www.oaklandnet.com/movingforward/8CRecommendation
sDetailed.pdf. (Retrieved May 10, 2005).
Cloete, F. (2003). “Assessing Governance with Electronic Policy
Management Tools.” Public Performance and Management
Review. 26 (3): 276-290.
Eagle, J. (2004). “Transformational Technology.” Government
Technology. [On-line]. Available at
www.govtech.com/gt/articles/91953. (Retrieved April 29, 2008).
Eichenthal, D. (2005). “Citizen Perspectives on Measurement of Local
Government Performance in Chattanooga, Tennessee.”
Community Research Council, Inc. [On-line]. Available at

234 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
http://www.researchcouncil.net/Projects/chattanoogaCITIZEN/ch
attanoogacitizen0328.pdf. (Retrieved April 28, 2008).
Fleming, C., & Barnhouse, B. (2006). “San Antonio: Customer
Service/311.” Call 311: Connecting Citizens to Local Government
Case Study Series. Washington, DC: International City/County
Management Association.
Fulla, S.L. (2007). “The Citizen and CRM.” In S. C. Kavanagh (Ed.),
Revolutionizing Relationships: the Promise of CRM Systems for
the Public Sector. (Technology Solutions Series). [On-line].
Available at http://www.gfoa.org/documents/CRM_000.pdf.
(Retrieved April 28, 2008).
Holzer, M., Carrizales, T., Schwester, R., Melitski, J. & Shick, R.
(2007). “Developing a Statewide 311 System in New Jersey.”
National Center for Public Performance, E-Governance Institute:
Rutgers University-Newark. [On-line]. Available at
http://icma.org/documents/NJ_311_Feasibility_Study_9-7-
07.pdf. (Retrieved April 28, 2008).
Kavanagh, S.C. (2007). “An Introduction to CRM.” In Revolutionizing
Relationships: The Promise of CRM Systems for the Public Sector.
Shayne C. Kavanagh (ed). Technology Solutions Series:
Government Finance Officers Association. [On-line]. Available at
http://www.gfoa.org/documents/CRM_000.pdf. (Retrieved April
28, 2008).
Kiviat, B. (2005). “The Magic Number.” Time-CNN. [On-line]. Available
at www.time.com/time/magazine/
article/0,9171,1022591,00.htm. (Retrieved April 29, 2008).
Mazerolle, L., D. Rogan, J. Frank, C. Famega, & J. E. Eck. (2003).
“Managing Citizen Calls to the Police: An Assessment of Non-
Emergency Call Systems.” U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice. [On-line]. Available at
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/206256.pdf. (Retrieved May
10, 2005.)
Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information
Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE MUNICIPAL 311 SYSTEM 235
Peterson, S. (November 2006). “Phone Banks.” Government
Technology. [On-line]. Available at www.govtech.com/gt/articles/
102125. (Retrieved April 28, 2008).
Solomon, S.E., & Uchida, C.D. (2003). “Building a 3-1-1 System for
Non-Emergency Calls: A Process and Impact Evaluation.” [On-
line]. Available at www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/
Publications/buildinga311systemaustinevaluation.pdf. (Retrieved
April 20, 2007).
U.S. Department of Justice (2006). “COPS Fact Sheet: 311 for Non-
Emergencies.” Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
[On-line]. Available at www.cops.usdoj.gov/
files/ric/Publications/e01060007.pdf. (Retrieved April 20, 2007).
Welsh, W. (2001). “Integrators Answer the Call for 311 Services.”
Washington Technology. 16(13). [On-line]. Available at
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/print/16_13/17185-
1.html?topic=state. (Retrieved April 29, 2008).
West, D.M. (2004). “E-government and the Transformation of Service
Delivery and Citizen Attitudes.” Public Administration Review, 64
(1):15-27.
APPENDIX A
Survey Framework
Usability
1-3. Transfers and Tracking Calls
4. Wait time
5. Hours of operation
6. Automation
7-9. Language
10. Citizen tracking
Service
11. Animal Matters
12. Children and Youth Services
13. Community Services
14. Educational Issues
15. Emergency Issues
16. Health Issues
17. Housing Services
18. Legal Issues
19. Motor Vehicle/ Transportation
Issues
20. Recreation and Park Issues
21. Permit Information
22. Public Safety Issues
23. Sanitation Issues
24. Senior Citizen Issues
25. Street Repair Services
26. Utility Issues
27. Visitor Information
28. Employment Information

236 SCHWESTER, CARRIZALES & HOLZER
APPENDIX A (Continued)
Operations
29-30. Call Routing
31. Database
32. Internet
33. Training
34. Walk-in
35. Driving requests
36. Service measures
37. Telephony tracking
38. GIS Systems
System Measures
39. Wait time measure
40. IVR load
41. Calls per agent
42-43. Feedback
44. “Intelligent” data capture
45. Security/privacy
46. Shared service