A Black woman hesitates before calling 911 during a medical emergency, weighing the risk that police will arrive with the ambulance, that officers might misread the situation, that calling for help could create danger it was meant to prevent - and her hesitation, measured in minutes, reflects generations of experience that the emergency system does not equally serve everyone. An immigrant family with limited English struggles to communicate with a 911 dispatcher, the language barrier turning urgent into frantic, the system designed around English speakers failing those who speak other languages. A resident of a poor neighbourhood waits twice as long for ambulance arrival as a resident of a wealthy one would wait for the same emergency, the geography of response times mapping onto the geography of inequality. A caller reports a wellness check on a neighbour and police arrive and kill the person they were sent to check on, the emergency system transforming request for help into lethal encounter. A deaf person unable to use voice calls relies on text-to-911 services that are inconsistently available, the emergency system built around hearing communication failing those who communicate differently. The 911 system represents the promise that help is a phone call away. For some people, that promise is kept. For others, calling 911 brings help that harms, arrives too late, cannot be accessed, or never comes at all.
The Case for 911 Reform
Advocates for reforming emergency services argue that the current system fails many communities, that disparities in response are unjust, and that fundamental redesign is needed.
Response disparities are documented and unjust. Studies show longer response times in poor neighbourhoods and communities of colour. Some communities receive less service for the same taxes. Disparities in emergency response are disparities in access to survival.
Police-centric response fails some calls. When 911 dispatches police to mental health crises, homelessness, or other non-criminal situations, outcomes are often poor. Callers who need help may receive enforcement. Creating non-police response options would improve outcomes for calls that do not require armed response.
The system was not designed for everyone. 911 was built around voice calls, English speakers, and assumptions that calling police brings help. Communities with different languages, different communication needs, and different experiences with police need different access and different response.
From this perspective, reform requires: investment in equitable response times; development of non-police response options; language access and accessibility improvements; and accountability for disparities.
The Case for System Improvement
Others argue that 911 works well for most calls, that disparities should be addressed within existing structures, and that fundamental redesign risks unintended consequences.
911 saves lives daily. Millions of calls are answered, routed, and responded to effectively. The system is imperfect but functional. Criticism should not obscure what works. Reform should preserve system strengths while addressing weaknesses.
Disparities have multiple causes. Response time differences may reflect traffic, geography, hospital locations, and resource levels rather than discrimination. Addressing disparities requires understanding causes, which may require resource investment more than system redesign.
Alternative response is unproven at scale. Pilot programs for non-police response show promise but have not been tested at scale in high-volume systems. Diverting calls to untested alternatives creates risk. Expansion should be gradual and evidence-based.
From this perspective, improvement should: invest in under-resourced areas; add options within existing structures; improve dispatcher training; and pilot alternatives before scaling.
The Trust Question
Some communities do not trust 911 to bring help.
From one view, distrust is earned. Communities that have experienced police violence, immigration enforcement, and criminalizing response to their calls reasonably fear calling 911. Building trust requires changing what happens when they call - different responders, different outcomes, demonstrated accountability.
From another view, distrust endangers people who need help. When people do not call 911 during emergencies because they fear response, they may die from problems that would have been treatable. Encouraging calls while working on systemic issues saves lives in the meantime.
How trust is understood shapes whether to focus on changing systems or changing perceptions.
The Alternatives Question
What should exist alongside or instead of 911?
From one perspective, community-based crisis lines, non-police mobile response, and peer support networks can handle calls that 911 handles poorly. When someone needs a mental health crisis team rather than police, there should be a number to call that brings that team. Alternatives give communities choices about response.
From another perspective, multiple emergency numbers create confusion. In crisis, people need one number to call. Alternatives should connect through 911 dispatch rather than competing with it. Integration improves access; fragmentation complicates it.
Whether alternatives supplement or replace 911 shapes system design.
The Funding Question
Equitable response requires equitable resources.
From one view, response times reflect resource allocation. Under-resourced areas have fewer ambulances, longer distances, and less capacity. Equalizing response requires equalizing resources - more stations, more vehicles, more personnel in underserved areas. Equity costs money.
From another view, simply adding resources to current systems may not address root problems. If the system is designed wrong, more of the same will not fix it. Resources should follow redesign rather than reinforce flawed structures.
Whether to resource existing systems or redesign them shapes investment strategy.
The Question
When calling 911 brings danger instead of help, what has the emergency system become? When some neighbourhoods wait twice as long for ambulances, what does equal protection actually mean? When language barriers turn emergencies lethal, who bears responsibility for a system that excludes? If communities do not trust 911, is the solution changing communities' perceptions or changing what 911 delivers? What would an emergency system designed to serve everyone look like? And when the people who need help most are least likely to receive it, is 911 an emergency system or a system that treats emergencies unequally?