The January EMS report shows an average emergency response time of 5 minutes 28 seconds. That headline number sounds reassuring. But the contract does not measure performance by average.
It requires that 90% of Priority 1 emergency calls arrive within 6 minutes, measured from the time the call is dispatched.
January did not meet that requirement. Not close.
📊 The Benchmark Was Missed
In January:
- Total Priority 1 emergency calls: 395
- Calls exceeding 6 minutes: 116
- That’s 29.4% of emergency calls
- Those calls averaged 8 minutes 49 seconds
Nearly 1 in 3 emergency calls averaged almost 9 minutes. The contract allows only 10% of calls to exceed 6 minutes. January compliance was approximately 70.6%, not 90%.
That is not a minor variance. That is a 19-point gap.
It Wasn’t Just Emergency Calls
The report also indicates that the contractor did not meet certain non-emergency response time requirements under the agreement. In other words: Both emergency and non-emergency benchmarks were missed.
When performance standards in a public safety contract are not being met across categories, that is not a statistical anomaly. It is an oversight issue.
⏳ Why Did It Take 23 Days, a News Story, and a FOIA?
The public did not receive this information proactively. It took:
- 23 days
- A formal FOIA request
- And ultimately a news story
before the data was made available. That should concern every resident. Public safety performance metrics should not require investigative pressure to surface. They should be published routinely, clearly, and prominently. Instead, the report was buried inside an agenda packet on the City’s website.
When contractual benchmarks are being missed, transparency should increase, not shrink.
📂 We Still Do Not Have the Raw Data
Even now, the raw dispatch timestamps have not been released. Without raw data, the public cannot independently verify:
- Dispatch times
- Arrival times
- Call classifications
- Exclusions
- Adjustments
- True compliance percentages
Summary charts are not transparency. Transparency is raw, verifiable data. If performance meets the benchmark, the data will show it. If it does not, the public deserves to know that as well.
👩⚕️ This Is Not About Blaming EMTs or Paramedics
Let’s be absolutely clear: This is not a criticism of frontline EMTs or paramedics. They operate within:
- The staffing model
- The dispatch structure
- The deployment strategy
- The compensation framework
- The operational systems
set by the contractor.
They can only work within the system they are given. The contract is with the company. Accountability attaches to the contractor. Oversight attaches to the City. Holding a contractor to its agreed-upon benchmarks is not an attack on first responders. It is basic governance.
🔎 Addressing the “Explanations”
Some have suggested:
- Call transfer delays
- “Learning the city”
- Staffing issues
None of these change the contractual standard. The 6-minute clock starts at dispatch, not when the resident dials 911. Modern EMS relies on GPS and computer-aided routing, not memorized maps. And staffing stability is part of contractor responsibility. Explanations do not erase benchmarks. The requirement remains: 90% under 6 minutes.
🏛 A Pattern of Transparency Concerns
This situation does not exist in isolation. Some members of City Council previously voted to keep the Kishnick report confidential. When oversight reports are shielded from public view, trust erodes. When EMS performance data requires FOIA requests and media coverage to be released, it reinforces that erosion. Public safety is not a political talking point. It is a core municipal responsibility. And transparency should be the default, not the exception.
🎯 The Real Question
The question is not whether the average sounds good. The question is:
Are contractual performance standards being met?
In January:
Emergency benchmark: Missed.
Non-emergency benchmarks: Also not fully met.
Raw data: Still not released.
Reporting delay: 23 days, plus FOIA and media pressure.
That is not how a high-functioning oversight system should operate. When someone calls 911, they should not be part of the 29.4%. They should be part of the 90%.
