Berkeley City Council
April 21, 2022

12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
There are no direct environmental impacts as a result of adopting the working group’s recommendations.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

$50,000 to hire a consultant to develop an implementation plan. Additional costs include staff time to implement the recommendations and provide updates.

CONTACT PERSON
Jesse Arreguín, Mayor, (510) 981-7100

Attachments:

1. The Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing Policy Proposals

2. Cover Letter, Members of Fair and Impartial Working Group, December 17 2020

3. Dissent Letter “Dissenting Opinion on the Accountability Mechanism” by Nathan Mizell, Perfecta Oxholm, Héctor Malvido, and Jim Chanin, December 23, 2020

4. Center for Policing Equity Report,

5. PRC Report

6. “Racial Disparities in Berkeley Policing, Explanation of Statistical Methodology”, January 30, 2020 George Lippman

7. “Key Points - BPD Stop Data”, December 6, 2019, George Lippman

8. “Racial Disparities in Berkeley Policing, Update on Pandemic Period, March 15 to June 12, 2020” George Lippman, June 19, 2020

9. “Berkeley Protest Curfew Resulted in More Racialized Policing, BPD Stop Disparities: May 31 through June 2, 2020” George Lippman, July 4, 2020

10. Spreadsheet of Outstanding Referrals, January 24, 2020

11. Berkeley Police Department Stop Data March 15- June 2020

12. Berkeley Police Department Stop Data March 15--June 12, Pt. 2

DRAFT
1 The Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing Policy Proposals

Developing and implementing reforms that will effectively reduce existing racial disparities requires changes at several levels. The following recommendations include setting new policy, updating institutional structures, and mandating individual accountability. Their implementation and ongoing effectiveness require supportive leadership, transparency and police accountability.

Executive Summary. Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing (hereafter, “the working group”) focused on reducing racial disparities in stops and searches and improving community relationships damaged by the racially disparate practices in stops and searches.

This report advances the following recommendations for BPD practices:
● Focus on public safety and eliminate stops for low-level offenses not directly impacting public safety.
● Use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria.
● Institute annual implicit bias training and scenario-based training for California Penal Code 13519.4, prohibiting racial or identity profiling. ● Establish a truly effective Early Intervention System and risk management process to ensure department accountability and identify officers who are outliers in stops, searches, dispositions, and outcomes.
● Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), probation, or parole. ● Require written consent for consent searches.
● Include evaluations of cultural competence in hiring and promotion, and fire officers who have expressed racist attitudes and/or are identified as members of racist groups.

The report also advances these recommendations for the Berkeley City Council and/or the City of Berkeley:
● Hire a consultant to create a plan for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of these recommendations.
● Ensure the creation of a Specialized Care Unit with crisis-response field workers, as included in the recent contract for a community-process to establish an SCU. ● Ensure a robust community engagement process, including annual surveys and community forums
● Require quarterly analysis of stop, search, and use of force data by City Auditor and/or the PRC.
● Adopt and carry out the compliance and accountability system outlined in this document.

DRAFT
2 Proposed Actions
Table 1 provides a proposed action for each recommendation in the body and appendices of this draft report.

Action Recommendations

Direct the City
Manager to
implement key
recommendations,
with at minimum,
quarterly progress
reports to the PAB
and/or the Working
Group
• Focus traffic stops on safety
• Use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects • Use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria
• Eliminate stops for low-level offenses
• Implement an Early Intervention System (EIS) and a risk-management structure • Immediately release stop, arrest, calls for service and use of force data from 2012 to present to the Working Group
• Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), probation, or parole • Require written consent for all consent searches
• Address Profiling by Proxy (PAB Policy Development, Dispatcher Training) • Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens • Address Profiling by Proxy (Council develop & pass CAREN policy) • Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data • Make resources on police-civilian encounters more publicly available such as RAHEEM.org
• Adopt Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms
a. Hire consultant to develop implementation plan
• For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with info on a website similar to RAHEEM and info on complain process with PAB

Refer to be
included in the
process to
reimagine public
safety
• The City should create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized and includes a basic report card and quarterly neighborhood check-ins
• Conduct a baseline community survey.

Refer to the Police
Accountability
Board
• Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer tr aining required by California Penal Code 13519.4
• Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police • Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity

Follow-up with PAB
and/or Fair and
Impartial Working
Group
• Evaluate the impact of these proposals on racial disparities in stops and searches, using regular updates to stop and search data
• Conduct a regular community survey and annual community forums on Police and Public Safety

Recommendations
already underway
• Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises • Conduct a Capacity Study of police calls and responses and use of officer time outside of case work
Outstanding -
No Action
Recommended
• Include community member participation and feedback in the hiring process • Include the following for Performance Appraisal Reports

DRAFT
3 Reducing Disparities in Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Stops & Searches:

1. Focus traffic stops on safety
According to Dr. Frank Baumgartner’s 2018 book, Suspect Citizens, “Safety stops are those aimed at enforcing the rules of the road to decrease the likelihood of an accident” (pg. 191). The types of stops falling into this traffic safety category may include:
● Excessive speeding1
● Running a stop sign or stop light
● Unsafe movement
● Driving while intoxicated

2. Use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects Dr. Baumgartner’s analysis2reveals that “investigatory stops” (stops that use a minor infraction as a pretext for investigating rather than to prevent or reduce dangerous behavior pgs. 53-55) allow for the most officer discretion and open the possibility of implicit bias or “reliance on cultural heuristics” (pg. 191). Based on analyses of more than 9 million stops, Baumgartner’s team found that 47% were investigatory and that they added substantially to the racial disparity statistics. Thus, investigatory stops and stops of criminal suspects shall be restricted to those made because the person and/or vehicle fits a description in relation to a specific crime.34

Since the Oakland Police Department (OPD) has implemented evidence-based methods, the number of African American civilians stopped by the OPD has declined Since Oakland Police Department has implemented evidence-based methods, the number of African American civilians stopped has declined from 19,185 in 2017 to 7,346 in 2019, a drop of 62% and a stop disparity rate reduction of almost 60%,5 with no corresponding increase in crime (Captain Chris Bolton presentation, 7/15/2020).

3. Use race and ethnicity as relevant factors when determining law enforcement action only when provided as part of a description of a crime and suspect that is credible and relevant to the locality and timeframe of the crime and only in combination with other specific descriptive and physical characteristics. 6,7
Specific descriptive and physical characteristics may include, for example: the gender, age, height, weight, clothing, tattoos and piercings of the suspect, the make and model of the car, and the time and location of the crime. Simple race and ethnicity alone are not

1 https://www.idrivesafely.com/dmv/california/laws/traffic-tickets-and-violations/, https://www.martenslawfirm.com/blog/2015/november/what-is-excessive-speeding-/ 2 Suspect Citizens, pp. 190-192
3 Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). Strategies for change: Research initiatives and recommendations to improve police- community relations in Oakland, Calif. Stanford University 4 This definition was created by Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt in collaboration with the Oakland Police Department. 5 This is the percentage of African American stops within all discretionary non-intel led stops made by Police Area 2 officers fell from 76% in September 2017 to 31% in September 2018 6 Southern Poverty Law Center, 10 Best Practices for Writing Policies Against Racial Profiling 7 CA Penal Code

DRAFT
4 satisfactory as bases for reasonable suspicion under the law, and amount to racial profiling.

4. Eliminate stops for low-level offenses
According to the presentation to the Working Group by Captain Bolton of the OPD, Oakland significantly reduced stops for these low-level, non-public safety related offenses, resulting in a reduction in the number of African Americans being stopped and a reduced stop-disparity rate, with no effect on crime rates (homicides and injury shootings went down during the same period). There is often overlap between “investigatory stops” and “stops for low-level offenses,” as the latter may be used as a pretext for investigation. The types of stops falling into these categories may include:
● Equipment violations
● Not wearing a seat belt
● Improper use of high beams
● Violating a regulation (e.g. expired license tags)
● Stop purposes recorded as “other”

5. Implement an Early Intervention System (EIS) and a risk-management structure These measures to ensure individual accountability have operated successfully in Oakland and many other localities for some time. They involve identifying officer outliers in stops, searches, and use of force and their outcomes and examining the reasons for racial disparities. Existing software programs to assist BPD in implementing an EIS could be utilized or BPD can build its own system.

These programs operate to identify officers who are a danger either to themselves or to the public. They are referred to as “risk management” systems because they help limit the financial liability of the City and hence its taxpayers. They may address a broad range of concerns, but in this document, we only consider their use with regard to racial disparities. Elements of this process include the following steps:
a. Evaluate and assess stop incidents for legality and enforcement yield. b. Analyze data to determine whether racial disparities are generalized across the force or are concentrated in a smaller subset of outlier officers or squads/groups of officers. To the extent that the problem is generalized across the department, supervisors as well as line officers should be re-trained and monitored, and department recruitment, training, and structure should be reviewed. In addition, department policy should be examined for their impacts. c. Where disparities are concentrated in an individual or a group of officers, with no race-neutral legitimate evidence for this behavior in specific cases, initiate an investigation to determine the cause for the disparity. Evaluate whether there are identifiable causes contributing to racially disparate stop rates and high or low rates of resulting enforcement actions exhibited by outlying officers. Determine and address any trends and patterns among officers with disparate stop rates. In the risk management process, the responsible personnel in the chain of

DRAFT
5 command reviews and discusses the available information about the subject officer and the officer’s current behavior.
d. Absent a satisfactory explanation for racially disparate behavior, monitor the officer.. Options for the supervisor in these cases include reviewing additional body-worn camera footage, supervisor ride-alongs, and other forms of monitoring. Further escalation to intervention, if necessary, may include a higher form of supervision, with even closer oversight. If performance fails to improve, command should consider other options including breaking up departmental units, transfer of officers to other responsibilities, etc. The goal of this process is to achieve trust and better community relations between the department as a whole and all the people in Berkeley. Formal discipline is always a last resort unless there are violations of Department General Orders, in which case this becomes an IAB matter.
e. Identify officers who may have problems affecting their ability to make appropriate judgments, and monitor and reduce time pressures, stress and fatigue on officers.
f. An outside observer from the PRC shall sit in on the risk management and/or EIS program. Reports from these meetings, or other accurate statistical summary, can be given to the commission without identifying any officers' names. g. Report the results of this data analysis quarterly.

6. Immediately release the following data to the Working Group:
a. All data given to the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) - This data includes:
i. Calls for Service (January 1, 2012 - December 2016)
ii. Use of Force Data (January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2016) iii. Crime Report Data (January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2016) b. STOP DATA - this data shall include information on “call type,” similar to the data used by the Center for Policing Equity. The timeframe would be January 1, 2012 to present.
c. USE OF FORCE DATA - This data was used in the analysis presented in the CPE report. Along with the CPE data, it would be helpful to have more recent Use of Force data. The timeframe would be January 1, 2012 to present. d. DEIDENTIFIED STOP & ARREST DATA - To determine if there are any problematic patterns among certain officers, or perhaps pairs of officers, data that we can be attached to anonymized individuals. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present.
e. ADDITIONAL ARREST DATA - Currently, the Open Data Portal posts arrest data from January 1, 2015. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present day.
f. ADDITIONAL CALLS FOR SERVICE - Currently, Calls for Service data are posted for the last 180 days. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present.

DRAFT
6 7. Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status, including probation, Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), and parole, absent evidence of imminent danger
California is one of a handful of states that allow high-discretion, suspicionless searches of probationers and parolees. The following was passed by the Police Review Commission on 9/23/2020 and the Working Group endorses this approach:

“In accordance with California law, individuals on probation, parole, Post Release Community Supervision, or other supervised release status may be subject to warrantless search as a condition of their probation. Officers shall only conduct probation or parole searches to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

Searches shall not be conducted in an arbitrary, capricious, or harassing fashion.

However, under Berkeley policy, officers shall not detain and search a person on probation or parole solely because the officer is aware of that person’s probation or parole status.

The decision to detain a person and conduct a probation or parole search, or otherwise enforce probation or parole conditions, should be made, at a minimum, in connection with articulable facts that create a reasonable suspicion that a person may have committed a crime, be committing a crime, or be about to commit a crime.”

8. Require written consent for all consent searches
Baumgartner (pp. 195-209) and his team found that in cities requiring written consent to perform a consent search, these searches declined by 75%. Since people of color are disproportionately the subjects of these searches, it makes sense that a significant reduction would lead to fewer consent searches for people of color.

Examining three cities in North Carolina, Baumgartner found that in cities where there was resistance by leadership to the new written-consent policy, there was a substitution effect, such that as consent searches went down, probable cause searches went up. However, the substitution effect seemed to be directly correlated with leadership priorities. The chapter concludes, “We showed that a combination of leadership directives and simple initiatives can alter the relationship a department can have with their community” (pg. 213). This speaks to the need for clear buy-in from BPD leadership. The Working Group recommends that the BPD adopt the written consent form used in North Carolina, a copy of which can be found here .

9. For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with the following information on the back
a) A website similar to RAHEEM that collects information on police-civilian encounters.8
b) Contact information for filing a complaint with the PRC or its successor, the Police Accountability Board.

8 https://www.raheem.ai/en/

DRAFT
7 10. Address Profiling by Proxy9
Police should not be dispatched to calls that are motivated by caller bias or malintent, e.g., a claim that someone is suspicious with no corroborating reason. 10 These types of
calls harm police-community relationships and undermine the authority of the police. To protect against profiling by proxy the police department shall:
a. work with PRC and other appropriate agencies to formulate a policy that defines and remedies profiling by proxy.
b. enhance Dispatcher training to evaluate calls and add implicit bias training for 911 Dispatch.

An article on profiling by proxy by the Vera Institute of Justice recommends including 911 Dispatch in implicit bias training as a method for reducing issues with profiling by proxy. Anti-bias training will also help Dispatchers become aware of their own biases.

For example, when they receive calls about behavior the complainant may dislike but is not illegal—e.g., “too many” black teenagers in the public park.11

Hiring & Evaluation
The successful hiring and evaluation of police officers is an important part of creating a healthy and high-functioning police department. The types of people the department hires, and the effective evaluation of police officers are important in determining police department culture.

Researchers on policing have repeatedly found that organizational culture is the single most important determinant of officer behavior.12 Human Resource Management research supports including the evaluation for cultural competency as important in improving agencies. The key components for a high degree of cultural competency are: awareness, attitude, knowledge, skills.

11. Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens A third-party agency, hired by the City of Berkeley, or agency outside the police department should screen police officers and potential new hires’ social media accounts for racist or violent comments, affiliations to racist groups whether public or private, including private groups expressing racist or violent rhetoric.
a. BPD shall immediately fire all identified officers who have engaged in racist or violent actions or commentary online.
b. A social media screen of officer online conduct shall be done annually.

9 Profiling by proxy may occur “when an individual calls the police and makes false or ill-informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against—e.g., ethnic and religious minorities, youth, homeless people” (retrieved from The Vera Institute of Justice). 10 Captain Bolton of the Oakland Police Department made improvements on profiling by proxy using an approach that educated citizens on focusing on criminal behavior instead of suspicion when calling police. 11 “Avoiding 'profiling by proxy',”Vera Institute of Justice, March 13, 2015, https://www.vera.org/blog/police- perspectives/avoiding-profiling-by-proxy
12 Organizational Culture and Police Misconduct

DRAFT
8 Recommendations for Council
Community Engagement and Feedback - When the City of Berkeley pledged to consider reducing funding for the police department by 50%, it also committed itself to shifting to new and alternative methods of community safety. To effectively understand and implement new and alternative safety practices and services, the City of Berkeley must look to its residents for ongoing insight and feedback. The City must collect and utilize regular community feedback to inform the city on community investment priorities including police department policies and practices and future direction. To that end:

12. Address Profiling by Proxy13
To protect against profiling by proxy City Council should:
a. Introduce profiling by proxy legislation similar to CAREN Act in SF, which would hold residents accountable for using police in a biased manner. b. Issue a quarterly review of data from 911 Dispatch, for the PRC or City Auditor to help understand the extent of calls from community members presenting ‘biased’ suspicions.”

13. Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data The City Auditor and/or PRC shall update the analysis of BPD data completed by the Center for Policing Equity and the PRC and publish the results on the BPD website every quarter. This report shall include stop, search, and use of force analysis.

Ensuring Timely and Effective Implementation:

Since the fall of 2017, the police department has received 37 separate policy or legislative directives to address the racially disparate treatment of City of Berkeley residents. Those directives are the result of extensive and on-going racial disparities in police department stops, searches, and use of force. As of the drafting of this report, at least 30 of those directives remain outstanding with no plan for implementation.

We respectfully recognize that the role of the Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing is to advise the Berkeley City Council and staff. We recognize that we are not in a position to make final decisions; rather, our role is to offer advice and recommendations to the Council. The Mayor’s Working Group is committed to ensuring that the policy recommendations outlined in this proposal are not added to the long list of unaccomplished directives. Therefore, we have included an accountability system with our policy proposal. This accountability system

13 When an individual calls the police and makes false or ill-informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against—e.g., ethnic and religious minorities, youth, homeless people; retrieved from The Vera Institute of Justice

DRAFT
9 will ensure that the changes necessary to establish fair and impartial policing and rebuild public trust occur.

Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms:

A. Working in partnership with the Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing and within six months from approval of the proposal (extended for good cause), the City Manager hires an experienced consultant to help draft an implementation plan that includes a timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the working group’s policy proposal.
i. If a consultant is not hired within six months from approval of the proposal, the Council should move to item “E” below.
ii. If a consultant is not hired within six months (extended for good cause), the working group should remain formally organized by the Mayor until a consultant is hired and a plan is approved.

B. The Working Group, Police Chief, and the consultant will create an implementation plan that includes a timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the Working Group’s policy proposal. Long-term monitoring and assessments will be the responsibility of the police oversight body (the PRC or its successor the Police Accountability Board).

C. The implementation plan will be presented to the Berkeley City Council for approval.

Once the plan is approved by the City Council, the consultant’s work is finished. Long- term monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of the police oversight body (the PRC or its successor the Police Accountability Board).

D. The City Manager and the Berkeley Police Chief should do everything within their power to implement the items outlined in the plan and timeline set forth and approved by City Council.

E. The City Council should set the implementation of this plan as a priority in the annual evaluation of the city manager.

F. If the City Manager does not ensure that the Police Department implements the plan in accordance with the timeline, the City Manager should be held accountable. i. In the event of a new Berkeley Police Department Chief: the Mayor’s Working Group, on Fair and Impartial Policing, the new Police Chief and the City Manager shall meet and agree upon an updated timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the plan approved by City Council. ii. In the event of a new City Manager: the Working Group, the Berkeley Police Chief, and the new City Manager shall meet and agree upon an updated timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the plan approved by City Council.

If these recommendations are adopted and implemented promptly, we expect that the disparate stop data can show significant improvement in the near future. We expect the City Manager and the Police Chief to implement these programs with enthusiasm and dedication, as they reflect the constitutional imperative of equal protection under the law.

DRAFT
10

DRAFT
11 Appendix A: Additional Recommendations

The following recommendations are also supported by the working group, which suggests referring them to the reimagining process and/or follow-up with the Police Accountability Board and the Fair and Impartial working group.

See table 1 for recommended actions.

14. Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training required by California Penal Code 13519.4
a. The training must include specific, relevant examples of prohibited actions and how to conduct law enforcement activities in an unbiased manner.14 b. MILO and VIRTRA are two such scenario-based training programs15 c. An independent observer shall review the training and report back to the PRC or its successor on the quality of the training.

15. Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police There is scant scientific evidence that implicit bias training works to change implicit biases over the long-term. However, agency-wide, enhanced, and well-executed training that occurs on a regular basis could have a positive effect on the cultural environment of the police department and on expectations for behavior. Regular, required implicit bias training provides an expression of institutional support for fairness, which is important in improving relationships across groups
16and improving agency culture.
a. Officers should receive intensive anti-racism and implicit bias training as part of their core instruction in the first 90 days of employment, and an annual ‘refresher’ course.
b. An independent observer shall attend the training and report back to the PRC on the quality of the training.

16. Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity
a) Require 40 hours of CIT training in the first year of employment. b) Collect data on CIT calls to allow BPD to make informed decisions about staffing and deployment so that a CIT officer is available for all shifts in all districts to respond to every CIT call.
c) Develop a CIT reporting system so that each deployment of a CIT officer is well documented. CIT officers should submit narrative reports of their interactions with persons in crisis so the appropriateness of the response can be evaluated in an after- action analysis.
d) Implement an assessment program to evaluate the efficacy of the CIT program as a whole and the performance of individual CIT officers. A portion of a CIT officer’s performance review should address skill and effectiveness in CIT situations.

14 CA Penal Code
15 MILO in an Oakland setting
16 Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice.

DRAFT
12 17. The City of Berkeley should conduct annual community forums on Police and Public Safety:
a. Identifying community-based leaders and impacted individuals for control of the envisioning process.
b. Placing the process under the Office of the Mayor, not the City Manager. Upon establishment of the Police Accountability Board, place the process under the auspices of the Police Accountability Board.
c. Including the creation of community-based measures of safety as part of the first round of the envisioning process.17
d. Once community-based measures of safety are created, including these measures in the annual community survey (see item 17) and publishing the data as per item 17b.

18. The City of Berkeley should conduct an annual community survey.

Sample surveys include the Milwaukee survey and the Dallas survey. a. Data collected should be shared publicly via the City of Berkeley website or an online community dashboard.

19. The City should create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized and includes:
a. A basic “Report Card,” in collaboration with the PRC or its successor the Police Accountability Board, based on community feedback for each reform. This will enable the Department to take the ‘community’s temperature’ on how the implementation of the reforms are being perceived by the public. b. Quarterly neighborhood ‘check ins’ for relationship building .

20. Conduct a Capacity Study
a. Release data including but not limited to 911 dispatch calls, BPD stops and interventions, written reports, and body-worn camera footage to the City Auditor and/or PRC for analysis.18
b. Conduct an audit on officer down time to determine the percentage of police time spent outside of responding to calls for service and how police officers spend this time. Share this information with the City Auditor and/or PRC for analysis for use in the capacity study.
c. Conduct an audit of police overtime to determine the factors that contribute to the use of overtime .

17 This process should follow or be modeled after the Everyday Peace Indicators process 18 This study could be time-limited and would not have to be a comprehensive analysis of internal data; a random sample done correctly would suffice to determine how best to restructure the response to a variety of problematic situations.

DRAFT
13 d. Identify what percentage of calls for service require a unique police response and what percentage of calls could be better served by an alternative response with the goal to focus police response on issues that can best be responded to by police officers.
e. These data can also assist in identifying calls suspected of profiling by proxy.

21. Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises Fully fund and implement the specialized care unit as swiftly as possible in order to remove mental health and homeless encounters from the responsibility of BPD.

Research has found that individuals with mental illness are at a higher risk of police stops, use of force,
19 and a fatal police encounter.20 These disparities increase for Black and Latinx individuals. Specialized mental health crisis units are a safer option for those experiencing a mental health crisis than a police response and a more cost-effective use of public resources.21 The Council’s July 14, 2020 decision to create a Specialized Care Unit will better serve people in Berkeley experiencing a mental health crisis. The Working Group supports transitioning away from police as first responders to 911 calls related to mental health and towards trained, unarmed mental health first responders.

The Berkeley Community Safety Coalition in collaboration with Councilmember Bartlett are developing a proposal related to a pilot program transitioning away from sworn police as first responders to professional mental health first responders. The Working Group supports this effort.

22. Make resources on police-civilian encounters more publicly available, including:
a. A website similar to RAHEEM that collects information on police-civilian encounters.22
b. Contact information for filing a complaint with the PRC or its successor.

23. Evaluate the impact of these proposals on racial disparities in stops and searches, using regular updates to stop and search data

19 Mental Illness, Police Use of Force, and Citizen Injury 20 Deaths of people with mental illness during interactions with law enforcement 21 CAHOOTS Media Guide, 2020
22 https://www.raheem.ai/en/

DRAFT
14 Appendix B: No Action Recommended
The following recommendations were proposed and discussed at the working group but no action is recommended by the Council.

1. Include community member participation and feedback in the hiring process For all potential sworn officer hires interviewed by BPD, Berkeley residents should be included in the hiring process. For example, citizens of Berkeley should be allowed, in an equitable manner, to participate in Berkeley Police Department orals boards for prospective police officers or some comparable interview process.

2. Include the following for Performance Appraisal Reports As the current Performance Appraisal Reports General Order P-28 requires, objectives of the report are to provide for fair and impartial personnel decisions, and to provide an objective and fair method for the measurement and recognition of individual performance according to prescribed guidelines.
23 a. Officers should exhibit cultural competency and anti-racist conduct, and that should be included in their City of Berkeley Performance Appraisal Report (Police Sworn-Operations Division Personnel
24)
b. Add to standards 1 and 2 of the Performance Appraisal Report as follows:
i. Provides excellent customer service and represents the Department well as a culturally competent and anti-racist officer ii. Is respectful of both the people they serve and the people they serve with, in a culturally competent and anti-racist manner iii.

All officers should aspire for an “Above Average” “Exceeds Expectations” or “Exemplary Performance” mark each year with “Meets Minimum Standards” as the basic floor (with expected increase in performance level in subsequent years)

3. Include community and peer input into the annual review of sworn police officers.

For all BPD sworn officers, Berkeley residents should be included in the annual review process. For example, citizens of Berkeley should be allowed, in an equitable manner, to provide feedback into the annual review of Berkeley police officers.

23 Previous language “a. An amendment to General Order P-28 would add a reference to 'cultural competency' and reassurances by the community that the officers are evaluated on their conduct in relationship to a person's gender, race, ethnicity, religion or gender identity/orientation. B. Performance Evaluation, Section B, page 2; #1 and #2 include language of cultural competency “
24 on p. 2 of 8 under Section “B” “Professionalism.”

DRAFT
15 Appendix C – Incorporation of BPD Feedback

Please note: quoted text in this section references written feedback on the working group draft proposal provided by Chief Greenwood of the Berkeley Police Department.

Focus traffic stops on safety.

The BPD are in agreement with this item. In July 2020, representatives from BPD (Officer Matthew Ye and Arlo Malmberg) presented a “problem-oriented policing” strategy to the working group. Further, Captain Bolton of the Oakland Police Department presented an intelligence-led policing strategy to the working group. According to Captain Bolton, OPD was able to significantly reduce stops for low-level and non-public safety related offenses using an intelligence-led policing strategy, resulting in a 70% reduction in the number of African Americans being stopped with no effect on crime rates. BPD stated they plan to “establish a formal strategy focusing officers’ discretionary stops on intelligence-based and traffic safety stops.”

Additional updates include: the sample list of stops falling into the category of unsafe driving behavior was updated based on BPD feedback; the working group deleted a reference made to “misdemeanor” stops as BPD pointed out that most traffic violations are “infractions” and not misdemeanors.

Use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects.

BPD stated they plan to establish a formal strategy focusing officers’ discretionary stops on intelligence-based stops. Chief Greenwood stated that an “intelligence based stop strategy aligns with [use of a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects].”

The BPD strategy as described focuses on general “intelligence” related to crime patterns. The BPD strategy does not respond to specific descriptions of perpetrators, nor is it clear what types of intelligence BPD would be using for stops of criminal suspects. An intelligence-based stop strategy can and should be implemented in concurrence with the items outlined in the working group’s proposal. However, the working group is not convinced by Chief Greenwood’s response that the BPD strategy will effectively address this item. The Working Group is recommending a shift in stop policy to address issues with racial disparities in stops. The BPD response as well as the strategy they have offered has not provided evidence there will be any shift from the status quo.

Use race and ethnicity as relevant factors when determining law enforcement action only when provided as part of a description of a crime and suspect that is credible and

DRAFT
16 relevant to the locality and timeframe of the crime and only in combination with other specific descriptive and physical characteristics.

BPD stated “overall agreement” with this recommendation. BPD did not directly address the specific recommendation that race and ethnicity be used only in combination with other descriptive features of the individual or alleged offense. BPD wrote “[d]epending on circumstances, simple race and sex in a description can be sufficient for a terry [sic] stop.” It is the working group’s understanding that, absent other factors, race is insufficient to constitute the reasonable suspicion required for a Terry stop (i.e. detaining an individual based on reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, including the ability to handcuff and search the outer clothing of the individual detained). Furthermore, BPD’s feedback that “In a 1538 Motion to Suppress hearing, the court makes a determination if there [sic] factors associated with a detention are sufficient,” is inappropriate in this context. While the statement is factually accurate, the purpose of this recommendation is to establish a stop policy based on the Constitution, not to place the burden on civilians to go to court for relief.

Eliminate stops for low-level offenses
In response, BPD stated the plan to establish a formal strategy focusing officers’ discretionary stops on intelligence-based stops. Further, BPD stated, “We would support our Intelligence Based Stop Strategy through increasing our analysis capability, so that more information can be more efficiently provided to officers, Officers working in this manner would be more likely to have a higher yield even when making fewer stops, because of their focus on crime investigations.” It remains unclear to the working group how BPD plans to increase their analysis capacity or how that would impact racial disparities in stops.

In responses to items throughout the draft working group policy proposal, BPD referenced an early transition to the data collection methods required by the California Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). BPD announced an early transition to data collection methods in line with RIPA requirements at an October 2020 working group meeting. As of the writing of this report, data collected according to RIPA standards (hereafter “RIPA data”) has not been released on the BPD open data portal.

It is important to note: using the data currently available on the open data portal, a hit rate cannot be calculated. Hit rates are commonly used to measure the presence of racial bias in searches. A hit rate is calculated by dividing contraband found during a search (e.g. weapons, drugs, etc.) by the total numbers of searches, within racial categories (e.g. Black or white). The logic of the hit rate is straightforward: in the absence of discriminatory behavior, officers should find contraband on searched minorities at the same rate as on searched whites. A similar hit rate indicates a similar standard for searches is being used across different groups. If searches of racial minorities turn up contraband at lower rates than searches of whites, this suggests there is a double standard, where minorities are being stopped and searched on the basis of less evidence. BPD did not collect contraband information before the transition to RIPA.

Therefore, there was no way to calculate a true hit rate during the period the working group met.

Transitioning to RIPA will be helpful to determine racial bias in search decisions, but it does not

DRAFT
17 provide information on racial bias in stop decisions. Most importantly, the collection of RIPA data does not directly address or work to mitigate existing racial disparities.

In a previous draft, this item included a reference to BerkDOT, but we removed it after BPD pointed out that inclusion was an unnecessary addition.

We also deleted a recommendation that officers provide those they stop with a reason for the stop, since BPD feedback cited section 14 of the T-3 Traffic Enforcement policy which requires officers to provide “explanation of the circumstances giving rise to the enforcement contact.”

Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training required by California Penal Code 13519.4.

BPD responded that it “conducts all mandated training.” However, the working group item recommends including scenario-based training with relevant examples of what is prohibited, and includes an independent observer. This addition of specific scenario-based training is not currently mandated by the state, and it is this specific scenario-based training that the working group is recommending. This recommendation for specific scenario-based training comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, “10 Best Practices for Writing Policies Against Racial Profiling.”

Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police.

BPD agrees with the importance of implicit bias training and stated officers currently get implicit bias training while in training academy. BPD also cited budget constraints would limit the department’s ability to provide annual implicit bias training. The working group understands the constraints of budget cuts, but anticipates that some of the recommendations proposed here (e.g. eliminating stops for many low-level infractions) may free up resources for this important training that has the potential to trigger the kind of cultural shifts that are necessary.

This item also includes a policy recommendation that an independent observer attend the training and report back to the police oversight body (the PRC or its successor). Chief Greenwood stated he was open to the idea of an outside observer but had concerns that difficult conversations might be chilled by outside observers. The working group understands and appreciates these concerns.

Implement an Early Intervention System (EIS) and a risk-management structure.

Chief Greenwood's feedback expressed interest in this approach and in learning how the Oakland program works, stating “Open to learning about how Oakland does this work. Learning how the analysis works will help us understand the resources needed to do this work.” In response, a member of the working group put Chief Greenwood in touch with the OPD official in charge of that program. To date he has not taken advantage of that opportunity.

Further, BPD feedback references RIPA data, stating “With the collection of RIPA data, we will have richer data to examine. This will help us focus on data on stops, searches, and yields.” According to the National Police Foundation, in their report, Best Practices in Early Intervention

DRAFT
18 System Implementation and Use in Law Enforcement Agencies, an “early intervention system [EIS] is a personnel management tool designed to identify potential individual or group concerns at the earliest possible stage so that intervention and support can be offered in an effort to re- direct performance and behaviors toward organizational goals. The ideal purpose of an EIS is to provide officers with resources and tools in order to prevent disciplinary action, and to promote officer safety, satisfaction and wellness.”

The collection and analysis of RIPA data could be helpful to identify racial implications related to identified individual or group red flag behavior. However, the collection of RIPA data does not meet two core components of an EIS system: 1) identify potential individual or group red flag behavior (as early as possible), and 2) intervene to redirect performance and behaviors toward organizational goals. In short, the collection of RIPA data does nothing to address this item.

The working group considers this recommendation for an EIS and risk management system to be among its top priorities.

Immediately release the following data to the Working Group:

All data given to the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) - This data includes:
a. Calls for Service (January 1, 2012 - December 2016)
b. Use of Force Data (January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2016) c. Crime Report Data (January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2016) STOP DATA - this data shall include information on “call type,” similar to the data used by the Center for Policing Equity. The timeframe would be January 1, 2012 to present.

USE OF FORCE DATA - This data was used in the analysis presented in the CPE report. Along with the CPE data, it would be helpful to have more recent Use of Force data. The timeframe would be January 1, 2012 to present.

DEIDENTIFIED STOP & ARREST DATA - data that we can be attached to anonymized individuals. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present.

ADDITIONAL ARREST DATA - Currently, the Open Data Portal posts arrest data from January 1, 2015. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present day.

ADDITIONAL CALLS FOR SERVICE - Currently, Calls for Service data are posted for the last 180 days. The timeframe for this data would be January 1, 2012 to present.

The BPD responded by referring to RIPA data collection, stating “RIPA data and current BPD officers seems to be the best path forward.” BPD also states, “Approximately 50 officers have been hired since late 2016,” and, “BPD staff are working on a number of technical projects, and resources are limited, especially after recent budget deferrals.”

Based on conversations related to this item which occurred in formal working group sessions, the working group believes the BPD comment related to the hiring of 50 officers was intended to communicate that the BPD department before 2016 (reflected in the CPE data), is different from the BPD today. The working group believes this may be true. The best way to determine if this

DRAFT
19 is true is to have access to the data we have requested so we can determine if there have been any measurable shifts in the racial disparities found by CPE.

It is important to note that a member of the working group used publicly available BPD stop data to redo a portion of the CPE analysis. This publicly available stop data was from 2015 to 2019.

Therefore, this data included the two years of the CPE report (2015 - 2016) and two and a half years after the CPE report (2017-2019). This analysis was presented to the working group. This analysis found persistent racial disparities in stops and searches during this time. In other words, the pattern of racial disparities found in the CPE analysis persisted through 2019, over two years after the CPE report was released. It is also important to note that this analysis only includes stops and searches. It does not include an analysis of use of force. A complete CPE redo has not been possible because BPD has never released any data to the working group.

The working group understands budgetary constraints are impacting BPD. Further, the working group understands that it is possible BPD does not have some of the data we request, e.g. de- identified stop and arrest data. When BPD has made it clear they do not have the data, we have updated our data requests. For example, an early draft of the working group’s policy proposal included a request for weapons and contraband data. BPD has made clear they do not have weapons and contraband data, so the working group removed this data request from our final proposal.

For the remaining data requests, BPD has not provided a compelling reason for why they have not released this data. At the very least, BPD should be able to turn over all the data that was shared with CPE as this data has already been put into a format which allowed it to be shared.

Moreover, BPD feedback that, “BPD staff are working on a number of technical projects,” seems to indicate that BPD has staff capable of providing and perhaps already working on the data we request.

The Working Group agrees that RIPA data will be useful going forward. However, this item speaks to data from the past, beginning in 2012, and includes data given to the CPE as well as additional data. For the City Council to determine if and how the policy shifts implemented in this proposal have been effective in reducing racial disparities, it must have data from before the implementation of RIPA and this data must be more extensive than stop and search data. The data the working group has requested in this proposal would allow City Council to properly measure the impacts of the policy changes outlined in this proposal. RIPA data will help create a richer picture but in isolation it cannot tell us any information about changes to racial disparities that result from the policy changes outlined in this proposal.

Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status, including probation, Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), and parole, absent evidence of imminent danger
BPD agrees with this recommendation which has passed the PRC with BPD collaboration.

DRAFT
20 Require written consent for all consent searches
BPD agreed with this item and cited the collection of RIPA data. Chief Greenwood’s feedback states, “BPD will make it a policy that the department’s existing consent search form shall be used when consent to search is sought by an officer. Existing body worn camera policy already captures the consent request interaction. RIPA data will specifically address this issue: Data will indicate when a consent search was performed, and what the outcome (yield) is providing specific data for analysis. The data will support understanding of how often it occurs, the circumstances under which it occurs, and the outcomes.”

In mid-December, the Working Group received a copy of the consent form used by the BPD; however, as noted above in #8, the Working Group recommendation is that the BPD adopt the written consent used in North Carolina.It is imperative that any consent form be used consistently and include the printed name and signature of the person consenting to the search as well as clear indications of what property the person consents to search, rather than blanket statements that the consent includes all aspects of the person and their property.

Additionally, while the written feedback did not make this distinction, conversations with Chief Greenwood at Working Group meetingsindicated that perhaps BPD focus for written consent was on car or traffic searches only. This policy item recommendation includes all searches-- traffic, pedestrian, bike, etc.

The Working Group acknowledges that body worn cameras may capture the consent process but does not support only the use of body worn cameras to capture this process. The intent of this item is to require written consent for any person, or their property, undergoing a consent search.

The Working Group agrees RIPA data collection will be helpful in determining if there are racial disparities in stops and searches. However, RIPA data collection is not a substitute for a written consent.

Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity
BPD agrees with this response. However, Chief Greenwood states, “Class availability is limited.

Budget and resource constraints may impact this as well, as overtime is restricted to backfill for officers’ absence due to training.” The working group considers that accelerating current CIT activity as critically important.

For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card that displays with the following information on the back:
a. A website similar to RAHEEM that collects information on police-civilian encounters b. Contact information for filing a complaint with the PRC or its successor, the Police Accountability Board.

BPD feedback states, “Open to idea, but with balance: perhaps a link to an online survey, provide info on commendations as well as how to file complaints with PRC and IAB.” The

DRAFT
21 working group supports the collection of both positive and negative feedback on police civilian contacts.

Address Profiling by Proxy
BPD supports this item.

Include community member participation and feedback in the hiring process BPD provided no written feedback on this item. However, in a formal working group session Chief Greenwood expressed concerns about including community participation in the hiring process for all BPD staff. The proposal was updated to include community member participation only in the hiring process related to sworn officers.

Include the following for Performance Appraisal Reports a. Officers should exhibit cultural competency and anti-racist conduct, and that should be included in their City of Berkeley Performance Appraisal Report (Police Sworn- Operations Division Personnel), on p. 2 of 8 under Section “B” “Professionalism.” b. Add to standards 1 and 2 of the Performance Appraisal Report as follows:
i. Provides excellent customer service and represents the Department well as a culturally competent and anti-racist officer
ii. Is respectful of both the people they serve and the people they serve with, in a culturally competent and anti-racist manner
iii. All officers should aspire for an “Above Average” “Exceeds Expectations” or “Exemplary Performance” mark each year with “Meets Minimum Standards” as the basic floor (with expected increase in performance level in subsequent years).

BPD provided no written feedback to this item. This item was updated based on verbal feedback Chief Greenwood gave during a formal working group session.

Include community and peer input into the annual review of sworn police officers.

Based on BPD feedback, this item was updated. Previous language was as follows: Include a “360 Degree Review Form” completed by December 30th each year after an Annual Community Forum. The working group updated the item to account for the lack of familiarity at BPD with a 360 review process as well as to incorporate peer review into the annual review process.

Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens. a. BPD shall immediately fire all identified officers who have engaged in racist or violent actions or commentary online.
b. A social media screen of officer online conduct shall be done annually.

BPD agrees with this item. In response, BPD cited existing policies in place to discipline or terminate an employee. However, Chief Greenwood stated a need to check if or how these policies are related to racist behaviors. Further, Chief Greenwood pointed towards the existing

DRAFT
22 screening process and background checks for hiring. Lastly, other members of BPD expressed concerns that social media screens might violate legal protections.

The working group has not received clarification on if or how existing disciplinary policies relate to racist behavior of officers. The working group would like clarity on this process. Further, if policies are in place to discipline an officer engaged in racist behavior this still does not address the issue of identifying officers engaged in racist behavior. This item is designed to identify if BPD officers are engaged in racist online activity and states clearly any officers so identified should be terminated. The working group does not recommend that Council accept any other action than termination for any officer found to have engaged or currently engage in racist behavior.

Additionally, this item is not requesting BPD violate privacy laws of potential or existing employees. Comments made on an electronic app, chat room, social media group, etc. are not protected by privacy laws or the constitution. A screen of social media platforms is routinely done by employers today. According to a 2018 CareerBuilder survey, "70% of employers use social media to screen candidates during the hiring process, and about 43% of employers use social media to check on current employees." Regular social media screens are a routine practice today. A third party that specialized in social media screens is well aware of legalities of the screening process, which is one reason why the FIP working group suggested a third party, not BPD, conduct the screening process.

Of Note:

The working group removed one item based on BPD feedback. The original item read:

Officers shall prominently display identification. This item was updated with new language that read: Officers violating penal code (CA 830.10) shall be severely disciplined. Finally, the working group removed this item completed based on feedback from BPD.

DRAFT
23 Appendix D - Unfulfilled Council Mandates to BPD

Following on the publication by the CPE and the PRC of their respective reports on BPD stop, search, and use of force data, the Berkeley City Council gave specific policy direction to staff to address racial disparities apparent in that data.

At the onset of the Fair and Impartial Working Group in the fall of 2019, mayoral staff noted the following directions that had not been carried out by the City Manager or Chief of Police.

Significantly, these directions remain unfulfilled as of August 2020:

I. Council referral from Nov. 14, 2017, to be completed by September 2018 and annually thereafter.

1. Direct the City Manager to track yield, stop, citation, search and arrest rates by race, develop training programs to address any disparities found, and implement policy and practice reforms that reflect cooperation between the Berkeley Police Department (“BPD”), the Police Review Commission (“PRC”) and the broader Berkeley community.

The City Manager will report findings in September 2018 and annually thereafter, using anonymized data. [NOTE: BPD responded that they are addressing this via RIPA work, but it has still not been done.]

2. Tracking Yield rates
a. Analyze whether officer-initiated or in response to calls for service or warrants. b. Focus on reasons for disparate racial treatment and to identify any outliers. [NOTE: BPD responded that they are addressing this via RIPA work, but it has still not been done.]

3. Consider any other criteria that would contribute to a better understanding of stops, searches, citations and arrests and the reasons for such actions. [NOTE: BPD responded that they are addressing this via RIPA work, but it has still not been done.]

4. Consulting and cooperating with the broader Berkeley community, especially those communities most affected by observed racial disparities, to develop and implement policy and practice reforms that reflect these shared values. Work closely with the PRC, providing the commission all legally available information that may be helpful to designing reforms.

5. Once released, BPD should analyze the final Center for Policing Equity report and propose improvements as needed. [NOTE: CPE final report was released in May 2018.]

None of these items, which are now nearly three years old, were ever accomplished

II. Council referral from April 24, 2018

1. Create, Present and Execute a Departmental Action Plan by April 30, 2019.

DRAFT
24 2. Officer Identification. Develop a policy requiring officers to identify themselves by their full name, rank and command and provide it writing (e.g. a business card) to individuals they have stopped, as in Oakland, New York, Providence, and San Jose.

3. Review and Update BPD Policy Surrounding Inquiries to Parole and Probation Status.

4. Enhance Search Consent Policies.

5. Collect Data on Terry Stops/Searches and Citations [NOTE: Remains undone. BPD responded that they are addressing this via RIPA work, but it has still not been done.]

6. BPD Data Dashboard.

7. Enhance Existing “Early Warning” Systems

None of these items, which are over two years old, were ever accomplished

III. CPE recommendations from early 2018

1. We recommend that BPD monitor search and disposition outcomes across race, and arrest and disposition outcomes associated with use of force. In particular, BPD should collect and share data with respect to contraband (distinguishing among drugs, guns, non-gun weapons, and stolen property) found during vehicle or pedestrian searches, and that it analyze data about charges filed resulting from vehicle and pedestrian stops. [NOTE: BPD responded 4/2019 that they are addressing this via RIPA work but it has still not been done.]

2. We recommend that BPD more clearly track, analyze, and share data with respect to whether law enforcement actions are officer-initiated, or responses to calls for service. [NOTE: BPD responded 4/2019 that they are addressing this via RIPA work but it has still not been done.]

3. We recommend that BPD continue to affirm that the egalitarian values of the department be reflected in the work its officers and employees do. [NOTE: Chief responded in 4/2019 message, saying they address in ongoing training, but their own heavily disparate stop and force data suggests that more needs to be done and that the ongoing training may be insufficient.]

4. We recommend that BPD consult and cooperate with the broader Berkeley community, especially those communities most affected by observed racial disparities, to develop and implement policy and practice reforms that reflect these shared values. [NOTE: See Council referrals above. Also referred to Working Group and to July 14 2020 community engagement process.]

5. We recommend BPD track yield rates (of contraband found at searches). [NOTE:

BPD responded 4/2019 that they are addressing this via RIPA work but it has still not been done.]

6. We recommend that BPD monitor patrol deployments, using efficient and equitable deployment as a metric of supervisory success. One way to promote equitable contact rates is to monitor racial disparities (not attributable to non-police factors such as crime) and to adjust patrol deployments accordingly.

7. We recommend that BPD track crime trends with neighborhood demographics in order to ensure that response rates are proportional to crime rates.

DRAFT
25 8. We recommend that BPD engage in scenario-based training on the importance of procedural justice and the psychological roots of disparate treatment in order to promote the adoption of procedural justice throughout the organization, and to protect officers from the negative consequences of concerns that they will appear racist. [NOTE: Chief responded in 4/2019 message to say the department completed procedural justice training, but their own heavily disparate stop and force data suggests that more needs to be done and that the procedural justice training may be insufficient.]

9. We recommend that values-based evaluations of supervisors be developed to curb the possible influence of social dominance orientation on the mission of the department.

CPE research has found a significant relationship between social dominance orientation and negative policing outcomes in many police departments.

10. We recommend that BPD training include clear messaging that racial inequality and other invidious disparities are not consistent with the values of BPD. [NOTE Chief responded in 4/2019 message, said they address in ongoing training, but their own heavily disparate stop and force data suggests that more needs to be done and that the ongoing training may be insufficient.]

11. We recommend leveraging the Police Review Commission, as well as ensuring inclusion from all groups in the community, to help review relevant areas of the general orders manual and provide a more integrated set of policies with clear accountability and institutional resources. [NOTE: Chief responded in 4/2019 message, saying they address in ongoing PRC subcommittee work.]

The Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group has received three contemporaneous studies of the BPD’s stops as published on the City’s Open Data Portal. The following patterns emerge from this data as shown in these studies:

1. Berkeley’s stop rate for African Americans is over three times greater than Oakland’s.

Annually, African Americans are stopped by police according to BPD records at a rate of

32.7% (3,083 stops of African Americans compared to 10,331 African American Berkeley residents). In Oakland, the corresponding stop rate is 10.4% (10,874 compared to a total of 104,310 African American Oakland residents).

2. During the first 13 weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic from March 15 to June 12, the disparity between stops of Black and White civilians in Berkeley skyrocketed. African American stops were exactly 50% of total 608 stops at 304, with White stops were 143 for 23.52% of all stops. Taking into account the low number of African Americans residing in Berkeley, the disparities are even starker: African American stops are about

42.7 per 1,000 of their population, where White stops are about 2.9 per 1,000, a disparity of 14.5 to 1, twice the disparity in 2018.

3. The discriminatory stops exploded under the Black Lives Matter curfew at the end of May. In three days from May 31 to June 2, 92 African Americans and 18 Latinx people were pulled over by Berkeley police, compared to just 18 White people. This is a disparity in raw numbers of five to one. Based on stops per 1,000 of ethnic population,

DRAFT
26 Black civilians were nearly 35 times more likely to be stopped than Whites during the curfew.

There has been no meaningful response from the BPD to either confirm and account for the disparities, convincingly explain why the critical analysis is incorrect, or give some alternative interpretation of the data. Instead the department has simply ignored the data and the evidence that it discriminates in its treatment of Black, Latinx, and White civilians. BPD representatives quibble over side issues such as whether the data is skewed by stops of Black people coming into Berkeley from outside, or a theory that police are being nice to Black people by issuing them only warnings whereas they ticket White civilians in similar circumstances. The recommendations made in this document will uncover the true cause of the stark racial disparities, and indicate a path to correct them.

The Fair and Impartial Working Group does not want its recommendations to go the way of prior recommendations and directives from the City Council, CPE, and PRC. As shown above, the City Manager and Chief of Police have failed to execute the policies set by the elected officials.

The City Council must ensure that staff act promptly to bring Berkeley policing into compliance with constitutional principles, particularly equal protection under the law.

Public Works Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager AGENDA
May 19, 2021
To: Reimagining Public Safety Task Force
From: Liam Garland, P ublic Works Director
Submitted by: Shamika Cole, Co-Secretary
David White, Co-Secretary
Subject: Reimagining Public Safety/BerkDOT

INTRODUCTION

The July 14, 2020 omnibus package to reimagine public safety included a referral to the City Manager to:

a) pursue the creation of a Ber keley Department of Transportation (BerkDOT) to ensure a racial justice lens in traffic enforcement and the development of transportation policy, programs, and infrastructure, and

b) identify and implement approac hes to reduce and/or eliminate the practice of pretextual stops based on minor traffic violations.

In addition to instilling a racial justice leans in transportation programs and services, the referral’s stated purpose was “to separate traffic enforcement from the police,” “reduce traffic enforcement as a tool for enhancing traffic safety,” and to “shift traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, crossing guards, and collision response & reporting away from policed officers—reducing the need for police interaction with civilians…”

By this report, staff seeks the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force’s input and advice on a) research and analysis conducted to date, b) input solicited from the Public Works Commission, Transportation Commission, and public speakers and incorporated herein, and c) a draft phased approach to explore possible next actions. This work raises important questions about how the current Public Works department and the City’s transportation functions are—and should be—organized, and how a racial justice lens can be applied across transportation-related programs and projects.

The referral component to reduce and/or eliminate stops based on minor traffic violations is at the core of the original omnibus package approved by City Council. The Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group submitted recommendations to City

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

Council at a special meeting held on Tuesday, February 23, 2021.1 The City Council unanimously adopted recommendations from the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group that will result in a new, evidence-based traffic enforcement model that focuses traffic stops on safety, such as running a red light, rather than lower level offenses, such as minor equipment violations. The City Council also approved the implementation of procedural justice reforms including, but not limited to, the implementation of an early intervention system and requiring written consent for certain searches.2 BPD is in the early stages of defining, developing, and implementing these measures.

This staff report complements the efforts of the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group, lays out initial background and approaches to the creation of a BerkDOT, and explores opportunities to shift functions into this new department or division, as well as potential new positions or functions. In particular, staff seeks further input from the Task Force on the following questions:

 What near term actions should be prioritized?
 What areas of future research and/or due diligence should staff focus on?  What is missing from the anal ysis and possible actions?  Which of the three organizatio nal approaches to a BerkDOT provided below align best with the City Council’s referral and the City's adopted strategic and other plans (e.g., Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan, Vision Zero, and recently- adopted Pedestrian Plan), both in the short and long term?

This staff report concludes with a list of proposed actions phased in over time. These actions support establishment of a BerkDOT that translates City Council’s direction (and staff’s intent) into racially just, equitable, sustainable, and accessible transportation policies, programs, services, and projects. The phased actions explored in this report are considered for inclusion in Annual Appropriation Ordinance #1 in December 2021, the two-year budget adopted by June 30, 2022, or future budget adoptions.

BACKGROUND

Public Safety Reimagining Process. On July 14, 2020, the Berkeley City Council made a historic commitment to reimagine the City’s approach to public safety with the passage of an omnibus package of referrals, resolutions, and directions. 3 1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/02_Feb/Documents/2021-02- 23_Special_Item_01_Report_and_Recommendations_pdf.aspx. 2 Please see the annotated agenda for the February 23, 2021 Special Meeting of the City Council, which can be found at the following -
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/City_Council__Agenda_Index.aspx. 3 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2020/07_Jul/Documents/07- 14_Annotated_Agenda_pdf.aspx

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

On December 15, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) to conduct research, analysis, and use its expertise to develop reports and recommendations for community safety and police reform as well as plan, develop, and lead an inclusive and transparent community engagement process to help the City achieve a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley.

NICJR’s scope and contract documents are complete.4

On January 19, 2021, City Council amended the enabling legislation for the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force. Appointments have been made from the City Council, Mental Health Commission, Police Review Commission, and Youth Commission, and three “At-Large” appointments confirmed by City Council on March 9, 2021.5

The Task Force met on February 18, March 11, April 9, April 29, and May 13, and covered topics ranging from the consultants workplan; community survey; calls-for- service analysis and framework; and overviews of the Police Department, priority dispatch, new and emerging models of community safety, and specialized care unit.

Public Works and Police Departments. Today, Public Works includes 320 full time employees (FTEs) across seven divisions. The divisions of Transportation, Engineering, Zero Waste, and Administration report to the Public Works Director. The Facilities, Streets & Utilities, and Equipment Maintenance divisions report to an Operations Manager who, in turn, reports to the Director.

The Transportation Division has 43 FTEs and is responsible for the following functions:
traffic engineering, planning and design of transportation-related capital improvement projects, off- and on-street parking management, and transportation planning, policies, and programs, e.g., Vision Zero. In January 2018, traffic maintenance and parking meter maintenance were shifted from the Streets and Utilities Division to the Transportation Division. This division’s breadth of functions is well beyond that of transportation divisions in similarly sized cities.

Both the Transportation and Engineering Divisions currently sit on the 4 th Floor of 1947
Center Street. The permanent repair of streets and sidewalks is planned and executed by the Engineering Division with 2.5 full time engineers. Smaller, temporary street and sidewalk repairs are made through our Streets and Utilities Division Operations by two separate units of 13 FTEs. These units work out of the City’s Corporation Yard, as does our Facility Management Division and its nearly 7 FTEs handling streetlight maintenance and repair.

4 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2020/12_Dec/Documents/2020-12- 15_Supp_2_Reports_Item_7_Supp_CMO_pdf.aspx
5 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2021/01_Jan/Documents/2021-01- 19_Item_18_Revisions_to_Enabling_Legislation_for_Reimagining.aspx

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

Today, all traffic enforcement functions are housed within the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department’s Investigation Division. The Traffic Bureau includes all traffic enforcement functions, parking enforcement, traffic control, serious injury collision investigations and review, collision data functions, and crossing guards. The Traffic Bureau currently sits at 841 Folger and this substation will soon move to 125 University.

Current Plans and Programs for Racial Justice and Equity. The City of Berkeley set a goal in its strategic plan to “[c]hampion and demonstrate social and racial equity,” which is an especially important goal for Public Works. The 2020 end of year workforce report showed the department was 63% African American and Latino (and 77% non-white), 92% of that year’s new hires were non-white, and 78% of staff promoted were non- white. While racially diverse, that report also showed only 16% of the department was female and only 38% of management was non-white, suggesting more work was needed in our department’s gender diversity and having management reflect the racial diversity of the department’s staff.

In recent years, the Transportation Division sought to more explicitly incorporate racial justice into transportation policies, projects, and services. The Berkeley Strategic Transportation (BeST) Plan adopted in 2016 prioritized capital projects by whether those projects would increase transportation choices for disadvantaged communities.

The Vision Zero Plan adopted in March 2020 documented racial disparities in severe and fatal traffic injuries, and it acknowledged racial and economic inequities associated with traffic enforcement. As a result, the Vision Zero Plan emphasized improvements to traffic safety through engineering solutions over enforcement, and it called for an equitable enforcement policy before making any Vision Zero-related enforcement changes.

The first set of Healthy Streets established during the COVID-19 pandemic were selected from bicycle boulevards in traditionally underserved neighborhoods. Most recently, the Pedestrian Plan adopted in January 2021 built on the work of Vision Zero to document that black pedestrians are twice as likely to be victims of traffic violence as white pedestrians. The Pedestrian Master Plan uses redlining maps to prioritize safety improvements in these historically underserved neighborhoods.

Other aspects of Public Works’ services aid equity and racial justice in Berkeley, including:

 The Clean Cities Unit abates illegal dumping, trash, and debris, especially in and around encampments, and many of these locations are in historically underserved areas;
 An existing Disability Services Specialist helps ensure the accessibility of new improvements, existing infrastructure, and current Public Works ser vices;
 Most repairs of the City’s sewe rs, streets, streetlights, and sidewalk are completed without regard to the adjacent property owner’s ability to pay; our

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

stormwater and sewer fees are eligible for relief under the City’s Very Low Income Fund; and, in the proposed budget, Public Works has recommended extending relief from sewer charges for more low income families; and  Public Works, Public Works Commission, and Facilities, Infrast ructure, Transportation, Environment, and Sustainability Committee are proposing to City Council on June 1 revisions to the street rehabilitation policy that specifically address racial justice and equity through the creation of an Equity Zone where paving repairs are prioritized. If adopted, Public Works will explore broader applicability of this zone to our sidewalk, streetlight, and other maintenance and repair services.

The department is at an inflection point. A new director was hired in July 2020 and since that time, the department has adopted top goals and projects, 6 drafted performance
measures,7 and sought more open lines of communication with the department’s Commissions. An all-staff survey has been completed, showing the department faces a significant staff morale challenge. One driver of the morale challenge is a persistent vacancy rate of 15%+. The high vacancy rate diminishes the department’s ability to deliver programs, leads to delays in implementing projects, and leaves the remaining staff shouldering a larger work burden. The work burdens are only increasing. The department is leading up the effort to turn Vision 2050 into reality; accelerate conversion of our fleet and facilities to all-electric; construct a whole range of T1 and other capital projects; and develop comprehensive plans for our street lights, paving, green infrastructure, and storm drains. All while Public Works and IT are working together on the simultaneous replacement of three key internal asset management systems without which a modern Public Works or Transportation department cannot operate.

As a result of these significant opportunities and challenges, Public Works is initiating a process to adopt a strategic plan in the next fiscal year. The plan will help clarify the department’s core mission, values, priorities over the next five years, including how the department’s staffing, programs, and projects can advance racial justice and equity.

APPROACHES

To inform the approaches presented in this staff report, interviews were held with director-level staff of Transportation and Public Works departments in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Oakland, Denver, Ft. Collins, and Cambridge. These cities were selected for their variety of organizational, political, and governance structures. These conversations revealed different ways to structure a department, and how some cities were applying a racial justice lens to their transportation (and other) work. The

6 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_-_General/FY20- 21%20Berkeley%20PWD%20Goals%20and%20Projects-Sep%202020.pdf 7 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_- _General/CoB%20Performance%20Measures%20041921.pdf

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

interviews showed there are many different ways to organize, and pros and cons associated with each method of organization.

At a high-level, there are three approaches to a new BerkDOT. Each of these presents an opportunity to refine the mission and overall organization of functions within the Transportation Division and the Public Works Department, and to carry out any new functions assigned by the City Council or reorganized within Public Works. The three approaches are:

A. Establish the existing Public Works’ Transportation Division as BerkDOT:

This option would retain the existing Public Works department and structure, revamp the current Division of Transportation as BerkDOT, and create a new Deputy Director for Transportation reporting to the Public Works Director. Public Works’ FY 21/22 budget request includes the adjustment of a current position to Deputy Director for Transportation. This would confirm the centrality of transportation in the department.

B. Remake Public Works into the Department of Transportation & Infrastructure (BerkDOTI):

This option would create a new BerkDOTI, subsume the existing Public Works Department into it, and the department’s mission would focus on stewardship of the City’s transportation system and public right-of-way, as well as the safety of the public in using streets and sidewalks. The functions of the remade department would include discrete lines for Transportation, Utilities, and Administration. Within these lines, a new Deputy Director for Transportation would be created, while infrastructure services such as storm water, sewer, and Zero Waste would remain in a newly configured Utilities division. This option still allows for intra-departmental coordination between planners and engineers by retaining an overall singular department under the oversight of a unified administrative structure. It elevates the new department’s transportation programs and services to the whole of the public right-of-way, consistent with Vision 2050’s positioning of the right of way as the Public Commons. An integrated BerkDOTI department would allow for ongoing coordination between functions affecting all aspects of transportation and non-transportation services in the public right-of-way, and a single point of contact for inter-departmental coordination.

C. Create a new, stand-alone BerkDOT that subsumes the current Division of Transportation and leaves a separate, stand-alone Public Works Department:

This would shift transpo
rtation functions out of Public Works into a standalone, new department oriented around a mission inclusive of transportation services and projects. Transportation operations, safety, and maintenance functions

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

would be transferred to this new stand-alone BerkDOT, while non-transportation capital project delivery and utilities such as storm, sewer, and Zero Waste would remain in the Public Works department. While duplicating back-office requirements, this structure may offer a more focused mission and vision, and resolution of items at the level of City Manager, not Department Director.

Mission and Vision. Each of these options presents an opportunity to sharpen the mission of our transportation work and deliver racially just, equitable, accessible, safe, and environmentally sustainable transportation programs, services, and projects. A stand-alone BerkDOT with a new Director reporting to the City Manager may provide the opportunity to start from scratch and create a whole new vision for transportation in this City. This also may provide the Public Works’ department an opportunity to sharpen and improve its mission. On the other hand, the City’s transportation and infrastructure visions are evident through the City Council’s adoption of existing and recent plans, such as Vision 2050 (2020), BeST (2018 and update 2021), pedestrian plan (2021), and Vision Zero (2020). There may be conflict between Vision 2050’s envisioning of the right of way as a public commons, and its implementation depending on two separate, stand- alone departments. It also may be the case that these adopted plans do not sufficiently capture Berkeley’s transportation and infrastructure vision. If that is the case, then a new stand-alone BerkDOT may help chart whatever that new vision may be.

Prioritization and Coordination. A new stand-alone BerkDOT reporting to the City Manager or Deputy City Manager may elevate the transportation function’s importance among many other competing priorities in the City. However, two separate departments will require staff currently sitting in the same department—with direct opportunities and incentives to collaborate—to be in stand-alone separate departments with more divergent priorities and more difficulty in coordination.

Transition Costs: Each of these organizational options would have different cost implications. Creating a wholly new stand-alone DOT alongside a stand-alone Public Works department is the highest cost option. Staff’s initial estimate is $750,000, mostly based on Oakland’s experience creating a new DOT from its Public Works Department.

These are hard costs related to hiring a new Director; building the required HR, payroll, and finance functions; consultant support for the change effort; and ancillary costs related to the new department, such as updates to the website, municipal code, letterhead, and work clothing. The ongoing operating costs for future years are in the range of $500,000-$750,000 annually.

Standing up a new department will incur significant non-financial costs, especially in time and effort. Interviews with other DOTs suggest this is an intense two-year process to stand up the organization and another two to three years until it is a cohesive organization. It would involve significant need to bridge and manage the transition with staff, collaboratively build a new department culture, and reorganize career
advancement pathways in the workplace. Logistics are important, too. Staff are not

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

aware of building space that may accommodate a new stand-alone BerkDOT. In addition, the necessary investments in time and effort may require tradeoffs that slow down or put at risk other high-priority projects, e.g., Vision 2050, Vision Zero, T1, November 2022 infrastructure-focused revenue measure, and implementation of the BeST, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Plans.

The BerkDOTI option of a remade Public Works department with transportation, utility, and administration lines is estimated to cost less than $150,000, mostly related to one position upgrade (Deputy Director, Transportation), hard costs related to the name change, and some support for the change efforts. Given the department’s intention to undergo strategic planning next year, there may be an opportunity to leverage this process to support the BerkDOTI change effort. There would be limited ongoing additional operating costs for future years.

The option of creating BerkDOT out of the existing Transportation Division, and remaining within Public Works, is likely to involve similar cost as the BerkDOTI option as it includes similar actions, e.g. position upgrade, name change costs, and change efforts.

City Council could consider covering these costs through budget reductions to the Berkeley Police Department, reductions to other departments’ budgets, or with additional General Fund resources. However, the source of funds does not change the fact that these three approaches have different cost impacts. Similarly, it is possible that as the number of sworn personnel in traffic enforcement is reduced, those savings are shifted into transportation programs and/or services. However, those savings may be speculative, as costs related to the civilian traffic enforcement unit and/or automated enforcement are very likely to rise.

Under any of these structures, there will be additional costs associated with implementing new policies or programs. This could include automated enforcement programs with staffing required for citation processing and review, a new specialist staffing for public engagement and racial justice programs, etc.

Implementation Risks. Many reorganizations fail or take much longer than planned.

According to a 2016 Harvard Business Review study, more than 80% of reorganizations fail to deliver the hoped for value in the time planned, and 10% can cause real damage to the organization. The creation of a separate, stand-alone BerkDOT with a separate stand-alone Public Works Department entails the most risk of failure and/or delay. A BerkDOT subsuming Public Works entails low to moderate risk. Creating the BerkDOT out of the existing Transportation Division, and keeping it within Public Works, is low risk. To mitigate these risks, the changes might be made incrementally, allowing for smaller course corrections to address issues that may arise and preserving options moving forward.

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

City Size. Few cities of Berkeley’s size have a stand-alone DOT. Nor do most cities of Berkeley’s size have the breadth of transportation functions already assigned to the existing Transportation Division within Public Works.

Racial justice lens. Staff’s view is that any of these organization approaches could apply an improved racial justice lens to transportation programs, and none of the approaches provide distinct benefit over the others in advancing racial justice and equity.

Shifting functions. Staff’s view is that any of these organizational approaches could facilitate shifting of functions as explored later in this staff report, and none is uniquely configured for a particular shifting of functions.

SHIFTING FUNCTIONS

The BerkDOT referral incorporated into the City Council’s omnibus package adopted on July 14, 2020 stated the following:

A Department of Transportation in the City of Berkeley could shift traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, crossing guards, and collision response & reporting away from police officers—reducing the need for police interaction with civilians—and ensure a racial justice lens in the way we approach transportation policies, programs, and infrastructure. It would also ensure a focus on transportation that is separate and apart from public works issues, fitting for the importance of transportation as an issue of concern to Berkeley and as a key component of our greenhouse reduction goals.

There are a variety of transportation-related functions within the City of Berkley which are performed by:

1. Sworn, uniformed officers ( e.g., police officers assigned either to Patrol Division or the Traffic Bureau);

2. Non-sworn, uniformed personnel ( e.g., parking enforcement officers);

3. Civilian personnel (e. g., crossing guards); and

4. Civil engineers, transportation engineers, transportation planners, and operations and maintenance staff.

Below, each function is assessed for possible shift into any of the three BerkDOT approaches described above.

Traffic Enforcement
The original referral suggested shifting traffic enforcement to a new BerkDOT. However, California Vehicle Code section 21100 appears to delegate authority to localities to enforce traffic laws by means of “traffic officers,” which are further defined by Penal Code Section 830, et seq., as sworn police officers. Thus, enforcement of traffic

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

violations set forth by non-sworn personnel could violate existing state law. Until state law changes, such a shift in function outside of BPD may be preempted.

The City Council adopted a resolution on December 15, 2020, requesting the California legislature enact legislation to give cities greater flexibility in traffic enforcement. Staff has considered prioritizing near-term action to develop a plan for standing up a civilian traffic enforcement unit. However, given the content of the state law change is likely to be important for the particulars of how such a unit is structured and organized, staff suggests the civilian traffic enforcement unit be considered a longer term action, and that this action be triggered when there is a change in state law. In the meantime, the City could engage in discussion with state legislators about potential legislation on this topic. When such a state law change does occur, staff would evaluate the legislation and prepare a plan for City Council discussion with the aim that Berkeley thoroughly evaluate and engage the community and its employees over the potential to establish a civilian traffic enforcement unit.

Other state law changes might alter the nature of traffic enforcement, as well. Current state law prohibits automated enforcement of speeding violations. Assembly Bill (AB) 550 would permit several cities to initiate pilots of automated enforcement of speeding violations

8. On May 11, 2021, the Council took formal action to support AB 550 and urge that the City of Berkeley be included as a pilot location. Similar to red light cameras, photo speed enforcement could reduce the need for traffic stops and the associated interactions between police officers and drivers, while providing effective enforcement against speeding, which is the traffic violation most likely to contribute to several or fatal traffic injuries especially among pedestrians. The degree to which automated speed enforcement could be administered by non-sworn staff would depend on the enabling legislation. AB 550 currently calls for violators to be subject to civil penalties and the availability of diversion programs.

Given the legal hurdles to a civilian traffic enforcement unit and automated enforcement, staff suggest prioritizing advocacy for state law changes in the near-term, and, over the longer term, develop practical plans and policies to implement state law changes when they occur. As suggested in Vision Zero, the City’s adoption of a Vision Zero Enforcement Policy could help explain and further detail the City’s approach to enforcement as a tool of last resort, provide guidance for the implementation of automated enforcement, and ensure the lens of racial justice and equity is incorporated into enforcement efforts.

Crossing Guards
Berkeley Function Today
Crossing guards are civilian personnel within the Police Department who help ensure safe routes to school and Vision Zero functions, which are important citywide priorities.

8 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB550

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

There are currently 15 part-time crossing guards, equivalent to 3.7 FTEs, working during school arrival and departure times. Crossing guards do not enforce the law, rather they enhance safety by stopping traffic and escorting children across an intersection.

Other Cities’ Experiences
Some cities, such as Los Angeles and Cambridge, MA, employ crossing guards through the Transportation and/or Public Works department; other cities that house crossing guards in the Police Department, such as the City of Oakland, are considering moving them to OakDOT in response to similar conversations around racial justice in traffic enforcement. Another model is schools overseeing the crossing guard functions with the City providing some portion of funding, which is the case in Fort Collins, CO.

Potential Options for Berkeley
Crossing guards could move into BerkDOT with minimal disruption. Shifting that staff to a new department will require a BerkDOT staff person to take on a new supervisorial role, which could require new training. Within BerkDOT, crossing guards could be assigned to school sites based on racial equity and Vision Zero priorities. Including crossing guards in BerkDOT could have the positive effect of bolstering local relationships between BerkDOT and local schools and communities.

There are some impacts to BPD’s operations of moving crossing guards to BerkDOT.

By removing this function, it means severing a visible tie between elementary school staff, local residents, and BPD. Otherwise, the impacts are not significant. This change could be accomplished in the budget proposed for adoption in June 2022.

Parking Enforcement
Berkeley Function Today
Parking Enforcement Officers are non-sworn, uniformed officers within the Police Department. These officers support the City’s parking program, which is stewarded by Public Works and the officers are funded out of the Public Works’ on-street parking fund. (Citation revenue goes to the General Fund.) There are currently 24 FTE parking enforcement officers, supervisors, and a manager within BPD’s Traffic Bureau.

The City of Berkeley’s current parking program offers a payment plan for low income persons, and a fee waiver for low-income citation recipients who request an appeal hearing.

Other Cities’ Experiences
Other cities, both large and small, manage parking enforcement under the Transportation and Public Works departments: examples include Los Angeles, Fort Collins, CO, Cambridge, MA, and Orlando, FL. Some parking enforcement staff maintain inter-departmental connections and access to shared communication systems with Police Departments where there are concerns for staff safety. For example, the OrlandoDOT has a parking enforcement function, and parking enforcement staff share a

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

radio frequency with the Police Department. Some cities, such as Los Angeles, have qualified relief programs to address the burden of parking fines on low-income residents, such as the Community Assistance Parking Program.

Potential Options for Berkeley
The parking enforcement function could move into BerkDOT, which would be a major shift in terms of the number of employees and their day-to-day interface with the Police Department. Parking enforcement staff currently sit within PD offices, and their trainings and career development paths are through PD.

Shifting this function to a new BerkDOT would require investment and training in the newly transitioned staff on the BerkDOT mission and career advancement paths, and new management and supervisorial capacity within BerkDOT to absorb responsibility for the parking enforcement staff. Given that the Transportation Division is currently 43 FTEs, this shift would increase this organization’s size by more than 50%. It poses some logistical challenges, too, as BPD Traffic Unit’s staff and parking enforcement’s staff currently sit with one another in the same location, and there is not an obvious solution for co-locating parking enforcement staff and existing transportation division staff given significant space constraints at the City’s Corporation Yard.

Such a shift would have significant impacts on BPD and its 24 parking enforcement staff. BPD would lose important members of its team, and parking enforcement staff themselves would have a more difficult time keeping up communication with the Police Department for backup requests, which occur weekly. Nearly one-half of parking enforcement officers participated as public speakers when the Public Works Commission heard this BerkDOT item, and expressed a strong sentiment that affiliation with PD helped them feel safer in their work and strong opposition to any move outside of PD.

As suggested by several Public Works Commissioners, staff proposes further dialogue with the parking enforcement officers themselves. After that dialogue, staff would return to City Council for discussion on whether the parking enforcement function should sit within PD.

Paving
Berkeley Function Today
Public Works has 2.5 engineers who put together the paving plan, and then do the public procurement for the annual paving and sidewalk repair projects. Another engineer or inspector is involved in the construction management and inspection of the improvements. All of these staff are in the Engineering Division, and consult regularly with Transportation’s planning unit to ensure coordination with the various transportation plans.

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

Other Cities’ Experiences
Both OakDOT and Minneapolis include some paving functions. Both pothole repair and designing and bidding contracts for paving are held within OakDOT. However, the paving and capital project construction management function is still held within Oakland’s separate Public Works department. In Los Angeles, the paving function is housed in Streets LA, a division of Public Works, not LADOT. Cambridge, MA also does not house paving functions in its Transportation, Parking, and Traffic Department; instead, the Community Development Department prepares the paving plan, and Public Works completes the paving.

Potential Options for Berkeley
The existing configuration results in collaboration on paving between engineers in Public Works’ Engineering Division, and engineers and planners in the Transportation Division. Moving this function to the BerkDOT has the potential to realize more opportunities for Vision Zero, Bicycle Plan, and Pedestrian Plan improvements in the course of paving. However, the paving budget faces an annual funding shortfall of more than $10 million for basic pavement maintenance, not to mention the improvements suggested by the Vision Zero, Bicycle Plan, and Pedestrian Plan. Thus, these opportunities to use our paving program to further the goals of our transportation plans may be more vision than reality. In addition, even if this function moves to Transportation, significant coordination with the Engineering Division will be required to ensure consideration of sewer, green infrastructure, storm drain, and other utility projects occurring in the streets. Staff believes that the coordination between Transportation Planning and paving engineers has improved over the past several years, but agree more improvement and coordination is needed. What is less clear is whether improvement will come from an organizational decision—either moving the paving planning function from Engineering into Transportation’s planning unit or moving transportation planners into Engineering’s Pavement Unit—or bringing in new revenue into paving through a November 2022 infrastructure-focused revenue measure. The latter would be the most significant action the City Council could take to ensure our paving program advanced our BeST, Vision Zero, Pedestrian, and Bike Plan’s goals.

Staff could return to City Council as part of the budget adopted in June 2022 with a discussion of where the paving planning function might sit.

Collision Investigation
Berkeley Function Today
Today, BPD’s Traffic Bureau sworn officers are responsible for traffic collision investigations. This includes forensic functions, determining why and how the crash occurred, data collection on victim information, and the state of existing street safety infrastructure. No Public Works or Transportation staff participate in that data collection.

Collision investigation invariably requires sworn officers to collect witness statements and evidence, conduct analysis, and develop a report, all of which are governed by state vehicle code. In addition, collisions can happen at any time of day or night and police staff with assigned vehicles are on duty 24/7 in the field and enable rapid response.

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

Other Cities’ Experiences
Collision investigation functions are conducted by police departments, and in many cities there is limited data sharing and collaboration in data collection, which can be a barrier to data-driven Vision Zero work. A few cities have built partnerships with police departments to share crash investigation functions as it pertains to transportation engineering. Director-level partnerships with the police department has allowed some cities, such as Fremont, CA, to share more Vision Zero-related traffic data.

Potential Options for Berkeley
Many of the forensic functions of crash investigation are important for the Police Department to carry out. Increased collaboration between BerkDOT and the Police Department through sharing of some collision investigation functions could improve traffic safety. Bringing BerkDOT planners and engineers into the process to assess site context and transportation infrastructure issues in the field during investigation is likely to lead to better understanding of why crashes occurred and may help identify opportunities to improve infrastructure to improve safety outcomes in the future. This also advances the City’s Vision Zero focus, and encourages direct access to police reports and other disaggregated data for purposes of Vision Zero analysis and monitoring, which includes an assessment of racial disparities in traffic safety. Improved information sharing could occur within existing structures and progress is already being made. The most important near-term action to promote this information sharing and safety improvements would be the hire of a new staff member into BerkDOT to support the Vision Zero program and codify this interdepartmental coordination. A request for this FTE will be included in the budget proposed in June 2022.

Traffic Control
Berkeley Function Today
Both sworn officers and parking enforcement officers provide special traffic control during major planned events today, such as festivals, marches and protests, and other large-scale events, and also during emergencies, such as street flooding, large structure fires, and during high wildfire-risk periods. Public Works, BPD, and parking enforcement staff frequently coordinate on traffic controls, including temporary signage and barricades often planned by Traffic Engineers and deployed by Traffic Maintenance staff.

Other Cities’ Experiences
In other cities, both sworn and non-sworn uniformed officers can carry out traffic control functions. In San Francisco, parking enforcement officers have traffic control functions as part of their regular duties, which includes directing traffic during both planned events and critical incidents. In Minneapolis, the Regulatory Services department provides uniformed personnel for traffic control functions, which include rush hour traffic management, emergency response to traffic control needs via 311, and support for special events.

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

Potential Options for Berkeley
Event-related traffic control could be provided by non-sworn, uniformed personnel for planned events in Berkeley. Parking enforcement personnel provide this function today.

Non-sworn, uniformed officers could also provide some or perhaps all emergency- related traffic control. Consideration would need to be given to time of day and week to ensure availability of appropriate staff, and ensuring proper training of non-sworn staff conducting planned and emergency related traffic control.

3. Racial Justice in Transportation Policies, Programs, and Infrastructure

Ensuring a racial justice lens in transportation policy, programs, and infrastructure would mean that all decisions, procedures, and guidelines that govern transportation in this City would affirmatively work to reduce the burdens of racial inequities and mitigate structural harm put on people of color, and create streets where people are safe, experience belonging, and can thrive.

From listening to the input received so far and considering other organizations approaches, staff see three important opportunities moving forward. First, establish a BerkDOT that uses racial and social justice and safety data to improve safe and equitable access to mobility and helps reduce traffic violence, economic violence, and risk of institutional violence experienced by the most vulnerable users of the public streets and sidewalks.

Second, embed the racial justice lens in BerkDOT through one of two potential organizational approaches:

A. Racial Justice and Equity Div ision within BerkDOT: The Racial Justice and Equity Division could be a separate division within any of the three BerkDOT approaches, at the same organizational level as project delivery, maintenance, or administration. The division may be staffed with one or two people, and those staff working across divisions, similar to how engineers and planners already work across divisions and functions today.

B. Deputy Director of Transportation, Racial Justice, and Equit y: The racial justice function could move up a tier in the organizational chart to assign that function to a newly titled, Deputy Director of Transportation, Racial Justice, and Equity. This would elevate the transportation and racial justice functions and accountability in the organizational hierarchy. It might then mean that existing staff take on day- to-day responsibility for racial justice functions, with approval and strategy provided by the Deputy Director for Transportation, Racial Justice, and Equity.

This position could still be supplemented with a Racial Justice Specialist position as an assistant to the Deputy Director.

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

The organizational structure of the racial justice function within BerkDOT might also consider the size of Berkeley’s city government and BerkDOT itself. For example, the division itself might contain one FTE; however, regardless of the number of FTEs, creating a division within an organizational chart on equal footing with other departmental functions elevates its importance in the department’s mission. Under either approach, it will be important to ensure that people of color, and especially African Americans, have clear and well-used career pathways.

Public Works’ budget proposed for adoption in June 2021 includes an adjustment for a Deputy Director of Transportation, so Option B is readily achievable and does not preclude a change later to Option A.

Third, as suggested by various contributors in the public process to date, incorporating a racial justice lens into transportation work requires in-depth examination, discussion, training, and action. This work has an aspect that is inward-facing and focused on our staff and their experiences and career pathways. It also must focus on BerkDOT’s services, programs, and projects delivered to the community. For that reason, staff propose using the assistance of an expert to lead the internal examination, discussion, training, and action that would culminate in the development of a Racial Justice and Equity Action Plan, Part 1. A budget request for Annual Appropriation Ordinance #1 in December 2021 would fund this third-party’s work. Part 2 would examine the department’s services, programs, and projects, and identify the areas and actions where more progress is required. This work would be proposed for inclusion in the budget adopted June 2023.

INPUT RECEIVED FROM COMMISSIONS TO DATE

This report reflects input provided by the Transportation Commission, Public Works Commission, and public speakers at both commission meetings. Prior versions of this report incorporated this specific feedback from the Transportation Commission. More has been provided on the purpose and vision of the omnibus package and BerkDOT referral, and the report provides more focus on near-term actions to change transportation’s mission, vision, programs, services, and projects and ensure they are imbued with a racial justice lens. There is more background and explanation on the civilian traffic enforcement unit, and City Council’s direction to focus traffic stops on safety and eliminate stops for minor traffic violations. Greater detail has been provided on automated enforcement, inclusion of career pathways for people of color, and the cost implications of the three organizational approaches,.

Several Transportation Commissioners suggested crossing guards and parking enforcement were functions that should be moved to a BerkDOT sooner rather than later. Staff incorporated a suggestion to re-work the near-term and longer-term actions into a phased approach.

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

There was consensus at the Public Works Commission and its public speakers that the revised staff report responded to much of the Transportation Commission’s feedback.

There was a consensus that enforcement as a method of improving traffic safety should be a tool of last resort within the City’s toolbox. There was not consensus on the organizational approach to BerkDOT or on which functions might be prioritized for shifting into BerkDOT. Some commissioners wanted to learn more about how BerkDOT might be informed by a strong, transparent public engagement process. On this latter point, staff are exploring on-the-street, intercept surveys and/or public opinion surveys to be conducted this summer in order to engage and learn from traditionally underrepresented and underserved members of the community.

PHASED APPROACH

The phased approach described below combines the direction set by Council in the original omnibus package, the input received to-date, and the constraints of our existing budget, commitments, laws, and bandwidth. The order and phasing of the approach is designed to preserve opportunities for the City to speed up or slow down along the way.

Phase 1: July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022

Ongoing Coordinate with PD on im plementation of precision policing and major v. minor stops. Monitor state legislative proposals and be prepared to engage and advocate for automated enforcement.

Jun 2021 Proposed budget includes Deputy Director of Transportation, Racial Justice, and Equity.

Jul Opinion and/or intercept surveys to solicit input on BerkDOT.

Dec Submit budget request i n AAO#1 for expert support on Racial Justice and Equity Action Plan, Part 1, focused on staff and career pathways.

Jan 2022 Berkeley Division of Tr ansportation stood up as BerkDOT with lead Deputy Director of Transportation, Racial Justice, and Equity.

Jun Potential budget proposals implementing various aspects of BerkDOT and submit request for new Vision Zero staff member to coordinate with PD on data sharing and collision analysis.

Phase 2: July 1, 2022-June 30, 2023

Jul 2022 Report to City Council on results of legislative advocacy on civilian traffic enforcement and automated enforcement, and if automated enforcement on speeding enabled by change in state law, plan for implementing.

Dec Council considers adoption of Vision Zero enforcement policy.

Complete Racial Justice and Equity Action Plan, Part 1.

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

Jan 2023 City Council discusses po ssibility of creating civilian traffic unit. This discussion and deliverable is wholly dependent on state law changes permitting such action.

Jun Report to Transportation Co mmission on equity of City’s existing parking fines and rates, and possible revisions.

Phase 3: July 1, 2023-June 30, 2025

Dec 2023 Complete Racial Justice and Equity Action Plan, Part 2, focused on programs, services, and projects.

Jun 2024 Update to Council on progr ess to date and seeking direction on final BerkDOT organizational structure (enhanced division, BerkDOTI, or stand- alone BerkDOT), civilian traffic enforcement unit, and equity policies.

Jun 2025 Final report closi ng BerkDOT referral.

Attachment:
1: Budget and Position Inventory

Total potential FTEs 99.95  Total Costs  49,627,069$
PW Engineering/Streets
Associate Civil Engineer 1 143,157.6 6$
Assistant PW Engineer 1 123,956.5 6$
Supervising Civil Engineer 0.5 81,070.5 0$
Total 2.5 348,184.72$                660,534$
Nonpersonnel Costs 330,26 7$
Capital Costs 11,010,30 3$
Total 12,001,10 4$
PW Transportation
Management Transportation Manager 1 177,577.7 1$
Administrative Secretary 1 88,553.5 0$
Administrative Assistant 1 88,293.71 $
Assistant Management Analyst 1 89,820.02 $
Parking (off and on‐street) Parking Services Manager 1 130,562.85 $ Senior Planner 1 126,667.0 1$
Assistant Management Analyst 4 359,280.0 8$
Accounting Office Specialist II 1 69,366.5 4$
Parking Meter Maint & Collection Supv 1 91,188.45$
Parking Meter Maintenance Worker 6 391,547.52 $
Parking Meter Mechanic 5 369,082.50 $
CIP Engineering Associate Civil Engineer 2 286,315.32 $ Traffic Engineering Supervising Traffic Engineer 1 165,189.86 $ Assistant Traffic Engineer 2 250,942.02 $
Associate Traffic Engineer 2 286,315.32 $
Engineering Inspector 1 106,362.46 $
Traffic Engineering Assistant 1 86,079.55 $
Planning Principal Planner 1 143,078.83 $
Senior Planner 1 126,667.01 $
Associate Planner 2 219,506.56 $
Assistant Planner  1 90,424.05 $
Traffic Maintenance Traffic Maintenance Supervisor 1 91,188.45 $ Traffic Maintenance Worker I 3 202,701.42 $
Traffic Maintenance Worker II 2 147,742.40 $
Total 43 4,184,453.14$             7,938,238 $
Nonpersonnel Costs 4,175,377$
Capital Costs 12,500,000$
Total 24,613,615$
PW Streets/Sidewalk Operations
Performs spot repairs on the City's maintain 216 miles of street and 300 miles of sidewalk Management Senior PW Supervisor 1 111,161.44 $
Streets / Asphalt PW Supervisor 1 96,565.4 6$
Skilled laborer 2 143,751.7 2$
Construction Equipment Operator  1 81,359.2 0$
Laborer 2 135,228.2 8$
Sidewalks / Concrete PW Supervisor 1 96,565.4 6$
Concrete Finisher 2 86,386.35 $
Skilled Laborer 1 71,875.8 6$
Laborer 2 135,228.2 8$
Total 13 958,122.05$                1,817,63 3$
Nonpersonnel Costs 300,00 0$
Total 2,117,63 3$
PW Signals and Streetlighting
Maintains signals and traffic controls at 140 intersections and 8,000 LED streetlights.

Electrician 4 411,091.2 0$
Lead Electrician 2 219,648.0 0$
Senior Electrical Supervisor 0.75 97,022.1 8$
Total 6.75 727,761.38$                1,360,914$
Streetlights 1,377,73 1$
Implementing capital projects to maintain 216 miles of street and 300 miles of sidewalk Attachment 1: FTEs and Budget for Existing BerkDOT‐related Functions Improve traffic safety, encourage transit use, bicycling and walking, and address transportation issues. Capital projects include parking facilities; street improvements; traffic calming measures; and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements.

Signals 896,755$
Capital Cost 1,050,000$
Total 4,685,39 9$
PD‐Investigations Division
Parking Enforcement Parking Enforcement Manager 1 114,869.25$ Parking Enforcement Officer 21 1,492,580.4 6$
Parking Enforcement Supervisor 2 84,899.9 8$
Total 24 1,692,349.6 9$             1,692,350$
Nonpersonnel Costs 1,638,945$
Traffic Bureau School Crossing Guard 3.7 145987.2
Lieutenant 1 178,231.8 7$
Sergeant 1 148,483.7 1$
Motor Officer 4 515,017.1 6$
Assistant Management Analyst/OSII 1 89,820.02 $
Total 10.7 1,077,539.96$             1,077,540$
Nonpersonnel Costs 1,800,48 3$
Total 6,209,31 8$
Total potential FTEs 99.95 Total Costs 49,627,06 9$
The Traffic Unit’s Motorcycle Officers focus on community safety through traffic law enforcement, investigation of serious injury/fatality traffic collisions; DUI enforcement, and coordinating grantfunded focused enforcement efforts. The Parking Unit’s Parking Enforcement Officers enforce applicable State and Local codes which regulate parking and provide traffic control and support, e.g. Special Events or incident scene management.

Survey of Adult Residents
City of Berkeley, CA
Hybrid Email-to-Web/Live Telephone Survey
Conducted September 20-28, 2021
Citywide n=550; Margin of Error +4.2 percentage points
Targeted oversamples added among Latinx and Black residents EMC Research #21-8226

All numbers in this document represent percentage (%) values, unless otherwise noted.

Please note that due to rounding, percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.

GREETING: Hello, my name is ________, may I speak with (NAME ON LIST)? INTERVIEWER: NOL ONLY
INTRO: Hello, my name is ________, and I'm conducting a survey for __________ to find out how people feel about issues in Berkeley. We are not trying to sell anything and are collecting this information on a scientific and completely confidential basis.

1. Do you live in the City of Berkeley?
Yes 100
No → TERMINATE -
(Don’t know/Refused) → TERMINATE -

2. What is your zip code?
94618 0
94702 18
94703 16
94704 17
94705 13
94706 1
94707 10
94708 8
94709 10
94710 7
94720 1
(Refused) -

3. What is your gender?
Male 48
Female 50
Non-binary 1
Another gender identity (please specify) 0
(Refused) 0

EMC Research #21-8226 -2-

4. What year were you born? (YEARS CODED INTO CATEGORIES) 18-29 (1992-2003) 32
30-39 (1982-1991) 13
40-49 (1972-1981) 14
50-64 (1957-1971) 19
65 or over (1956 or earlier) 22
(Refused) 0
5A. Do you consider yourself to be of Hispanic or Latino descent? Yes 13
No 86
(Refused) 1
5B. Please select the race or ethnicity you consider yourself to be. You may select more than one if needed.

White 68
Chinese 8
Asian Indian 4
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1
Another Asian ethnicity (Please specify: ____) 7
Black or African American 9
American Indian or Alaska Native 2
Middle Eastern or Northern African 3
Something else (Please specify: _____) 4
(Refused) 5
6INT. Using the following scale, please rate each of the following.

SCALE: Poor Only fair Good Excellent (No response)
(RANDOMIZE)

6. The ease of getting around Berkeley
11 29 50 10 0

7. The safety of getting around Berkeley
15 34 46 5 0

8. The pedestrian infrastructure in Berkeley, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and street lighting 13 31 47 9 0

9. The streets and roads in Berkeley
29 40 28 3 0

EMC Research #21-8226 -3-

SCALE: Poor Only fair Good Excellent (No response)

10. The bicycle infrastructure in Berkeley, such as bike lanes and paths, bike parking, bike signals, and bicycle boulevards
12 29 43 13 4

11. The street traffic safety features in Berkeley, such as traffic signals, electronic speed signs, flashing pedestrian lights, and pedestrian signals
12 28 49 10 0

12. The Healthy Streets program, where some streets have been temporarily altered to encourage walking and biking over driving
13 26 39 15 6
(END RANDOMIZE)

13. What are the biggest challenges you and/or your family face in getting around Berkeley? (OPEN

ENDED, RESPONSES CODED INTO CATEGORIES)
Traffic 13
Condition of roads/Potholes 9
Poor bus/BART transportation 8
Parking 8
Drivers/Pedestrians/Bikers don't follow laws/rules 8
Homeless/Drugs/Crime 7
Safety for Bikers/Pedestrians 7
Crosswalks/Intersections/Poor lighting and markings 7
Poor public transportation options 5
Construction/Blocked access 4

Poor infrastructure/Narrow roads/Dangerous left hand turns/More traffic lights 4
Poor bike lanes 4
Sidewalk condition 2

None/Nothing 7
Other 6
Not Sure/Don't Know/No Opinion 1
Refused/N/A 2

EMC Research #21-8226 -4-

14INT. How safe do you feel traveling around Berkeley using each of the following? Please do your best to answer even if you personally don’t get around that way.

Very unsafe Very safe (Don’t
know/
Refused) Mean SCALE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(RANDOMIZE)

14. On foot or using a mobility device such as a walker or wheelchair 6 7 13 16 22 20 10 4 4.49

15. AC Transit
3 5 7 16 26 25 15 5 5.01

16. BART
5 4 10 17 25 22 15 2 4.82

17. Bicycle
7 9 13 20 27 14 5 6 4.18

18. Car, whether you are the driver or a passenger
1 1 6 10 25 28 28 1 5.56
(END RANDOMIZE)

EMC Research #21-8226 -5-

19. Thinking about places you visit or travel to in Berkeley, are there particular locations, areas, or neighborhoods that you feel unsafe in? (OPEN ENDED, RESPONSES CODED INTO CATEGORIES) Downtown 18
West Berkeley 10
South Berkeley 9
Southside 8
Gilman 2
UC Berkeley 2
Berkeley Hills 1

Busy streets 5
Night time 3
More than one place 3
Homeless encampments 3

None 31
Other 7
Don't know 1
Refused 0
20INT. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statement.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree (Don’t
know/
Refused) Mean SCALE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(RANDOMIZE)

20. I feel like I am welcomed by other members of the community when I am out and about in Berkeley. 4 3 7 20 24 25 16 0 4.98

21. I worry about being harassed by other Berkeley community members when I’m out and about in Berkeley.
21 19 13 13 16 8 9 1 3.44

22. I worry about being physically or verbally assaulted by other Berkeley community members when I’m out and about in Berkeley.
18 21 15 13 14 9 10 0 3.52

23. People drive safely in my neighborhood.
13 11 16 16 19 14 9 1 3.99

24. There are enough bus shelters, benches, and other safe places to rest or wait for the bus in my neighborhood.
14 9 15 21 18 13 8 3 3.88

EMC Research #21-8226 -6-

Strongly disagree Strongly agree (Don’t
know/
Refused) Mean SCALE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. The City of Berkeley should allocate more money for transportation improvements to lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color that have historically been underfunded. 6 4 3 10 12 14 50 1 5.65
(END RANDOMIZE)

26. I’m now going to read you a statement about the Berkeley Police Department.

The Berkeley Police Department currently has a wide range of responsibilities, including enforcing traffic and parking laws, investigating traffic collisions, and handling property crimes. The City of Berkeley is considering moving some of those responsibilities to other City departments to be handled by unarmed public employees instead of police officers.

Do you support or oppose the idea of moving some police responsibilities to other City departments? 1 – Strongly oppose 9
2 3
3 4
4 7
5 10
6 15
7 – Strongly support 51
(Don’t Know/Refused) 1
Mean 5.58

EMC Research #21-8226 -7-

27INT. For each of the following activities, please indicate how important you feel it is that a police officer be responsible for handling it.

Not important at all Very important (Don’t
know/
Refused) Mean SCALE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(RANDOMIZE)

27. Enforcing parking regulations and issuing parking tickets 51 18 11 7 6 3 5 0 2.25

28. Enforcing routine moving vehicle violations and issuing traffic tickets 24 12 15 13 14 10 12 0 3.61

29. Responding to and investigating traffic collisions with pedestrians, bicyclists, or other drivers 12 7 10 8 17 18 28 0 4.78

30. Enforcing bicycle and pedestrian regulations and issuing tickets 35 20 13 11 9 3 8 0 2.81

31. Responding to and investigating property crimes, including car theft and vandalism 7 4 5 10 17 19 38 0 5.36
(END RANDOMIZE)

32. The City of Berkeley is considering moving traffic enforcement responsibilities away from police officers, instead assigning these responsibilities to a specialized set of city employees who would not carry weapons or have the power to detain or arrest people. These employees would be trained and uniformed, and would conduct activities like issuing parking tickets, investigating collisions, enforcing traffic regulations, and conducting routine traffic stops.

Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?
1 – Very bad idea 7
2 5
3 5
4 8
5 13
6 17
7 – Very good idea 45
(Don’t Know/Refused) 0
Mean 5.46

EMC Research #21-8226 -8-

33. Why do you say that? (OPEN ENDED, RESPONSES CODED INTO CATEGORIES)

Cops Not Needed/Don't Require Being Armed/Decreases Chances Of Escalation 37
More Serious Crime/Police Needed Elsewhere/Priority 19 Safety Concerns/Potential To Escalate/Inherent Risk/Dangerous 9 Should Be Law Enforcement/Necessary Authority 9
Alternative Solutions/Different Qualifications 8
(Addresses Issues) Use Of Force /Abuse of Power/Mental Health 7

Deescalates Tensions With Community/Address Racial Disparity In Law Enforcement 6
Won't Be Armed/Ineffective/Taken Serious 5

Agree With Some Of The Responsibilities Being Removed/Still Need Police Presence In some Cases 5
It Would Work/I Agree With/Help Where Needed 4
Feel Less Safe/Miss Potential Criminal Arrest 3
Already Qualified/Trained/Experienced 2
Eliminates Deterrents/Criminals Will Take Advantage 2
Need More Info/Details/Don't Know How It Would Work 2
More Bureaucracy/Don't Trust Government 1
Waste of Money/Unnecessary/Cost 1

Other 6
Not Sure/Don't Know/No Opinion 2
None/Nothing 0
Refused/N/A 5

EMC Research #21-8226 -9-

34INT. Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements.

Strongly disagree Strongly agree (Don’t
know/
Refused) Mean SCALE: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(RANDOMIZE)

34. Police enforcement of traffic laws makes me feel safer as I get around Berkeley. 17 15 11 18 16 9 14 1 3.85

35. Fear of being stopped by the police impacts how I get around Berkeley. 54 18 7 6 6 4 4 0 2.21

36. I am afraid I could be treated unfairly based on my race if I were stopped by a police officer in Berkeley.
48 14 9 8 8 4 9 1 2.59

37. I am afraid I could be physically harmed if I were stopped by a police officer in Berkeley. 43 19 11 8 8 6 5 0 2.58

38. Automated traffic enforcement technology like red light or speeding cameras are better and less biased than police officers making traffic stops.
10 3 5 14 18 16 31 2 5.05

39. Having police officers making traffic stops can lead to unsafe or violent encounters for people of color, particularly Black people.
8 5 5 11 17 14 39 2 5.25

40. People of color, particularly Black people, are more likely than others to be stopped by police at traffic stops in Berkeley.
6 3 6 11 17 17 37 4 5.36
(END RANDOMIZE)

EMC Research #21-8226 -10-

Finally, I'd like to ask you a few questions for statistical purposes only. Your answers will remain anonymous.
41INT. Have you, anyone in your family, or both you and a member of family ever… SCALE: Yes, myself
Yes, someone
else in my
family
Yes, both myself
and someone
else in my
family No
(Don’t know/
Refused)

41. Interacted with a Berkeley police officer
42 5 30 22 1

42. Interacted with City of Berkeley staff other than a police officer 42 4 27 26 0

43. Received a parking ticket in Berkeley
37 9 28 26 0

44. Been stopped by a Berkeley police officer
23 9 9 58 1

45. Been a victim of crime in Berkeley
28 8 20 42 1

46. Been involved in a traffic collision in Berkeley as a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver 21 10 8 61 0

47. Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a person in the Berkeley community 24 5 14 54 3

48. Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a Berkeley police officer 6 4 1 88 1

49. Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a City of Berkeley employee other than a police officer
3 1 1 93 2

EMC Research #21-8226 -11-

50INT. Please indicate how often you currently use each of the following ways to get around Berkeley. If you’re not sure, please take your best guess.

SCALE:
6 or 7
days a
week
4 or 5
days a
week
1 to 3
days a
week
At least
once a
month
At least
once
every six
months
At least
once a
year
Less often
or never
(Don’t
Know/
Refused)

50. Walk
48 19 24 6 0 0 3 0

51. Use a mobility device such as a walker, wheelchair, or mobility scooter 3 1 1 1 0 1 91 1

52. Ride AC Transit
2 5 13 13 10 12 45 0

53. Ride BART
1 4 17 29 18 11 21 1

54. Ride a bicycle
9 9 14 10 5 4 49 0

55. Drive a vehicle
34 22 21 5 2 1 14 0

56. Ride in a vehicle driven by someone you know, like a friend or family member 8 7 37 22 7 3 16 0

57. Ride in a Lyft, Uber, or taxi
0 1 9 23 21 14 31 0

58. Use East Bay Paratransit or the City of Berkeley’s Senior or Disabled Van Service 1 1 1 1 1 0 95 1

EMC Research #21-8226 -12-

59. Which of the following do you have or have access to? (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY) A Clipper card 84
A working vehicle 81
A working bicycle 56
A ride hail account, like Lyft or Uber 73
A car share account, like Gig or ZipCar 16
A bike share account, like BayWheels or GoBike 10

60. Do you…
Own or are buying the home where you live 44
Rent or lease 46
Live with family 7
Have another housing arrangement 1
Do not have stable housing 0
(Refused) 1

61. Are there any individuals under the age of 18 living in your household? Yes 25
No 75
(Refused) 1

62. What is the last grade you completed in school?
Some grade school 1
Some high school 2
Graduated high school 6
Technical or Vocational school 1
Some college, including a 2-year degree or a certificate 19 Graduated college or 4-year degree (BA, Bachelor) 34

Graduate or Professional Degree (MA, Master’s, PhD, MBA, Doctorate) 36
(Don't Know/Refused) 1

63. What is your sexual orientation?
Straight or Heterosexual 77
Gay or lesbian 4
Bisexual 5
Queer 4
Questioning or unsure 1
Another orientation (please specify: ___) 1
(Refused) 7

EMC Research #21-8226 -13-

64. Do you consider yourself to be transgender?
Yes 2
No 94
(Refused) 4

65. What was your total household income in 2020?
Less than $50,000 24
$50,000-84,999 19
$85,000-149,99 19
$150K+ 30
(Refused) 9
THANK YOU!

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 1
Survey of City of Berkeley Residents
Reimagining Policing Project
Initial Review of Results – 10/15/21

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 2
Methodology
 Hybrid email-to-web/live telephone survey of adult City of Berkeley residents  Survey conducted September 20-28, 2021
 630 total respondents
 Oversamples among Black and Latinx residents to reach 100 respondents  Weighted n = 550; overall margin of error ±4.2 percentage points  Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish by trained, professional interviewers; landlines and mobile phones included
Please note that due to rounding, some percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 3
Preliminary Summary of Findings
 A majority of Berkeley residents feel that getting around the City is easy, but many have concerns about safety, particularly outside of personal vehicles.
 Most feel positively about safety infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians in Berkeley, but they are less satisfied with streets and roads. There is an appetite for allocating more transportation money to historically underfunded neighborhoods.
 While most feel welcome in the Berkeley community, about one third worry about being harassed or assaulted by community members.
 A majority are open to the idea of moving some responsibilities out of the police department to other city departments, particularly parking enforcement, bike/ped enforcement, and traffic enforcement. Support is consistent across racial groupings, and particularly strong among LGBTQ populations.  Many believe police making traffic stops can lead to unsafe encounters, and that people of color are more likely to be stopped than others. These perceptions are present across racial groups.  One in five worry about being harmed or treated unfairly during a stop. People of color, especially Black people, are particularly concerned about potential harm by police due to their race.  Nearly half have been impacted (themselves or their family) by mistreatment by someone in the community, but many fewer have been mistreated by police or other city employees.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 4
Subgroup Weighted Frequency Unweighted n Margin of Error Men 48% 293 ±5.7 percentage points
Women 50% 326 ±5.4 percentage points
White 68% 419 ±4.8 percentage points
Hispanic 13% 100 ±9.8 percentage points
Black 9% 100 ±9.8 percentage points
Asian 18% 77 ±11.2 percentage points
Other 9% 59 ±12.8 percentage points
POC 34% 225 ±6.5 percentage points
Non-POC 66% 405 ±4.9 percentage points
LGBTQ 16% 92 ±10.2 percentage points
Non-LGBTQ 84% 538 ±4.2 percentage points
Statistical Information on Subgroups

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 5
15%
13%
10%
9%
3%
39%
43%
49%
47%
28%
6%
4%
26%
29%
28%
31%
40%
13%
12%
12%
13%
29%
54%
55%
60%
56%
31%
39%
41%
40%
44%
69%
+15
+14
+20
+13
-38
The Healthy Streets program, where some streets have been temporarily altered to encourage walking and biking over driving The bicycle infrastructure in Berkeley, such as bike lanes and paths, bike parking, bike signals, and bicycle boulevards The street traffic safety features in Berkeley, such as traffic signals, electronic speed signs, flashing pedestrian lights, and pedestrian signals
The pedestrian infrastructure in Berkeley, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and street lighting
The streets and roads in Berkeley
Excellent Good (Don't
Know)
Only fair Poor
Transportation and Infrastructure Ratings
Q6-Q12. I’m going to read you a list about different aspects of transportation around Berkeley. After each one, please tell me whether you’d rate that aspect as poor, only fair, good, or excellent.

Total
Pos.

Total
Neg.

Net
Pos.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 6
10%
5%
50%
46%
29%
34%
11%
15%
60%
51%
40%
49%
+20
+2
The ease of getting around Berkeley
The safety of getting around Berkeley
Excellent Good (Don't
Know)
Only fair Poor
Transportation Ease and Safety Ratings
Q6-Q12. I’m going to read you a list about different aspects of transportation around Berkeley. After each one, please tell me whether you’d rate that aspect as poor, only fair, good, or excellent.

Total
Pos.

Total
Neg.

Net
Pos.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 7
60%
65%
55%
59%
66%
58%
66%
58%
63%
58%
64%
59%
40%
35%
45%
40%
34%
41%
34%
42%
37%
42%
35%
41%
+20
+30
+11
+19
+32
+18
+32
+17
+27
+17
+29
+18
Overall
Men (48%)
Women (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Non-POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Non-LGBTQ (84%)
Excellent/
Good
(Don't know/
Refused)
Only fair/
Poor
Ease of Transportation - Subgroups
Q6. How would you rate the ease of getting around Berkeley on a scale of poor, only fair, good, or excellent? Net
Pos.

How would you rate the ease of getting around Berkeley?

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 8
51%
57%
45%
53%
53%
51%
42%
48%
46%
53%
55%
50%
49%
43%
55%
47%
47%
48%
58%
51%
53%
47%
45%
50%
+2
+14
-10
+6
+7
+3
-16
-3
-6
+6
+10
+0
Overall
Men (48%)
Women (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Non-POC/(Ref) (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Non-LGBTQ (84%)
Excellent/
Good
(Don't know/
Refused)
Only fair/
Poor
Safety of Transportation - Subgroups
Q7. How would you rate the safety of getting around Berkeley on a scale of poor, only fair, good, or excellent? Net
Pos.

How would you rate the safety of getting around Berkeley?

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 9
Transportation Challenges
13%
9%
8%
8%
8%
7%
7%
7%
5%
4%
4%
4%
2%
7%
6%
3%
Traffic
Condition of roads/Potholes
Poor bus/BART transportation
Parking
Drivers/Pedestrians/Bikers
Homeless/Drugs/Crime
Safety for Bikers/Pedestrians
Crosswalks/Intersections
Poor public transportation options
Construction/Blocked access
Poor infrastructure
Poor bike lanes
Sidewalk condition
None/Nothing
Other
Not Sure/Refused
Q13. What are the biggest challenges you and/or your family face in getting around Berkeley? (Open ended, multiple responses accepted)

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 10
Transportation Safety Perceptions
Q14-Q18. I’m going to read you a list of transportation methods to get around Berkeley. For each one, please rate how safe you feel traveling around Berkeley using that transportation method. 28%
15%
15%
10%
5%
54%
50%
47%
42%
41%
10%
21%
20%
20%
25%
7%
11%
14%
21%
22%
1%
3%
5%
6%
7%

5.56 5.01

4.82 4.49

4.18 In a car
On AC Transit
On BART
On foot or using a mobility device such as a walker
or wheelchair
On a bicycle
7 - Very safe 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Very unsafe Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 11
Areas Where You Feel Unsafe
Q19. Thinking about places you visit or travel to in Berkeley, are there particular locations, areas, or neighborhoods that you feel unsafe in? Are there particular locations, areas, or neighborhoods that you feel unsafe in? %
Downtown 18
West Berkeley 10
South Berkeley 9
Southside 8
Gilman 2
UC Berkeley 2
Berkeley Hills 1
Busy streets 5
Night time 3
More than one place 3
Homeless encampments 3
None 31
Other 7
Don't know 1
Note: this was an open-ended question.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 12
Perceptions of Community Accessibility and Equity
Q20-Q25. I’m going to read you a list of statements. For each one, please tell me whether you agree or disagree. 50%
9%
8%
26%
34%
30%
11%
17%
24%
7%
27%
24%
6%
13%
14%

5.65 3.99

3.88 The City of Berkeley should allocate more money for transportation improvements to lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color that have historically been underfunded People drive safely in my neighborhood
There are enough bus shelters, benches, and other safe places to rest or wait for the bus in my neighborhood
7 - Strongly agree 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Strongly disagree Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 13
Transportation Allocation by Subgroups
Q25. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 76%
73%
79%
76%
78%
85%
80%
80%
80%
74%
86%
74%
11%
13%
10%
12%
13%
7%
6%
3%
6%
14%
7%
12%
13%
14%
11%
12%
9%
9%
14%
17%
14%
12%
7%
14%

5.65 5.51

5.76 5.66

5.79 6.07

5.69 5.70

5.78 5.59

6.20 5.54
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
The City of Berkeley should allocate more money for transportation improvements to lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color that have historically been underfunded.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 14
Perceptions of Community Interactions
Q20-Q25. I’m going to read you a list of statements. For each one, please tell me whether you agree or disagree. 16%
10%
9%
49%
23%
24%
20%
13%
14%
10%
35%
32%
4%
18%
21%

4.98 3.52

3.44 I feel like I am welcomed by other members of the community when I am out and about in Berkeley
I worry about being physically or verbally assaulted by other Berkeley community members when I’m out and about in
Berkeley
I worry about being harassed by other Berkeley community members when I’m out and about in Berkeley
7 - Strongly agree 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Strongly disagree Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 15
Worry About Harassment by Community - Subgroups
Q21. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 33%
27%
40%
32%
39%
35%
39%
33%
36%
32%
32%
33%
14%
12%
14%
12%
12%
9%
20%
15%
17%
12%
20%
12%
53%
62%
46%
56%
50%
56%
41%
53%
48%
56%
48%
54%

3.44 3.10

3.76 3.33

3.70 3.39

3.80 3.46

3.62 3.35

3.51 3.43
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
I worry about being harassed by other Berkeley community members when I’m out and about in Berkeley.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 16
Worry About Assault by Community - Subgroups
Q22. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 33%
24%
42%
30%
40%
28%
42%
37%
37%
31%
31%
34%
13%
14%
12%
14%
6%
11%
13%
14%
12%
14%
17%
12%
53%
62%
45%
56%
54%
62%
45%
49%
50%
55%
52%
54%

3.52 3.20

3.81 3.37

3.53 3.25

3.94 3.67

3.72 3.41

3.57 3.51
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
I worry about being physically or verbally assaulted by other Berkeley community members when I’m out and about in Berkeley.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 17
Support for Moving Police Responsibilities
Q26. I do you support or oppose the idea of moving some police responsibilities to other City departments? The Berkeley Police Department currently has a wide range of responsibilities, including enforcing traffic and parking laws, investigating traffic collisions, and handling property crimes. The City of Berkeley is considering moving some of those responsibilities to other City departments to be handled by unarmed public employees instead of police officers. 51% 25% 8% 7% 9% 5.58Overall
7 - Strongly support 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Strongly oppose Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 18
Support for Moving Police Responsibilities - Subgroups
Q26. Do you support or oppose the idea of moving some police responsibilities to other City departments? 76%
77%
75%
78%
80%
78%
78%
70%
75%
76%
88%
74%
8%
7%
9%
8%
5%
10%
6%
8%
8%
8%
4%
9%
16%
16%
16%
15%
15%
12%
16%
22%
17%
15%
9%
17%

5.58 5.65

5.53 5.70

5.68 5.67

5.57 5.14

5.47 5.64

6.29 5.45
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Support (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Oppose (1-3) Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 19
38%
28%
12%
8%
5%
37%
35%
24%
13%
9%
10%
8%
13%
11%
7%
9%
17%
27%
33%
28%
7%
12%
24%
35%
51%

5.36 4.78

3.61 2.81

2.25 Responding to and investigating property crimes,
including car theft and vandalism
Responding to and investigating traffic collisions
with pedestrians, bicyclists, or other drivers
Enforcing routine moving vehicle violations and
issuing traffic tickets
Enforcing bicycle and pedestrian regulations and
issuing tickets
Enforcing parking regulations and issuing parking
tickets
7 - Very important 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Not important at all Mean Importance of Police Handling
Q27-Q31. I’m going to read you a list of activities that a police officer could be responsible for handling.

After each one, please tell me how important you think it is for a police officer to handle that situation.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 20
Support for Moving Traffic Enforcement Away from Police Q32. Using a scale of 1 to 7, how would you rate this idea? The City of Berkeley is considering moving traffic enforcement responsibilities away from police officers, instead assigning these responsibilities to a specialized set of city employees who would not carry weapons or have the power to detain or arrest people. These employees would be trained and uniformed, and would conduct activities like issuing parking tickets, investigating collisions, enforcing traffic regulations, and conducting routine traffic stops. 45% 30% 8% 9% 7% 5.46Overall
7 - Very good idea 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Very bad idea Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 21
Support for Moving Traffic Enforcement Away from Police - Subgroups Q32. Using a scale of 1 to 7, how would you rate this idea? 75%
74%
75%
77%
76%
70%
74%
70%
71%
77%
92%
72%
8%
9%
8%
7%
5%
9%
10%
6%
9%
8%
2%
10%
17%
18%
16%
16%
19%
21%
16%
24%
19%
16%
7%
19%

5.46 5.41

5.47 5.52

5.45 5.28

5.50 5.07

5.33 5.53

6.35 5.29
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Good idea (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Bad idea (1-3) Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 22
Reasons for Support for Moving Traffic Enforcement Away from Police Q33. The City of Berkeley is considering moving traffic enforcement responsibilities away from police officers… Why do you say this is a good idea or a bad idea? (Open ended)
Why do you feel moving traffic enforcement responsibilities away from police officers is a good or bad idea? % Cops Not Needed/Don't Require Being Armed/Decreases Chances Of Escalation 37% More Serious Crime/Police Needed Elsewhere/Priority 19% Safety Concerns/Potential To Escalate/Inherent Risk/Dangerous 9% Should Be Law Enforcement/Necessary Authority 9%
Alternative Solutions/Different Qualifications 8%
(Addresses Issues) Use Of Force /Abuse of Power/Mental Health 7% Deescalates Tensions With Community/Address Racial Disparity In Law Enforcement 6% Won't Be Armed/Ineffective/Taken Serious 5%
Agree With Some Of The Responsibilities Being Removed/Still Need Police Presence In some Cases 5% It Would Work/I Agree With/Help Where Needed 4%
Feel Less Safe/Miss Potential Criminal Arrest 3%
Already Qualified/Trained/Experienced 2%
Eliminates Deterrents/Criminals Will Take Advantage 2%
Need More Info/Details/Don't Know How It Would Work 2%
More Bureaucracy/Don't Trust Government 1%
Waste of Money/Unnecessary/Cost 1%
Other 6%
Not Sure/None/Refused 7%

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 23
Perceptions of Policing
Q34-Q40. I’m going to read you another list of statements. For each one, please tell me whether you agree or disagree.
39%
37%
31%
31%
34%
34%
12%
15%
16%
10%
9%
8%
8%
6%
10%

5.25 5.36

5.05 Having police officers making traffic stops can lead to unsafe or violent encounters for people of color,
particularly Black people
People of color, particularly Black people, are more
likely than others to be stopped by police at traffic
stops in Berkeley
Automated traffic enforcement technology like red
light or speeding cameras are better and less
biased than police officers making traffic stops
7 - Strongly agree 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Strongly disagree Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 24
Perceptions of Policing, continued
Q34-Q40. I’m going to read you another list of statements. For each one, please tell me whether you agree or disagree.
14%
9%
5%
4%
25%
11%
14%
10%
18%
9%
8%
6%
25%
23%
30%
25%
17%
48%
43%
54%

3.85 2.59

2.58 2.21
Police enforcement of traffic laws makes me feel
safer as I get around Berkeley
I am afraid I could be treated unfairly based on my
race if I were stopped by a police officer in Berkeley
I am afraid I could be physically harmed if I were
stopped by a police officer in Berkeley
Fear of being stopped by the police impacts how I
get around Berkeley
7 - Strongly agree 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Strongly disagree Mean

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 25
Police Making Traffic Stops Leads to Unsafe Encounters - Subgroups Q39. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 69%
68%
70%
70%
66%
71%
64%
71%
68%
70%
87%
66%
12%
13%
13%
12%
17%
8%
16%
14%
14%
12%
10%
13%
18%
19%
17%
18%
17%
21%
20%
15%
18%
18%
3%
21%

5.25 5.13

5.34 5.26

5.18 5.30

5.13 5.26

5.23 5.26

6.34 5.03
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
Having police officers making traffic stops can lead to unsafe or violent encounters for people of color, particularly Black people.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 26
POC More Likely to Be Stopped - Subgroups
Q40. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 71%
68%
74%
70%
75%
84%
67%
78%
73%
69%
82%
68%
15%
16%
13%
14%
15%
9%
18%
10%
14%
15%
13%
15%
15%
16%
13%
15%
10%
7%
15%
12%
13%
16%
6%
17%

5.36 5.21

5.51 5.38

5.42 5.86

5.17 5.49

5.40 5.34

6.11 5.21
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
People of color, particularly Black people, are more likely than others to be stopped by police at traffic stops in Berkeley.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 27
Fear of Unfair Treatment Based on Race - Subgroups
Q36. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 20%
20%
20%
12%
38%
54%
28%
38%
36%
12%
25%
19%
9%
8%
10%
6%
16%
5%
13%
20%
13%
6%
14%
8%
71%
72%
70%
82%
46%
41%
60%
42%
51%
82%
61%
73%

2.59 2.58

2.58 2.07

3.61 4.27

3.24 3.75

3.58 2.07

2.98 2.51
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
I am afraid I could be treated unfairly based on my race if I were stopped by a police officer in Berkeley.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 28
Fear of Physical Harm by Police - Subgroups
Q37. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 19%
21%
17%
16%
29%
36%
17%
30%
24%
16%
32%
17%
8%
9%
7%
8%
14%
13%
9%
11%
10%
7%
17%
7%
73%
70%
76%
76%
57%
51%
74%
59%
65%
76%
51%
77%

2.58 2.70

2.41 2.38

3.14 3.45

2.64 3.20

2.96 2.37

3.52 2.39
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
I am afraid I could be physically harmed if I were stopped by a police officer in Berkeley.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 29
Police Enforcement of Traffic Laws - Subgroups
Q34. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 39%
40%
39%
35%
39%
46%
51%
46%
49%
34%
21%
43%
18%
16%
21%
20%
20%
16%
15%
15%
15%
20%
14%
19%
42%
44%
41%
45%
41%
39%
34%
39%
37%
46%
65%
38%

3.85 3.85

3.88 3.66

3.98 4.11

4.28 4.23

4.23 3.65

2.74 4.07
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
Police enforcement of traffic laws makes me feel safer as I get around Berkeley.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 30
Fear of Police Impacts How I Get Around - Subgroups
Q35. Using a scale from 1 to 7, do you agree or disagree with this statement? 14%
16%
12%
11%
25%
30%
12%
21%
19%
12%
19%
13%
6%
7%
5%
6%
7%
7%
7%
8%
7%
6%
9%
6%
79%
76%
83%
83%
68%
63%
81%
71%
74%
82%
72%
81%

2.21 2.40

1.99 2.00

2.82 3.03

2.18 2.75

2.55 2.03

2.53 2.15
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Agree (5-7) 4/(Don't Know) Disagree (1-3) Mean
Fear of being stopped by the police impacts how I get around Berkeley.

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 31
Self-Reported Interactions
Q41-49. Please tell me whether or not this interaction has ever happened to you, anyone in your family, or both you and a memberof family. 42%
42%
37%
28%
24%
23%
21%
6%
3%
5%
4%
9%
8%
5%
9%
10%
4%
30%
27%
28%
20%
14%
9%
8%
1%
77%
73%
74%
57%
44%
41%
38%
11%
6%
Interacted with a Berkeley police officer
Interacted with City of Berkeley staff other than a police officer
Received a parking ticket in Berkeley
Been a victim of crime in Berkeley
Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a person in the Berkeley community
Been stopped by a Berkeley police officer
Been involved in a traffic collision in Berkeley as a
pedestrian, cyclist, or driver
Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a Berkeley police officer
Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a City of Berkeley employee other than a police officer
Yes, myself Yes, someone else in my family Yes, self and family member Total

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 32
Police Interactions
Q41. Please tell me whether or not this interaction has ever happened to you, anyone in your family, or both you and a memberof family.

Interacted with a Berkeley police officer
42%
47%
38%
43%
37%
44%
36%
42%
40%
43%
30%
44%
5%
4%
4%
4%
9%
7%
6%
7%
6%
4%
6%
4%
30%
26%
34%
32%
32%
34%
20%
28%
26%
33%
33%
30%
77%
78%
76%
78%
78%
85%
62%
77%
72%
80%
69%
79%
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Yes, myself Yes, someone else in my family Yes, self and family member Total

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 33
Police Stoppage
Q44. Please tell me whether or not this interaction has ever happened to you, anyone in your family, or both you and a memberof family.

Been stopped by a Berkeley police officer
23%
23%
23%
24%
25%
27%
14%
21%
19%
25%
19%
24%
9%
8%
9%
9%
12%
11%
2%
21%
9%
9%
9%
9%
9%
8%
10%
10%
10%
17%
2%
9%
8%
10%
8%
9%
41%
39%
42%
43%
48%
55%
18%
52%
35%
44%
36%
42%
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Yes, myself Yes, someone else in my family Yes, self and family member Total

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 34
Crime Victimhood
Q45. Please tell me whether or not this interaction has ever happened to you, anyone in your family, or both you and a memberof family.

Been a victim of crime in Berkeley
28%
26%
29%
29%
25%
26%
24%
25%
25%
29%
24%
29%
8%
8%
8%
8%
16%
6%
10%
11%
9%
8%
14%
7%
20%
18%
22%
22%
15%
22%
14%
8%
15%
23%
19%
21%
57%
53%
60%
59%
57%
53%
49%
45%
49%
60%
56%
57%
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Yes, myself Yes, someone else in my family Yes, self and family member Total

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 35
Discrimination/Assault by Community
Q47. Please tell me whether or not this interaction has ever happened to you, anyone in your family, or both you and a memberof family.

Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a person in the Berkeley community 24%
21%
27%
22%
24%
22%
28%
28%
27%
23%
32%
23%
5%
5%
6%
6%
6%
4%
2%
6%
4%
6%
2%
6%
14%
11%
16%
15%
11%
15%
12%
13%
13%
15%
25%
12%
44%
37%
49%
43%
42%
41%
43%
47%
43%
44%
59%
41%
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Yes, myself Yes, someone else in my family Yes, self and family member Total

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 36
Discrimination/Assault by Police
Q48. Please tell me whether or not this interaction has ever happened to you, anyone in your family, or both you and a memberof family.

Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a Berkeley police officer 6%
6%
6%
5%
7%
11%
4%
8%
6%
5%
9%
5%
4%
2%
5%
4%
5%
8%
5%
4%
5%
3%
3%
4%
11%
10%
12%
9%
14%
22%
10%
15%
14%
9%
17%
10%
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Yes, myself Yes, someone else in my family Yes, self and family member Total

21-8226 Berkeley Residents Survey DRAFT| 37
Discrimination/Assault by City of Berkeley Employee
Q49. Please tell me whether or not this interaction has ever happened to you, anyone in your family, or both you and a memberof family.

Been discriminated against, harassed by, or assaulted by a City of Berkeley employee other than a police officer 6%
4%
7%
6%
5%
8%
3%
8%
5%
6%
5%
6%
Overall
Male (48%)
Female (50%)
White (68%)
Hispanic (13%)
Black (9%)
Asian (18%)
Other (9%)
POC (34%)
Not POC (66%)
LGBTQ (16%)
Not LGBTQ (84%)
Yes, myself Yes, someone else in my family Yes, self and family member Total

Sara LaBatt
[email protected]
office: 510.550.8924
Kevin White
[email protected]
office: 206.204.8033
Elizabeth Kaczorowski
[email protected]
office: 510.550.8934

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Audit Report
July 2, 2021
Data Analysis of the
City of Berkeley’s
Police Response

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Report Highlights
Findings
• From 2015-2019, Berkeley police responded to an average of 70,160 events per year.
• Ten call types accounted for 54 percent of all events: traffic stops, disturbance, audible alarm, noise disturbance, security check, welfare check, suspicious circumstance, trespassing, theft, and wireless 911.

Top 10 Most Common Call Types of Events, 2015-2019
Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data
• Officer-initiated responses were 26 percent of event
responses, while 55 percent were the result of calls to the non- emergency line and 19 percent were from 911 calls.
• The majority, 78 percent, of officer-initiated stops were vehicle stops, and most of them occurred between 8:00pm and 1:00am. The majority of vehicle stops did not lead to a search, and most stops led to a warning.
• Events with a priority level of 1 to 2, which require personnel to be dispatched within 20 minutes of the call, made up nearly 40 percent of all events. Forty-three percent were lower priority events and required personnel to be dispatched within an hour to 90 minutes after the initial call.

July 2, 2021
Objectives

1. What are the characteristics of
calls for service to which Berkeley
Police respond?

2. What are the characteristics of
officer-initiated stops by Berkeley
Police?

3. How much time do officers spend
responding to calls for service?

4. How many calls for service are
related to mental health and
homelessness?

5. Can the City improve the
transparency of Police
Department calls through the City
of Berkeley’s Open Data Portal?
Why This Audit Is Important
In response to the killing of George
Floyd by Minneapolis police in May
2020 and subsequent protests across
the nation, a national conversation
ensued about policing. The Berkeley
City Council initiated a robust
community process to reimagine
policing in Berkeley, and passed a
proposal requesting analysis of
Berkeley’s police data. This report is
intended to give decision makers and
the public a broad overview of calls
for service, officer-initiated stops, and
police responses and to help inform
the community engagement process
around reimagining policing in
Berkeley.

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government For the full report, visit:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor
• Mirroring prior findings by Center for Policing Equity, which were based on data through 2016, data we reviewed showed that BPD stopped Black people at a significantly higher rate than their representation in the population (34 percent compared to 8 percent), while BPD was most likely to search Black and Hispanic people following a stop.
• On average, Berkeley Police Department dispatched 1.8 personnel per event. In 41 percent of personnel responses, the Communications Center dispatched three or more personnel, including officers and non-Berkeley Police Department
personnel.

Number of Personnel Response per Event, 2015-2019
Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data
• The number of events that involved homelessness or mental health and the amount of time police spent responding to these events are not quantifiable due to insufficient data. • The City’s Open Data Portal provides the public with limited information about events that Berkeley Police Department responds to. There are opportunities for Berkeley Police Department to improve transparency by increasing the type and scope of data available on the portal.

Recommendations
We recommend that the Berkeley
Police Department identify all calls
for service that have an apparent
mental health and/or homelessness
component in a manner that protects
the privacy rights of individuals
involved. We also recommend that
the Berkeley Police Department
expand the current calls for service
data available on the City’s Open Data
Portal to include all call types and
data fields for as many years as
possible. City Management agreed
with our recommendations.

The audit does not propose
recommendations with regard to
police activities or personnel
allocations. There is a separate,
ongoing community process for
reimagining public safety and
policing.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
4 Table of Contents

health and homelessness calls.

Department activity data on the Open Data Portal.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
5 I. Introduction
Following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in May 2020, a national conversation ensued about policing, race, and the proper level of resources cities should devote to law enforcement in relation to other services and approaches. The Berkeley City Council held several meetings throughout the spring and summer to discuss a variety of proposals related to policing, and hundreds of community members provided input through public comment, phone calls, and emails.

Among the items discussed was a proposal by Councilmember Ben Bartlett to analyze data on police activities in the City of Berkeley and initiate a public process to discuss various potential changes to policing in the City. The City Auditor offered to conduct analysis of police data requested as part of this proposal.

Mayor Jesse Arreguín incorporated the call for this analysis into the Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act, a broader item on policing that City Council passed in July 2020.

In this audit, we present the results of our analysis. It is intended to give decision makers and the public a broad overview of calls for service, officer-initiated stops, and police responses and to help inform the community engagement process around reimagining policing in Berkeley, which is currently underway. It is also intended to provide information to the broader community around events that involve police personnel.

This report is the first in a series of audits on policing. Analysis of the police budget is forthcoming.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
We answered the following audit objectives, the first three of which were requested in the Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act:
 What are the characteristics of calls for service to which Berkeley Police respond?  What are the characteristics of officer-initiated stops by Berkeley Police?  How much time do officers spend responding to calls for service?  How many calls for service are related to mental health and homelessness?  Can the City improve the transparency of Police Department calls through the City of Berkeley’s Open Data Portal?
We analyzed Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) data from 2015 to 2019. The full list of CAD data fields are in Appendix A. We explored various models for categorizing and characterizing data on police activities and consulted a range of stakeholders, including the Berkeley Police Department (BPD), the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform hired by the City to lead the reimaging policing process, other City departments, community stakeholders, and subject matter experts to inform how we characterized the data. The purpose of this process was to ensure that we presented the data in a way that is as accurate, clear, and as easy to understand as possible.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
6 The audit does not propose recommendations with regard to police activities or personnel allocations. There is a separate, ongoing community process for reimagining public safety and policing. Given the timing of that process and the scope of this report, we did not do an in-depth analysis of alternative policies or approaches to policing. However, we do make recommendations aimed at making data more transparent and available to the public.

The following describes the scope and limitations of data included in this report:
• Focus on 2015 to 2019 time period. Given the anomalies in patrol team staffing and other impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, we analyzed data from January 01, 2015 to December 31, 2019.
• Responses that include sworn BPD officers. We analyzed data for responses that have at least one sworn BPD officer. Some responses also include other units in addition to sworn BPD officers, such as non-sworn BPD personnel, or non-police personnel from other City departments.
• Emphasis on patrol officers. The CAD data source primarily documents responses by patrol officers who are usually the first and primary responders to calls for service. As such, our analysis focuses on the patrol functions of the Berkeley Police Department. There are additional activities within BPD that are not captured in the CAD data and therefore were outside the scope of this audit.
• Partial snapshot of response from other non-patrol units. We show data about other units involved in calls, but only if they are documented in CAD. As such, we do not include all calls by these other units, such as the Mobile Crisis Team. • Call types are not proof of a crime. In CAD, dispatchers assign calls for service to a call type based on the nature of the call. In many cases, the assigned call type may reference a certain type of crime. However, assigning calls to these call types does not constitute proof of a crime.

Further, any type of call may result in a crime report from the primary BPD officer assigned to the event.
• Geography not included. We did not conduct a geographic analysis. Patrol officers are assigned to work in a specific geographical area, called a beat, typically with up to 10 or 11 officers and two sergeants on each patrol team. A deep dive geographic analysis would have required significant additional time and was beyond the scope of our audit. • Caller may be from any jurisdiction. The callers and individuals involved in events may or may not be Berkeley residents.
• Does not include number of calls received for each event. This report does not include the number of calls that were made to the Communications Center for each individual event.

Data about individual callers is excluded from the report because we did not receive this information in the data. However, we describe the type of call source, such as whether a call came from the emergency line or was initiated by the officer.

For more information on our methodology, see page 62.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
7 II. Background
Organizational Context
Berkeley’s City Charter established the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) and its functions, which operate under the direction of the Chief of Police and the administrative direction of the City Manager. According to its website, BPD’s mission is to safeguard Berkeley’s diverse community through proactive law enforcement and problem solving, treating all people with dignity and respect.1 BPD’s fiscal year 2020 budget includes 285.2 full-time equivalent positions including 181 who are sworn in as law enforcement officers (sworn officers) and another 104.2 professional employees, serving a city of over 120,000 people.

Figure 1. Berkeley Police Department Organization Chart Source: Berkeley Police Department
BPD personnel that respond to calls for service may be sworn officers or professional personnel, and the latter are also referred to as “non-sworn” or “civilian.” According to BPD Policy 102, sworn officers take or affirm an oath of office expressing commitment and intent to respect constitutional rights in discharging the duties of a law enforcement officer as specified in the California Constitution. The California penal code grants sworn officers the authority to wear a badge, carry firearms, and make arrests in performing their police duties as authorized and under the terms specified by their employing agencies. 1 Berkeley Police Department Mission, Vision, and Values: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Police/Home/ About_Our_Department.aspx

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
8 Event Response Personnel
BPD Patrol Teams. BPD patrol teams are the primary
responders dispatched to events. They provide services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. BPD policy states that the function of patrol teams are to respond to calls for service and reports of criminal activity, act as deterrent to crime, enforce state and local laws, identify community needs, provide support and assistance to the community, and
respond to emergencies. Patrol officers may also self-
dispatch based on their geographic proximity or
seriousness of the event depending on priority level.

BPD Communications Center. The call takers and dispatchers working in the BPD Communications Center have the important role of answering emergency and non-emergency calls and dispatching police officers to events. Call takers accept and processes inbound 911 and administrative calls for police, fire, and medical services as well as other services such as animal control. They also input call information into the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and transfer the information to fire and police dispatcher staff.

Dispatchers coordinate all police-related calls requiring a response from law enforcement and enter all officer-initiated incidents into CAD such as pedestrian and traffic stops. They also maintain radio contact with field staff.

Other Units. Other personnel may be dispatched as needed to support patrol officers responding to an event. Other units can include other BPD personnel such as Area Coordinators, Bike Unit Officers, Parking Enforcement Officers, and Crime Scene Technicians. Other personnel dispatched to support patrol teams may also include non-BPD personnel such as Animal Control, the Mobile Crisis Team, and University of California Officers.2 As an example, if the Communications Center receives a call about a situation that involves a person experiencing a mental health crisis, they may dispatch BPD officers and also dispatch the Mobile Crisis Team of non-police mental health professionals from the City’s Mental Health Division.

All other units are described in greater detail on page 45.

Process for Responding to Calls
BPD’s process for responding to events reflects the interactions between community members, the Communications Center, and the responding BPD officers. The response process heavily influences the integrity of the data that informs this report.3 BPD uses a CAD software system to prioritize and record events, track the status and location of officers in the field, and effectively dispatch personnel. 2 While some calls may involve the Berkeley Fire Department, we do not have data on Fire personnel who responded to these BPD events.
3 We conducted this analysis based on data pulled from CAD, but we did not verify the error rate of data in CAD. We did not attempt to match up the thousands of records in the system with other internal and external documents.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
9 It is crucial to remember that the response process involves situations that are evolving and often require fast action before all the information about the situation is known. CAD is not optimized to give responders all the information they need before arriving at the scene. There are several roles responsible for entering data into CAD throughout the response process. We detail the police department’s response process in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Berkeley Police Department’s Response Process

Note: We did not analyze responses by Berkeley Fire Department, Emergency Medical Services, or other such units that may provide support for BPD patrol officers that were not included in the dataset provided by BPD.

Source: Berkeley City Auditor

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
10 Event. In context of this report, “events” refer to situations that are entered in the CAD system that resulted in a response by at least one sworn officer. There are several ways an event is initiated. Community members initiate events by calling the 911 emergency or non-emergency lines, or by flagging down an on- duty officer. Police officers may initiate events on their own. Events are also initiated when an alarm goes off or when CHP transfers a call. It is possible to have multiple incoming calls for one event.

Pre-scene. When someone calls 911 or the non-
emergency line, a dispatcher receives the call and
collects specific information, such as the address of
the event, the possible issue, if there is a weapon,
and the people involved to begin dispatching the
appropriate personnel to the scene. The initial call
taker enters this information into the CAD
database. Dispatchers assign a call type and
priority, then dispatch officers accordingly. The
dispatcher has the ability to enter narrative data at
any time to provide ongoing information to the
officer regarding the nature of the event.

Information entered into CAD at this stage may not always match the information entered later in the response process. By the time an officer arrives, a burglary may no longer be in progress, a noisy party may have dispersed, or, if the delay between call and response is long enough, the caller may have left the location.

On-scene. Police officers notify a dispatcher when they are on their way to the scene and when they arrive.

Due to the changing nature of events, the police officer assigned as the primary unit also collects additional information on scene. The CAD event will be updated as information becomes available by either the officer or dispatcher, however, the call type is final once the officer arrives and a responding officer cannot change the call type in CAD. The evolving situation of a call may lead to a dispatcher assigning additional police or other units to the scene, or officers nearby may self-dispatch to provide backup.

Post-scene. Once the event is closed, the primary officer on scene completes an incident report if required by the severity of the event, and updates the CAD file with any new information. Those reports are submitted to the patrol shift supervisor and either approved or revised. Typical revisions include clarifying dates, police codes, or providing additional details. According to BPD, disposition codes are most often entered by an officer. However, an officer may also radio into the Communications Center about the event and a dispatcher will enter disposition information.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
11 Quality control. Each day, a records clerk reviews the BPD Communications Center reports for clarity and completeness. This includes verifying call codes, addressing typos, confirming addresses using Global Positioning System (GPS), and identifying where there may be missing information. Once the record has met their quality control requirements, the call is uploaded into the separate Law Enforcement Records Management System (LERMS) where it is stored along with the raw CAD file from the call.

Assigned Call Types
Dispatchers at the BPD Communications Center assign each event a call type that describes important information about the events unless the event is officer-initiated. BPD uses many call types. Some describe a potential crime (e.g., robbery, assault, gambling), while others describe the location (e.g., fall on city property), people involved (e.g., missing juvenile), or a situation that may not be related to crime (e.g., welfare check, vehicle stop). In addition, the Communications Center uses call types in order to assign priorities and resources to the event, as discussed further in the section on priority levels. Call types for events are assigned prior to arrival of BPD staff, and they may differ from the actual event that took place after the event has concluded.

Call Type Classifications
According to the data, BPD used 137 unique call types. We consolidated these call types into nine descriptive categories for reporting purposes. Similar call type classifications have been used to organize call for service data for reporting purposes in similar jurisdictions such as Portland,4 Austin,5 and Oakland.6 Building on these efforts, we organized BPD’s call types into categories through input from external subject matter experts, the BPD Communications Center, and BPD officers with relevant experience (Table 1).

The City Auditor call type classifications are descriptive. They do not, by themselves, imply a recommended policy change. Further, assigned call types under the crime classifications may not necessarily mean a crime has taken place. Specific call types within each classification are listed at the end of the report under Appendix G. For more information on the methodology used to classify call types, see page 65.

4 City of Portland Police Bureau, “Introduction to Calls for Service,” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/article/676725 5 AH Datalytics, “Assessment of Austin Police Department Calls for Service,” https://austinjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ Analysis-of-Austin-Police-Department-Calls-for-Service-3.pdf 6 Center for Public Safety Management. “Police Data Analysis Report,” https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/CPSM- Oakland-CFS-Report-Dec-2020.pdf

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
12 Table 1. Description of City Auditor Call Type Classifications Note: These are the events classified by call types, not the final report or crime.

Source: Berkeley City Auditor
Classification Description
Violent Crimes
(FBI Part I Crimes)
Events that fall into the definition of Part I crimes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program that are crimes against a person. The FBI UCR program defines these crimes as criminal homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Only assaults specifically identified as aggravated are included as a Part I offense.

Property Crimes
(FBI Part I Crimes)
Events that fall into the definition of Part I crimes by the FBI UCR Report that are property crimes.

These include arson, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny theft. This does not include theft by fraud, forgery, or embezzlement.

FBI Part II Crimes
FBI Part II crimes include all other crimes that are not included as Part I crimes. While some of these crimes are very serious, including kidnapping and child molestation, the majority of these crimes are crimes such as disturbing the peace and trespassing, which in some cases may be infractions and not actually criminal.

Community
Calls that assist the community in managing events that pose a potential threat to safety or public order. They are most often not initiated by an officer. These include but are not limited to:
• Civil matters where police presence is requested to ensure the situation does not escalate (e.g., advice, extra surveillance, civil standby).
• Calls related to disturbances or other problems that result in a police response to assess and resolve the situation.
• Contacts with the community, such as aid to citizen.

Medical or Mental health Events primarily related to medical assistance to the community. They may involve a dispatch from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for added support.

Traffic
Events that typically involve enforcement of traffic and parking laws, and management of traffic flows. In addition, these calls may involve events pertaining to vehicles, such as collisions or road hazards. This classification also includes pedestrian, bike, suspicious vehicle, and vehicle stops.

Informational or
Administrative
Calls that are non-investigative assistance or administrative in nature, such as property damage or information.

Investigative or
Operational
Calls that require investigative or operational input, such as a wireless 911 call or outside agency assist.

Alarm
Calls initiated by the activation of an audible, silent, duress, and/or monitored alarm of a vehicle, residence, business, or other premise. Example alarms include audible alarm, GPS tracker alarm, silent alarm, Pronet (bank) alarm, or video alarm.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
13 III. Characteristics of Events
Analysis of 350,800 events from 2015-2019
This section offers an overview of the events in the City of Berkeley that resulted in a police response from 2015 to 2019. In context of this report, “events” refer to situations that are entered into the CAD system that resulted in a response by at least one sworn officer. We present information about the characteristics of events in Berkeley, including the frequency of events over time, types of events, how events are initiated, priority level, outcomes, and events that result in crime reports. The figures in this section draw from a sample of 350,800 events within the CAD files we obtained from BPD.

The City has averaged 70,160 events per year, and more occurred during summer months and on Friday and Saturday evenings. This report classifies most of those events, 72 percent, as Traffic, Community, and FBI Part II Crimes and those events have consistently been the majority from 2015 to 2019. Community and FBI Part II Crime events were mostly initiated by calls to the non-emergency line, and the non-emergency line accounted for 55 percent of the initiated calls. These most frequent call types include traffic stop, disturbance, and audible alarms. The most frequent officer-initiated events include traffic stop, security check, and pedestrian stop. While only 6.7 percent of events resulted in a Part I UCR crime report linked to a CAD event, larceny theft was by far the most common Part I UCR crime reported to the FBI. Traffic stops were the call type that resulted in the most arrests.

The characteristics of events shape the priority and extent of BPD’s response. For instance, the number of officers that are available to respond to the call varies depending on the location, time of day and day of the week. Events vary in complexity, and can include anything from a request for a security check to a report of a serious crime. Characteristics such as the severity of the situation and number of people involved also influence the priority level and the number of officers dispatched, along with their sense of urgency about the situation. Additionally, the assigned call type for the events in this report may not necessarily be the actual event outcome since call types are assigned prior to personnel arriving on scene.

We review the following components related to events:
 Overall Event Frequency
 Events by Time and Day of the Week
 Events by Call Type Classification
 Event Initiation Source
 Assigned Call Type
 Priority Levels
 Events that Result in an Arrest
 Events that Result in a UCR Part I Report

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
14 Overall Event Frequency
Figure 3 demonstrates the total number of events in the City on a monthly basis, from January 2015 to December of 2019, in order to show seasonal changes in the frequency of events over time.

Figure 3. Events Captured in CAD by Month, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data The number of events for the City of Berkeley has hovered around an average of 70,160 events per year. The trend line indicates that more events occur in the summer, while events decline during the winter. In addition, the data show a notable decline in events in 2018. This drop in events is reflected in other time series throughout this report. We did not investigate the reason for the drop in the calls as this extended beyond the scope of analysis for this audit.

Events by Time and Day of the Week
Figure 4 shows all of the events from 2015 to 2019 in which the Communications Center created a CAD event to demonstrate the frequency of events by the time of day and day of week. The chart is organized by the time of day on the bottom (x axis) and the day of the week on the left side (y axis). The blue color reflects fewer events, while a deeper red reflects more events. The largest number of events occur on Friday and Saturday evenings with a spike between the hours of 8:00 pm and 1:00 am. The majority of weekday events (Monday-Thursday) with a police response occur between the hours of 9:00 am and 9:00 pm.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
15 Figure 4. Number of Events by Time and Day of Week, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Events by Call Type Classification
In this section, we present events grouped by classification. We describe call types related to mental health and homelessness in more depth in section VI. Appendix G provides the full list of call types and their corresponding classifications.

Figure 5 shows the frequency of events organized by classification as discussed on page 12. Note that while many crime call types fall within Part II crimes, the majority, or 60 percent, of the events are either disturbance or trespassing.

Figure 5. Events by City Auditor Classifications, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
16 Figure 6 shows the number of events that fall into each call type classification over the years. The figure demonstrates whether there have been changes in some of the call type classifications over the years. It is important to note that the BPD has the authority to add or eliminate call types. The removal or addition of call types can be a contributing factor in the increase or decrease of call types in the data. We did not assess the impacts of changing call types as this extended beyond the scope of analysis for this audit.

Figure 6. Events by City Auditor Classification and Year, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
17 Event Initiation Source
As discussed in Section II, multiple callers may call in to the Communications Center to report an event. The data does not indicate the number of calls received by the Communications Center to report an event.

However, according to BPD, dispatchers can add additional information from multiple callers to one CAD event record. If more than one CAD record is created for one event, the records will be merged into one record retaining all information. The CAD data we received does include the source of information that led to the event being created. Figure 7 breaks down the share of callers by three main categories: the emergency line, non-emergency line, officer- initiated, and other.

Figure 7. Initiation Source of Events, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events)

Note: “Other” includes: some alarm calls, some cell phones, California Highway Patrol, Counter, OnLine, and Voice Over Internet Protocol (VolP). Officer-initiated includes traffic stops.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
18 Figure 8 shows the initiation source for each of the call type classifications. The majority of traffic stops are officer-initiated. The Traffic classification includes call types in addition to stops, such as parking violations and traffic hazards.

Figure 8. Initiation Source of Events by City Auditor Classifications, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Note: Less than 1 percent of calls also come from an “other” source which includes: some alarm calls, some cell calls, California Highway Patrol, Counter, OnLine, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VolP), and Other. Officer-initiated includes On View and Traffic stops.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
19 Figure 9 shows the initiation source for calls over a five year period. It reflects the consistent trend that the non-emergency line is by far the top initiation source, followed by officer-initiated, emergency line, and other.

Figure 9. Initiation Source of Events by Month, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
20 Assigned Call Types
Figure 10 shows the ten most common call types, which describe about 54 percent of all events. This table includes data for both events initiated by calls to the Communications Center and officer-initiated events.

Figure 10. Top 10 Most Common Call Types of Events, 2015-2019 (n = 189,536 out of 350,800 events)

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Table 2 breaks out the top calls by initiation source.

Table 2. Top 10 Call Types of Events for Officer-Initiated and Phone Lines, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Total Emergency and Non-Emergency Events Total Officer-Initiated Events

1. 415 - Disturbance 35,145 1. T - Traffic Stop 44,765

2. 1033A - Audible Alarm 19,812 2. SEC - Security Check 14,927

3. 415E - Noise Disturbance 15,699 3. 1194 - Pedestrian Stop 9,135

4. 1042 - Welfare Check 14,560 4. FLAG - Officer flagged down 5,181

5. SUSCIR - Suspicious Circumstance 11,380 5. 1196 - Suspicious Vehicle 4,347

6. 602L - Trespassing 10,926 6. 1194B - Bike Stop 2,782

7. 484 - Theft 10,277 7. PRKVIO - Parking Violation 994

8. W911 - Wireless 911 9,898 8. AID - Aid to Citizen 544

9. ADVICE - Advice 8.382 9. FOUND - Found Property 530

10. SUSPER - Suspicious Person 8,177 10. 415 - Disturbance 528

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
21 Priority Levels
Dispatchers are responsible for collecting adequate information in order to determine the appropriate response action based on the nature and priority of the event, and the available resources. Dispatchers assign all events a priority level which aligns with guidelines for how soon the Communications Center should dispatch police personnel to the event based on the urgency or severity of the circumstances. For an event with a priority level 1, dispatchers are expected to dispatch officers within one minute, whereas they have up to 90 minutes from the time of the initial call to dispatch an officer to a priority level 4 event.

According to BPD, priority levels are one of several factors that inform the number of personnel that are dispatched to an event. Other factors include call types, officer’s proximity to the event, and officer’s discretion. BPD stated that dispatchers have the authority to dispatch officers to events, but they do not play a role in reducing or diverting officers from responding to an event.

Priority levels range in urgency from Priority 1 as the most urgent to Priority 9 as the least. Priority 0 is used when officers initiate a stop and they are already on scene. Priority levels 4 through 9 each have the same time frame of 90 minutes, but the additional levels allow dispatchers to prioritize resources among lower level calls. Table 3 lists all the priority levels and corresponding dispatch times.

Table 3. Priority Level Guidelines for Time Between Initial Call and Dispatching Units7 Source: Berkeley Police Department

Priority
Level Time
0 0 Minutes
1, 1F Immediately
2 Within 20 minutes
3 Within 60 minutes
4 Within 90 minutes
5 Within 90 minutes
6 Within 90 minutes
9 Within 90 minutes
7 Priority level 1F indicates an event with a fire and that Berkeley Fire Department personnel were dispatched as well.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
22 Priority level recommendations are coded into the CAD system based on call types, but a dispatcher can change the priority if there is reason to based on the information they have. For example, a dispatcher may assign a family disturbance event as a priority level 1 or 2 depending on the circumstances and their professional judgement. Additionally, dispatchers’ assessment of priorities can diverge from the guidelines due to additional information gathered about the event. For instance, in their list of call types and priority codes, BPD lists disturbance with a typical assignment of priority 1 or priority 4. Nevertheless, disturbance is listed in the CAD data with call types ranging from 0, 1F, 1, 2, to 3. Appendix B provides a list of priorities for each call type as they appear in the data.

Figure 11 breaks down events by the assigned priority level.

Figure 11. Events by Priority Level, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
23 Figure 12 shows a breakdown of events by classification and priority level.

Figure 12. Events by Auditor Classifications and Priority Level, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Note: Priorities that rounded to 0% of each category (0.4% or less) were excluded from the chart for readability.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Events that Result in an Arrest
Table 4 shows the top ten call types and how many arrests were made for each of those call types from 2015 to 2019, but does not include all arrests BPD made during this time. CAD data only records arrests made during the event, but arrests can take place after dispatchers close the event. An event like a robbery, for example, could result in no arrest during the event, but lead to an arrest several days later. That arrest would be recorded in the Law Enforcement Records Management System, but is not included in the CAD data we received.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
24 Table 4. Top 10 Call Types of Events and Arrest Outcomes, 2015-2019 (n = 189,536 out of 350,800 events) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Events that Result in a UCR Part I Report: Violent and Property Crimes In this section, we present data on events that result in a report of certain violent or property crimes.

BPD officers are required to file a report when events involve certain violent and property crimes. BPD tracks a set of crimes, known as Part I crimes, through the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, which is separate from the CAD system. The Federal Bureau of Investigation developed the UCR Program to standardize how law enforcement agencies categorize and count crimes, and report crime statistics. BPD analyzes the relevant crime data and provides statistical reports to the California Department of Justice to be included in state and national crime data.

We received data on some events that resulted in a Part I crime report. UCR orders Part I crimes from most severe to least severe, with criminal homicide being the highest in the hierarchy and arson being the lowest.

Part I UCR crimes are listed below:

Call Types Arrests Total
Events
Arrests
(% of Total)

1. T - Traffic Stop 1,258 44,795 2.8%

2. 415 - Disturbance 528 35,696 1.5%

3. 1033A - Audible Alarm 19 19,920 0.1%

4. 415E - Noise Disturbance 12 15,773 0.1%

5. SEC - Security Check 211 15,262 1.4%

6. 1042 - Welfare Check 122 15,030 0.8%

7. SUSCIR - Suspicious Circumstance 152 11,547 1.3%

8. 602L - Trespassing 120 11,058 1.1%

9. 484 - Theft 101 10,556 1.0%

10. W911 - Wireless 911 6 9,899 0.1%

1. Criminal Homicide

2. Forcible Rape

3. Robbery

4. Aggravated Assault

5. Burglary

6. Larceny-theft (except motor vehicle
theft)

7. Motor Vehicle Theft

8. Arson

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
25 Additionally, there were 38 events that resulted in the reporting of hate crimes between 2015 and 2019. UCR standards require participating law enforcement agencies to report hate crimes as separate from and additional to the crimes listed above. According to the UCR handbook, hate crimes are not distinct crimes, but are traditional crimes motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnic or national origin group. Consequently, BPD collects hate crime data by capturing additional information about crimes they already report to the UCR program.

The CAD data does not include all the Part I UCR crime reports BPD filed because not all instances of these crimes took place during an event or involved dispatching police personnel. Further, an event classified as a Part I crime in CAD does not necessarily mean that a crime was ultimately charged or committed.

Altogether, from 2015 to 2019, a total of 6.7 percent of events in CAD with a police response resulted in a Part I UCR crime report. While there could be more than one UCR crime report per event, we used the hierarchy rule to identify each event by the most severe crime. As of this writing, we do not have detailed information on Part II crime reports as this information was not available to us.

Figure 13 shows the number of events in CAD that resulted in a Part I UCR crime report from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 13. CAD Events with a Part I UCR Crime Report, 2015-2019 (n = 23,587 out of 350,800 events) Note: There were no UCR reports of Arson in the data.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
26 Table 5 shows how events with Part I UCR crime reports from 2015 to 2019 are classified for the purposes of this report.

Table 5. Auditor Classification of Events that Resulted in a Part I UCR Crime Report, 2015-2019 (n = 350,800 events) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Table 6 shows how many of the top ten call types in CAD resulted in a Part I UCR crime report, from 2015 to 2019.

Table 6. Top 10 Call Types of Events that Resulted in a Part I UCR Crime Report, 2015-2019 (n = 189,536 out of 350,800 events)
Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Auditor Classification Events with UCR
Reports Filed Total Events
% of Total
Events with
UCR Reports
Property Crime (FBI Part I Crimes) 17,475 26,421 66.14% Community 2,058 88,031 2.34%
Violent Crime (FBI Part I Crimes) 1,752 2,465 71.08% FBI Part II Crimes 1,555 77,820 2.00%
Alarm 305 21,317 1.43%
Traffic 230 89,165 0.26%
Investigative or Operational 85 10,350 0.82% Medical or Mental Health 64 12,434 0.51% Information/ Administrative 63 22,797 0.28% Call Type Events with UCR
Reports Filed Total Events
% of Total
Events with
UCR Reports

1. T - Traffic Stop 49 44,795 0.11%

2. 415 - Disturbance 261 35,696 0.73%

3. 1033A - Audible Alarm 245 19,920 1.23%

4. 415E - Noise Disturbance 4 15,773 0.03%

5. SEC - Security Check 120 15,262 0.79%

6. 1042 - Welfare Check 40 15,030 0.27%

7. SUSCIR - Suspicious Circumstance 920 11,547 7.97%

8. 602L - Trespassing 32 11,058 0.29%

9. 484 - Theft 5,752 10,556 54.49%

10. W911 - Wireless 911 16 9,899 0.16%

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
27 IV . Characteristics of Officer-Initiated Stops
Analysis of 56,070 officer-initiated stops from 2015 to 2019 In this section, we provide an overview of the data we obtained on officer-initiated stops including the types of stops police make, stop trends over time, and stops that result in enforcement or searches.8 We also breakdown some of this information by race and age. In the context of this report, the number of officer- initiated stops refers to the number of individuals detained by BPD. This means that there could be more than one individual stopped per CAD event. For example, if an officer initiates a vehicle stop and detains two individuals, this is counted as one event with two stops.

State law authorizes Berkeley police officers to enforce state and local traffic laws to promote public safety.

Officers enforce traffic laws by stopping drivers who may be violating traffic laws. Pedestrians and cyclists may also be stopped. Officers are required to record the results of all stops. In this report, we refer to these events as officer-initiated suspicious vehicle stops, vehicle stops, pedestrian stops, or bicycle stops.9 All Berkeley police officers, whether assigned to the Traffic Bureau or not, are directed to participate in traffic enforcement and to be on the lookout for speeding, pedestrian safety concerns, and drivers under the influence.

Our stop analysis is the most recent effort to analyze police stop data in the City of Berkeley, but another organization also examined police stop data.10 In 2015, BPD contracted with the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) to conduct an analysis of Berkeley’s police stop data. Their analysis covered an observation period of 2012 through 2016.

We review the following components related to stops:

1. Officer-initiated stops by stop type

2. Time of day when stops occur

3. Dispositions, including:
a. Stops by race and age
b. Enforcement outcomes
c. Searches
8 The data analyzed in this section slightly differs from stop data on the City ’s Open Data Portal. This analysis only looks at officer initiated stops using a dataset pulled by the department, whereas the Open Data Portal provides disposition data for both off icer- initiated and non-officer-initiated stops (e.g., emergency and non -emergency calls for service). The overall difference between the two is not significant.
9 According to BPD, vehicle stops are different from suspicious vehicle stops. Vehicle stops can include stops for traffic viol ation enforcement or investigation of suspected criminal activity, and are initiated by officers. A suspicious vehicle stop is simi lar, but is typically dispatched by the Communications Center in response to a call for service. 10 According to its website, the Center for Policing Equity is a nonprofit organization that “produces analyses identifying and reducing the causes of racial disparities in public safety and advocates for large-scale and meaningful change.”

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
28 All of the charts in this section reflect officer-initiated stops for a total of 56,070 individuals from 2015 to 2019. A significant portion of information about stops draws from disposition reports submitted by officers and other traffic enforcement units. These disposition reports summarize information including race, sex, and age of the individuals involved in the event, the reason for the stop, the enforcement action, and whether or not BPD conducted a search. As such, this section does not include information for 4,961 stops that did not have accompanying disposition data. We did not determine the methods BPD typically uses to determine individuals’ race, sex, or age as that was outside the scope of our audit.

While the time period we analyzed overlaps and extends beyond the time period examined by CPE, our analysis uncovered a number of the same general patterns in stops, searches, and dispositions.

We found that the majority, 78 percent, of officer-initiated stops were vehicle stops, and most of them occurred between 8:00pm and 1:00am. The majority of vehicle stops did not lead to a search, and most stops led to a warning.

With regard to race, our data mirrored data by CPE in that BPD stopped Black and Hispanic individuals at higher rates than their representation in the population, Black individuals significantly so. BPD stopped White and Asian individuals at lower rates. We did not conduct an analysis regarding how this data should be interpreted, but simply note that these patterns are consistent with what CPE found in the data they examined.

Figure 14. Race and Officer-Initiated Stops
Note: For the purposes of this figure for Berkeley populations, the U.S. Census categories of American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, and Two or More Races are summed for Other; White is White alone, not Hispanic or Latino.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data and 2019 US Census data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
29 Further, like CPE, we found that Black and Hispanic individuals are more likely to be searched after being stopped, yet searches of these groups are less likely to result in an arrest than searches of White and Asian individuals. However, we did not do a full comparative analysis between the data set that is the subject of this report and the data reviewed by CPE because it was outside the scope of this overview report. More data on stops and searches are included in the following sections and in Appendix C and D.

Overall Stops
Figure 15 shows the percentage of different types of officer-initiated stops from 2015 to 2019.11 Figure 15. Officer-Initiated Stops by Type of Stop, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Note: Figures 15 to 29 do not include information for 4,961 stops that did not have accompanying disposition data.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

11 According to BPD, vehicle stops are different from suspicious vehicle stops. Vehicle stops can include stops for traffic viol ation enforcement or investigation of suspected criminal activity, and are initiated by officers. A suspicious vehicle stop is simi lar, but is typically dispatched by the Communications Center in response to a call for service.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
30 Figure 16 shows the number of any type of officer-initiated stop from 2015 to 2019. Because officers initiate stops, the number of stops they make depends largely on their availability. If an officer is busy responding to a high number of community-initiated calls, they are less likely to proactively initiate stops.

Figure 16. Officer-Initiated Stops by Month, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
31 Stops by Time of Day
Figure 17 is a heat map that adds up all of the events from 2015 to 2019, based on the time in which an officer initiated a stop. The chart is organized by the time of day on the bottom (x axis) and the type of stop conducted on the left (y axis). The colors in each row represent the number of stops as a percentage of all stops for each category. The blue color reflects fewer events, while a deeper red reflects more events.

Figure 17. Officer-Initiated Stops by Time of Day as a Percentage of Each Stop Type, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped)
Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Stop Dispositions
BPD tracks information about stop dispositions. This information includes the officer reported race, sex, and age of the individuals involved in the event, the reason for the stop, the enforcement action, and whether or not BPD conducted a search. BPD’s General Order B-4 required officers to provide stop disposition data after making any stop during the audit period of 2015 to 2019.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
32 In 2015, the California legislature passed the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) which supersedes General Order B-4. The goal of RIPA is to have more robust and reliable data to understand the demographics of those stopped by the police in California. RIPA requires law enforcement agencies to collect additional information about stop dispositions including contraband or evidence recovered during the stop, basis of a search if conducted, actions taken during the stop, and officer years of experience and assignment. While BPD stated that these requirements were mandated to start in 2022, BPD started collecting the data required by RIPA in October 2020. According to BPD and the City’s Department of Information Technology, officers do not collect personally identifying information as part of meeting RIPA requirements.

All the stop disposition data presented in this report was reported under the guidelines of General Order B-4 and before BPD implemented RIPA.

Stops by Race and Age
In this section, we present an overview of officer-initiated stops by race and age. BPD records demographic information for people stopped by the police, including their race, sex, and age. Until October 2020, officers used a six-digit disposition code to record information on the race, sex, and age of the person or people involved in stops, as well as the type of stop, the enforcement outcome, and if the officer performed a search.

In October 2020, the BPD transitioned to collecting stop data in accordance with the RIPA using an app installed on each officer’s City-issued smart phone.12 Officers are now required to collect the same information as the disposition code used previously and additional information on the stop.

12 Memo to City Council, October 13, 2020, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_General/RIPA% 20data%20101320.pdf

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
33 Figure 18 shows the percentage and number of stops by race from 2015 to 2019. BPD uses five groups to document the race of people involved in stops: Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and Other.

Figure 18. Officer-Initiated Stops by Race, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
34 Figure 19 shows stops by age and race from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 19. Officer-Initiated Stops by Race and Age, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
35 Figure 20 shows the distribution by race within each type of stop from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 20. Type of Officer-Initiated Stops by Race, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
36 Figure 21 shows the monthly distribution for all types of stops by race from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 21. Officer-Initiated Stops by Race and Month, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Enforcement
Officer-initiated stops sometimes result in enforcement outcomes. The four possible enforcement actions are arrest, citation, warning, and no enforcement. BPD’s General Order T-03 guides how officers are expected to use enforcement, including when to provide a verbal warning or a citation, in accordance with the California Vehicle Code. The general order directs officers to use their professional judgement in deciding whether to issue a warning instead of a citation. It also directs officers to issue a correctable citation for certain violations such as equipment or registration. Additionally, the general order directs officers to interact with the individuals and observe if there are signs of intoxication, visible guns, open alcohol containers or drugs, or other indicators of a crime.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
37 Figure 22 shows the breakdown of types of enforcement actions of stops, including arrest, citation, warning, and no enforcement.

Figure 22. Enforcement Actions of Officer-Initiated Stops, 2015- 2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
38 Figure 23 shows the number of enforcement actions, broken down by type of enforcement and stop, from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 23. Enforcement Actions of Officer-Initiated Stops by Stop Type, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
39 Figure 24 shows the number of stops by enforcement action and month from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 24. Enforcement Actions of Officer-Initiated Stops by Month, 2015-2019 (n= 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
40 Figure 25 shows the stop enforcement actions by race from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 25. Enforcement Actions of Officer-Initiated Stops by Race, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Searches
The following section provides information on whether BPD conducted a search during vehicle, bike, suspicious vehicle, or pedestrian stops. We break down all types of searches and resulting enforcement actions by race.

The stop disposition data during the 2015 to 2019 audit period did not include information on whether the officer asked for consent to search the person, and if so, whether the individual gave consent. The data also does not indicate the basis for the search, nor the type of contraband or evidence that was recovered, if any.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
41 Figure 26 shows individuals stopped by type and search outcome from 2015 to 2019. Out of 56,070 stops, 8,965 (16 percent) result in a search.

Figure 26. Searches Resulting from Officer-Initiated Stops by Stop Type, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Figure 27 shows stops by search outcome by month from 2015-2019.

Figure 27. Searches Resulting from Officer-Initiated Stops by Month, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
42 Figure 28 shows stops by search outcome and race from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 28. Searches Resulting from Officer-Initiated Stops by Race, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Figure 29 shows searches and resulting enforcement outcomes by race from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 29. Enforcement Outcomes of Searches Resulting from Officer-Initiated Stops by Race, 2015-2019 (n = 56,070 individuals stopped)
Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
43 V . Characteristics of Police Response
Analysis of 637,313 responses from BPD sworn officers and other units This section presents an overview of data about personnel that responded to events. Personnel dispatched to respond to events can include non-police personnel in addition to BPD personnel. All events in this CAD analysis include a response by at least one BPD sworn officer, though the Communications Center can also dispatch additional non-police personnel to certain events as needed. BPD Communications Center staff also play an important role in how BPD responds to events.

Sworn officers represented 96 percent, or most of the personnel that responded to events, and personnel from other units accounted for 4 percent of total personnel that responded to events. Parking enforcement officers and bike units accounted for over half of the personnel responses from other units. On average, BPD dispatched 1.8 personnel per event. The majority of personnel time, 69 percent, is spent responding to events classified as Community, FBI Part II Crimes, and Traffic. The data, which includes the classification or call type assigned to the event prior to BPD arriving at the event, may not reflect the actual event that takes place.

Primary BPD Response Personnel
Our analysis primarily reflects work conducted by the Communications Center and patrol teams to respond to events in the Berkeley community, with some information about additional supportive units. We provide a summary of each of these units below.

Patrol Teams. The Berkeley Police Department provides patrol services 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

These teams of sworn officers are usually the first and primary responders to calls for service. According to BPD’s Policy 400, the function of a patrol team is to respond to calls for assistance and reports of criminal activity, act as deterrent to crime, enforce state and local laws, identify community needs, provide support and assistance to the community, and respond to emergencies. Their duties may also include directing traffic, providing mutual aid, and responding to calls for help. The police responses tracked in the CAD data are largely from patrol teams and their supervisors.13

13 Patrol teams may include reserve officers who serve in a part -time capacity, and supplement and assist regular sworn police off icers in their duties. Reserve officers can be dispatched to similar assignments as full-time patrol officers with the exception of some felonies and more serious offenses and are required to get patrol sergeant approval when making arrests.

We review the following components related to police response:

1. Response by personnel unit type

2. Number of personnel responding to events

3. Personnel time spent responding to events

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
44 Communications Center. The Communications Center is part of the Support Services Division of the Berkeley Police Department, overseen by a sworn police captain. The Communications Center serves as Berkeley’s 911 public safety answering point, receiving all emergency and non-emergency police, fire, and medical calls in the City, and dispatching public safety personnel to respond as appropriate. The Communications Center is staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year by a team of dispatchers. Dispatchers are highly trained professionals, who gather essential information from callers and dispatch the appropriate response team to the scene. They take control of situations that may be chaotic, stressful, confusing, and traumatic. Dispatchers are often described as “first responders” as they make primary contact with the person reporting the emergency. As described in Section II, the Communications Center is integral in directing and characterizing these responses. For more information about the Communications Center, see 911 Dispatchers: Understaffing Leads to Excessive Overtime and Low Morale, which the City Auditor’s office released in 2019.

Other personnel units. A small portion of the data involves BPD personnel in units other than patrol teams that responded to events, as well as personnel from other city departments outside of BPD. Our data set did not include personnel dispatched from the Berkeley Fire Department, which may respond to an event that includes a BPD personnel. Other units may include the personnel described in the following sections.

Figure 30. Percentage of Personnel Responses by Type of Unit, 2015-2019 (n = 637,313 responses) Note: The category with 527,556 patrol officer responses includes 3,105 reserve officer responses. Patrol supervisors include sergeants, lieutenants, and captains.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
45 Other BPD Response Personnel – Sworn Officers
In addition to patrol officers, BPD employs a core group of individuals who are sworn in as law enforcement officers. State law grants sworn officers the authority to enforce the law, including traffic law. According to BPD, no other personnel are granted the same authority at this time. The following sworn positions responded to events:

Area Coordinators. Area Coordinators are within the Community Services Bureau. These are officers on a special assignment in this unit. The Area Coordinators act as liaisons to the patrol officers in their assigned area and collaborate with other city departments or community organizations to solve long-term problems.

Bike Unit. Bike Unit personnel are officers on special assignment who travel by bike. They work in a focused geographical area and initiate stops related to their work, but they often self-dispatch to support patrol officers.

Special Enforcement. Special Enforcement officers are officers focused on detecting, apprehending, and prosecuting persons engaged in narcotics, vice, and organized crime. This Special Enforcement Unit was established in 2000 and most recently operated under investigations. BPD disbanded the drug taskforce within the Special Enforcement Unit in 2016.

Motor Unit. Motor unit officers operate within the Traffic Enforcement function of the Traffic Bureau.

BPD staffs four motor officers who manage, investigate, and report on traffic-related events such as towed vehicles or collisions. The motor unit additionally supports the car seat education and installation program for the Berkeley Traffic Bureau.

Sworn, non-patrol officers. Some officers dispatched to events are sworn officers who are not assigned to patrol teams, such as when they are assigned to investigations or special assignments when they respond to a call.

Other BPD Response Personnel – Professional Personnel
In addition to patrol officers and other sworn personnel, BPD employs individuals who are non-sworn. The following non-sworn positions responded to events:

Community Service Officers. Community Service Officers (CSO) are specialized professionals performing a wide variety of technical support duties in the department. CSOs work most often in Berkeley City Jail, evidence, and investigations. According to BPD, while CSOs rarely appear in the CAD data, they may appear in cases when they need assistance from BPD officers in the jail.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
46 Crime Scene Technician. Crime Scene Technicians are part of the Crime Scene Unit/Investigation, and are CSOs. The Crime Scene Supervisor oversees four Crime Scene Investigators who collect and document evidence at crime scenes. Crime Scene Technicians support patrol officers of all ranks and all detectives with searches for evidence but are ultimately responsible for managing evidence in major or complex crimes.

Parking Enforcement Officers. Parking Enforcement Officers operate within the Parking Enforcement Unit of the Traffic Bureau. Parking Enforcement Officers enforce local and state parking laws and regulations. Their functions include responding to parking issues as reported by the community, working traffic control posts during police incidents, and helping to manage traffic and parking at special events, such as the 4th of July, the Solano Stroll, and UC Football games. Berkeley Municipal Code authorizes non- sworn parking enforcement officers to issue citations for violations of state and local parking laws, but not traffic violations.

Non-BPD Response Personnel
University of California Officers. BPD dispatches these officers when they are partnered with a BPD officer as part of a special program in which BPD has the lead.

Animal Control. Animal Control are members of the City of Berkeley Animal Care Services. They are responsible for enforcement of city ordinances related to animals, removal of killed or injured animals, impoundment of stray pets, and investigation of animal-related neglect, cruelty, nuisance, and bite cases.

Mobile Crisis Team. The Mobile Crisis Team (Mobile Crisis) are staff in the City’s Mental Health Division who may accompany BPD officers to calls related to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. This team aims to reduce the impact of mental health emergencies through immediate response to crisis situations at the street-level and through coordination and consultation with local public safety organizations, hospitals, and other community groups.

Response to Events
BPD dispatched patrol officers to respond to events 527,556 times with multiple officers being dispatched to some events. Patrol officers include seven patrol teams and reserve officers. Supervisors include police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains. Other units include Animal Control, Area Coordinators, Bike Unit, Crime Scene Techs, Community Service Officers, Dispatchers, Mobile Crisis Team, Parking Enforcement Officers, Police Aides, Special Enforcement, Traffic Bureau, and University of California officers. Figure 31 shows the number of other personnel units that responded to events from 2015 to 2019.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
47 Figure 31. Responses to Events by Other Units, 2015-2019 (n = 23,644 out of 637,313 personnel)

Note: Other includes: CSOs (non-sworn BPD unit), Police Aides (non-sworn BPD unit), and Animal Control (Non-BPD unit).

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data The number of personnel who respond to an event varies depending on the call type. Table 7 shows the average number of personnel who responded to an event by the most frequent call types. Appendix G provides the average personnel responses for all call types.

Table 7. Top Call Types by Personnel Response, 2015-2019 (n = 333,493 responses) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Call Type
Average
Personnel
Responses per
Event
Total Number of
Personnel
Dispatched
415 - Disturbance 2.0 70,456
T - Traffic Stop 1.5 67,083
1033A - Audible Alarm 1.7 34,175
SUSCIR - Suspicious Circumstance 2.6 29,897
1042 - Welfare Check 1.9 29,266
SEC - Security Check 1.8 26,845
242 - Battery 3.1 21,672
SUSPER - Suspicious Person 2.3 18,654
415E - Noise Disturbance 1.1 18,009
484 - Theft 1.7 17,436

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
48 Figure 32 shows a breakdown of events by the number of responding personnel from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 32. Number of Personnel Responses per Event, 2015-2019 (n = 637,313 responses) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data BPD Patrol Teams
BPD has seven patrol teams, as shown in Figure 33. Each team is made up of 5 to 11 officers and two supervising sergeants. Four lieutenants oversee two patrol teams each. According to BPD, patrol teams often fall short of the number of assigned officers when officers are out due to sick leave, training, or injury, and officers do overtime to make the minimum staffing of 8-9 officers per team. The number of officers dispatched to an event will vary depending on the call type. On average, BPD dispatches 1.8 personnel per event. Appendix G includes the average personnel responses for each call type.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
49 Figure 33. Example of Police Patrol Team Staffing
Source: Berkeley Police Department
Figure 34 shows the dates when more than 50 personnel were dispatched to one event during the five-year period, including the call type that was assigned to each respective event.

Figure 34. Events with Responses from More than 50 Personnel, 2015-2019 (n = 1,074 out of 637,313 responses) Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
50 Time Spent Responding to Calls
In this section we present information about the time BPD spends recording, dispatching, and responding to calls. The CAD data includes time stamps that correspond with the steps that occur throughout the call and response process. These time stamps enable an understanding of the amount of time that is dedicated to different portions of responses to events. We use the time between when a call is dispatched and cleared to indicate the amount of time that an officer or other personnel spends responding to an event. We use the time between a call being created and an officer being dispatched to denote the time in which the Communications Center assesses resources and dispatches officers.

The CAD system only records the time of a police event, which is an approximation of the time that officers and other personnel spend responding to events. Therefore, the data does not include information about how they spend their time outside of responding to events. Typical police activities that are not recorded in the CAD system include training, proactive policing activities, and report writing.

The time that BPD officers and other personnel take to respond to events can be longer than expected for several reasons. It could be because dispatchers forget to close out a call. Officers may have moved to another call, or are working on a report. Officers may also close out a call and continue to work on a report, so that they can be dispatched if needed.

Figure 35 shows the total number of BPD officers and other personnel dispatched to events by event priority level from 2015 to 2019.

Figure 35. Number of Personnel Responses by Priority Level, 2015-2019 (n = 637,305 out of 637,313 responses)

Note: Fire dispatch times are not included in this graphic.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
51 Table 8 shows the median time personnel spent responding to the ten most frequent call types from 2015 to 2019. Time spent responding is defined as the time between when the Communications Center dispatches personnel and closes the event in CAD, indicating that personnel are no longer on scene.

Table 8. Median Time Spent on Event after Dispatch for Top 10 Call Types, 2015-2019 (n = 321,224 out of 637,313 responses)

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Call Type
Median Time Spent on
Event after Dispatch
(Minutes and Seconds)
Total Number of
Personnel
Dispatched

1. T - Traffic Stop 7:00 67,083

2. 415 - Disturbance 14:00 70,456

3. 1033A - Audible Alarm 9:00 34,175

4. 415E - Noise Disturbance 9:00 18,009

5. SEC - Security Check 29:00 26,845

6. 1042 - Welfare Check 19:00 29,266

7. SUSCIR - Suspicious Circumstance 17:00 29,897

8. 602L - Trespassing 12:00 16,911

9. 484 - Theft 28:00 17,436

10. W911 – Wireless 911 7:00 11,146

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
52 Figure 36 shows an overview of the time BPD officers and other personnel spent responding to events for each call type classification. This is represented as percentages of the total time that all officers and other personnel spent responding to events.

Figure 36. Percent Personnel Time Spent Responding to Events Out of Total Time Responding to All Events by Auditor Classification, 2015-2019
Note: The figure excludes 5,247 responses that were missing start or end time stamps in the data.

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
53 VI. Finding 1: Berkeley Police Department can better track mental health and homelessness calls.

There has been much discussion by City Council and the community around BPD resources in response to events related to mental health and homelessness. City officials have estimated that BPD dedicates significant resources to responding to calls about people experiencing mental health issues or homelessness,14 and the City Council requested data to gain a better understanding of BPD’s response to these events.15 As such, we assessed the available data about the number of events and officer-initiated activities that relate to mental health and homelessness.

Currently, it is difficult to determine the full extent of BPD officers’ encounters with people who are experiencing a mental health issue or homelessness from the data set. We identified as many of these events in the data as possible, but they are undercounted, likely significantly, because BPD does not identify all calls related to mental health or homelessness. Better tracking of all events where mental health or homelessness are apparent would provide more complete understanding about BPD’s response and inform decisions about the appropriate resources to dedicate to these events.

Events Related to Mental Health and Homelessness are Undercounted BPD receives many calls that involve individuals who are experiencing a mental health issue or homelessness, but there are some challenges that make it difficult to identify these events in the CAD data.

First, call types in CAD reflect the primary reason for a call which may not capture events where the individuals involved are experiencing a mental health issue or homelessness. CAD has some call types to identify when the primary reason for the call is a mental health issue, such as a suicide attempt or “5150” for someone experiencing a mental health crisis. However, if the primary reason for the call is another issue, dispatchers are trained to assign those to call types that reflect the primary reason, such as family disturbance or pedestrian stop, which do not capture an accompanying mental health issue. According to BPD, if the event involves a potential crime, dispatchers will always log it using a corresponding crime code and not a mental health call type. For example, if the Communications Center receives a call about a disturbance in progress, dispatchers will assign a call type related to a disturbance. Officers may arrive on scene and find the individual involved is experiencing a 5150 mental health crisis, but the call type would not reflect this. Similarly, there is one call type specifically for events related to homelessness, but dispatchers may assign these events to other more general call types such as welfare check or person down depending on the information they receive about the primary reason for the call.

14 Berkeleyside article, “Mental health calls #1 drain on Berkeley police resources.” https://www.berkeleyside.com/2015/04/16/ mental-health-calls-are-1-drain-on-berkeley-police-resources 15 Mayor’s Omnibus Motion on Public Safety Items: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_- _Commissions/2020-07-14%20Mayor%20Supp%203%20Police%20Items.pdf

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
54 Second, disposition codes used to describe basic information about the event do not always capture when there is a mental health or homelessness component. For instance, out of 28,959 events with a mental health term in the narrative, only 23 percent were assigned the mental health disposition code. According to BPD, officers most often are the ones to enter disposition codes unless they call into the Communications Center and provide information for dispatchers to enter the code. BPD stated that officers do not consistently use this code for events with an apparent mental health component. Additionally, CAD does not have a disposition code that indicates whether an individual in an event is experiencing homelessness. Even if CAD did have such a disposition code, BPD stated that officers tend to only ask individuals for information that is directly relevant to the event and may not gather information about housing status if it is not relevant. BPD should only include this information if it is apparent during the event.

Third, the narrative description for an event in CAD may not identify events with a mental health or homelessness component. In addition to logging call types and dispositions, dispatchers enter narrative information about the event in a description field. In our analysis, we found that the information in the description field does not always match the call type. For instance, dispatchers assigned over 20,950 events to a mental health call type. Of those events, mental health key words were only present in about 48 percent of the narrative descriptions. Using only the narrative description to identify 5150 calls would have excluded many of those calls. For events related to mental health or homelessness that do not have a designated call type, the description field may contain the only information that may identify those events as mental health or homelessness.

Lastly, the data shows when the Mobile Crisis Team responds to events related to mental health, but this alone is not a reliable way to identify these events. The Communications Center may not dispatch the Mobile Crisis Team if the responding officer does not request assistance. There are also some events that the Mobile Crisis Team would normally respond to but cannot because they are unavailable. There is no equivalent response personnel indicator for events related to homelessness.

We developed a method to identify as many events with a mental health or homelessness component as possible, which we describe below, but it is evident that our analysis significantly undercounts these events because of the data limitations we identified.

Transparency and accessibility of information about BPD’s response to calls related to mental health or homelessness is an important part of the City’s public safety reimagining process. In 2020, City Council passed the Omnibus Motion on Public Safety which called for the reimagining process to consider the police response to mental health and homelessness-related calls. To increase the availability of data on BPD’s response to events that relate to mental health or homelessness to the extent that it is known, it is important that these events are identified in the CAD data. While there are challenges to identifying all these events, there are opportunities for BPD to capture more complete information by identifying events where it is apparent that individuals involved are experiencing a mental health crisis or homelessness, regardless of call type. This will result in more complete information about BPD’s response and the outcomes of the events.

This information can also inform decisions about the most appropriate way to respond to these events.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
55 Identifying Events Related to Mental Health
Mental health events we identified in the data do not represent the total number of events that may have had a mental health component because of the data limitations described above. We used the following components of the CAD data to identify 42,427, unduplicated events with a mental health component, or 12 percent of all events.
• Call types. Call types related to mental health include suicide (1056), mental illness (5150), and welfare check (1042). While dispatchers can select call types related to mental health, they can assess a situation and opt to select a different call type that reflects the nature of the event.16 Events with a call type that indicated the presence of a mental health issue accounted for 20,950 of the mental health calls identified.
• Mental health disposition code. According to BPD officials, the data includes a disposition code that is used to reflect events involving a mental health issue. This is a field that can be checked by BPD officers in addition to an assigned call type.
• Narrative description. The data includes narrative fields that dispatchers use to document details about the call that extend beyond the other CAD data entry options. These descriptions can vary depending on the dispatcher and not follow standardized language to describe mental health-related situations. In order to identify mental health-related terms within the narrative data, we consulted with officials from Berkeley Mental Health and the Mental Health Commission to create the list of search terms specific to mental health (Appendix F). We then used these terms to query and identify all the narrative reports to identify events with description fields that contained terms associated with mental health.17
• Mobile Crisis Team response. The data specifies the personnel who responded to each event. We queried the data for all instances in which the Mobile Crisis Team responded to an event. The data includes only Mobile Crisis Team responses that also involve a sworn BPD officer. The data does not document occasions in which the Mobile Crisis Team is unavailable to respond to a request for support.

Therefore, the absence of a Mobile Crisis Team response does not necessarily mean that there was no request for their services.

16 This includes other call types that do not explicitly refer to mental health but correlate with mental health outcomes, such as welfare check, family disturbance, pedestrian stops, and suspicious person. 16 We used the terms that are more specific to mental health and excluded terms more specific to substance abuse or addiction.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
56 Table 9 below shows the unduplicated events we were able to identify as related to mental health based on the call type, disposition, narrative description, or response by the Mobile Crisis Team. Approximately 12 percent of all events were related to mental health from 2015 to 2019.

Table 9. Results of Scan for Events Related to Mental Health, 2015-2019 Note: Call Types includes: 1056 – Suicide, 5150 - Mental Illness and 1042 - Welfare Check Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Table 10 shows how many events of the ten most frequent call types also had a mental health component from 2015 to 2019.

Table 10. Top 10 Call Types and Mental Health Terms in Narrative, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Narrative Report Disposition
Report Call Types Mobile Crisis Unduplicated Count

Mental Health-related
events identified in
Narrative Reports
Events with an
“MH” Disposition
Report
Events with Mental
Health-related Call
Types
Events with
response by
Mobile Crisis
Narrative report,
disposition, call types,
and/or Mobile Crisis
response
Identified events
# 28,959 9,553 20,950 4,298 42,427
% 8% 3% 6% 1% 12%
Total Events 350,800 350,800 350,800 350,800 350,800
Call Types
Events with
Mental Health
Term in
Narrative Field
Percent of
Events Total Events

1. T - Traffic Stop 70 0.2% 44,795

2. 415 - Disturbance 6792 19.0% 35,696

3. 1033A - Audible Alarm 100 0.5% 19,920

4. 415E - Noise Disturbance 221 1.4% 15,773

5. SEC - Security Check 199 1.3% 15,262

6. 1042 - Welfare Check 6032 40.1% 15,030

7. SUSCIR - Suspicious Circumstance 1244 10.8% 11,547

8. 602L - Trespassing 514 4.6% 11,058

9. 484 - Theft 395 3.7% 10,556

10. W911 - Wireless 911 123 1.2% 9,899

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
57 Identifying Events Related to Homelessness
Similar to mental health-related events, we were not able to identify all events related to homelessness because the information tracked in CAD is limited. While mental health-related events have several call types, lodging in public is the only call type for events related to homelessness. Unlike mental health, events related to homelessness in CAD do not have a disposition identifier. We used the following components of the CAD data to identify 21,683 events involving homelessness which represent 6.2 percent of all events, but this is an undercount:
• Call type. The only call type that is specifically related to events that involve one or more people experiencing homelessness is lodging in public. Events with this call type accounted for 0.6 percent of police-related CAD events we could identify as related to homelessness. • Narrative Description. We queried all the events to identify those with description fields that contained terms associated with homelessness. We consulted with officials from Berkeley’s Health, Housing, and Community Services Department, the Mental Health Division within that department, the Homeless Commission, and Mental Health Commission to create the list of search terms specific to homelessness (see Appendix F).

Events related to homelessness may also have a mental health component. The 21,683 homelessness-related events identified may overlap with some of the events related to mental health.

Table 11 below shows the unduplicated events we were able to identify as related to homelessness based on the call type or narrative description.

Table 11. Results of Scan for Events Related to Individuals Experiencing Homelessness, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Homeless-Related
Events Identified in
Narrative Reports
Events with Call
Type Lodging in
Public
Unduplicated Count
(Call type and/or
Narrative Terms)
Identified events
# 20,768 2,221 21,683
% 5.9% 0.6% 6.2%
Total Events 350,800 350,800 350,800

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
58 Table 12 shows the ten most frequent call types and events with a homelessness component from 2015 to 2019.

Table 12. Top 10 Call Types and Homelessness Terms in Narrative, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Recommendation
To improve access to data, we recommend the Berkeley Police Department:

Call Types
Events with
Homelessness
Term in the
Narrative Field
Percent of
Events Total Events

1. T - Traffic Stop 59 0.1% 44,795

2. 415 - Disturbance 3442 9.6% 35,696

3. 1033A - Audible Alarm 118 0.6% 19,920

4. 415E - Noise Disturbance 285 1.8% 15,773

5. SEC - Security Check 441 2.9% 15,262

6. 1042 - Welfare Check 1526 10.2% 15,030

7. SUSCIR - Suspicious Circumstance 711 6.2% 11,547

8. 602L - Trespassing 4818 43.6% 11,058

9. 484 - Theft 518 4.9% 10,556

10. W911 - Wireless 911 59 0.6% 9,899

1.1 Identify all calls for service where there is an apparent mental health issue and/or homelessness component in a manner that protects the privacy rights of the individuals involved.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
59 VII. Finding 2: The City can improve the transparency of Police Department activity data on the Open Data Portal.

The City’s Open Data Portal provides the public with limited information about events that BPD responds to. There are opportunities for BPD to improve transparency by increasing the type and scope of data available on the portal.

The City of Berkeley launched the Open Data Portal (portal) pilot on December 15, 2014 with the goal of providing non-confidential, public data for unrestricted use. BPD captures events in their calls for service data set on the portal, which was created in March 2015. BPD policy states that reports must be released to any member of the public unless the release of the report would endanger a person, interfere with an investigation, constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, or is otherwise prohibited by law.

However, the data BPD shares on the portal does not include all available data fields. The data fields missing would prevent people using the data from being able to identify the call source, the number of police personnel dispatched, or officer time spent on scene. Without this information, the public may not have a complete understanding of BPD’s response to these events.

The calls for service data available on the portal is also limited in scope. It does not include events with certain call types, such as welfare check and noise disturbance, and is limited to data within the last 180 days. The limited date ranges make it difficult to assess trends over time.

Ensuring that all event data has more complete information about the police response, personnel dispatched, time, and call source would help give the public with a more complete understanding of calls for service that the Communications Center receives. Public access to calls for service data enables the community to engage more thoroughly with BPD, elected officials, and city staff to develop a shared understanding of crime and policing in Berkeley. In addition, increased transparency through the portal may decrease requests for BPD data through the Public Records Act.

Recommendation:

To improve access to data, we recommend the Berkeley Police Department:

2.1 Make calls for service data available on the City’s Open Data Portal for all call types allowable by Berkeley Police Department policy and law, and update regularly to facilitate transparency.

This data should be published in machine ready format, and contain as many years of data as is available.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
60 VIII. Recommendations and Management Response

1.1 To improve access to data, we recommend the Berkeley Police Department identify all calls for service where there is an apparent mental health issue and/or homelessness component in a manner that protects the privacy rights of the individuals involved.

Management Response: Agree with stated limitations which follow.

Proposed Implementation Plan: The Berkeley Police Department can implement steps to capture these issues on calls when appropriate and/or obvious. Disposition codes, which are part of every Call For Service (CFS) offer a tool for data collection. While currently disposition codes for homeless and mental health issues exist, we need to implement training that better defines when these codes should be included in CFS dispositions. We anticipate some challenges with this as we do not routinely inquire about peoples’ housing or mental health statuses, especially when it is not directly related to the call for service. It will be important to identify what situations it might be appropriate to inquire about these issues to ensure that personal dignity is respected and privacy rights acknowledged. To ensure these goals are met, further discussion and clarification may be needed as to what data we are attempting to capture by indicating if mental health issues or homelessness was a component of a CFS, and setting more clearly defined definitions as to when each code should be used. Currently standard evaluation tools do not exist to extract this data in situations beyond the most obvious. Developing tools that accurately capture this information where it is more nuanced, and then implementing training that ensures these tools can be applied correctly could be affected by competing resource demands.

Proposed Implementation Date: Between 4-6 months from date of audit completion.

City Management agreed to our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Below is the Police Department’s initial corrective action plan and proposed implementation date. We find their plans to address our audit recommendations reasonable, however, we would like to clarify the intent of our recommendations.

With regards to the first recommendation, the goal is to collect and provide additional data on calls for service that have an apparent mental health and/or homelessness component. We do not recommend that the Police Department inquires about individuals' housing or mental health statuses, but instead collects this information in a similar way to how the department collects data on individuals’ race for traffic stops. With regards to the second recommendation, the goal is to provide additional data on calls for service to the public.

We understand that it may take time to coordinate with the vendor to include new datasets. We suggest that in the meantime, the Police Departments publishes the Calls For Service dataset that was provided to our office for this analysis and covers the past five years.

As part of the follow-up process, the Berkeley City Auditor will be actively engaged with the Police Department every six months to assess the progress they are making towards complete implementation.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
61 VIII. Recommendations and Management Response

2.1 To improve access to data, we recommend the Berkeley Police Department make calls for service data available on the City’s Open Data Portal for all call types allowable by Berkeley Police Department policy and law, and update regularly to facilitate transparency. This data should be published in machine ready format, and contain as many years of data as is available.

Management Response: BPD agrees that the current dataset posted online needs to be updated or replaced.

Proposed Implementation Plan: The new dataset should be able to incorporate additional information that is not currently published. Our staff will need to explore if our current vendor can suffice to provide the requested data, or if we need to seek a new vendor for this work. Implementation timeline is also dependent on the whether this project will require a new contract and budget to accomplish the recommendation. Implementation may require assistance and resources from IT as well, which could further delay implementation.

Proposed Implementation Date: Between 4-6 months if work remains with current vendor, 9-12 months if new vendor selection required.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
62 The scope of our audit focused on data for calendar years 2015 to 2019. We performed a risk assessment of the department’s data collection and management practices and procedures to identify internal control weaknesses, including fraud risks, within the context of our audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, as well as interviews with subject matter experts and BPD staff.

To gain an understanding of BPD operations and internal controls and to achieve our audit objectives, we:
• Reviewed BPD policies and procedures for dispatching units to respond to an event, performing traffic stops, maintaining quality control for data systems, and how patrol officers spend their time to understand the requirements for officers in the City of Berkeley. • Reviewed local and state laws on police operations and data collection to understand what governs police operations.
• Reviewed national media on reimagining policing, and the collection and analysis of police data to understand the information available to the public.
• Validated and analyzed CAD data from 2015 through 2019. • Interviewed BPD patrol officers, command staff, dispatchers, police information technology staff, the crime analyst, and the police records manager to understand departmental operations. • Interviewed mental health and housing officials from the Department of Health, Housing, and Community Services (HHCS), the Homeless Commission, and the Mental Health Commission. • Interviewed external subject matter experts:
• AH Datalytics
• Portland City Auditor
• San Jose City Auditor
• Center for Policing Equity
• Yale Justice Collaboratory
• NYU School of Law Policing Project
• Jerry Ratcliffe, Temple University
• Austin Justice Coalition
• Jack Glaser, UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy • Oakland Reimagining Public Safety Task Force (Data Advisory Board) • National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform
• Berkeley’s Police Review Commission
• Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group
• Reviewed the available BPD data sets on the City’s Open Data Portal.

IX. Methodology and Statement of Compliance

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
63 Preparing the Data Sets
In this section, we detail the process we undertook to gather, validate, and prepare the data, in addition to the decision points that went into preparing each data set.

Gathered the data. We collaborated closely with BPD on an information request to ensure the data set reflected the breadth of inputs to the CAD system. The validation process resulted in multiple data pulls to resolve substantial discrepancies that we identified in the data. In February 2021, BPD delivered the final source data that forms the basis of this report.

Conducted Data Reliability Assessment. We assessed the reliability of CAD data by reviewing them for reasonableness and completeness, interviewing knowledgeable data owners, gaining an understanding of data access controls, and reviewing data system documentation from BPD and the Communications Center.

We also reviewed the Department’s policies and procedures, interviewed staff at all levels, interviewed an extensive and varied list of subject matter experts, and reviewed relevant California and Berkeley laws. We determined that the data was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

Processed the Data to Improve Accuracy. We took the following steps to clean the original data set to improve accuracy:
• We eliminated records for which call types included “NULL” data, as call types are a required entry for dispatchers.
• We eliminated records that represented test calls, such as unit “Mobile08” which represented a test by dispatchers.
• We eliminated events for which there is no response from a sworn officer, due to our primary focus on responses from sworn BPD officers.
• We narrowed the data to events that occurred from January 2015 to December of 2019. • We organized the data by three separate data sets: event data, stop data, and personnel response data.

These data sets reflect different components of the CAD system, and their sample sizes vary due to how they are organized in the data set.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
64 Figure 37. Summary of Data Sets Used in the Report
Source: Berkeley City Auditor

1. Characteristics of Events (sample size 350,800 events). For the purposes of this report, events are incidents that the community calls in or police officers observe that result in a police response. Events range in complexity and the Communications Center categorizes them using call types such as suspicious circumstance, disturbance, petty theft, security check, and anything in between. Appendix G provides the full list of call types that are used to describe events in the City of Berkeley. We highlighted the trends and characteristics for all unique events in the data, including community-initiated calls and officer-initiated stops.

2. Characteristics of Officer-Initiated Stops (sample size 56,070 stops). We examined an additional subset of stops officers initiated that were unrelated to calls for service. Stops may include vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, or suspicious vehicle stops. All of the stops that we review in this section are initiated by officers.

3. Characteristics of Police Response (sample size 637,313 individuals who responded). The Berkeley Police Department Communications Center can assign multiple officers in response to one event.

As a result, there are more police responses in the data than there are events. We provide data for responses from officers and other units, including but not limited to the Mobile Crisis Team, Area Coordinators, or the Traffic Bureau.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
65 Categorization of Data
The data contains categorized fields. These include:

Call Type Classifications. We chose to categorize the data into ten categories as illustrated in our report.

We selected these categories based on research of current best practices by university researchers, interviews with subject matter experts, and a preliminary assessment of the data sets. We used the definitions for serious and property crime used by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report statistics.

When developing the categories, we took the following into consideration:
• Call types can fall into several classifications. The definitions below guide our decision to keep one call type under a specific category. For instance, vehicle stops are used to manage traffic flows, but in some instances, they may also be related to an investigation. We chose to keep vehicle stops in the traffic category because they may not necessarily result in a crime report. • Call types under the same classification may serve different purposes. For instance, call types related to alarms may serve a variety of purposes. Some alarms involve investigation for an alarm going off (1033a), while others are more criminal in nature such as a bank alarm indicating a robbery (1033g).
• Our call type classifications present one model among various approaches for classifying call types. There are other approaches for organizing call types, such as by police functions or penal codes.
• It is possible for call types under any of the categories to result in a crime report. We grouped some events into call type classifications that refer to crimes that may be involved. However, other call types may also involve a crime report.

Mental Health and Homelessness. To capture the extent of these calls, we used components of the CAD data to identify unduplicated events related to mental health and unduplicated events related to homelessness. Components related to mental health include call types (1056 – Suicide, 5150 - Mental Illness, and 1042 - Welfare Check), the disposition code “MH,” response by Mobile Crisis Team personnel, and terms in the narrative data related to mental health. Components related to individuals experiencing homelessness include events identified in narrative reports, and the call type “lodging in public.” Personnel. We vetted codes that indicate the type of personnel in the data with the Police IT Manager and Communications Center Manager. Through interviews with the Police Records Manager and other BPD command staff, we organized police personnel by categories according to whether they are sworn or non- sworn staff. We additionally categorized staff as patrol units, patrol supervisors, other units, and sworn, non -patrol officers.

Statement of Compliance
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
66 Table 13. Data Fields Included in Computer Aided Dispatch Dataset Provided by the Berkeley Police Department Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Note: Fields with an asterisk are required entries in Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD).

Appendix A. Fields Included in the CAD Data
Data Fields Description
Incident Number* Unique ID for the event.

Call Source The origin of the call, recoded to include Emergency Line (911), Non-Emergency Line, or Officer-Initiated, or Other.

Call Type* Call code created by dispatch to describe important information about the event.

Priority Priority level assigned to the event to determine the urgency of the response.

Occurred Incident Type Category selected by the officer to organize crime-related calls.

UCR Return A Code Code selected by the officer and reported to the FBI as a DOJ requirement for all Part 1 crimes.

Unit Disposition Patrol-reported outcomes of the call. Includes stop dispositions and incident reports.

Call Disposition Dispatcher-reported outcomes of the call. Includes stop dispositions and incident reports.

Address* Where the event was reported to have occurred.

Address Location Type The type of address that is provided by dispatch; includes address, intersection, or longitude/latitude.

Latitude/Longitude
Police Area Beat where the event is taking place.

Create Date Time* The time and date the call was created by either the dispatcher or the officer.

Dispatch Time The time and date when the officer was dispatched to the incident.

Enroute Time Time and date in which the officer changes their status to “enroute” after being dispatched.

Onscene Time Time and date in which the officer arrived to the scene.

Clear Time Time and date in which the incident was cleared (closed) by a dispatcher.

Primary Unit Flag The primary officer designated to handle the call. All others are “assisting” officers or units.

Unit Number The number that corresponds to the police officer and/or other units assigned to the event.

Narrative Data Further documentation about details of the event used to inform dispatched officers or units.