Berkeley City Council
April 21, 2022

Thursday, April 21, 2022 AGENDA Page 1

P R O C L AM AT I O N

C AL L I N G A S P E C I AL M EE TI NG O F T HE

B E R K E LE Y CI T Y C O U N CIL
In accordance with the authority in me vested, I do hereby call the Berkeley City Council in special session as follows:

Thursday, April 21, 2022
6:00 PM

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE
PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH

VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) and the state declared emergency, this meeting of the City Council will be conducted exclusively through t eleconference and Zoom videoconference. The COVID -19 state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person and presents imminent risks to the health of attendees. Therefore, no physical meeting location will be available.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B -TV (Channel 33) and via internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Please use this UR L https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84434084458. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phon e: Dial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 844 3408 4458 . If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

Please be mindful that the teleconference will be recorded as any Council meeting is recorded, and all other rules of procedure and decorum will apply for Council meetings conducted by teleconference or videoconference.

To submit a written communication for the City Council’s consideration and inclusion in the public record , email [email protected].

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981 -6900. The City Council may take action related to any subject listed on the Agenda. Meetings will adjourn at 11:00 p.m. - any items outstanding at that time will be carried over to a date/time to be specified.

Thursday, April 21, 2022 AGENDA Page 2
Preliminary Matters
Roll Call:

Action Calendar
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. For items moved to the Action Calendar from the Consent Calendar or Information Calendar, persons who spoke on the item during the Consent Calendar public comment period may speak again at the time the matter is taken up during the Action Calendar.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak use the "raise hand" function to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time. Up to ten (10) speakers may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes. The Presiding Officer may, with the consent of persons representing both sides of an issue, allocate a block of time to each side to present their issue.

Action items may be reordered at the discretion of the Chair with the consent of Council.

Action Calendar – New Business

1. City Manager Presentation and Response to the Reimaging Public Safety Task Force and National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform Recommendations From: City Manager
Recommendation: Accept the report from the City Manager with the goal of supporting council discussion and recommendations on a path forward to transforming public safety and policing in Berkeley.

Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager, (510) 981-7000

Adjournment
I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 19th of April 2022.

Jesse Arreguin, Mayor
Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting.

ATTEST:

Date: April 19, 2022
Mark Numainville, City Clerk

Thursday, April 21, 2022 AGENDA Page 3

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS : If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply:
1) No lawsuit challenging a City dec ision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90 -day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33), via internet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx.

Archived indexed video streams are available at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil.

Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m.

Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be posted on the City's website at http://www.cityofberkeley.info.

Agendas and agenda reports may be accessed via the Internet at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/citycouncil

COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at (510) 981-6418 (V) or (510) 981-6347 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.

Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B-TV, and on the Internet.

Office of the City Manager
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

ACTION CALENDAR
April 21, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: LaTanya Bellow, Deputy City Manager
Subject: City Manager Presentation and Response to the Reimaging Public Safety Task Force and National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION
Accept the report from the City Manager with the goal of supporting council discussion and recommendations on a path forward to transforming public safety and policing in Berkeley.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
On July 14, 2020, in Resolution No. 69,501-N.S., City Council passed a package of items providing direction for the development of a new paradigm of public safety in Berkeley. As part of the items that were adopted, City Council adopted Item 18c (“Referral to City Manager to Re-imagine Policing Approaches to Public Safety Using a Process of Robust Community Engagement, to Develop a Path Forward to Transforming Public Safety and Policing in Berkeley”) and Item18d (“Transform Community Safety and Initiate a Robust Community Engagement”), which directs the City Manager to engage a qualified firm(s) or individual(s) to lead a robust, inclusive, and transparent community engagement process with the goal of achieving a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community- centered safety for Berkeley.

BACKGROUND
 The omnibus package consisted of numerous elements including, but not limited to the following:
o Having the City Auditor perform an analysis of City’s emergency 9-1-1 calls-for- service and responses, as well as analysis of the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) budget
o Analyzing and developing a pilot program to re-assign non-criminal police service calls to a Specialized Care Unit

Special Meeting Item

Reimagining Public Safety ACTION CALENDAR
April 21, 2022

o Creating plans and protocols for calls for service to be routed and assigned to alternative preferred responding entities and consider placing dispatch in the Fire Department or elsewhere outside the Police Department

o Analyzing litigation outcomes and exposure for city departments in order to guide the creation of City policy to reduce the impact of settlements on the General Fund

o Engaging a qualified firm(s) or individual(s) to lead a robust, inclusive, and transparent community engagement process with the goal of achieving a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley

o Pursuing the creation of a Berkeley Department of Transportation (“BerkDoT”) to ensure a racial justice lens in traffic enforcement and the development of transportation policy, programs and infrastructure, and identify and implement approaches to reduce and/or eliminate the practice of pretextual stops based on minor traffic violations

Subsequent to the adoption of the omnibus package, the City established a multidepartment working groups to oversee and implement various components of the package. The working group consisted of the following:

City Manager; Deputy City Managers; City Attorney; Fire Chief; Health, Housing and Community Services (HHCS) Director; Human Resources Director; Police Chief; and Public Works Director.

National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform

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 Community Engagement
Reimagining Public Safety Task Force (Task Force)1
1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/RIPST.aspx.

Reimagining Public Safety ACTION CALENDAR
April 21, 2022

On January 19, 2021, the City Council adopted revisions to the enabling legislation for the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force
Per the Enabling Legislation, the Task Force’s work centered on providing input to and making recommendations to NICJR and City Staff on a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives incorporated into a final report and implementation plan developed by NICJR to guide future decision making in upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase produced, in the FY 2024-2026 budget process.

The Public Safety / Police Re-Imagining and community engagement process was led initially by Deputy City Manager David White and then Deputy City Manager LaTanya Bellow who provided overall project management support to the team.

The City Manager report presented is in response to the March 10, 2022 presentations by the following:

Reimaging Public Safety Task Force
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/City_Council/2022/03_Mar/D ocuments/2022-03-
10%20Item%2001%20Consideration%20of%20Recommendations.pdf National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2022/03_Mar/Documents/2022 -03-10_(Special)_Supp_2_Reports_Item_2_Rev_NICJR_pdf.aspx

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

CONTACT PERSON
LaTanya Bellow, Deputy City Manager, City Manager Office, (510)-981-7012

April 21, 2022
Reimagining Public
Safety: A Reference
Guide for City
Council Discussion
City of Berkeley
City Manager’s Office
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
Serving Berkeleyoften requires
tackling issues of broad scope and importance. Doing
that well takes significant time. But when values align with operations, that means our budget, work plan and
staffing are synchronized and we can accomplish
remarkable things. That’s exactly what our Strategic
Plan sets out to do.

Our City Council identified a need in our homeless
services: a structured place for people who are homeless to receive supportive services and temporary housing
as they transition to permanent housing. Using Council’s vision, city staff implemented this reality within 12 months to create a place where a broad range of people who are homeless receive housing, meals and access to services
such as addiction treatment, mental health and job
assistance. Achieving this Strategic Plan priority so quickly was exceptional, but it is just one of many ways we are building toward a stronger Berkeley.

New STAIR Navigation Center.

City Manager’s Office

2

Dee Williams-Ridley
City Manager
[email protected]
Letter from the City Manager
Policing in the United States continues to be one of the most important civil and racially charged issues facing people in the world today, especially people of color. The murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others brought police racism and violence to the forefront, and spurred a national conversation about reimagining public safety.

Although Police violence is a national problem, the most impactful approach for ending it is at the local level. This is where police and community seek to work together and create a shared public safety model that promotes engagement, transparency, and accountability. Here in Berkeley, I am proud that we have a Police Department that shares our City’s values and strives to treat people fairly. Our police officers have worked hard to remain ahead of their peers and lift up best practices. While this has not been perfect nor easy, our commitment is evident in the recognition of Berkeley Police as national leaders in de-escalation, an important practice that other departments are now employing.

I want to thank the Mayor and Council for the opportunity to recommend existing initiatives to how we approach public safety. The City of Berkeley has begun the conversation of transforming public safety from a traditional Police Department to one more focused on the needs of the community it serves. This will be a multi-year process and require collaboration from all stakeholders, the Council and a number of city departments and staff. Our successful collaboration will ensure a redesign that puts in place a mechanism to measure what matters most; Public Trust in our Berkeley Police Department, and a commitment to ensure a community-centered focus on safety for all Berkeleyans.

I want to extend a heartfelt thank you to the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force for their engagement, and expertise. They volunteered many hours of their time, attending regular meetings and participating in meaningful discussions. The breadth of their dedication was evident in their presentation for the future of policing and funding proposals that policymakers can use to improve public safety outcomes.

I would also like to thank the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, our commissioned consultants, for their guidance, professionalism and support throughout the community engagement process, including facilitating Task Force discussions, convening community listening sessions, and presenting relevant reports for consideration to support reimagining public safety in Berkeley.

In response to the concerns expressed by the community during the March 10, 2022 work session 1 and
reflecting Council’s commitment to meaningful change, I want to ensure you, I have heard your message and will demonstrate what we learned from the community, outside vendor participation, Council direction and staff in the Berkeley Police Department. We will look introspectively and push ourselves to answer the call of doing better.

This work would not be possible without my amazing executive team and city staff. Together we are committed to the work of the reimagining process and appreciate the responsiveness of the residents, and the support of our Mayor and City Council.
1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2022/03_Mar/City_Council__03-10-2022_Special_Meeting_Agenda.aspx 3

Table of Contents:

Letter from the City Manager 3
01 Executive Summary 7
02 Background 15
Specialized Care Unit 16
Priority Disp atch 18
BerkDOT 19
03 Recommendations 23
and Implementa tion Plan
Reimagine, Improve, Reinvest Tenets 25
Recommendation Summary 26
Recommendations, REIMAGINE 28
Recommendations, IMPROVE 32
Recommendations, REINVEST 40

04 Budget 45
05 Closing Remarks 53
4

06 Appendix 55
Appendix 1 - Referral to City Manager to
Re-imagine Policing Approaches to Public
Safety Using a Process of Robust Community
Engagement, to Develop a Path Forward to
Transforming Public Safety and Policing in
Berkeley
Appendix 2 - Transform Community Safety and
Initiate a Robust Community Engagement
Process
Appendix 3 - Revisions to Enabling Legislation
for Reimagining Public Safety Task Force
Appendix 4 - City of Berkeley Crisis Response
Models Report
Appendix 5 - City of Berkeley Mental Health
Crisis Response Services and Stakeholder
Perspectives Report
Appendix 6 - City of Berkeley Specialized Care
Unit Crisis Response Recommendations
Appendix 7 - Task Force: BerkDoT Presentation
to RPSTF
Appendix 8 - Task Force: BerkDoT Presentation
of Scientific Survey
Appendix 9 - Task Force: BerkDoT Survey Results
Appendix 10 - Data Analysis of the City of
Berkeley’s Police Response
Appendix 11 - Reimagining Public Safety Budget
Analysis
5

Downtown Berkeley,
courtesty of Far Out City
6

Executive Summary
01

8 City of Berkeley
Subsequent to the adoption of the omnibus
package, the City established a multi-
department working group to oversee and
implement various components of the package.

The working group consists of the following:
• City Manager
• Deputy City Managers
• City Attorney
• Fire Chief
• Health, Housing and Community Services
(HHCS) Director
• Human Resources Director
• Police Chief
• Public Works Director
Monthly meetings were established and an
organizational structure was developed that
enabled the City of Berkeley to advance the
various referrals in the omnibus package at the
same time. The work to support the omnibus
package was organized in the following manner:
• HHCS Director Lisa Warhuus, led the work
to develop a Specialized Care Unit pilot
program.
• Fire Chief Abe Roman, led the work to
develop a plan for Priority Dispatching.
• City Attorney Farimah Brown, is managing
the analysis of litigation claims and
settlements.
• The Public Safety / Police Re-Imagining
and community engagement process was
led by Deputy City Manager David White
until September 2021 and then Deputy City
Manager LaTanya Bellow from September
2021 forward. Both Deputies, and Senior
Management Analyst Shamika Cole supported
the City Manager by providing overall project
management support to the team.
• BerkDOT was led by Public Works Director
Liam Garland.

City Leadership
On July 14, 2020, City Council adopted an
omnibus package to reimagine public safety and
policing in the City of Berkeley. The omnibus
package consisted of numerous elements
including, but not limited to the following:
• Having the City Auditor perform an analysis
of City’s emergency 9-1-1 calls-for-service and
responses, as well as analysis of the Berkeley
Police Department’s (BPD) budget.
• Analyzing and developing a pilot program to
re-assign non-criminal police service calls to a
Specialized Care Unit.
• Creating plans and protocols for calls for
service to be routed and assigned to alternative
preferred responding entities and consider
placing dispatch in the Fire Department or
elsewhere outside the Police Department.
• Analyzing litigation outcomes and exposure
for city departments in order to guide the
creation of City policy to reduce the impact
of settlements on the General Fund.
• Engaging a qualified firm(s) or individual(s)
to lead a robust, inclusive, and transparent
community engagement process with the
goal of achieving a new and transformative
model of positive, equitable and community-
centered safety for Berkeley.
• Pursuing the creation of a Berkeley
Department of Transportation (“BerkDOT”)
to ensure a racial justice lens in traffic
enforcement and the development of
transportation policy, programs and
infrastructure, and identify and implement
approaches to reduce and/or eliminate the
practice of pretextual stops based on minor
traffic violations.

9Reimagining Public Safety
Public Safety and Police
Reimagining Community
Engagement
On December 15, 2020, the City Council
authorized the City Manager to enter into a
contract with the National Institute for 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.

City staff from the City Manager’s Office
met regularly with NICJR to discuss project
deliverables under their scope of work, prepare
for Task Force meetings, review timelines and
coordinate their work with other parallel efforts
in the City surrounding reimagining public
safety. NICJR collaborated and coordinated with
the City Auditor on the calls for-service analysis
to make progress on their report addressing new
and emerging models of community safety
and policing.

Interim Police Chief Louis and the Police
Department staff presented to the Task Force
on several occasions discussing the Police
Department’s budget, along with an overview of
Patrol Operations, the Field Training Program,
Civilian Oversight of the Police Department and
the disciplinary process. In addition, the Police
Department invited Task Force members to
participate in ride-a-longs with Police Officers
and sit in the communications center to
observe dispatchers. Many Task Force members
participated in these activities that resulted
in deeper knowledge of Police Department
operations.

Lastly, to ensure the highest level of
transparency, staff from the City Manager’s
Office has supported deep community
engagement and outreach, coordinated public
meetings, published meeting minutes and
agendas, managed email submissions from the
Task Force and the community and posted full
video recordings of each session on the City’s
website at: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/
RIPST .aspx.

10 City of Berkeley
engagement process and support the City in
achieving a new paradigm of public safety in
Berkeley. The City received a total of six (6)
proposals that were deemed to be complete and
met the submittal requirements.

In order to ensure a thorough review of the
proposals, staff from the City Manager’s Office
convened a team that consisted of thirteen
(13) individuals: six (6) city staff and seven
(7) members of the community and other
stakeholders. The following outlines the
individuals that reviewed the proposals:

Elana Auerbach LaT anya Bellow
Farimah Brown Kitty Calavit a
Shamika Cole Lupe Galle gos-Diaz
Alecia Harger Kathy L ee
Emily Murphy Andre a Pritchett
Kevin Schofield Marc S taton
David White
As summarized in regular updates3 provided to
the City Council, the proposal review team met
on three (3) occasions. At the first meeting, the
City’s Manager’s Office organized the team in
discussing the proposals that were submitted
to the City and ultimately selected four (4) out
of the six (6) teams to be interviewed. At the
second meeting, staff from the City Manager’s
Office convened a proposal review team
to discuss the format of the interviews and
develop a set of questions for teams invited to
advance to the interview phase. Staff organized
the third and final meeting with the proposal
review team to conduct interviews on the zoom
platform, rank the teams, and discuss perceived
“Strengths” and “Concerns” . The City Manager
interviewed the top two firms on November 20,
2020. The National Institute for Criminal Justice
Reform was selected based on the strength of its
team, subject matter expertise, familiarity with
the City, and robust community engagement
background. The contract was fully executed on
January 22, 2021.
3 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/off-agenda-memos/
Staff Participation
Beginning in late 2020, staff convened a series
of meetings and developed an organizational
structure to advance the various referrals in the
omnibus package at the same time. Our work to
coordinate overall project support and lead the
work included the following:

Community Engagement
On July 14, 2020, the City Council adopted Item
18c
1 (“Referral to City Manager to Re-imagine
Policing Approaches to Public Safety Using a
Process of Robust Community Engagement, to
Develop a Path Forward to Transforming Public
Safety and Policing in Berkeley”; see Appendix
1) and Item 18d
2 (“Transform Community Safety
and Initiate a Robust Community Engagement
Process”;
see Appendix 2), which directs the City Manager
to engage a qualified firm(s) or individual(s)
to lead a robust, inclusive, and transparent
community engagement process with the goal
of achieving a new and transformative model
of positive, equitable and community-centered
safety for Berkeley.

Immediately following the adoption of
the legislative package by City Council, on
September 8, 2020, the City issued a Request
for Proposal to solicit proposals from firms
and/or individuals to plan, develop, and lead
an inclusive and transparent community
1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_Com- missions/2020-07-14%20Item%2018c%20Referral%20to%20City%20 Manager%20to%20Re-imagine%20Policing%20Approaches%20to%20 Public%20Safety.pdf
2 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_Com- missions/2020-07-14%20Item%2018d%20Transform%20Community%20 Safety.pdf

11Reimagining Public Safety
Reimagining Public
Safety Task Force
City staff worked with the Mayor and City
Council on implementing the Reimagining
Public Safety Task Force. Subsequent to
the adopted Item 18 Revisions to Enabling
Legislation for Reimagining Public Safety Task
Force
4 see Appendix 3, an application for the
Task Force was developed, and a press release
was prepared to notify the community of the
application. Once the City Manager’s Office
received all seventeen (17) appointments to the
Task Force, Staff worked to prepare a meeting
schedule and coordinate with the National
Institute for Criminal Justice Reform. The first
meeting of the Reimagining Public Safety Task
Force occurred on February 18, 2021. At this
meeting, the Reimagining Public Safety Task
Force established a regular meeting schedule
on the 2nd Thursday of each month. City staff
worked very closely with the Reimagining Public
Safety Task Force and other key stakeholders
early on to collaboratively reach the diverse
populations in Berkeley.

City Staff facilitated approximately nineteen (19)
Task Force meetings ranging from 2.5–5.5 hours
in length with an average of sixty (60) attendees,
including City Staff, Task Force Members,
consultants, residents, and interested parties.

In addition staff accommodated requests from
Task Members to convene additional meetings
as needed to meet the goals and objectives
of their work related to the July 14, 2020
Omnibus packaged adopted by City Council. A
Reimagining Public Safety Task Force website
5 was created to provide community and key
stakeholders access to information.

4 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_ Commissions/2021-01-19%20Item%2018%20Revisions%20to%20
Enabling%20Legislation%20for%20Reimagining.pdf
5 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/RIPST .aspx
Task Force Coordination
The Task Force served as the hub for a broad,
deep and representative process. They uplifted
the community’s input into a new positive,
equitable, anti-racist system of community
safety. Staff from the City Manager’s Office set
up 1-hr meetings on a bi-weekly basis with the
Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Reimagining
Public Safety Task Force to align the multiple
forms of participation the Task Force was
managing, support guest presentations on
the agenda and provide a dedicated space
to honor and respect feedback from the Task
Force around meeting facilitation and support.

Concurrent with this effort, staff participated in
over twenty-six (26) meetings.

Interdepartmental Coordination
City leadership took concerted action to
immediately address the multiple components
adopted in the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining
Public Safety Initiative. Staff comprising of
the City Manager; Deputy City Managers; City
Attorneys; Fire Chief; Health, Housing and
Community Services (HHCS) Director; Human
Resources Director; Police Chief; Public Works
Director and a Senior Management Analyst
met weekly as an interdepartmental team to
organize parallel efforts and to discuss how best
to consult with various stakeholders regularly
and utilize consultants to apply lessons learned
from other contexts. The internal working group
participated in approximately fifty (50) meetings
to strategize, analyze reports, review budgets
and staffing and prepare recommendations that
were responsive and in alignment with council
direction activities and respond to referrals set
forth by the omnibus package.

12 City of Berkeley
City Auditor
The elected City Auditor performed analysis of
the City’s emergency 9-1-1 calls-for-service and
responses, as well as analysis of the Berkeley
Police Department’s (BPD) budget. City staff met
with the City Auditor to collaborate and respond
to questions. The City Auditor presented the
results of the calls-for-service analysis to the
Reimagining Public Safety Task Force at its April
29, 2021 meeting.

National Institute for Criminal
Justice Reform (NICJR)
The National Institute for Criminal Justice
Reform (NICJR) was selected to conduct the
work in partnership with Bright Research Group,
which led the community engagement. City staff
from the City Manager’s Office convened bi-
weekly meetings with the to facilitate project
direction and oversight of contract deliverables,
in addition to support and preparation for
Task Force Meetings. These collaborative
efforts resulted in over eighteen (18) meetings
throughout the work plan.

City Manager’s Office Coordination and Meeting Schedule Meeting Type # of Participants
Internal Working Group Coordination 43
National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform Coordination 18 Reimagining Public Safety Task Force Meetings 19
Reimagining Public Safety Coordination Meetings 26
Community Engagement 12

13Reimagining Public Safety 13

14

02 Background

16 City of Berkeley
The first report, City of Berkeley Crisis Response
Models Report1
(see Appendix 4), provides detailed information
about thirty-seven (37) alternative crisis response
models that have been implemented in the
United States and internationally. The second
report, City of Berkeley Mental Health Crisis
Response Services and Stakeholder Perspectives
Report
2 (see Appendix 5), provides information
about Berkeley’s current crisis response system
and also summarizes stakeholder perspectives
gathered through a deep community
engagement process conducted by RDA, in which
input was gathered from utilizers of Berkeley’s
crisis response services, local community-based
organizations (CBOs), local community leaders,
and City of Berkeley and Alameda County
agencies. RDA’s third and final report, City of
Berkeley Specialized Care Unit Crisis Response
Recommendations
3 (see Appendix 6), utilized
information gathered in completing the first two
reports and makes specific recommendations for
an SCU model for Berkeley.

Recommendations
These recommendations are organized
in the following thematic areas:

The SCU Mobile Team

1. The SCU should respond to mental health
crises and substance use emergencies
without a police co-response.

2. The SCU should operate 24/7.

3. Staff a three-person SCU mobile team to
respond to mental health and substance
use emergencies.

4. Equip the SCU mobile team with vans.

5. The SCU mobile team should provide
1 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_ Commissions/Berkeley-HHCSD_SCU_Crisis-Response-Models-Report FINAL.pdf

2 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_ Commissions/Berkeley-SCU_Current-State-Report_FINAL.pdf

3 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_ Commissions/Berkeley-MH-SCU_Final-Recommendations_FINAL.pdf Specialized Care
Unit
The Berkeley Mental Health Commission and
other community stakeholders have long
advocated for the need for a 24/7 crisis care
program and the need to reduce the role of
law enforcement in crisis response. In January
of 2020, the Mental Health Division released
an RFP to evaluate the current mental health
crisis system in Berkeley. After a robust process,
Resource Development Associates (RDA) was
selected as the vendor.

On July 14, 2020, City Council directed the
City Manager to develop a Specialized Care
Unit (SCU) pilot, consisting of trained crisis-
response field workers who would respond to
behavioral health crisis occurrences that do not
pose an imminent threat to safety without the
involvement of law enforcement. The action by
City Council is aligned with the original scope
RDA was selected to implement, but required
a deeper community process, more extensive
data gathering, and alignment with the other
Omnibus efforts. Consequently, with input
from the proposal review team and community
advocates, RDA was awarded funds to expand
their scope.

To oversee and advise RDA in completing its
scope of work, the City formed an SCU Steering
Committee consisting of representatives from
the Health, Housing, and Community Services
Department, the Berkeley Fire Department,
appointees of the Mental Health Commission,
and community representatives from the
Berkeley Community Safety Coalition. The
Steering Committee met regularly during the
period of January 2021 through January 2022,
and advised on RDA’s completion of three critical
reports.

17 Reimagining Public Safety
transport to a variety of locations.

6. Equip the SCU mobile team with supplies
to meet the array of clients’ needs.

7. Clearly distinguish the SCU from the Mobile
Crisis Team.

Assessing the SCU Crisis Response:

Dispatch & Alternative Phone Number

8. Participate in the Dispatch assessment
and planning process to prepare for future
integration.

9. Ensure the community has a 24/7 live
phone line to access the SCU.

10. Plan for embedding a mental health or
behavioral health clinician into Dispatch to
support triage and SCU deployment.

Implement a Comprehensive 24/7
Mental Health Crisis Response Model

11. Fully staff a comprehensive model to
ensure the success of the SCU mobile team,
including supervisory and administrative
support.

12. Operate one SCU mobile team per shift for
three 10-hour shifts.

13. SCU staff and Dispatch personnel should
travel to alternative crisis programs for in-
person observation and training.

14. Prepare the SCU mobile team with training.

Administration and Evaluation

15. Contract the SCU model to a CBO.

16. Integrate the SCU into existing data
systems.

17. Collect and publish mental health crisis
response data publicly on Berkeley’s Open
Data Portal.

18. Implement care coordination case
management meetings for crisis service
providers.

19. Implement centralized coordination
and leadership across city agencies to
support the success of mental health crisis
response.

20. Continue the existing SCU Steering
Committee as an advisory body.

21. Solicit ongoing community input and
feedback.

22. Adopt a rapid monitoring, assessment, and
learning process.

23. Conduct a formal annual evaluation.

Promoting Public Awareness

24. Launch a public awareness campaign
to promote community awareness and
education about the SCU.

25. The SCU mobile team should conduct
outreach and build relationships with
potential service utilizers.

Following completion of RDA’s final report,
the SCU Steering Committee held detailed
discussions and further analyzed each
category of recommendations. The purpose
of these discussions was to establish where
there was broad agreement among steering
committee members and where individual
members differed, and also to add additional
considerations where needed. While there was
strong agreement among steering committee
members with most of RDA’s recommendations,
there were some nuances and additional
considerations that should be considered as
part of SCU implementation. The Steering
Committee’s analysis was submitted as an
Information Item on the March 10, 2021 Special
meeting on Reimagining Public Safety.

18 City of Berkeley
Priority Dispatch
The City of Berkeley provides 24/7 dispatch
services for police, fire, emergency medical
service (EMS), and the Mobile Crisis Team.

Every EMS call for service receives a suppression
company and paramedic ambulance.

Suppression companies are dispatched because
they are strategically located throughout the
City to minimize response time and can arrive
on scene first to begin lifesaving advance life
support (ALS) care. The City of Berkeley does
not currently utilize a prioritized or criteria
based dispatching model. The adoption of a
new model would allow the Fire department
to triage calls for service using standardized
Possible Priority Dispatch Models
Models Considered Pros Cons
Current Model Simplicity, easier staffing Inefficient, delays for callers, expansive resources sent to call
Criteria Based Dispatch Affordable, flexible, trusts well-trained dispatchers Non-standard, not used by neighboring agencies
Medical Priority Dispatch
System
Standard System, Used by neighboring agencies Expensive licensing, inflexible, heavily scripted
The recommended dispatch model will lead to a community and policy discussion about the resources that should be deployed to calls received by the Communications Center. questioning and call categorization. The major
focus is to reduce response time (the time
between the receipt of a call at the dispatch
center and the arrival of the first emergency
response vehicle at the scene) by placing the
ambulances in optimal locations.

As part of the reimagining public safety process,
the City Council authorized the City Manager to
enter into a contract with Federal Engineering
(FE) to conduct an analysis of the staffing,
infrastructure, and technology needs of the
Berkeley 9-1-1 Communication Center and
create a project plan to implement an accredited
emergency medical dispatch system based on
industry standards. Federal Engineering’s scope
of work also includes an analysis of adding
behavioral health dispatch capabilities to the
Communication Center.

19Reimagining Public Safety
BerkDOT
The BerkDOT component of the Public Safety
Reimagining process involved input from the
Transportation Commission, Public Works
Commission, and Public Safety Reimagining
Task Force; public speakers at the Commission
and Task Force meetings; 650 respondents to
a scientific survey and three separate listening
sessions with high school students of color,
college and university students of color, and
religious minority groups of color; and director-
level interviews with Transportation and Public
Works departments in Los Angeles, Minneapolis,
Oakland, Denver, Ft. Collins, and Cambridge.

Regular reports on BerkDOT were provided to
the Transportation Commission on June 17,
2021, September 6, 2021, October 21, 2021,
November 18, 2021, January 20, 2022, and
February 17, 2022.

To ensure staff were connecting with the
most up-to-date information nationwide and
engaging in an equitable, thorough public
process, staff secured consulting support
from Fehr & Peers, Equitable Cities, and EMC
Research at a cost of approximately $175,000.

This work produced an 18-page report supplied
to the Task Force
4 (see Appendices 7, 8, and 9),
and results from both a scientific opinion survey
and focus groups.

Findings
Staff and the consulting team reviewed the City
of Berkeley’s current Public Works Department
and existing Public Works and Departments of
Transportation nationwide.

4 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_ Commissions/Reimagining-Public-Safety-Task-Force%205-19%20 Meeting%20Packet%20(rev).pdf
The review found:
• Few cities of Berkeley’s size have a
stand-alone Division of Transportation
(DOT). Berkeley’s existing Division of
Transportation (BerkDOT) has more breadth
of transportation functions assigned to it than
comparable cities of its size.
• Berkeley could choose to begin a full,
stand-alone Department of Transportation
(BerkDOT), remake the existing Public
Works Department into a Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure (BerkDOTI),
have Public Works’ Division of Transportation
become BerkDOT , or take a phased approach
to a BerkDOTI or stand-alone BerkDOT .
• Berkeley’s Public Works Department and
BerkDOT had been promoting racial justice
and equity within their programs and projects,
but more was needed.
• Creating a new Department of
Transportation made the most sense
if the City’s existing transportation plans and
policies lacked the right vision.
• While there were opportunities with a new
Department of Transportation, there were
also costs of at least $750,000 per year, risks
in implementation, and logistical challenges.
• Shifting transportation functions between
Police and a Department (or Division) of
Transportation ranged from straight forward
(e.g., crossing guards) to difficult (e.g., parking
enforcement officers).
• Civilian traffic enforcement faced
significant obstacles from state law.

Public Survey and
Listening Sessions
This project included a first-of-its-kind, city-led
survey on the intersection of race, mobility, and
traffic enforcement. From September 20–28,
2021, EMC Research administered a scientific
survey to 630 residents of the City of Berkeley
using a combination of telephone and online
administration. All survey modes were offered in
English and Spanish.

20 City of Berkeley
The survey found the following:
• Residents of Berkeley, regardless of identity
or personal experience, are supportive of
the idea of shifting traffic enforcement,
including routine traffic stops, away from
police officers and to specially trained city
employees
• Self-identified Black and Hispanic residents
report both higher concern about police
treatment and more negative experiences
than those who do not identify as Black
or Hispanic
• A majority of residents across gender, age,
and racial lines acknowledge the role race
can play in interactions with the police,
with Black residents particularly aware
• Women are more likely than others to rate the
safety of getting around Berkeley negatively
• There is consensus across demographic
subgroups that allocating more
transportation money to historically
underfunded neighborhoods is desirable
The survey included 550 interviews with
a random, representative sample of adult
Berkeley residents, and additional interviews to
ensure a minimum of 100 interviews with both
Black and Latinx residents.

(The maximum margin of error for the citywide sample was +/- 4.2 percentage points, and the maximum margin of error for the Black and Hispanic sample was +/- 9.8 percentage points.)
Listening Session Findings
Equitable Cities conducted three separate
listening sessions in October and November
2021 with high school students of color, college
and university students of color, and religious
minority groups of color.

The listening sessions involved twenty (20) participants, and each participant received a $50 e-gift card at the completion of each session.

A detailed questionnaire was used to facilitate
discussions in all three listening sessions,
focusing on key questions and topics such as:
• Favorite and least favorite places
to visit in the City
• Transportation infrastructure
• Mobility challenges
• Unsafe and unwelcoming places and people
• Police
• Policy and funding decisions
• Alternatives for traffic enforcement
• Improved access and mobility

These listening sessions found the following:
• Most participants from all three groups
mentioned the Berkeley Marina and the
Rose Garden as their favorite places to visit
within the City.
• Most participants from all three groups
mentioned Telegraph, Berkeley High, and
Downtown Berkeley as their least favorite
places to visit within the City, in part due
to feeling uncomfortable and unwelcomed
on crowded streets and/or because of the
unhoused and encampments.
• Most of the participants favorably viewed
the existing transportation infrastructure
within the City, including the existing bike
and pedestrian infrastructure, with the
exception of participants in the high
school listening session.
• The overwhelming majority of the concerns
around feeling unsafe and unwelcome in the
City were shared by the female participants
in all three listening sessions, as compared to
the male participants.
• The overwhelming majority of participants
thought it was a good idea for the City
to consider moving traffic enforcement
responsibilities away from police officers
and instead assign these responsibilities
to a specialized set of city employees who
would not carry weapons or have the power
to detain or arrest people.

21Reimagining Public Safety

22

03 Recommendations &
Implementation Plan

In July of 2020, the City of Berkeley made a historic commitment to transform its approach to public safety through a reimagining process. The City prioritized the input and experiences of those residents and communities that have experienced the greatest harm from existing public safety models. The stated objectives of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for all Berkeley residents resonated deeply throughout the community.

The reimagining process aligns deeply with the City of Berkeley’s adopted strategic plan goals to:
• Champion and demonstrate social and racial equity
• Create a resilient, safe, connected and prepared city • Be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily accessible service and information to the community Numerous City Departments in support of the City Manager’s direction worked to understand, inform, and collaborate on the individual items within the Council’s omnibus package to reimagine public safety. City Staff have participated at every step of the process and closely reviewed the recommendations of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, the City of Berkeley’s Reimagine Public Safety Task Force, the reports generated through the Specialized Care Unit Steering Committee, and community and stakeholder feedback.

The following guiding principles provide a framework for the city to move forward with developing and implementing
priorities identified through the body of this work.
24 City of Berkeley

IMPROVE
Improve the City of Berkeley’s public safety system for residents and communities that have experienced the
greatest harm from the existing public safety model.

REIMAGINE
Redesign public safety from a traditional Police
Department to one that is focused on the diverse
needs of the community it serves.

REINVEST
Increase equitable investment in vulnerable
communities and for those who have been
historically marginalized.

City of Berkeley Mission
Provide quality service to our diverse community; promote an accessible, safe, healthy, environmentally sound and culturally rich city; initiate innovative solutions; embrace respectful democratic participation; respond quickly and effectively to neighborhood and commercial concerns, and do so in a fiscally sound manner. 25

Implement the Specialized Care Unit Pilot using all of the recommendations of the consultant and the SCU Steering Committee as a road mapRPSTF #17

Continue legislative advocacy for changes in state law to grant cities the authority for non-sworn civilian traffic enforcement, enable automated enforcement for speeding, and modify red light camera enforcement. This continues the City Council’s advocacy for state law changes on these issues that started in 2021, and will help ensure the City’s input in changes are ultimately adopted by the state legislature RPSTF #13, 14

In the FY 2023 and FY 2024 Budget, move crossing guards from the Police Department’s Traffic Unit to Public Works’ Division of Transportation. This consolidates a transportation function into the Transportation Division and aligns this function with the Vision Zero Program
RPSTF #15

Continue to plan for a civilian traffic enforcement unit, both by informing the content of state law changes to enable such a unit, and by developing an implementation plan once state law does change RPSTF #14

Review Berkeley Municipal Code for proposed changes to increase equity and racial justice in the City’s existing transportation fines and fees, especially related to parking. Involve the Transportation Commission in the recommendation of such changes to City Council.

RPSTF #13

Assess progress in incorporating equity, mobility, Vision 2050, and Vision Zero in transportation functions, and determine which organizational structure best matches a new or revised mission for transportation functions:
a stand-alone Berkeley Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, or Division of Transportation RPSTF #14

REIMAGINE
Evaluate the Specialized Care Unit Pilot and use quantitative and qualitative data to make identified improvementsRPSTF #17

Continue to partner with the SCU Steering Committee, the Mental Health Commission, and community members in implementation

Continue the consolidation of transportation-related functions in existing Public Works’ Division of Transportation. Public Works has both the engineering and transportation functions reporting up through a Deputy Director, Transportation, and consolidates transportation functions within this reporting structure so that the paving planning and constructions functions both are within this Deputy Director’s purview. In addition, with Council’s approval, the crossing guard function will shift to this Division of Transportation in FY 2023. The dialogue with the Parking Enforcement Officers and the City’s labor partners on the preferred department for the parking enforcement function will continue RPSTF #14

Approve a new Vision Zero staff position in Public Works’ Division of Transportation to conduct collision analysis. This will promote the City’s Vision Zero approach by boosting the City’s capacity to analyze collision data collected by the Police Department, and, with Police input, propose engineering improvements at high-collision corridors and locations RPSTF #15

Continue to address disparities in traffic and other enforcement stops; and disparities in Use of Force incidents RPSTF #45; NICJR #6

Support expanding dispatch responsibility and expertiseRPSTF #29, 35

Conduct regular analysis of data to ensure that departmental responses align with Fair and Impartial Policing conceptsRPSTF #45 Conduct ongoing training in support of Fair and Impartial Policing conceptsRPSTF #27, 36

IMPROVE
Develop and implement a finance strategy for long-term sustainability of the SCURPSTF #17

Assist the Communication Center with change management and implementation of the plan.

This will include considerations for design changes to the existing center, staffing alternations, initial and on-going training and assisting in the accreditation processNICJR# 1, 2; RPSTF# 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 47, and 48

REINVEST
City of Berkeley

Develop BPD and Community-Based organization engagement and collaboration structuresNICJR #1; RPSTF #24, 38, 42, and 47

Implement formal BPD community engagement unitRPSTF #21 Support reimagining efforts of City Departments

BPD support and assistance implementing Vision Zero goals and BERKDOT processRPSTF #14

BPD expand capacity to provide non-sworn parking enforcement and emergency traffic responseNICJR #1; RPSTF #14

BPD collaborate with City Departments on redirecting enforcement responsibilities where appropriateRPSTF #14

Develop additional capabilities to address public safety goals with appropriate response levelNICJR #1

Explore additional or alternate responses specifically related to traffic and bicycle safetyRPSTF #13

Analyze the current dispatch center including available hardware and software, current staffing model, current level of training, existing facility, accreditation status and accreditation options, and existing quality improvement practices. Phase I includes a recommendation for a prioritized emergency fire & medical dispatch system
NICJR# 1, 2; RPSTF# 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 47, and 48

Conduct staffing assessment, including a beat study to ensure departmental staffing levels meet public safety expectations and employee health and wellnessNICJR #1
Continued support of employee health and wellness; and employee training and professional development

Ensure public and employee safety through recruitment efforts aligned with adequate staffing levels and technology

Provide transparency through public facing data dashboards; and community engagement through increased information sharingNICJR #6
Build relationships with community groups to support best possible outcomesRPSTF #45

Gather data around mental illness and homelessness to support overall City responses and needs assessment

Strengthen investigation capabilities and victim support network

Expand problem-oriented teams to support community needs and address violent crimeRPSTF #42

Promote traffic and pedestrian safety through data analysis, education and enforcement where appropriate
RPSTF #13, 14
Create a detailed implementation plan for Priority Dispatch including timelines and critical dependencies, a budget identifying one-time and on-going costs, staffing requirements, technology needs, start up and on-going training requirements, and physical/facility improvements
NICJR# 1, 2; RPSTF# 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 47, and 48

Reimagining Public Safety

REIMAGINE
12 MONTHS
Implement the Specialized Care Unit Pilot using all of the recommendations of the consultant and the SCU Steering Committee as a road mapRPSTF #17

RPSTF
28

$450K 18-24
MONTHS

REIMAGINE
Continue legislative advocacy for changes in state law to grant cities the authority for non- sworn civilian traffic enforcement, enable automated enforcement for speeding, and modify red light camera enforcement. This continues the City Council’s advocacy for state law changes on these issues that started in 2021, and will help ensure the City’s input in changes are ultimately adopted by the state legislatureRPSTF #13, 14

In the FY 2023 and FY 2024 Budget, move crossing guards from the Police Department’s Traffic Unit to Public Works’ Division of Transportation. This consolidates a transportation function into the Transportation Division and aligns this function with the Vision Zero Program
RPSTF #15

Continue to plan for a civilian traffic enforcement unit, both by informing the content of state law changes to enable such a unit, and by developing an implementation plan once state law does change
RPSTF #14

Review Berkeley Municipal Code for proposed changes to increase equity and racial justice in the City’s existing transportation fines and fees, especially related to parking. Involve the Transportation Commission in the recommendation of such changes to City CouncilRPSTF #13

Assess progress in incorporating equity, mobility, Vision 2050, and Vision Zero in transportation functions, and determine which organizational structure best matches a new or revised mission for transportation functions: a stand-alone Berkeley Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, or Division of Transportation
RPSTF #14
RPSTF
29

REIMAGINE
$3.1M 12-36
MONTHS
$200K
Develop BPD and Community-Based organization engagement and collaboration structuresNICJR #1; RPSTF #24, 38, 42, and 47

Implement formal BPD community engagement unit1; RPSTF #21

Support reimagining efforts of City Departments2

BPD support and assistance implementing Vision Zero goals and BERKDOT process

BPD expand capacity to provide non-sworn parking enforcement and emergency traffic response3; NICJR #1; RPSTF #14

BPD collaborate with City Departments on redirecting enforcement responsibilities where appropriate

Develop additional capabilities to address public safety goals with appropriate response level4; NICJR #1

Explore additional or alternate responses specifically related to traffic and bicycle safety

Resources:

1. (1) Community Services Officer position;
(1) Sworn Officer position

2. (1) Project Manager position

3. (5) Parking Enforcement Officers and (1)
Parking Enforcement Officer Supervisor
positions

4. (9) Community Services Officers and (1)
Supervising Community Services Officer
positions
RPSTF
30

REIMAGINE
$200K 12-72
MONTHS
Analyze the current dispatch center including available hardware and software, current staffing model, current level of training, existing facility, accreditation status and accreditation options, and existing quality improvement practices.

Phase I includes a recommendation for a prioritized emergency fire & medical dispatch system
1; NICJR# 1, 2; RPSTF# 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 47, and 48

Resources:

1. For consulting support
RPSTF
31

IMPROVE
$175K
12-24
MONTHS
Evaluate the Specialized Care Unit Pilot and use quantitative and qualitative data to make identified improvementsRPSTF #17

Continue to partner with the SCU Steering Committee, the Mental Health Commission, and community members in implementation

RPSTF
32

IMPROVE
$175K 12-24
MONTHS
Continue the consolidation of transportation-related functions in existing Public Works’ Division of Transportation. Public Works has both the engineering and transportation functions reporting up through a Deputy Director, Transportation, and consolidates transportation functions within this reporting structure so that the paving planning and constructions functions both are within this Deputy Director’s purview. In addition, with Council’s approval, the crossing guard function will shift to this Division of Transportation in FY 2023. The dialogue with the Parking Enforcement Officers and the City’s labor partners on the preferred department for the parking enforcement function will continueRPSTF #14

Approve a new Vision Zero staff position in Public Works’ Division of Transportation to conduct collision analysis. This will promote the City’s Vision Zero approach by boosting the City’s capacity to analyze collision data collected by the Police Department, and, with Police input, propose engineering improvements at high-collision corridors and locations 1; RPSTF #15

Resources:

1. (1) Associate Planner position
RPSTF
33

IMPROVE
12-36
MONTHS
$3.8M $4.1M
Continue to address disparities in traffic and other enforcement stops; and in Use of Force incidentsRPSTF #45; NICJR #6

Support expanding dispatch responsibility and expertise1; RPSTF #29, 35

Conduct regular analysis of data to ensure that departmental responses align with Fair and Impartial Policing conceptsRPSTF #45

Conduct ongoing training in support of Fair and Impartial Policing concepts3; RPSTF #27, 36

Conduct staffing assessment, including a beat study, to ensure departmental staffing levels meet public safety expectations and employee health and wellness NICJR #1

Continued support of employee health and wellness; and employee training and professional development
Ensure public and employee safety through recruitment efforts aligned with adequate staffing levels and technology
Resources:

1. (1) Supervising Public Safety Dispatcher
and (8) Public Safety Dispatcher II
positions

2. For consulting support

3. Increased training

4. Seven (7) Sworn Officer positions
RPSTF
34

IMPROVE
6-36
MONTHS
$4.1M
Provide transparency through public facing data dashboards; and community engagement through increased information sharingNICJR #6

Build relationships with community groups to support best possible outcomesRPSTF #45

Gather data around mental illness and homelessness to support overall City responses and needs assessment
Strengthen investigation capabilities and victim support network

Expand problem-oriented teams to support community needs and address violent crime
RPSTF #42
Promote traffic and pedestrian safety through data analysis, education and enforcement where appropriate
RPSTF #13, 14
Resources:

1. Fourteen (14) Sworn Officer positions
RPSTF
35

IMPROVE
12-72
MONTHS
$100K
Create a detailed implementation plan for Priority Dispatch including timelines and critical dependencies, a budget identifying one-time and on-going costs, staffing requirements, technology needs, start up and on-going training requirements, and physical/facility improvementsNICJR# 1, 2; RPSTF# 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 47, and 48 Support Reimagining efforts including grant writing services

36 Resources:

1. For consulting support
RPSTF

IMPROVE
Fair and Impartial Policing
Building off the work of the Fair and Impartial Policing task force, BPD will continue to address disparities in traffic and other enforcement stops. Throughout the Reimagine Public Safety process, the department listened and heard the community’s concerns, and therefore provided specific departmental guidance on the focus for traffic enforcement. Officers have been provided data regarding primary collision factors and have been directed to enforce those violations wherever they are observed. In addition to focusing on enforcement of primary collision factor violations, sworn personnel are also expected to make investigative stops related to criminal intelligence and information brought forth by the community or our investigations. This is a work in progress that we will continue to assess through data metrics.

Also connected to important concepts identified in Fair and Impartial Policing was a need to understand and address disparities in Use of Force incidents. BPD now captures detailed stop data and force data and will regularly provide this information to the community and review and assess the data to identify if additional training, policy, or equipment is needed.

Updates to the department’s Early Intervention System will provide a framework and means to ensure that the department is able to recognize emerging performance issues. 37

IMPROVE
12-24
MONTHS
Fair and Impartial Policing, continued
Building on Fair and Impartial Policing concepts calling for regular analysis of stop, search and use of force data, BPD has established a data analyst team. A primary responsibility of that team is to analyze data and review effectiveness allowing BPD to prioritize most effective response. Long-term this program could be expanded or replicated to ensure that non- enforcement approaches have access to pertinent data and information to guide appropriate response. Identified problems tend to generate data, whether it be in the form of calls for service, crime reports, city complaints, or service requests. Careful analysis of such data from various sources will help the City to better understand the nature and extent of a problem; and thus be better equipped with the collaborative information to address it; especially with non-traditional interventions.

BPD continued training focus on racial justice issues, deescalation, specialized responses, cultural and disadvantaged community sensitivity.

Again, building of the department’s efforts to implement concepts identified in the Fair and Impartial Policing recommendations, BPD will look to partner with more community- based groups to build relationships of understanding and collaboration. The department is responsible for ensuring open lines of communication so that police-civilian encounters result in the best possible outcomes. This work also includes ensuring the community understands their rights and the external and internal processes that are in place to ensure accountability.
38

IMPROVE
6 MONTHS
City Auditor
In the City of Berkeley Auditor’s audit report on the City of Berkeley’s Police Response CFS (Calls For Service) Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley’s Police Response1 (see Appendix 10), which was part of the Reimagining Public Safety omnibus package, a recommendation was made by the Auditor that BPD begin more formally collecting information on when homelessness or mental health was a component to a call for service received by the Department. Starting July 1, 2021, BPD formally began utilizing “H” homeless and “MH” mental health disposition codes when closing out any call involving a homeless person or a person with mental health issues. Officers were instructed that they were not required to ask people what their housing status is unless necessary for identification purposes. Further, unless there are mental health issues which are related to the call, they are not required to ask about a person’s mental health status. Officers are expected to use their best judgment or perception in determining if a call is related to a homeless issue or someone suffering from a mental health issue. If so, they are directed to add the “H” and/or “MH” disposition to the CAD (Computer Aided Dispatch) disposition. A review of the total numbers of times “H” and “MH” has been entered as a disposition code in CFS from July 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 revealed that of the 36,180 CFS during that time period 1,534 (4.2%) involved a person experiencing homelessness and in 1,481 (4.1%) mental health issues were a factor in the call. During this time period 3,015 total calls had associated dispositions codes of “H” and/or “MH” which represents 8.4% of the total CFS for that time. Data from January 1, 2022 through March 19, 2022 reflected similar percentages:
14,525 total CFS, 522 “H” dispositions (3.6%), 500 “MH” dispositions (3.4%) and a total count of 1,022 (7%)“H” and “MH” codes can occur in the same incident, which is why the grand total of dispositions counts is not simply a totaling of the codes. As the department moves closer to production of a public facing dashboard, this specific data will be available regularly updated there.

1 https://www.cit uditor/Level_3_-_General/Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley’s Police Response.pdf 39

REINVEST
12-36
MONTHS
Develop and implement a finance strategy for long-term sustainability of the SCURPSTF #17

RPSTF
40

12-72
MONTHS
41 REINVEST
RPSTF
Assist the Communication Center with change management and implementation of the plan. This will include considerations for design changes to the existing center, staffing alternations, initial and on-going training and assisting in the accreditation processNICJR# 1, 2, RPSTF# 16, 17, 19, 22, 29, 32, 35, 36, 37, 47, and 48

42

43

44

Budget
04

Reimagining Public Safety Fiscal Summary
The pathway to reimagining public safety will require transformative change, community involvement and funding to ensure we provide the most appropriate public safety resources. Many of the departments have including reimagining public safety request in their budget development in anticipation of the work. The financial information provided here is a proposed look at what the budget for this process will look like in the future.

It provides for some immediate needs, while understanding this will be a multi-year process and staff will collect more experience and data following the implementation of alternative response models in order to determine actual needs, particularly around Police Department staffing levels.

While we are requesting 181 positions be utilized and remain in the Police Department, the City Manager is proposing to defer five (5) Sworn Officer positions in FY23-24 to meet the objectives of council and the community while city staff completes the following:

1. Conduct a staffing analysis, which includes a beat study

2. Lift Up SCU and gather data to make very good decisions based upon what we are learning

3. Analyze staffing and workforce data including attrition annually

4. Implement Fair and Impartial Policing

5. Analyze call data and response data
The recommendation to fully fund our Police Department is in part to the items stated above and the understanding it will take years to recruit and train new officers. We will continue to see officers retire from the City that could yield the appropriate attrition needed for funding programs and initiatives for Reimagining Public Safety.
46 City of Berkeley

Staff have been monitoring staffing levels and have determined within the next five (5) years approximately 33% of Sworn Officers are eligible to retire.

Eligible means employees who have satisfied the vesting rights for their California Public Employees Retirement Service benefit. It should be noted that the Police Department will be experiencing reduced staffing levels as referenced below:

The Berkeley Police Department have 24 officers who have stated their intent to retire within the next two years. Recruiting Officers is a challenge for most municipalities with many offering hiring incentives, and it takes 18 months to full train and integrate a new officer into the community. This level of attrition would render the City in a very positive position for moving forward to funding the reimagining initiative. As a result we have been monitoring our staffing levels and have determined within the next 5 years approx.. 33% could retire as they are eligible. Eligible means employees who have satisfied the vesting rights for retirement. •
Berkeley Police Department Sworn Staff as of 4/5/22
CURRENT SWORN STAFFING LEVEL * 156
Retirement Eligibility
Currently Eligible Now 15
Eligible in less than 2 years 15
Eligible in 2-5 years 21
Total eligible in next 5 years 51
The funding sources available for Reimagining Public Safety include a portion of the City’s remaining allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act Fund, General Fund, Measure P Fund and grants. The City of Berkeley has successfully received a grant for the Specialized Care Unit, and additional grant opportunities may be forthcoming. The City Manager’s Reference Guide for City Council Discussion also includes funding requests for a Project Manager to provide overall project management, a grant writer to research grant funding opportunities, additional parking enforcement positions that have the potential to generate increased revenue to offset operating costs, and Community Services Officers to support community based work and collaboration.

In addition, City Council can consider utilizing salary savings as a result of deferring five (5) Sworn Officer positions in FY23-24.

Current Police Staffing
Potential Funding
47Reimagining Public Safety

FY23-24 Reimagining Public Safety Budget Analysis1
1 See Appendix 11

IMPROVE
As part of the FY23-24 budget process, additional funding sources available to support the reimagining public safety process include the City Manager’s proposal to defer five (5) Sworn Officer positions, resulting in a $1,600,000 net salary savings for the City.
1 See Appendix 11

REIMAGINE REQUESTED FUNDING
Consulting Services - BerkDoT , Priority Dispatch $ 650,000 City Staffing/Additional Positions $3,106,911
Sworn Officer positions (1) *deferred ($ 293,334)
Community Services Officer positions (10)
Community Services Officer Supervisor positions (1)
Parking Enforcement Officers (5)
Parking Enforcement Officer Supervisor positions (1)
Assistant to the City Manager positions (1)
Specialized Care Unit (1yr Pilot Program–already budgeted) ($5,700,000) Specialized Care Unit (Ongoing) TBD
Subtotal $3,756,911

IMPROVE REQUESTED FUNDING
Consulting Services - BerkDoT , Grant Writer, PD Training, PD Wellness $ 170,000 City Staffing/Additional Positions $8,275,258
Associate Planner (1)
Public Safety Dispatcher II positions (8)
Supervising Public Safety Dispatcher (1)
Sworn Officer positions (7) *deferred ($6,453,348)
Community Services Officer positions (1)
Training $ 250,000
Subtotal $ 8,695,258

REINVEST REQUESTED FUNDING
City Staffing/Additional Positions ($293,334)
Sworn Officer positions (1) *deferred
Subtotal ($293,334)
FY 23-24 TOTAL FUNDING REQUEST* REQUESTED FUNDING
TOTAL $12,452,169
48 City of Berkeley

49 Intended Purpose of Police Department Positions

SUMMARY OF
CITY MANAGER’S

RESPONSE NEW RESOURCES

ESTIMATED

COSTS JUSTIFICATION TIMELINE
Implement formal
BPD community
engagement unit
(1) Police Officer
Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$293,334 BPD formalize a unit focused on revitalizing
community engagement. This team will
be made up of sworn and non-sworn
personnel developing stronger relationships
with CBO, faith-based organizations, youth
groups and others. This unit will have the
lead in partnering with community based
organizations on violence interventon
programs such as Ceasefire.
12-24
months
Implement formal
BPD community
engagement unit
(1) Community
Services Officer
Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget FTE =
$150,952
$150,952 BPD Community Service Officers (CSO)
proposed increase in staffing will support
public safety goals and build non-sworn
response to address responses where the
call type or specific call factors indicate a
sworn response is not necessary. The CSO’s
will be focused on community supports
and other community based work being
directed through other Departments or
personnel such as code enforcement. BPD
formalize a unit focused on revitalizing
community engagement. This team will
be made up of sworn and non-sworn
personnel developing stronger relationships
with CBO, faith-based organizations, youth
groups and others. This unit will have the
lead in partnering with community based
organizations on violence interventon
programs such as Ceasefire.
12-24
months
Develop additional
capabilities to
address public
safety goals with
appropriate response
level
(9) Community
Services Officer
Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget
FTE = $150,952 +
(1) Supervising
Community Services
Officer Salary and
Benefits FY23 Budget
FTE = $171,466
$1,530,037 Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: To develop additional
capabilities to address public safety goals
with appropriate response level, increase
capacity for community engagement.

Budgeted at mid-step with 3% COLA.

Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: To ensure the required
supervision for the additional CSO positions
described above. Budgeted at mid-step
with 3% COLA. BPD Community Service
Officers (CSO) proposed increase in staffing
will support public safety goals and build
non-sworn response to address responses
where the call type or specific call factors
indicate a sworn response is not necessary.

The CSO’s will be focused on community
supports and other community based work
being directed through other Departments
or personnel such as code enforcement.
24-36
months
Reimagining Public Safety

SUMMARY OF
CITY MANAGER’S

RESPONSE NEW RESOURCES

ESTIMATED

COSTS JUSTIFICATION TIMELINE
Strengthen
investigation
capabilities and
victim support
network
(3) Police Officer
Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$880,002 Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: These additional
positions will address various facets of
enhanced community engagement and
related services to support enhanced safety
through increased criminal investigation,
collaboration with Community Based
Organizations, and victim support.
24-30
months
Expand problem-
oriented teams to
support community
needs and address
violent crime
(10) Police Officer
Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget for 1 FTE
= $293,334 (deferred)
$2,933,340 Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: To develop flexible
capabilities to support public safety goals
through problem solving focused and
data driven approaches. Building off of
Bike Team success in both engagement
capabilities and violent crime reduction.

Budgeted at mid-step with 3% COLA
24-30
months
Promote traffic and
pedestrian safety
through data analysis,
education and
enforcement where
appropriate
(1) Police Officer
Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$293,334 To support continued efforts and
partnerships with Transportation to
prevent, educate, reduce, assess impact
of traffic violations and collisions on
community safety.
24-30
months
Intended Purpose of Police Department Positions (cont.) City of Berkeley

SUMMARY OF
CITY MANAGER’S

RESPONSE NEW RESOURCES

ESTIMATED

COSTS JUSTIFICATION TIMELINE
Ensure public and
employee safety
through recruitment
efforts aligned with
adequate staffing
levels and technology
(7) Police Officer
Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$2,053,338 Lack of adequate staffing and limitations on tools and technology can negatively impact
not only overall safety, but also morale
and mental health of personnel. BPD will
identify and implement the necessary tools,
technology and personnel levels to support
these important needs. BPD will maintain
focus on recruitment efforts which support
a diverse workforce reflective of community
values.
18-24
months
Develop and
implement violence
prevention programs
such as Ceasefire
(1) Police Officer
Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$293,334 Developing Community violence prevention
and intervention programs can be effective
in reducing violent crime and create
meaningful opportunities for community
members to give back. These community
based organizations work with to interrupt
cycles of violence and the department and
crime data can be critical to the success of
this work. Programs such as Ceasefire or
Voices Against Violence could be supported
through dedicated staff managing these
efforts.
12-24
months
Intended Purpose of Police Department Positions (cont.) Reimagining Public Safety

52

Closing Remarks
05 53

Closing Remarks
What we have learned through this process, is that the time has come for leaders, communities and public safety institutions to declare that community safety requires a broad brush of components. Those components include public health, youth programs, re-design of our current police policies and procedures, in addition to structural change to align community safety with the community we serve. While our City Council has led transformative policies to address multiple issues locally, there is still growth needed in how we deploy, engage and serve our community.

Transforming community safety in Berkeley has required deep and complex discussion, joint decisions, and shared goals with the Mayor and Council, National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, and City staff.

I am profoundly grateful for all the work that has gone into this effort.

Reimagining Public Safety for Berkeley has been robust and thoughtful coordination and collaboration with many stakeholders.

The strategies and recommendations from this process all centered around increasing trust and improving the relationship between all members of the community and law enforcement. The recommendations will shape policy and practice and transform how our city provides public safety.

Going forward, we recommend taking actionable steps to further develop our efforts toward an equity-driven safety system.
54 City of Berkeley

00 Title
If approved by Council, we will work toward the
following priorities:

1. Analyze our dispatch system to make changes that will support a system with greater triage capabilities

2. Implement the Specialized Care Unit Pilot

3. Implement greater BPD community engagement to build
relationships with community groups

4. Establish the Office of Race Equity and Diversity

5. Complete a police staffing assessment and Beat structure analysis

6. Continued funding supports of approximately 14.1M annually to Community Based Organizations to support programs that improve community well-being and collaboration
55Reimagining Public Safety

Dee Williams-Ridley
City Manager
Farimah Brown
City Attorney
David White
Deputy City Manager
LaTanya Bellow
Deputy City Manager
Jen Louis
Interim Police Chief
Abe Roman
Fire Chief
Dr. Lisa Warhuus
HHCS Director
Liam Garland
Public Works Director
Shamika Cole
Senior Management Analyst
Thank you, From Your City Team
Our overarching goal of a reimagined public safety system including a new transformative, community-centered way is necessary but there are important matters to consider:

While there is more that needs to be done, we must recognize this is a journey to make meaningful change, and a commitment to continue the work and collaboration will be needed from all stakeholders. It is the marathon, not the sprint that we run today, that will dictate the race that is won. We look forward to the journey in implementing this important work.

CHALLENGES CERN MODEL CONSIDERATIONS
Ongoing funding Underdeveloped and needed
additional data
Honoring our MOU’s as it relates to
contracting
Staffing considerations Needs more work and components
may be effective to implement as we
move forward with the reimagining
process
Moving Dispatch to the Fire
Department
State Law to changes around traffic
enforcement
Labor Issues
Timeline could be 3-5 years for full
implementation of all items
Community Services Officers to be
housed in Neighborhood Services
City of Berkeley

00 Title
Reimagining Public Safety

58

Appendix
06

Susan Wengraf
Councilmember District 6
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7160 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7166 E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
July 14, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Wengraf (author), Councilmember Davila (Co-Sponsor) Subject: Referral to City Manager to Re-imagine Policing Approaches to Public Safety Using a Process of Robust Community Engagement, to Develop a Path Forward to Transforming Public Safety and Policing in Berkeley.

RECOMMENDATION
We must have our communities of color, particularly our African American community, at the forefront of conversations to re-imagine approaches to policing and public safety in Berkeley. The people most disparately impacted must have a vital role in the creation of new ways to enhance accountability, compassion and transparency as we move forward to address racial inequities and disparate outcomes of policing in Berkeley.

This item is an urgent referral to the City Manager to act quickly and thoughtfully in creating substantial community engagement to develop a new model for policing in Berkeley, to address racial inequities, ensure community health and safety needs are met, and to build trust within our communities of color.

This work should begin with public, transparent community forums to listen, learn and receive people’s ideas about how policing should be re-imagined and transformed so that communities of color can be safer within their neighborhoods, the City of Berkeley, and trust in the Berkeley Police Department can begin to be rebuilt. The City Manager will send a list of recommendations to the full Council for review and public input.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Staff time

BACKGROUND
The recent heinous murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery in the context of centuries of sanctioned murders of and violence towards Black people in our country, have catapulted the nation and our community to call for change in rooting out systemic racism from our policing models.

At the June 9, 2020 Council Meeting Berkeley residents demanded an end to racial disparities in Berkeley’s policing. Some demanded defunding the Berkeley Police Department. This item seeks to vigorously initiate the development of a strategic framework to end disparate racial outcomes resulting from practices, policies and

Referral to City Manager to Re-imagine Policing Approaches to Public Safety CONSENT CALENDAR July 14, 2020

deployment of the Berkeley Police Department, by engaging the communities most impacted in the discussion about how to re-imagine our Police Department. This is one step towards moving forward with a Police department that is responsive to the health and safety needs of our communities of color.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
None

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Wengraf Council District 6 510-981-7160

Office of the Mayor
Jesse Arreguín
1 ACTION CALENDAR
July 14, 2020
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Vice-Mayor Sophie Hahn, Councilmember Ben Bartlett, Councilmember Kate Harrison
Subject: Transform Community Safety and Initiate a Robust Community Engagement Process

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Adopt a Resolution expressing the City Council’s commitment to:
a. A transformative approach to community-centered safety and reducing the scope of policing,
b. Equitable investment in the essential conditions of a safe and healthy community, especially for those who have been historically marginalized and have experienced disinvestment, and
c. A broad, inclusive community process that will result in deep and lasting change to support safety and wellbeing for all Berkeley residents.

2. Direct the City Manager to track and report progress on actions to implement this initiative, and other actions that may be identified by the Coalition and referred by Council to the City Manager. Updates shall be provided by written and verbal reports to Council and posted on a regularly updated and dedicated page on the City website.

3. Direct the City Manager to collaborate with Mayor and select Councilmembers to complete the following work, to inform investments and reallocations to be incorporated into future Budget processes:
a. Contract with independent subject matter experts to:
i. Analyze the scope of work of, and community needs addressed by, the Berkeley Police Department, to identify a more limited role for law enforcement, and identify elements of police work that could be achieved through alternative programs, policies, systems, and community

2 investments. Analysis should include but not be limited to: calls received by dispatch by type of complaint, stops by law enforcement generated at officer discretion (as contained in the Police Department’s open data portal) or on request of other city agencies, number of officers and staff from other city agencies that respond to incidents, estimated time in response to different types of calls, daily patrol activities, organizational structure, and beat staffing. Work to include broad cost estimates of police and other city agency response to different types of calls, and other information and analysis helpful to identify elements of current police work that could be transferred to other departments or programs or achieved through alternative means. Work should be completed in time for the November 2020 Annual Appropriation Ordinance revision. ii. Identify immediate and longer-term opportunities to shift policing resources to alternative, non-police responses and towards alternative and restorative justice models, to better meet community needs, that could be considered in the November 2020 AAO#1 budget process.

Some areas to be considered include homeless outreach and services, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and mental health/crisis management, as well as alternative models for traffic and parking enforcement, “neighborhood services” and code enforcement. Provide a broad timeline and process for transitioning functions not ready for transition at this first milestone.

Deliverables should coincide with budget cycles, including the November 2020 AAO and FY 2022-2023 Budget processes, and provide a suggested timeline for transitioning functions at these and other budget opportunities, so that alternative investments may be considered for funding and launched in a timely and orderly manner.
b. Contract with independent Change Management experts to initiate and facilitate a representative Community Safety Coalition, guided by a Steering Committee, that will begin meeting no later than January 2021.The CSC and its Steering Committee should be broadly inclusive and representative of Berkeley residents and stakeholders. The Steering Committee, with the support of Change Management professionals, shall be responsible for engaging the Coalition and the broader Berkeley community and relevant City Staff in a robust process, to achieve a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley.

The work of the Coalition should include but not be limited to:

3 1. Building on the work of the City Council, the City Manager, the PRC and other City commissions and other working groups addressing community health and safety.

2. Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley.

3. Recommend a new, community-centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (Attachment 3), considering, among other things:
a. The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety
b. The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and powers and duties of a well-trained police force.
c. Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.
d. Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration.
e. Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.
c. The Coalition’s goal/output will be a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives to incorporate into upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase, in the FY2024-2025 budget processes to ensure that recommended changes will be achieved. The Coalition shall return to City Council an initial plan and timeline by April 1, 2021, to ensure the first phase of changes can be incorporated into the FY2022-23 Budget Process.

4 SUMMARY
Local government’s most fundamental role is to provide for the health and safety of its residents. Cities around the country are acknowledging that they are falling behind in this basic function, and are embarking on efforts to reimagine health and safety, and to consider reallocating resources towards a more holistic approach; one that shifts resources away from policing towards health, education and social services, and is able to meet crises with a variety of appropriate responses.

The current re-energized movement for social justice and police reform highlights a problematic expansion, over many decades, in the roles and responsibilities of the police. As other systems have been defunded, most notably mental health, education, affordable housing and other health and safety-net programs, the police have been asked to respond to more and more crises that could have been avoided with a different set of investments in community wellbeing. Rather than being the responders of last resort, focused on criminal, aggressive and violent behaviors, police are now frontline responders routinely called to address mental health crises, poverty and homelessness, substance abuse, stress in the school environment, traffic and code violations and neighborhood disputes. This is an extensive set of responsibilities that is not traditionally the purview of the police.

This item initiates a restructure and redefinition of “health and safety” for all Berkeleyeans, with immediate, intermediate and longer-term steps to transform the city to a new model that is equitable and community-centered. It roots the transformative process in broad, deep and representative community engagement which empowers the community to address social determinants of health and safety and deliver transformative change, with the help of change management professionals and informed by research and analysis of current and best practices.

BACKGROUND
The recent murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery have ignited the nation in passionate protest against police brutality and racial injustice. Across the country, community members have gathered for weeks to demand change and called out the enduring, systemic racism, white supremacy and accompanying police brutality that have defined the United States for too long. Among the more immediate demands are calls to reduce funding and the scope of police work and to invest in alternative models to achieve positive, equitable community safety.

These demands for change go beyond necessary efforts in procedural justice, implicit bias training, and improved use of force policies. Activists, organizers and their allies in our community are seeking a broader discussion about the true foundations for a safe and healthy community for all people. For too long, “public safety” has been equated

5 with more police, while economic and social welfare programs have been viewed as special projects unrelated to health and safety.

Responding from the epicenter of this moment, the City of Minneapolis has voted to disband their police department and engage in a deep and detailed year long process to fundamentally transform community health and safety in their city.1 Closer to home, Mayor London Breed has announced that San Francisco will demilitarize their police force and end the use of police as a response for non-criminal activity.2 As this movement ripples across the nation, Berkeley has an opportunity to lead in transforming our approach to public health and safety. We need the right response for each crisis rather than defaulting to police. This resolution and recommendations initiate a thoughtful, thorough approach to restructuring and redefining health and safety through investment in the social determinants of health, rooted in deep community engagement and empowerment.

Community members are calling on city leaders to be creative in reimagining the city’s approach to health and safety and to make clear, demonstrated commitments and timelines for this work.

In order to earn community buy-in for these important changes it is critical that the future of community health and safety be defined by the Berkeley community, centering the voices of our Black, Native American/First Peoples and other communities of color, LGBTQ+ people, victims of harm and other stakeholders that have been historically, and continue to be, marginalized and under-served by our current system. A community-wide process would ultimately inform recommended investments and approaches to achieve a higher and more equitable level of community safety for the entire community.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Despite strong efforts and leadership on police reform, homelessness, health, education and housing affordability in Berkeley, racial disparities remain stark across virtually every meaningful measure. According to the City of Berkeley’s 2018 Health Status Summary Report, African Americans are 2.3 times more likely to die in a given year from any condition as compared to Whites. In 2013, African Americans were twice as likely to live in poverty in Berkeley. By 2018, they were eight times more likely. The Center for Policing Equity (CPE) found that Black drivers are 6.5 times as likely as white drivers to be stopped by Berkeley police officers and four times as likely to be searched.

Latinx people are also searched far more often than white people. Furthermore, there is a striking disproportionality in BPD’s use of force against Black community members. 1 https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/3806/Transforming%20Community%20Safety%20Resolution.pdf 2 https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-london-breed-announces-roadmap-new-police-reforms

6 Black people comprise 8% of Berkeley’s population but 46% of people who are subjected to police force.3
Local government’s most fundamental role is to provide for the health and safety of its residents. Cities around the country are acknowledging that they are falling behind in this basic function and are embarking on efforts to reimagine health and safety, and to consider reallocating resources towards a more holistic approach; one that shifts resources away from policing towards health, education and social services, and is able to meet crises with a variety of appropriate responses.

In addition to renewed efforts around policing in places like Minneapolis and San Francisco that were prompted by George Floyd’s murder, the financial and public health impacts of COVID-19 had already required Berkeley to reimagine and innovate to meet the moment. Berkeley now faces multiple intersecting crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impacts, the effects of systemic racism and the ongoing climate emergency. There is no returning to “normal.”
COVID-19 has demonstrated that we are only as healthy and safe as the most vulnerable amongst us, and we are in fact one community. There is both a moral and fiscal imperative to restructure the way Berkeley envisions and supports health and safety.

Berkeley is facing a $40 million budget deficit, and while deferrals of projects and positions can help close the gap in the short term, the economic impacts of the pandemic will require deeper restructuring in the coming years. The current structure of the police department consumes over 44% of the City’s General Fund Budget. With the increase in payments required to meet pension and benefit obligations, the police budget could overtake General Fund capacity within the next 10 years. Thus, even before the important opportunity for action created through outrage at the murder of George Floyd, the City’s current investments in safety were unsustainable. To provide meaningful safety and continue critical health and social services, Berkeley must commit to, and invest in, a new, positive, equitable and community-centered approach to health and safety - this is affordable and sustainable. 3 https://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Berkeley-Report-May-2018.pdf

7 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Resolution expressing City Council’s commitment to a new city-wide approach to public health and safety
Transforming our system of health and safety requires strong commitment from our leaders and the community. This resolution (Attachment 1) is an expression of commitment and a tool for accountability to the public.

The proposed set of principles as well as specific initiatives are the starting point for a robust and inclusive process. Some actions will require significantly more work and additional council direction prior to implementation. For example, moving traffic and parking enforcement from police is a concept that is recommended but would require a significant redesign of city operations. Other changes may be able to move forward more quickly. These ideas are submitted in a spirit of conviction and humility. The future of community health and safety must be addressed in a fundamentally different way and the Council is committed to collaborating with the community to define a new, positive and equitable model of health and safety for everyone.

2. Direct the City Manager to publicly track progress on actions that respond to the directives of the principles herein and others identified by the Coalition.

Progress shall be updated regularly and available on a dedicated page on the City website.

This webpage should include a summary of the actions outlined in this item, as well as other work already underway such as the Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Working group, the Use of Force policy updates, other work underway by the Police Review Commission and any other Council referrals or direction on public safety, including existing referrals addressing alternative and restorative justice, that reflect the spirit and scope of this item.

Transformative change will only be successful if processes are transparent and information widely disseminated, as the City has so successfully demonstrated in managing the COVID-19 crisis. By publicly posting this information, the public will have the capacity to keep its elected officials, city staff, and our whole community accountable for realizing a new system of community centered safety that meets the needs of all of Berkeley’s residents.

8 3. Direct the City Manager to collaborate with Mayor and select Councilmembers to complete the following work, to inform investments and reallocations to be incorporated into future Budget processes:
(a) Begin the process of structural change including directing the analysis of the activities of the Berkeley Police Department and other related departments.

Transforming community health and safety has to start by understanding the existing system, the calls to which it responds and other activities. This recommendation seeks to build on Councilmember Bartlett’s George Floyd Community Safety Act to immediately engage independent, outside experts to conduct a data-driven analysis of police calls and responses and a broader understanding of how the police actually spend their time.45
Engaging the services of outside experts will ensure a transparent and trusted process and provide accurate data required to effectuate substantive change will be identified and that data will inform immediate change and the work throughout the community engagement process. The experts must be knowledgeable about policing, code enforcement, criminal justice and community safety and have deep experience with current and emerging theories, as well as expertise in data collection and analysis to inform recommendations for transformative change.

This analysis should commence as quickly as possible with the goal of providing some recommendations in time for the November 2020 AAO and then to more broadly inform the work of the Community Safety Coalition.
(b) Identify immediate opportunities to shift elements of current policing resources to fund more appropriate community agency responses This re-energized movement for social justice also highlights a problematic expansion, over many decades, in the roles and responsibilities of the police. As other systems have been defunded, most notably mental health, education, affordable housing and other health and safety-net programs, the police have been asked to respond to more and more crises that could be avoided with a different set of investments in community wellbeing. Rather than being the responders of last resort, focused on criminal, aggressive and violent behaviors, police are now frontline responders routinely called to address mental health crises, poverty and homelessness, substance abuse, stress in the school environment, traffic and code violations and neighborhood disputes. This is an extensive set of responsibilities that have slowly accreted to the police. 4https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Update_Budget%20Request%20to%20Hire%20a%20Consul tant%20to%20Perform%20Police%20Call%20and%20Re.._.pdf
5 New York Times- How Do the Police Actually Spend Their Time?

9 By November 2020, with preliminary information provided by outside experts, the City Manager and Council should identify some responsibilities that can be quickly shifted to other programs, departments and agencies. Some areas to be considered include:
● Mental health and crisis management (consideration should be given to possible expansion of the Mobile Integrated Paramedic Unit (MIP) Pilot initiated by the Berkeley Fire Department during the COVID-19 pandemic), and other models for mental health outreach and crisis response, including by non-profits ● Homeless outreach and services
● Civilianizing some or all Code Enforcement + Neighborhood Services and placing these functions elsewhere
● Alternatives for traffic and parking enforcement, and ● Substance abuse prevention and treatment
The consultants should work with the City Manager to provide a specific timeline and process for transitioning functions as quickly as possible, with deliverables to coincide with timelines for budget processes.
(c) Contract with Change Management experts to initiate and facilitate a Community Safety Coalition (“CSC”) and Steering Committee that will begin meeting no later than January 2021.

While the Council can make some important changes and investments in the near future, a complete and enduring transformation in community safety is only possible through robust community engagement. It is critical that the future of community health and safety is defined by the Berkeley community, elevating the voices of our Black, Native American/First Peoples and other communities of color, LGBTQ+ people, victims of harm and other stakeholders that have been historically marginalized and under- served by current systems. The Community Safety Coalition, guided by a steering committee, will serve as the hub for a broad, deep and representative process, and uplift the community’s input into a new positive, equitable, anti-racist system of community health and safety.

Berkeley has a history in leading transformational change to achieve a more equitable society. The robust public process that led to school desegregation is an example of our community’s success in bringing about significant, transformative change (Attachment 4).

The robust public process, led by the Community Safety Coalition and its steering committee, will be guided and facilitated by outside experts.

10 The work of the Coalition should include but not be limited to:
● Build upon the work of the City Council, City Manager, the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group, the Use of Force subcommittee and other efforts of the Police Review and other City Commissions, and the work of other community agencies addressing community-centered health and safety ● Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley. This research should explore and propose investments in restorative justice models, gun violence intervention programs, and substance abuse support, among other things. ● Recommend a positive, equitable, community-centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (Attachment 3), considering, among other things:
○ The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety
○ The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and powers and duties of a well-trained police force. ○ Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.
○ Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration. ○ Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.

The Coalition’s goal/output will be a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives to incorporate into upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase, in the FY2024-2025 budget processes to ensure that recommended changes will be achieved. The Coalition shall return to City Council an initial plan and timeline by April 1, 2021, to ensure the first phase of changes can be incorporated into the FY2022-23 Budget Process.

11 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$160,000 from the Auditor’s budget to assess police calls and responses $200,000 from current budget cycle from Fund 106, Civil Asset Forfeiture, for initial subject matter expertise and engagement of outside consultants Staff time to support the process of identifying and implementing change.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES AND LAWS
This effort is in support of the following strategic plan goals:
● Champion and demonstrate social and racial equity
● Create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared City ● Create affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members
● Provide an efficient and financially-healthy City government ● Be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily- accessible service and information to the community

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No Environmental Impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Vice-Mayor Sophie Hahn
Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Councilmember Kate Harrison
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act - Budget Request to Hire a Consultant to Perform Police Call and Response Data Analysis

3. “Shrink the Beast” A Framework for Transforming Police, National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

4. School Desegregation in Berkeley: The Superintendent Reports, Neil Sullivan 1968

12 Attachment 1

RESOLUTION
Whereas, The recent murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery have ignited the nation in passionate protest against police brutality and racial injustice; and
Whereas, Demands for change go beyond necessary efforts in procedural justice, implicit bias training, and use of force policies and seek a broader discussion about investment in the conditions for a safe and healthy community; and Whereas, Investment in “public safety” has been equated with more police for too long while economic and social welfare programs have been viewed as special projects unrelated to health and safety; and
Whereas, This movement is highlighting the problematic expansion in the roles and responsibilities of police officers. Rather than being the responders of last resort, focused on criminal, aggressive and violent behaviors, police are now frontline responders to mental health crises, homelessness, drug addiction, sex work, school disruption, traffic and code violations and neighborhood conflicts; and Whereas, the adopted 2020 budget allocated $74 million to the Berkeley Police Department, which represents over 44% of the City’s General Fund of $175 million, and is more than twice as much as the combined City budgets for Health Housing and Community Services, and Economic Development; and
Whereas, It is clear that our current system of public health and safety is not working and is not sustainable in Berkeley. Despite strong efforts and leadership on police reform, homelessness and affordable housing, racial inequity remains stark across virtually every meaningful measure of health and well-being; and Whereas, Local government’s most fundamental role is to provide for the health and safety of its residents. Cities around the country are acknowledging that they are falling behind in this basic function and are embarking on efforts to reimagine health and safety, and to consider reallocating resources towards a more holistic approach that shifts resources away from policing towards equitable health, education and social services that promote wellbeing up front;678 and
Whereas, As this movement ripples across the nation, Berkeley has an opportunity to lead in transforming our approach to public health and safety. We need the right response for each crisis rather than defaulting to using the police; and 6 Transforming Community Safety Resolution-Minneapolis
7 San Francisco Mayor, Supervisor announce effort to redirect some police funding to African-American community 8 The cities that are already defunding the police

13 Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by The City Council of The City of Berkeley:

That the City Council commits to the principles of reduce, improve and re-invest: reduce the scope and investment in policing, improve the response and accountability of public and community agencies, reinvest in racial equity and community-based intervention initiatives9;
Be It Further Resolved that the City Council will engage with every willing community member in Berkeley, centering the voices of Black people, Native American people, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, victims of harm, and other stakeholders who have been historically marginalized or under-served by our present system.

Together, we will identify what safety looks like for everyone.

Be It Further Resolved that the process will center the role of healing and reconciliation.

The process will require healers, elders, youth, artists, and organizers to lead deep community engagement on race and public safety. We will work with local and national leaders on transformative justice in partnerships informed by the needs of every block in our city.

Be It Further Resolved that decades of police reform efforts have not created equitable public safety in our community, and our efforts to achieve transformative public safety will not be deterred by the inertia of existing institutions, contracts, and legislation.

Be It Further Resolved that these efforts heed the words of Angela Davis, “In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist.” Be It Further Resolved that the transformation under consideration has a citywide impact, and will be conducted by the City Council in a spirit of collaboration and transparency with all constructive stakeholder contributors including the Mayor’s Office, the City Manager, the Police Chief, and community organizations.

Be It Further Resolved that the City Council of the City of Berkeley is committed to:

1. A transformative approach to community-centered safety and reducing the scope of policing

2. Equitable investment in the essential conditions of a safe and health community especially for those who have been historically marginalized and have experienced disinvestment

3. A broad, inclusive community process that will result in deep and lasting change to support safety and wellbeing for all Berkeley residents. 9 A Framework fo Transforming Police- NICJR

14 Be it Further Resolved that the City Council supports taking the following actions to realize this transformation:

1. Direct the City Manager to track and report progress on actions to implement this initiative, and other actions that may be identified by the Coalition and referred by Council to the City Manager. Updates shall be provided by written and verbal reports to Council, and posted on a regularly updated and dedicated page on the City website.

2. Direct the City Manager to collaborate with Councilmembers later selected by the Mayor to complete the following work, to inform investments and reallocations to be incorporated into future Budget processes:
a. Contract with independent consultants/Change Management and subject matter experts to:
i. Analyze the scope of work of, and community needs
addressed by, the Berkeley Police Department, to identify a more limited role for law enforcement, and identify elements of police work that could be achieved through alternative programs, policies, systems, and community investments.

Analysis should include but not be limited to: calls received by dispatch by type of complaint, stops by law enforcement generated at officer discretion (as contained in the Police Department’s open data portal) or on request of other city agencies, number of officers and staff from other city
agencies that respond to incidents, estimated time in
response to different types of calls, daily patrol activities, organizational structure, and beat staffing. Work to include broad cost estimates of police and other city agency
response to different types of calls, and other information and analysis helpful to identify elements of current police work that could be transferred to other departments or
programs, or achieved through alternative means. Work
should be completed in time for the November 2020 Annual Appropriation Ordinance revision.
ii. Identify immediate and longer term opportunities to shift policing resources to alternative, non-police responses and towards alternative and restorative justice models, to better meet community needs, that could be considered in the

15 November 2020 AAO#1 budget process. Some areas to be considered include homeless outreach and services,
substance abuse prevention and treatment, and mental
health/crisis management, as well as alternative models for traffic and parking enforcement, “neighborhood services” and code enforcement. Provide a broad timeline and
process for transitioning functions not ready for transition at this first milestone.

Deliverables should coincide with budget cycles, including the November 2020 AAO and FY 2022-2023 Budget processes, and provide a suggested timeline for transitioning functions at these and other budget opportunities, so that alternative investments may be considered for funding and launched in a timely and orderly manner.
b. Contract with independent Change Management experts to create and facilitate a representative Community Safety Coalition, guided by a Steering Committee, that will begin meeting no later than January 2021.The CSC and its Steering Committee, should be broadly inclusive and representative of Berkeley residents and stakeholders. The Steering Committee, with the support of Change Management professionals, shall be responsible for engaging the Coalition and the broader Berkeley community and relevant City Staff in a robust process, to achieve a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley.

The work of the Coalition should include but not be limited to:

4. Building on the work of the City Council, the City Manager, the PRC and other City commissions and other working groups addressing community health and safety.

5. Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley.

6. Recommend a new, community- centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (Attachment 3), considering, among other things:

16 a. The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety
b. The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and powers and duties of a well-trained police force.
c. Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.
d. Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration.
e. Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.

The Coalition’s goal/output will be a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives to incorporate into upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase, in the FY2024-2025 budget processes to ensure that recommended changes will be achieved. The Coalition shall return to City Council an initial plan and timeline by April 1, 2021, to ensure the first phase of changes can be incorporated into the FY2022-23 Budget Process.

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

EMERGENCY ITEM AGENDA MATERIAL
Meeting date: June 16, 2020
Item Description: Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act - Budget Request to Hire a Consultant to Perform Police Call and Response Data Analysis
Submitted by: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author), Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and Councilmembers Kate Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Rationale:

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2(b) (2), Councilmember Ben Bartlett submits the attached item to the City Council for placement on the June 16, 2020 meeting agenda. Gov. Code Section 54954.2(b) (2) states that “Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of a legislative body presents at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a).”

This item meets the criteria for “immediate action” as follows:
1) The budget is being considered and there is public outcry for Council to take action.
2) Racism Is a Public Health Emergency.
3) Council is considering numerous police items right now.

Hundreds of thousands of people in every state have marched in solidarity to call for an end to police brutality, to demand police accountability, and to reform law enforcement, bringing justice to the Black lives and people of color who have been wrongfully harmed at the hands of the criminal justice system. Police brutality has taken the lives of 46-year- old Black man George Floyd, 26- year-old Black woman Breonna Taylor, and countless other people of color. Often resorting to violent means of punishment, police officers are not trained to handle noncriminal and nonviolent situations. Unfortunately, the lack of sufficient data and reporting has allowed police misconduct to be swept under the rug, which has increased police militarization, failed to prioritize community safety, and prevented providing the civilian with the necessary treatment to resolve the situation.

To respond to urgent calls for police transparency and accountability, this item requests the City Manager to hire third-party consultants to conduct a data-driven analysis of the Berkeley Police Department’s calls, responses, budget, and expenditures to determine which calls can be serviced to non- law enforcement agencies, ensuring noncriminal and nonviolent situations are properly handled by trained community professionals.

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author), Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and Councilmembers Kate Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act - Budget Request to Hire a Consultant to Perform Police Call and Response Data Analysis

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Refer to the Thursday, 6/18/2020 Budget & Finance Policy Committee and the FY 2020-21 Budget Process the $150,000 to
a. Hire a consultant to conduct a data-driven analysis of police calls and responses to determine the quantity and proportion of these calls that can be responded to by non-police services. The third-party consultant must be hired and engaged in work within three months of the item’s passage. b. Hire a consultant to conduct an analysis of the Berkeley Police Department’s budget and its expenditures by call type. The third-party consultant must be hired and engaged in work within three months of the item’s passage.

2. Direct the City Manager to:
a. Implement initiatives and reforms that reduce the footprint of the police department and limit the police’s response to violent and criminal service calls.

CURRENT SITUATION
In all 50 states and more than 145 cities, Americans are calling to end police violence and brutality, to legitimize police accountability, and to transform the police system to protect the safety of communities and people of color. Police violence and brutality led to the death of a 46-year-old Black man George Floyd and the murders of other Black people, igniting a flame that has been brewing for a long time. These events of police violence gave rise to a wave of demonstrations and demands for change, including many in the City of Berkeley.

Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, the City of Berkeley is facing a nearly 30+ million dollar budget deficit, sharply stalling economic growth with effects that parallel the Great Depression. At the same time, the City is projected to undergo an increase in people experiencing homelessness, trauma, and mental health crises. Therefore, the City must ensure that each dollar is spent for the residents’ best interest and will produce the maximum return.

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

In order to better respond to the needs of the Berkeley community, it is critical that the Council takes local-level action on police reform. In particular, the City must examine the types of calls and responses from the police department and analyze the agency’s budgets and expenditures according to call type.

As a component of the REDUCE, IMPROVE, RE-INVEST framework, this item works towards the REDUCE goal: the City should implement initiatives and reforms that reduce the footprint of the police department and limit the police’s response to violent and criminal service calls. Specifically, this item proposes to hire an outside consultant to conduct an analysis of police calls and responses as well as the department budget.

With military-style techniques and structure, police officers are trained to combat crime in a manner that exerts violence through punishments, establishing a monopoly on force in communities. While law enforcement is supposed to protect our communities and keep us safe, crime waves from the 1970s and 1980s have transformed the police community into a body for crime control, maintaining such focus until modern-day despite declines in criminal activity

1. With this focus on crime control, police officers lack the necessary training to adequately respond to noncriminal and nonviolent crimes. Non Criminal crimes refer to issues involving mental health, the unhoused community, school discipline, and neighborhood civil disputes

2. Nonviolent crimes are categorized
as property, drug, and public order offenses where injury or force is absent3. When police respond to these types of matters, they resort to violent means of arrest or problem escalation because they are ill-equipped and not trained to resolve the underlying issues.

According to the Vera Institute of Justice’s report between 1980 and 2016, more than

10.5 million arrests are made every year; only 4.83 percent of those arrests were for violent offenses

4. Eighty percent of these arrests were for low-level offenses, such as “disorderly conduct,” non-traffic offenses, civil violations, and other offenses. This criminalization may be attributed to the arrest quotas for police productivity, which promotes punishment by rewarding the number of arrests for police funding instead of finding solutions to these issues

5. This high percentage of low-level offenses resulted in

1 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/first-step-figuring-out-what-police-are/612793/ 2 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/san-francisco-police-reforms-stop-response- noncriminal-calls
3 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/pnoesp.txt#:~:text=Nonviolent%20crimes%20are%20defined%20as ,possession%2C%20burglary%2C%20and%20larceny.
4 https://arresttrends.vera.org/arrests?compare%5Boffense%5D%5Bpart1%5D=part1&compare%5Boffens e%5D%5Bpart2%5D=part2#infographic
5 https://theintercept.com/2019/01/31/arrests-policing-vera-institute-of-justice/

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

arrest when other nonviolent, rehabilitative methods could have occurred from the solutions of community workers with the experience to handle these situations.

It is imperative that the City of Berkeley develops, implements, and enforces a clear and effective roadmap towards making real change, ending anti-Black racism, stopping police violence, and holding police accountable for their actions. Thus, the Council should direct the City Manager to hire third party consultants to conduct a data-driven analysis of police calls and responses as well as their budget and expenditures in order to determine ways in which experienced community workers can reduce the police footprint by addressing noncriminal situations. We recommend that community workers also resolve nonviolent situations.

BACKGROUND
In order to achieve the aforementioned goals, the City must implement a series of important law enforcement reforms and take action by initiating the following:

REDUCE:

I. Hire a consultant to conduct a data driven analysis of police calls and responses.

University of Denver Political Science Professor Laurel Eckhouse stated, “One method of reducing police presence… is to separate and reassign to other authorities various problems currently delegated to the police… such as the problems of people who don’t have housing… mental health issues… and even things like traffic

6.” Community organizations, civilian workers trained in mental health situations, or neighborhood problem-solvers would better address these specific issues due to their experience, ensuring that the police are not the only force addressing these issues and promoting community vitality

7. Conducting a data driven analysis of police calls and responses would signify a report of the calls and responses that police receive and would inform the city where to better allocate resources to resolve specific issues. Noncriminal and nonviolent activities can thus be properly addressed by those who are equipped to handle these situations and would relieve law enforcement from these calls to then pursue more serious criminal situations. For example, the San Francisco Police Department receives approximately 40,000 calls per year about homeless people on the streets

8. Social workers who can help unhoused citizens and those with mental health disorders are better equipped to help these citizens receive

6 https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/06/04/police-abolition-looks-like-palo-alto/ 7 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/first-step-figuring-out-what-police-are/612793/ 8 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/san-francisco-police-reforms-stop-response- noncriminal-calls

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

proper treatment while also protecting the safety of our communities, which would give law enforcement time to handle other crimes.

One suggestion to reduce the costs of policing is to boost productivity by allocating a portion of the calls for service to community organizations who have the resources and training to handle such situations

9. For example, in Mesa,
Arizona from 2006 to 2008, a third of calls for service are handled by civilians; these calls are for incidents of “vehicle burglaries, unsecured buildings, accidents, loose dogs, stolen vehicles, traffic hazards, and residential burglaries

10.” Approximately half of calls for service in Mesa are handled by police officers, but among those, there are ways to reduce police authority. For example, 11 percent of those calls that police officers handled were in response to burglary alarms, where 99 percent were false. Six percent of those calls included “juveniles disturbing the peace.” This situation in Mesa demonstrates the possibility of reduced police force in exchange for community based response teams who can better resolve these issues with their experience.

The City Manager should hire a third party consultant within three months of this item’s passage to conduct the data analysis, ensuring that the report is completed in an impartial and timely manner.

The third party consultant should create a report with the following information by analyzing and gathering the data from the police department, reporting their findings to the City every two years. We recommend the following data to be considered for analysis:
a. Number of calls the police department receives per day, week, month, and year, which will be categorized into noncriminal, misdemeanor, nonviolent felony, and serious and violent felony calls.
b. Demographics for these calls
c. Characteristics of traffic stops
i. Quantity
ii. Type/reason
iii. Number of those resulting in searchings paired with the frequency at which illegal items were found
iv. Police response (i.e. citation, arrest, use of force) v. Demographics of the civilian in the traffic stop that is broken into type of stop and whether a search occurred
d. Number of complaints against an officer
i. Enumerate the officers with a high number of complaints

9 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/231096.pdf
10 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/231096.pdf

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

ii. Reason behind the complaints.

With the results of the data analysis, the City can determine the portion of calls that the community crisis worker pilot can properly address with the resources and experience they have.

II. Hire a consultant to conduct an analysis of the police department budget.

Using the analysis generated by a review of police call and response data, a third party consultant should be hired to analyze the police department’s expenditures and budgets for various calls of service and report their findings to the City every two years.

According to the 2019 budget, the Berkeley Police Department’s expenditures were approximately $69 million, which consists of 5.6 percent of the city’s net expenditures. However, for the 2020 budget, the BPD is expected to have $74 million in expenditures, reflecting a $5 million increase from the previous year and approximately $8 million higher than 2017’s expenditures

11. Unfortunately,
anecdotal evidence suggests that only 20 percent of police time is spent on solving crime and the majority is spent towards addressing those experiencing homelessness and mental health crises. The City should reallocate resources to a crisis worker entity who would be tasked with responding to noncriminal calls.

We recommend that nonviolent calls also be addressed by this entity. This would give police officers more time to focus on crime, leading to better outcomes for public safety, community health, and a higher quality of life.

In Canada, Police Information and Statistics Committee police services Waterloo Police Regional Service and Ontario Provincial Police collaborated with Justice Canada and Public Safety to collect data on their calls for service and determine the costs of policing

12. Their research reported that in 2013, bylaw complaints were listed as the most frequent call for service in Waterloo at 8,769 calls and non-crime policing activities were listed as the most frequent. In contrast, the only criminal activity listed in the top 10 generated calls were domestic dispute, theft under $5000, and major violent crime in property damage. Considering the most frequent of costly calls are noncriminal activities such as selective traffic enforcement programs ($22,212.45 in sum of total unit service time in hours) and vehicle stops ($206,668.13), the greatest cost in calls were for noncriminal activities. As noncriminal activities result in the greatest costs, it would be more efficient for community workers to handle these situations in order to reduce

11 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Manager/Budget/FY-2020-2021-Adopted-Budget- Book.pdf
12 https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r018/index-en.aspx#c-1-i

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

police department costs, allowing trained professionals to resolve the issue and giving police officers time to spend on more serious criminal offenses.

By analyzing the budget expenditures for the police for each call type, the community can divest from the police and reallocate those funds for trained community organizations who can handle noncriminal and nonviolent offenses.

Considering the significantly delayed response to former requests for the police department’s budget, the data analysis should be conducted by a third party consultant that is hired and engaged in active service within three months of this item’s passage, ensuring that the police department’s budget information is transparent to the public and reported in an impartial, timely manner.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
The City Manager provides regular reports on crime in Berkeley and on the policies of the Berkeley Police Department13. The data on serious crime is collected annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which consists of over 17,000 law enforcement agencies that represent over 90 percent of the United States population.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) reports crime statistics on violent crimes (including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (including burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson). This data allows the BPD to analyze national and local crime trends, determine effectiveness of response to crime, and plan for future policies and resource allocation. Additionally, the City of Berkeley implements the Daily Calls for Service Log that the community can access to see the volume and nature of police activity.

Currently, Utah requires agencies to report tactical deployment and forcible entries where such reports are summarized by the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. Utah Law Enforcement Transparency reporting interface was added to Utah Criminal Justice Information System in 2014 through the use of federal grant funding.

Law enforcement agencies are required to report incidents of forcible entry and the deployment of tactical groups, representing data collection of police use of force

14. However, these reports do not analyze the demographics or types of calls and responses from the BPD, which makes it difficult to hold police officers accountable for the mistreatment of individuals. Without this information, it becomes difficult to determine how to decrease the police footprint or implement safer policing practices if the analysis only pertains to the quantity and types of arrests and does not include the

13 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Police/Home/Annual_Crime_Reports.aspx 14 https://justice.utah.gov/Documents/CCJJ/LETR/2018%20LET%20Annual%20Report.html

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

background, call of service, reason, demographics, complaints against the police officer, and other important factors to the BPD’s response.

Despite voluntary data sharing and crime reports, data collection still remains vague and insufficient, leaving many unanswered questions regarding the number of instances of and reasons for use of force, complaint process against police officers, and other information about police actions. This lack of clarity allows police misconduct to perpetuate due to the lack of research that would hold police departments accountable.

ACTIONS/ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
One possible alternative to the community response teams would be to implement better training procedures so that police officers are more equipped to handle nonviolent and noncriminal activities. For example, the state of Washington requires both violence de-escalation and mental health training for police officers

15. Such reform may render
the data analysis on the types of calls unnecessary because the police department would be trained to handle all services regardless of the type of call.

However, training police officers to handle situations such as mental health or homelessness would signify an increase in funding for the police department to provide such training services. Not only would this type of training be difficult to maneuver when police forces are currently trained in a militarized manner, but it would be more efficient for community professionals to peacefully and properly resolve such issues since they have already engaged in this training and experience for years.

Reforming police training may be beneficial, but in this case, it would also indicate the lack of basis for reporting the police department’s types of calls and responses, which is necessary to hold the police accountable and ensure safer practices. While reporting the data analysis could still occur without the community crisis workers, only having the police department manage all situations would increase their authority over the communities, which would lead to increased militarization of the police forces if other community organizations do not intervene or hold them accountable.

OUTREACH OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
The District 3 Office has consulted with David Muhammad, who is the Executive Director of the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform; the former Chief Probation Officer in Alameda County; and the former Deputy Commissioner of Probation in New York City. David Muhammad is a leading expert on criminal justice who has helped inform our response to the current situation.

15 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/how-actually-fix-americas-police/612520/

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

The District 3 Office has also consulted with Marcus McKinney, the Senior Director of Government Affairs & Public Policy at the Center for Policing Equity.

The District 3 Office has also consulted with Professor Tracey L. Meares, Walton Hale Hamilton Professor and Faculty Director of the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law School.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Police departments across the country enforce policies and practices that breed a culture of violence resulting in killings--like those of Floyd and Moore, and of countless other people of color. These authoritative, militarized behaviors are often rooted in anti- Black racism, and such behavior must stop being acceptable. Transformation of police departments, their role, and relationship to our communities requires a change in culture, accountability, training, policies, and practices.

To prioritize community safety and reduce police violence, the City must hire a third party consultant to analyze police data in order to decide how to divest from the police to fund experienced community workers who can adequately resolve noncriminal and nonviolent situations. These community workers would protect the community from violence and emphasize revitalization and rehabilitation over the punishment that police officers often enforce. Implementing a data-driven analysis on police data would increase the transparency of the police department and hold them accountable, detecting the issues within the police force that community response teams can help heal. The Council must make informed legislative decisions that will reduce police footprint, improve current practices of law enforcement, and reinvest in the community for the safety of our civilians.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The third party consultant/s would cost approximately $150,000 to $200,000. It is up to the City Manager to hire the third party consultants who will analyze the data of the police department’s calls, responses, budget, and expenditures. Consultants must be hired and engaged in service within three months if this item passes. These consultants would ensure that noncriminal situations are handled by those with the necessary training, which may lead to a decrease in repeat offenses when community workers properly resolve the situation and guide civilians to helpful resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
We do not expect this recommendation to have significant negative impacts on environmental sustainability.

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

If this item is passed, third party consultants would be hired by the City and engaged in data analysis within three months of passage. These consultants would produce biennial reports regarding the Berkeley Police Department’s types of calls and responses as well as the budgets and expenditures in order to inform the City how to reallocate funds from the police into a community response team with better experience to handle noncriminal situations. We recommend that nonviolent situations also be addressed by community crisis workers.

CONTACT PERSON
Councilmember Ben Bartlett 510-981-7130
James Chang [email protected]
Kyle Tang [email protected]
Kimberly Woo [email protected]

ATTACHMENTS

1. Cover Letter - Safety for All: George Floyd Community Safety Act ● https://drive.google.com/file/d/16pqqd9J6NPRzh6298Bgazo7jw1qxTK6Y/v iew?usp=sharing

The killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police was the match that lit a fire that has been building in our communities for a long time. Nationwide demands for not just reform, but complete transformation of policing have put pressure on local jurisdictions across the country to make rapid and real change.

Since its founding, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) has worked to reform the juvenile and criminal justice systems through a process of Reduce – Improve – and Reinvest. This framework can also be effective in transforming policing. In the past 15 years, the U.S. juvenile justice system has been reduced by more than half. Youth correctional facilities have been shuttered and investment into community services has increased. While there is certainly more progress to be made, the movement to transform policing can learn a great deal from criminal justice reform.

NICJR’s framework to Shrink the Beast focuses on three areas: reducing the footprint of law enforcement, significantly improving what remains of policing, and reinvesting the savings from smaller police budgets into community services.

One of the most significant structural reforms we must advance in policing, already happening in the criminal justice arena, is shrinking its scope. Officers are asked to do too much with too few resources. The warrior mentality that police are indoctrinated with, starting as early as the first day of the police academy, does not allow them to handle many of those responsibilities well. It is time for an alternative response network for all non-violent calls for service. Similar to the community-based organizations that provide diversion programs for youth and adults who would otherwise end up in the justice system, a new infrastructure of community safety and problem-solving responders, with expertise in crisis response, mental health, and de-escalation techniques, must be developed. Such a network should be vast and well equipped, including 24-hour on-call community crisis response and outreach workers. The resulting reduced police force would then focus primarily on responding to serious violence. Small, but promising examples of this model already exist:

Reduce
Reduce Improve Reinvest
SHRINK
THE BEAST:

A Framework for Transforming Police

https://www.koat.com/article/mayor-keller-announces-civilian-response-department-to-help-with-abq-public-safety/32869947 https:/ /www.efficientgov.com/public-safety/articles/austin-budget-adds-millions-for-mental-health-response-in-911-services-Dq https://whitebirdclinic.org/services/cahoots/
https:/ /nicjr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Oakland%E2%80%99s-Successful-Gun-Violence-Reduction-Strategy-NICJR-Jan-2018.pdf https:/ /nicjr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Oakland%E2%80%99s-Successful-Gun-Violence-Reduction-Strategy-NICJR-Jan-2018.pdf In Oakland, CA, non-profit organizations employ street outreach workers and crisis response specialists who respond to shooting scenes, intervene in and mediate conflicts, and sit down with young adults who have been identified as being at very high risk of violence to inform them of their risk and offer them intensive services. These City-funded efforts have been credited with a 50 percent reduction in shootings and homicides in the city.

In Eugene, OR, Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS) responds to more than 22,000 requests for service annually with its Crisis Intervention Workers. This represents nearly 20 percent of the total public safety call volume for the metropolitan area.

In Austin, TX, the Expanded Mobile Crisis Outreach Team is equipped to respond to 911 calls where callers indicate that a mental health response, not police, is needed.

In Albuquerque, NM, where the police have been involved in numerous unjustified killings, the Mayor has proposed creating a new non-law enforcement public safety agency that will respond to non-violent calls.

Create a robust alternative
emergency response network
with mental health workers,
crisis intervention specialists,
and street outreach workers –
the Community Emergency
Response Network (CERN).

CERN Crisis Intervention
Specialists would respond to
all other calls.

Significantly reduce police
patrol divisions which are
currently primarily responsible
for responding to 911 calls.

Police will instead focus on
responding to serious and
violent incidents, a small
percentage of all current calls.

Traffic policing should be
replaced by technology to the
maximum extent possible.

Investigation Units should
also remain intact.

Violence reduction teams should
be created or remain intact:

Steps T o Reduction
Patrol and investigation units
focused on reducing gun
violence. Like all remaining
police personnel, these units
must be trained in and adhere
to strict use of force and
Procedural Justice policies.

The primary challenge in police agencies is culture. Many have described it as a warrior culture. Adrenaline-filled young officers want to “knock heads” during their shifts; the “us vs them,” military occupation syndrome. We must confront and transform this destructive culture. Policing should focus on protection and service to the community.

Improving the smaller police departments that remain, after taking the steps to reduction outlined above, includes three components: policy, training, and accountability. Implement new policies including restricting the use of force, mandating verbal de-escalation, community policing, and eliminating stop and frisk. Implement high quality and frequent training on these newly developed policies. And, most importantly, hold all police personnel accountable for adhering to and demonstrating these policies in action.

Increase hiring standards to screen out candidates with any signs of racial bias, interest in the warrior culture, or those who have been fired or forced to resign from previous law enforcement positions.

Prioritize hires of those who grew up in the city and/or live in the city.

Make deliberate efforts to have the police force representative of the community it serves.

Revise use of force policies to limit any use of deadly force as a last resort in situations where a suspect is clearly armed with a firearm and is using or threatening to use the firearm.

All other force must be absolutely necessary and proportional.

Provide thorough, high quality, and intensive training in subjects including:
• New use of force policy
• Verbal de-escalation
• Bias-free policing
• Procedural Justice
Transparency: Provide regular reports to the public on stops, arrests, complaints, and uses of force, including totals, demographics, and aggregate outcomes data.

Effectively use an early intervention system that tracks various data points to identify high risk officers and implement discipline, training, and dismissal where necessary.

Use aggressive, progressive discipline to root out bad officers.

Rescind state and local laws that provide undue protection to police unions and prohibit effective and efficient disciplinary action.

Improve
A smaller footprint of law enforcement should result in a reduced police budget. Resources should be shifted away from the police department to the CERN and other community-based intervention initiatives, including Credible Messengers/Life Coaches, social workers, and mental health service providers.

Reinvest
Steps T o Improvement
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

NICJR.org
The National Institute for Criminal Justice
Reform (NICJR) is a non-profit organization
providing technical assistance, consulting,
research, and organizational development in the
fields of juvenile and criminal justice, youth
development, and violence prevention. NICJR
provides consultation, program development,
technical assistance, and training to an array of
organizations, including government agencies,
non-profit organizations, and philanthropic
foundations.

REPORTRESUMES
ED 015 988U0 004 752

SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN BERKELEY--THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT REPORTS.

BY- SULLIVAN, NEIL V.

PUB CATENOV 67
ECRS PRICEMF-S0.25HC-$0.9221P.

DESCRIPTORS- *SCHOOL INTEGRATION, *BOARD OF EDUCATION POLICY, *BOARD OF EDUCATION ROLE, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL

SUPERINTENDENTS, JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS,

COMMUNITY COOPERATION, BUS TRANSPORTATION, STAFF ROLE,

ELECTIONS, INTEGRATION PLANS, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

DESCRIBED IS THE HISTORY OF THE EFFORTS TO DESEGREGATE

THE BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BE FULLY DESEGREGATED BY SEPTEMBER 1968. CHANGE BEGAN IN THE 1950'S WITH THE ELECTION OF A 'LIBERAL' TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. FIRST STEPS INVOLVED IMPROVING EDUCATIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES FOR MINORITY GROUP CHILDREN AND MAKING EFFORTS FOR BETTER RACE RELATIONS. DESEGREGATION BEGAN IN THE JUNIOR

HIGH SCHOOLS BUT NOT WITHOUT COMMUNITY FRICTION TO THE POINT OF A DEMAND FOR A RECALL ELECTION OF THE BOARD. HOWEVER THE BOARD WAS VINDICATED ON ITS STAND rOR VOLUNTARY INITIATION OF DESEGREGATION. A NEW SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT WAS FACED WITH THE

JOB OF IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN ANC BEGAN HIS EFFORTS BY

DEVELOPING COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND PRODUCTIVE LIAISON WITH HIS STAFF. THE NEXT STEP INVOLVED DESEGREGATING THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. THE WIDE GEOGRAPHIC SEPARATION OF IMBALANCED SCHOOLS

IN THE CITY REQUIRED THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN WHITE SCHOOLS

AS RECEIVING SCHOOLS AND THE USE OF FEDERALLY FUNDED BUSES AND ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR THE 230 INCOMING PUPILS. HOWEVER THIS WAS ONLY A 'TOKEN' EFFORT. VOLUNTARY REVERSE BUSING AND A TIMETABLE FOR COMPLETE DESEGREGATION HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED.

IT IS FELT THAT THE REQUISITES FOR SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL

DESEGREGATION ARE FULL COMMITMENT BY THE SCHOOL

ADMINISTRATION AND THE BOARD, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WITH AND

FAITH IN THE BOARD AND ADMINISTRATION, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF 'WORKABLE' PLANS. THIS PAPER WAS PREPARED FOR THE NATIONAL

CONFERENCE ON EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA'S CITIES, SPONSORED BY THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 16-18, 1967. (NH)

/7111732-
u,/
SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN BERKELEY:

THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT REPORTS
Prepared by
Neil V. Sullivan, Ed. D.,Superintendent of Schools
Berkeley Unified School District-Berkeley, California
for the
CX,National Conference on Equal Educational Opportunity CT" in America's Cities
sponsored by the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C.

November 16-18, 1967(:)
C:1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POUCY.
11/In recent years Berkeley, California,has been fortunate to have a school district which recognizes its problems and works efft:c- tivelY toward their solution.The city schools already have completely desegregated the junior high schools, and have made a token start at 116
the elementary level.The School Board has committed itself to com- pleting the process in all schools by September 1968.When that goal is reached, Berkeley will be a rare example ofa major city working rf
out a solution to this
Q
roblem without court orders, violence, boy-
_
cotta, or compulsion, but only with the conviction of the Board of4E) Education, the Administration,and the citizens that itwas right.

This has not been achieved overnight.To place the present achievements in their proper context it is necessary totrace the de- velopment of events in the recent lost.

PRE-1964
The Liberal Renaissance- Prior tc the mid-1950's Berkeley's local government-- including the Board of Education-- was typical of those found in most middle-size,middle-class communities.The orien- tation was pro-business, witha heavy emphasis on keeping the taxrate down.This condition was so pronouncedthat teachers, in orderto ob- tain a much needed and earned salaryincrease, were forced touse an initiative petition to get schoolrevenues raised; the Board hadre- fused to do so.

There are many different versionsconcerning the beginning of the liberal renaissance.There is general agreement thatthe first con- crete step was the election ofone liberal to the Board in 1957,fol- lowed by another in 1959,andtwo more in 1961.With the 1961 election the liberals assumed control ofboth the Board of Education andthe City Council.However, even with onlyone "liberal" Board member in the late 1950's, the Board beganto give attention to the problemsof race relations in a multi-racial city.

Preliminary Steps -A citizenscommittee (named the Staats Committee after its chairman)was organized to study race relations within schools.This committee did notcome to grips with the question of de facto segregationbut sought to deal otherwisewith improving educational opportunities for minorityyoungstersand improving race relations in the schools.,'nor the late 1950's thisreport was a for- ward-looking document.It led to two particularlynoteworthy develop- ments.

First, the hiring practices for minority teachers were greatly improved.The number of Negro teachers increased from 36 in 1958 to 75 in 1962.Negroes also were advanced to principalships and other high positions in the District's administrative hierarchy. And by 1962 there were about 30 Orientals on the certificated staff.*
Second was the Intergroup Education Project (IEP).This'pro- ject was designed to help teachers appreciate cultural diversities and better understand youngsters from other than middle-class backgrounds.

It conducted seminars for teachers, mass community meetings, and week- end conferences for this purpoe:t,The IEP helped prepare the ground for the high staff support for later integration efforts.

Junior High School Desegregation - In 1962 4 delegation from the Congress on Racial Equality visited the Superintendent of Schools -- and later the Board of Education.Complimenting the School District for progress already made, the CORE delegation suggested that it was time to get on with the task of desegregating the schools.CORE asked that a citizens committee be appointed to study this problem.

The report included a recommendation for desegregating the junior high schoolsby assigning some students from the predominantly Caucasian "hill" area to Burbank, the Negro junior high school; stu- dents from predominantly Negro west Berkeley would 'be assigned partly * The distribution of minority teachers among, the various schools did not keep pace with progress in hiring.Most of these recruits were assigned to predominantly Negro schools.In more recent years we have made a concerted effort to achieve a better racial balance on all faculties.It is important, especially to combat stereotypes, to the education of all children to see members of all races working together in such respected vocations as teaching.
3

to,Qarfield, the Caucasianjunior, high school.Since the third junior high school alreadywas racially balanced, this recommendationwould have eliminated de factosegregation at the junior highschool level.

The report struck the communitylike a bombshell. _Although the communitywas aware that the committeewas functioning,; most people had not taken seriously thepossibility that sucha,contrete recommen- ,dationyould be made.The reactionwas intense.During the remainder of 1963 and through Januaryof 1964 therewas extensive community dis- cussion of the proposal.Two hearingswere held -- one attracting 1200 people and other drawingover 2000.PTA's and othergroups set up study committees on this problem;never before had.such crowds attendedPTA meetings!
In the hill area affected bythe recomendation many.liberals faced a dilemma.Some asked:"Elow dowe express our opposition to this particular. proposal withoutsounding.like bigots?"Our response was to ask them to develop a better plan.Many sincere critics of the citi- zens committee proposal set out to do justthat.

One of these alternative proposalswas named the "Rsmsey Plan" after- the junior high school Englishteacher who suggested it..This. plan proposed desegregation ofBerkeley's three junior highschools by making the predominantly Negroschool into a 9th gradeschooland.divid- ingthe 7th and 8th graders betweenthe two remaining juniorhigh schools.

In February 1964 a five-meuberstaff committeewas asked to study the reactions of the Berkeleyschool staff to the citizenscom- mittee proposaland to other ideas that hadbeen offered.Every school faculty was asked to considerthe matter.
4

In March the 5-member staff committee reported' to the-Board that the staff as a whole was favorable toward integration, and'pre- ferred the Ramsey Plan to the original citizens committee proposal.

The Board instructed the-Superintendent to consider the educational pros and cons of the Ramsey Plan, and its feasibility for September 1964 implementation.

The results of this study were preiented to the Board and the community on May 19, 1964, a landmark date in the history of'Berke- ley schools.Again there were over 2000 people in the audience.The opposition, which had formed thfi "Parents Association for Neighborhood Schools" (PANS) solemnly warned that if the Ramsey Plan or any such desegregation proposal were adopted, the Board would face a recall elec- tion.The Board members did vote for the Ramey Plan -- and they did face recall.

The Recall - Through the summer months the opponents of the Board collected signatures on recall petitions. A rival group was formed to defend the Board (Berkeley Friends of Better Schools).By Late July the PANS group had enough signatures to force a recall elec- tion.

There followed a series of procedural skirmishes before the City Council and the state courts.Finally, an election was called for October 6, and after an intensive and heated campaign it was held.It was a stunning triumph for the courageous incumbent Board members. This election was another landmark for Berkeley education. and for the cause of desegregation across the nation.There was more at stake than indi- 5

vidual Board members continuing in office.The basic issue was the sur- vival of a Board of Education which voluntarily took effective action to desegregate schools -- not because of court order,or other compulsion, but simply because the Board believed desegregation wasright.If such a board of F 'lucation could not be sustained the lesson wouldnot be lost on boards of education in other cities facingthe same problem.

Thus, it was extremely significant that in this electionthe Board was .vindicated by the Berkeley community.

SULLIVAN ADMINISTRATION
The New Administration- On"SePteMber 1, 1964, five weeks prior to the recall election, I took office-as Berkeley's Superintendentof Schoolsin" the midst of a climate of.change and uncertainty.Of the `five-member Board Of Education whichhad unanimously invited me tocome to Berkeley, only two remained in office.One had resigned because his business interests led him to move from -the city.Another was trans- ferredcto become minister ofone at the largest churches of his denomi- nation in NeW York City, and a third was appointed by the Governorto 'be a Superior Court judge.The two who remained were facinga recall election.

There also was a sweeping change in the school administration.

Virtually every top ranking member of the central administrationwas either new to the District or new in his position.Over one-third of our schools had new principals.

Making the New Plan Work- The decision to desegregate the junior high schools had been made before I arrived.The role of the 6

new administrationwas to make-it WY k.

School Opened as usual and thenew system was put into effect with no marked difficulties.'In fact, the orderliness of the transi- tion was an important contributionto the defeat of the recall attempt.

It demonstrated clearlythat desegregationcould be achieved without the dire consequences that had beenforecast.

Developing Community Support- Defeat of the recall election meant that courageous Board members would remainin office, andthe junior high school desegregation plan wouldcontinue.My next task as Superintendent was to attempt to reunitea badly split community, to develop a sense of community understanding,and to provide a basis for school Support.-
i approached this problem by creatinga climate of openness with the public.We immediately established' the Practice'ofrecognizing And admitting our problems and invitingthe community's help in seeking solutions.As a new superintendent, Iwas beseiged by invitations to speak 'publicly.I accepted as many as I could and duringthe 1964-65 school year scheduled over 100 speakingengagements.

I issued an open invitationto citizens to visit my office and discuss their school concerns,-to share their ideas and suggestions.In addition I telephoned' or wroteto dozens of people who had beenrecom- mended to me as community leadersdeeply interested in schools.For several months' I met almobL continually,often a few times a day, with citizens individually and ingroups.These meetings mademe familiar with the Berkeley community andestablished a climate that encouraged exchange of ideas.
7

I established a liaison channel betweenmy office and the area- wide PTA Council.I made it a practice toconvene three or four briefing sessions a.year with the unit presidentsand council officers of that organization, and included othergroups such as the League of Women Voters.

At these sessions problems andissues facing the schools,as well as hc23s and plans for improvementwere discussed.

The day after the recall electionI recommended the formation of a broadly-based SchoolMaster Plan Committee, to examineall facets of the School District's operationand to develop guidelines for the future.I urged participation of all elementsof the community, making it clear that we wanted cooperation,regardless of positions in there- call election.The response was heartwarming;over 200 highly Oali- fied citizens were nominatedor volunteered their services.The Board of Education selected 91 peoplefrom this list toserve on the committee.

Also named were 47 staffmembers.The committee has been hardat work for two years, and presented itsreport in thelall of 1967.

During my first year in Berkeley,I was invited by the local newspaper to write a weekly column on local and nationaleducation mat- ters.This column has been a valuablemeans of keeping the community informed and introducing somenew ideas.During the past year I accepted the invitation from a local radio stationto conduct a weekly program of fifteen minute sessions dealing withevents in the school system and issues facing public education.Each month the final week'sprogram is extended to one hour, and featuresa direct phone-in from the radio audience.
8

in addition to developing relationships with the general pub- lic, we have worked to maintain good liaisonwith the staff.We have frequent breakfast conferences with the leadersof both teacher organi- lAtions, and meet regularly with the Superintendent'sTeacher Advisory Council, made up of teacher representativeschosen by each faculty.

The purpose of these communication effortshas been three- fold.First, extensive dialogue with staff andcommunity helps to identify and define problems needingattention.Second, it serves as an excellent source of new ideas and suggestions.Third, it helps in- terpret our problems, goals, andprograms to the community.

Our efforts have been, in short, to "mold consensus"in the community behind the school system.Although we have not achieved unanimity on any single subject that wouldbe impossible in Berkeley!) there have been good indications during thepast three years.It seems that we have succeeded in molding community support for the schools, and in developing sufficientconsensus to resolve some of the crucial problems facing urban schools today.

LEMIETAPJANIETWELUMWEMII
lOgregation inthe.Elementary, Schools - The Board's adoption of the Ramsey Plan, followed bythe defeat of recall election, insured desegregation at the junior high school level.Since there is only one regular senior high school,our entire secondary school program, begin- ning with grade 7,was desegregated.However, we still face de facto segregated elementary schools.The four elementary schools in south and west Berkeley are overwhelmingly Negro.The seven schools located in 9

the northern and sastern hillareas of the city are overwhelmingly Cauc- asian.In between, in a strip running through themiddle of Berkeley, are three desegregated schools.Since the racially imbalanced Negro and Caucasian schools are on opposite sidesof the city, separated by the integrated schools, boundaryadjustments will not solve the problem.

When the Ramsey Plan was adopted theBoard tabled a companion recommendation that would have desegregatedthe elementary schools by dividing the city into foureast-to-west strips, each containing three or four schools.The schools within each- of thesestrips would have been assigned studentson a Princeton .principle, i.e., 1-3 in some schools, grades 4-6 in others.

Educational_ Considerations- It is not the function pf this paper to develop fully the ,case for school desegregation.However, the basic motivation underlyingour progress in Berkeley can be stated concisely.

Many studies,in Berkeley and elsewhere,.have documented the fact that segregation hurts the achievement,of disadvantaged youngsters.

Schools with a preponderance of theseboys and girls have low prestige and generally lack an atmosphere conduciveto serious study.

The emotional and psychological harm doneto children through this type of isolation also has beendemonstrated.Regardless of cause, racial segregation carries with it the symbolof society's traditional rejection of Negroes.

The benefit of integration extendsto children of all races.

We are all sharing this society, and if it isto be successful we must learn to respect each other andget along with one another.This will not happen if segregation remains.
10

These considerations have been taken seriously in Berkeley as we move toward total school integration.

ESEA Busing Program - The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 allowed the schools to makea beginning on the problem of elementary school segregation.Berkeley's share under Title I of that Act was approximately a half-million dollars.A major share of these funds was used to reduce pupil-teacher ratios inour four target area (Negro) schools and to provide extra specialists andservices for stu- dents attending them.The reduction of pupil-teacher ratios lefta surplus of 235 children.The seven predominantly Caucasian hill-area schools had spaces for these youngsters.Our proposal for the first year's use of Title I funds, then, imiuded improvedservices and re- duced pupil-teacher ratio in the targetarea schoolsand the purchase of buses to transport the 235 "surplus" youngstersto the till area schools.

In the preparation of this projectwe again employed our principle of mass community involvement.Each school faculty was in- vited-to submit suggestions.Their response was gratifying.These suggestions, when piled together, produceda stack of paper several :finches high.When they had been sifted and evaluated, anda project developed, we submitted it to the Board.-Copies were made available to the school faculties and the public for their reactions.Two major public meetings were held in different sectionsof the city, and the Board of Education held a workshop sessionat which teachers could react.Many valuable suggestions and constructive criticismsresulted and were incorporeted into the final proposal.
11

As might have been predicted,most of the public attention was centered on the busing proposal, although itinvolved a relatively minor share of the funds.This time the opposition, though byno means silent, was much less severe.

Since the children in the hillarea schools were not being asked to go anywhere else-- the hill schools were 7'mply going tore- ceive youngsters from the otherareas of the city -- this providedno focal point for the development ofopposition.And the proposal in- cluded employing elevenextra teachers, paid with localmoney, and placing them in the receiving schoolsto maintain the pupil-teacher ratio there.A few scattered voiceswere raised against the proposal, but the preponderance of communityopinion was favorable.Both teach- er organizations endorsed the project, andon November 30, 1965, the Board adopted the program for implementationthe spring semester.

The proposal went to the State Boardof Education and became one of the firi't fourteen ESEA projects approvedin tne State of Cali- fornia.We had approximately two monthsto prepare for its implementa- tion -- the selection ofyoungsters (this was voluntary on the part of the parents), the employment of teachers,arrangement of transportation, and other administrative details.Parent groups in the receiving schools helped by establishingcontact with the parents of thetrans- ferring btudents.The students in the receiving schoolslikewise participated, and some wrote letters ofwelcome to thenewcomers.Dry runs were conducted with the busesso that by the time the programwas implemented in February 1966, thenecessary advance preparation had been accomplished.
12

Results to Date - Although the program has not been in effect long enough for an extensiveobjective evaluation, early indications are that it has been extremely successful.The children have adjusted well in their new school environment and, by their performance, have made friends for integration.One evaluation, made by an outside con- sultant employed by the District, found that receiving school parents whose children were in class with Negroes were more favorable to inte- gration than parents whose children were not in class with Negroes.

And parents of the bused students were so pleased with the results that many requested that their other children be included.

This limited program provided an integrated experience for the 230 youngsters being transferred, less than 10 percent of the send- ing schools' enrollment.It also provided token integration for the receiving schools.However, it left the four southwest Berkeley schools just as segregated as they were before, Although with a somewhat im- proved program due to the reduced pupil-teacher ratio and added services.

COMMITMENT TO TOTAL INTEGRATION
The Problem - Although the ESEA program has provided a start in the direction of elementary school desegregation, we never regarded the busing of only 235 youngsters as the solution to the segregation problem.The problem will not be solved as long as our four south and west Berkeley schools remain overwhelmingly Negro, and the schools in the north and east overwhelmingly Caucasian.The segregation problem must be solved if minority youngsters are ever to close the achievement gap and if all youngsters, regardless of race, are to be adequately pre- pared for life in a multi-racial world.
13

_----,....gmewomignmwsligleglIWA
Although we have integrated the schools-down to the 7th grade, we strongly believe that integration must b.tgin earlier.In too many cases attitudes already are hardened and stereoty1es developed by the time the youngsters reach the 7th grade.It is, of course, politically and logistically easier to desegregate the secondary schools.In fact, a bi-racial city that has not desegregated its secondary schools is by definition not committed to integration.The problem is much more dif- ficult at the elementary level.Buildings and attendance areas are smaller, children are younger, and community emotionsare more intense.

Yet, the problem must be solved at the elementary level.It is ironic that solutions come more easily atone level, but more good can be ac- complished at the other.

The Commitment - The commitment of the Board of Education to desegregation of all elementary schools in Berkeley came in the spring of 1967.In early April a delegation from west Berkeley madearesen- tation to the Board, stating that it was time to get on with the job of total desegregation.The delegation had many other recommendations specifically relating to the south and west Berkeley schools and the programs available to minority youngsters.At this meeting I recommended that the Board authorize the Administration to developa program of voluntary reverse busing from Caucasian areas to south and west Berke- ley.I let it be known that this was to be regarded onlyas a stop-gap measure to demonstrate good faithand did not represent a solution to the desegregation problem.

At the next meeting, however, before we could developa reverse busing plan, the issue moved ahead.Both of our certificated staff or- ganizations made appeals to the Board for action eitherto erase de facto 14

segregation completely or at least to make a significant step in that direction.Officials of the local NAACP and other members of the audi- ence supported these appeals.A motion was presented to the Board calling for desegregation of all Berkeley schools.The Board concurred and established September 1968 as the target date for desegregating the schools.

The next,two or three Board meetings, including one workshop or "open hearing",-!drew crowds of several hundred spectators, and many speakers.Most of the speakers and most of the crowds were supportive of the Board's action; there was a minority who disagreed with the Board's position -- some opposed desegregation altogether, and others felt that 1968 was too long to wait.

On May 16 the Board adopted a formal resolution reaffirming the September 1968 commitment and adding an interim calendar of dead- lines for the various steps required to achieve desegregation.The.

Administration was instructed to develop plans for total integration.

We were instructed to make our report by the first Board meeting in October, 1967.The timetable calls fol. the Board to adopt a particu- lar program by January or February 1968.Seven or eight months would then remain for implementing the program in time for the opening of school in September 1968.This is the calendar on which we now are operating.

The Board included in its Resolution on Integration two other features:first, the assumption that desegregation is to be accomplished in the context of continued quality education, and second, that massive community involvement was to be sought in development and selection of the program.Both of these features I heartily support.
15

Developing the Plan - We went to work immediately.The Admin- istration compiled infmation on enrollment and racial makeup ofeach school, school capacities and financial data.This information was dis- tributed to each faculty.We then called a meeting of all elementary school teachers; I relayed our charge from the Board and asked each faculty to meet separately and develop suggestions.We also sent in- formation packets to over sixty communitygroups and invited them to contribute their ideas.By the end of June we had received manysugges- tions, both from staff members and lay citizens.

Meanwhile both local and national endorsementswere pouring in.

The Berkeley City Council passeda resolution commending the-Board on its commitment to integration.Other local organizatima and individuals did the same.

Wring the summer months two task groupswere assigned to work on the problem.One Was concerned With the logistics of achieving de- segregation and the other Was concerned with the instructionalprogram under the new arrangement.The Bard appointed a seven-member lay citi- zens group to advise the Administration in development of itsrecommen- dations.Even after the Administration's recommendatiOn has been given to the Board, this group will continue to function asan advisory body to the Board.Upon receiving the Administration's recommendation, the Board plans a series of workshop sessions to provideevery opportunity fOr community' reaction and suggestion.

AA this paper is written (mid-September) weare making excel- lent progress toward meeting our deadline.Soon after the opening of school, a report from the Summer Task Group outlining fouror five 16

of the most promising plans was sent to each school faculty and to each group or individual who submitted a plan during the summer.These pro- posals are being made available to the community as well, along with the many suggestions received earlier from staff and lay citizens.

School faculties and the community-at-large are invited to react to these proposals and to make suggestions to the Administration.Proce- dures have been organized to facilitate a response from school andcom- munity groups.Each faculty has been asked to meet at least twice.On one afternoon, schools will be dismissed early and the district wide staff divided into cross sectional "buzz" groups.Each of these groups will submit ideas.Following these steps we will use the taskgroup proposals, along with the reactions and suggestions thatcome from the staff and community, in developing our recommendationto the Board.

This recommendation will be presented to the Boardon schedule, at the first meeting in October.From that point onthe matter will be in the hands of the Board, which is to make its decision by Januaryor February 1968.

As our plans develop, we have received invitations toappear before many groups, large and small.Some have been hostile at first.

However, meeting with them has made possible an excellent exchange of views and an opportunity for explaining our program to people who had not been reached earlier.We anticipate that the fall months will be crowded with such speaking assignments.It is our firm commitment, and that of the Board of Education, to inform the citizens of Berkeley thor- oughly about the iusueand about prospective plans prior to the Board's adoption of a program in January or February.
17

LESSONS LEARNED
While working toward integration in the- Berkeley schoolsover the past several years, we have learned some lessons:

1.Support by the Administration and the Board of Education for the concept of school integration is absolutely essential. The Board must give its consent before any plan of desegregation can occur.The support of the Superintendent and his administrative team is vital in helping to obtain Board supportand in making a success of any program adopted.While the Board nor the Administration need broad community support, their leadership role is vital.

2.Integration has the best chance of success whena climate of openness has been established in the community. Lines of communica- tion with Board, Administration, teachers, and the community-at-large must be kept open through frequent use.Anyone who thinks a solution to the problem of integration can be developed in a "smoke-filled room" and then rammed through to adoption while the community is kept in ig- norance is simply wrong.

Our citizens are vitally interested; they are going to form opinions and express them, whether we like it or not.It is in our in- terest to see that these opinions are formed on the basis of correct information.Furthermore, the success of integration, once adopted, depends upon broad community support and understanding between the lay community and the schools.Thiscan be created only through a climate of openness.
18

3.It can be done!A school district can move voluntarily to desegregate without a court order and without the compulsion ofvio- lenceor boycotts.Berkeley has demonstrated thata school community can marshalits resources, come to grips with the issue of segregation,.and develop a workable solution.

Furthermore, if the new arrangement is well planned andexecu- ted, it will gain acceptanceon the part of many who opposed it at first.

Many fears and threats which arose in Berkeleywere not real- ized.The Board was not recalled.Our teachers did not quit in droves.

In fact, the reverse happened;our teacher turnover rate has been .dras- tically reduced during the last twoor three years.Integration did not lead to the kind of mass white exodus being experiencedin other cities (which, interestingly enough, havenot moved toward integration).

In fact, last year for the first time inmany years the long-standing trend tAApmeci a ueclintz white enrollout inthe Berkeley schools was reversed.

The not-so-subtle hints that direct actionfor integration would lead to loss of taxmeasures at the ballot box proved to be un- founded.In June 1966 we asked the voters fora $1.50 increase in the ceiling of our basic schooltax rate.Much smaller increase proposals were being shot down in neighboring districts andacross the nation.

In Berkeley we won the tax increase withover a 60 percent majority.

4.Acc2iitycargzI.2iymmut4.Berkeledid:When the citizens
committee reportcame out in the fall of 1963 with an actual plan for desegregation of the junior high schools, thecommunity suddenly awoke to the fact that desegregation wasa real possibility.The furor that 19

resulted could be predicted in any city.However, as large public hear- ingt and countless smaller meetingswere held by dozens of groups, sup- port for integration began to grow and opposition diminish.One area of the city that reacted emotionally at firstlater provided some of our strongest supporters.

An example in a different but related fieldcan illustrate this point.Berkeley held a referendum electionon a Fair Housing Pro- posal early in 1963, before the citizens committeereport, and the mea- mme was defeated by a narrow margin.A year and a half later the ceAmu- nity, together with the rest of California, votedon the same issue -- Proposition 14.Although the statewide vote on that issuewas a resound- ing defeat for Fair Housing, the City of Berkeley voted the directop- posite by almost a two-to-one margin.The Proposition 14 election was held only a month after the recall election, after almosta full year of intensive community involvement with the school desegregation issue.

In other words, a city that voted down itsown Fair Housing proposal, later voted two-to-one for Fair Housing ina statewide election.Many of us feel that this change of directionwas substanticlly influ- enced by the extensive community involvement in the school integration question between the two elections.The community grew in understand- ing as it studied the issues.

5.Community confidence in the good faith of its school
administration and school board must be maintained.Berkeley has been successful in doing this.The good faith of our Board and Administra- tion has been demonstrated.There have been no court orders, no pickets, no boycotts, no violence.Each advance has been made, after extensive 20 )

study and community deliberation, because the staff, the Board and the community thought it was right. By moving in concert with the community we have avoided being placed in polarized positions of antagonism.The climate thus produced has enabled us, as we move step by step, to work with rather than against important segments of the community in seeking solutions.If this climate of good faith is missing, even the good deeds of school officials are suspect.

CONCLUSION
There is no greater problem facing the schools of America today than breaking down the walls of segregation.If our society is to function effectively its members must learn to live together.

Schools have a vital role to play in preparing citizens for life ina multi-racial society.The Berkeley experience offers hope that integra- tion can be successfully achieved in a good-sized city.This success can be achieved if the Board of Education, the school staf4and the citizens of the community are determined to solve the problemand work together toward this end.

Office of the Mayor

CONSENT CALENDAR
January 19, 2021
To: Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín
Subject: Revisions to Enabling Legislation for Reimagining Public Safety Task Force RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution:

1. Rescinding Resolution No. 69,673-N.S.; and

2. Establishing a Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, comprised of: (a) one representative appointed by each member of the City Council and Mayor pursuant to the Fair Representation Ordinance, B.M.C. Sections 2.04.030-2.04.130, (b) one representative appointed by the Mental Health Commission, Youth Commission, and Police Review Commission (to be replaced by a representative of the Police Accountability Board once it is established), and (c) one representative appointed by the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) External Affairs Vice President, one representative appointed by the Berkeley Community Safety Coalition (BCSC) Steering Committee, and three additional members to be appointed “At-Large” by the Task Force, with appointments subject to confirmation by the City Council.

The Task Force will be facilitated by a professional consultant, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR), with administrative support by the City Manager’s office, and will serve as the hub of community engagement for the Reimagining Public Safety effort initiated and guided by the NICJR team. The Task Force will also include the participation of City Staff from the City Manager’s Office, Human Resources, Health, Housing and Community Services, Berkeley Fire Department, Berkeley Police Department, and Public Works Department. For visual, see Attachment 3.

With the exception of “At-Large” appointments, appointments to the Task Force should be made by January 31, 2021,1 and reflect a diverse range of experiences, knowledge, expertise and representation. To maintain the Council’s July 14, 2020,2 commitment to 1 With the exception of the “At Large” appointments, which will be selected by the initial appointees with an eye for adding outstanding perspectives, knowledge and experience. 2 “Be It Further Resolved that the City Council will engage with every willing community member in Berkeley, centering the voices of Black people, Native American people, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, victims of harm, and other stakeholders who have been historically marginalized or under-served by our present

centering the voices of those most impacted in our process of reimagining community safety appointments should be made with the goal of achieving a balance of the following criteria:
a. Active Members of Berkeley Community (Required of All)* 3 b. Representation from Impacted Communities
 Formerly incarcerated individuals
 Victims/family members of violent crime
 Immigrant community
 Communities impacted by high crime, over-policing and police violence  Individuals experiencing homelessness
 Historically marginalized populations
c. Faith-Based Community Leaders
d. Expertise/Leadership in Violence Prevention, Youth Services, Crisis Intervention, and Restorative or Transformative Justice e. Health/ Public Health Expertise
f. City of Berkeley labor/union representation
g. Law Enforcement Operation Knowledge
h. City Budget Operations/Knowledge
i. Committed to the Goals and Success of The Taskforce (Required of All) As outlined in the July 14, 2020, City Council Omnibus Action,4 City Council provided direction for the development of a new paradigm of public safety that should include, but is not limited to:
1) Building on the work of the City Council, the City Manager, Berkeley Police Department (BPD), the Police Review Commission and other City commissions and other working groups addressing community health and safety.
2) Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley. 3) Recommend a new, community-centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform considering,5 among other things:
system. Together, we will identify what safety looks like for everyone.”, Item 18d, Transform Community Safety, July 14, 2020, Berkeley City Council Agenda,
3 * At Large Appointees are not required to be Berkeley Residents, as long as they are active, committed Berkeley Stakeholders.
4 July 14th, 2020, Berkeley City Council Item 18a-e Proposed Omnibus Motion on Public Safety Items 5 Transforming Police, NICJR

A. The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety.

B. The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and power and duties of a well-trained police force.

C. Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.

D. Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration.

E. Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.

F. Reducing the Berkeley Police Department budget to reflect its revised mandates, with a goal of a 50% reduction, based on the results of requested analysis and achieved through programs such as the Specialized Care Unit.

Direct the City Manager to ensure that the working group of City Staff as outlined in the October 28th Off-Agenda Memo is coordinating with the Task Force.6 The Task Force will provide input to and make recommendations to NICJR and City Staff on a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives incorporated into a final report and implementation plan developed by NICJR to guide future decision making in upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase produced, in the FY 2024-2025 budget processes.7

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
City Council allocated $270,000 in General Fund revenues to support engagement of outside consultants in the Reimagining Public Safety process.

BACKGROUND
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. Central to this proposal is a commitment to a robust community process to achieve this “new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community centered safety for Berkeley”. Item 18d, Transforming Community Safety, provides direction on the development of a “Community Safety Coalition”, goals and a timeline led by a steering committee and guided by professional consultants.

Recommendation 3 above reflects the original scope voted on by the council. However, 6October 28, 2020 Off-Agenda Memo: Update on Re-Imagining Public Safety 7 The final report and implementation plan are referenced in the contract approved by the City Council with the NICJR Consultant team on December 15, 2020.

that item did not specify the structure, exact qualifications or process of appointing this steering committee. This item follows the spirit of the original referral, and provides direction on structure, desired qualifications and appointment process.

To avoid confusion with the community organization that has independently formed since the passage of that referral, this steering committee is now being referred to as the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force.

City staff has been diligently been working to implement the referrals in the omnibus motion, including the development, release and evaluation of a request for proposals (RFP) for a consultant to facilitate this process.8 Initially, the expectation was that the development of a structure and process for the Task Force would be developed in consultation with the professionals selected by this RFP. However, to ensure thorough review of these proposals the timeline for selecting the consultant is longer than initially expected. At the July 18, 2020, meeting, City Council clearly stated that the Task Force will begin meeting no later than January 2021. To meet this timeline, the Council should adopt the proposed framework and appointment process so that the Task Force and our community process can begin shortly after the RFP process is completed.

This resolution is being reintroduced to clarify the process for transitioning appointments from the Police Review Commission to the newly established Police Accountability Board and to ensure that the Task Force works with the NICJR consultant team to develop one report and set of recommendations. The initial resolution was written prior to the finalization of a contract with NICJR. After consultation with city staff and the consultant team, the revised language will set clear expectations and a foundation for successful collaboration between the work of the Task Force and the consultant team.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed structure creates a Task Force with 17 total seats, ensuring representation from each Councilmember and the Mayor, key commissions including the Police Review Commission, the Youth Commission and the Mental Health Commission as well as representation from the ASUC, the Berkeley Community Safety Coalition (BCSC) and three “at-large” members to be selected by the Task Force to fill any unrepresented stakeholder position or subject matter expertise, with the community based organization and at-large appointments subject to confirmation by the City Council.9 This model was developed with input from all co-authors, the City Manager, community stakeholders including the ASUC and BCSC as well organizations and experts with experience running community engagement processes. Additionally, the Mayor’s office researched a wide range of public processes that could inform the structure and approach 8 Ibid
9 The Berkeley Community Safety Coalition, initially known as Berkeley United for Community Safety, produced a 40 page report that was shared with the council in July. Their recommendations were referred to the reimagining process as part of the Mayor’s omnibus motion. Co-Founder Moni Law describes BCSC as a “principled coalition that is multiracial, multigenerational and Black and brown centered. We include over 2,000 people and approximately a dozen organizations and growing.”

for Berkeley, including youth-led campaigns, participatory budgeting processes, and long- term initiatives like the California Endowment Building Healthy Communities initiative.10 The proposed Task Force structure and process draws most directly on the processes underway in Oakland and in Austin, Texas.1112 In July, Oakland voted to establish a Reimagining Public Safety Task Force with 17 members, including appointees from all councilmembers and the Mayor, three appointees from their public safety boards, two appointees to represent youth and two at-large appointees selected by their council co- chairs13. The model proposed for Berkeley draws heavily from the Oakland approach. A key difference is that, unlike Oakland, this proposed structure does not recommend developing additional community advisory boards. Instead, it is recommended that Berkeley leverage our commissions and community organizations to provide additional input and research to inform the Task Force’s work rather than establish additional community advisory boards.

The list of proposed qualifications for appointees (recommendation 2) is also modeled after Oakland’s approach. In July, the city council committed to centering the voices of those that are most impacted by our current system of public safety as we reimagine it for the future.

The list of qualifications is intended to guide councilmembers and other appointing bodies and organizations to ensure that the makeup of the Task Force reflects that commitment.

After all appointments are made, the Task Force will select 3 additional “at large” members to join the Task Force with an eye on adding perspectives, expertise or experience that are missing in initial appointments. At Large members are not required to be Berkeley residents, as long as they are active, committed Berkeley stakeholders, and work in the City of Berkeley.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the action requested in this report.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative appointment structures were evaluated, including a citywide application process and an independent selection committee. However, given that the Task Force will ultimately advise the City Council, there was broad agreement that the Council should have a strong role in appointing the Task Force.

CONTACT PERSON
Jesse Arreguín, Mayor, (510) 981-7100
Attachments:
10 California Endowment Building Healthy Communities Initiative. 11 Austin, Texas Reimagining Public Safety Task Force
12 Reimagining Public Safety, Oakland website
13 Oakland Reimagining Public Safety Task Force Framework

1. Resolution Establishing Reimagining Public Safety Task Force

2. Resolution No. 69,673-N.S.

3. Framework for Reimagining Public Safety Task Force

4. July 14, 2020 City Council Item 18d, Transforming Community Safety

5. July 14, 2020 City Council Item a-e, Proposed Omnibus Motion on Public Safety Items

RESOLUTION NO.

ESTABLISHING THE REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, Central to this proposal is a commitment to a robust community process to achieve this “new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community centered safety for Berkeley”. Item 18d, Transforming Community Safety, provides direction on the development of a “Community Safety Coalition”, goals and a timeline led by a steering committee and guided by professional consultants; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) who will 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; and
WHEREAS, the NICJR has agreed to perform the following work:
 Working with the City Auditor on the assessment of emergency and non-emergency calls for service.
 Developing a summary and presentation of new and emerging models of community safety and policing.
 Developing and implementing a communications strategy to ensure that the community is well informed, a robust community engagement process, and managing the Task Force to be established by the City Council.  Identifying the programs and/or services that are currently provided by the Berkeley Police Department that can be provided by other City departments and / or organizations.
 Developing a final report and implementation plan that will be used to guide future decision making.

WHEREAS, to avoid confusion with the community organization that has independently formed since the passage of that referral, this steering committee is now being referred to as the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to specify the structure, criteria, and role of the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that Resolution No. 69,673-N.S. is hereby rescinded; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council does hereby establish the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force.

1. The membership shall be comprised of:
a. One (1) representative appointed by each member of the City Council and Mayor, pursuant to the Fair Representation Ordinance, B.M.C. Sections

2.04.030-2.04.130,
b. One (1) representative appointed from the Mental Health Commission, Youth Commission and Police Review Commission (to be replaced by a representative of the Police Accountability Board once it is established), and c. Subject to confirmation by the City Council, one (1) representative appointed by the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) External Affairs Vice President, one (1) representative appointed by the Berkeley Community Safety Coalition (BCSC) Steering Committee, and three (3) additional members to be appointed “At-Large” by the Task Force.

2. With the exception of the “At-Large” appointments, appointments to the Task Force should be made by January 31, 2021,14 and reflect a diverse range of experiences, knowledge, expertise and representation. To maintain the Council’s July 14, 2020,15 commitment to centering the voices of those most impacted in our process of reimagining community safety, appointments should be made with the goal of achieving a balance of the following criteria:
a. Active Members of Berkeley Community (Required of All)* 16 b. Representation from Impacted Communities
 Formerly incarcerated individuals
 Victims/family members of violent crime
 Immigrant community
 Communities impacted by high crime, over-policing and police violence 14 With the exception of the “At Large” appointments, which will be selected by the initial appointees with an eye for adding outstanding perspectives, knowledge and experience. 15 “Be It Further Resolved that the City Council will engage with every willing community member in Berkeley, centering the voices of Black people, Native American people, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, victims of harm, and other stakeholders who have been historically marginalized or under-served by our present system. Together, we will identify what safety looks like for everyone.”, Item 18d, Transform Community Safety, July 14, 2020, Berkeley City Council Agenda,

 Individuals experiencing homelessness
 Historically marginalized populations
c. Faith-Based Community Leaders
d. Expertise/Leadership in Violence Prevention, Youth Services, Crisis Intervention, and Restorative or Transformative Justice e. Health/ Public Health Expertise
f. City of Berkeley labor/union representation
g. Law Enforcement Operation Knowledge
h. City Budget Operations/Knowledge
i. Committed to the Goals and Success of The Taskforce (Required of All)

3. At Large Appointees are not required to be Berkeley Residents, as long as they are active, committed Berkeley stakeholders and work in the City of Berkeley.

4. As outlined in the July 14, 2020, City Council Omnibus Action, 17 City Council provided direction for the development of a new paradigm of public safety that should include, but is not limited to:
1) Building on the work of the City Council, the City Manager, Berkeley Police Department, the Police Review Commission and other City commissions and other working groups addressing community health and safety. 2) Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley. 3) Recommend a new, community-centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR)considering,18 among other things:

A. The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety.

B. The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and power and duties of a well-trained police force.

C. Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.

D. Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration.

E. Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with 17 July 14th, 2020, Berkeley City Council Item 18a-e Proposed Omnibus Motion on Public Safety Items 18 Transforming Police, NICJR

educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.

F. Reducing the Berkeley Police Department budget to reflect its revised mandates, with a goal of a 50% reduction, based on the results of requested analysis and achieved through programs such as the Specialized Care Unit; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Task Force will provide input to and make recommendations to NICJR and City Staff on a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives incorporated into a final report and implementation plan developed by NICJR to guide future decision making in upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase produced, in the FY 2024-2025 budget processes.19; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is requested to provide updates and coordinate with the Task Force regarding the work that is underway on various aspects of the July 14, 2020 Omnibus package adopted by City Council including the Specialized Care Unit, BerkDoT, and priority dispatching (For visual, see Attachment 2); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Task Force shall sunset at the earlier of City Council’s adoption of the final report and implementation plan developed by NICJR or three years after appointments are made unless the Task Force is otherwise extended by the City Council; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Task Force should be subject to the Commissioner’s Manual; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Mayor and City Council appointments to the Task Force shall be made, and vacancies shall be filled, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2.04.030 through 2.04.130 of the Berkeley Municipal Code; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The appointment of any member of the Task Force shall automatically terminate as set forth in Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 3.02 due to attendance; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The City Clerk shall notify any member whose appointment has automatically terminated and report to the appointing City Councilmember or appointing authority that a vacancy exists on the Task Force and that an appointment should be made to fill the vacancy; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Temporary appointments may be made and leaves of absence may be granted by the appointing authority pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.03.030 and the Commissioners’ Manual; and 19 The final report and implementation plan are referenced in the contract approved by the City Council with the NICJR Consultant team on December 15, 2020

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, A majority of the members appointed to the Task Force shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members appointed is required to take any action; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Task Force shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The Task Force may make and alter rules governing its organization and procedures which are not inconsistent with Resolution or any other applicable ordinance of the city, or any resolution of the city governing commission procedures and conduct; and
BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED, The Task Force shall establish a regular place and time for meeting. All meetings shall be noticed as required by law and shall be scheduled in a way to allow for maximum input from the public. The frequency of meetings shall be as determined by the Task Force Chair in consultation with NICJR and City Staff.

Reimagining Public
Safety Task Force

Task Force Purpose & Goals
1 Purpose: The Community Safety Coalition, guided by a task force, will serve as the hub for a broad, deep and representative process, and uplift the community’s input into a new positive, equitable, anti-racist system of community health and safety.

The work of the task force should include but not be limited to:

1. Building on the work of the City Council, the City Manager, BPD, the PRC and other City commissions and other working groups addressing community health and safety.

2. Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley.

As Defined by July 14th Council Action

Task Force Purpose & Goals
1 3. Recommend a new, community-centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform considering, among other things:
a) The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety
b) The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and power and duties of a well-trained police force.
c) Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.
d) Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration. e) Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.
f) Reducing the Berkeley Police Department budget to reflect its revised mandates, with a goal of a 50% reduction, based on the results of requested analysis and achieved through programs such as the Specialized Care Unit
Continued…

Proposed Task Force Structure
Selected by Councilmembers, Mayor & Key Commissions and Community Stakeholders 1 8 932 654 7
Council AppointedBCSC PRC
City Staff
Legal, HR, HHCS, PW, BFD,

BPD, CMO
All Positions Appointed
except at large, which will be
selected by the committee
from an application pool
Consultant
team/facilitators
Virtual Town
Halls Surveys
Workshops
& Focus
groups
More, TBD
Parallel
Community
Engagement
ASUC MHC At LargeYC
Key
Partnerships:

1. Alameda
County

2. Berkeley
Unified School
District

3. Neighboring
Jurisdictions

4. UC Berkeley

Task Force Membership
Knowledge, Expertise, & Experience Needed
• Active Members of Berkeley Community (Required of All*) • Representation from Impacted Communities
• Formerly incarcerated individuals
• Victims/family members of violent crime
• Immigrant community
• Communities impacted by high crime, over-policing and police violence • Individuals experiencing homelessness
• Historically marginalized populations
• Faith-Based Community Leaders
• Expertise/Leadership in Violence Prevention, Youth Services, Crisis Intervention, and Restorative or Transformative Justice
• Health/ Public Health Expertise
• City of Berkeley labor/union representation
• Law Enforcement Operation Knowledge
• City Budget Operations/Knowledge
• Committed to the Goals and Success of The Taskforce (Required of All) *At Large appointees may not be Berkeley residents, so long as they are active and committed stakeholders

Task Force Responsibilities
Active membership & Participation Required of Selected members • Work collaboratively to achieve the purpose and goals established • Thorough preparation for and active participation in all taskforce meetings (1-2 meetings per month)
• Participate in and support various community engagement efforts • Other responsibilities – to be determined

Office of the Mayor
Jesse Arreguín
1 ACTION CALENDAR
July 14, 2020
To: Honorable Members of the City Council
From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín, Vice-Mayor Sophie Hahn, Councilmember Ben Bartlett, Councilmember Kate Harrison
Subject: Transform Community Safety and Initiate a Robust Community Engagement Process

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Adopt a Resolution expressing the City Council’s commitment to:
a. A transformative approach to community-centered safety and reducing the scope of policing,
b. Equitable investment in the essential conditions of a safe and healthy community, especially for those who have been historically marginalized and have experienced disinvestment, and
c. A broad, inclusive community process that will result in deep and lasting change to support safety and wellbeing for all Berkeley residents.

2. Direct the City Manager to track and report progress on actions to implement this initiative, and other actions that may be identified by the Coalition and referred by Council to the City Manager. Updates shall be provided by written and verbal reports to Council and posted on a regularly updated and dedicated page on the City website.

3. Direct the City Manager to collaborate with Mayor and select Councilmembers to complete the following work, to inform investments and reallocations to be incorporated into future Budget processes:
a. Contract with independent subject matter experts to:
i. Analyze the scope of work of, and community needs addressed by, the Berkeley Police Department, to identify a more limited role for law enforcement, and identify elements of police work that could be achieved through alternative programs, policies, systems, and community

2 investments. Analysis should include but not be limited to: calls received by dispatch by type of complaint, stops by law enforcement generated at officer discretion (as contained in the Police Department’s open data portal) or on request of other city agencies, number of officers and staff from other city agencies that respond to incidents, estimated time in response to different types of calls, daily patrol activities, organizational structure, and beat staffing. Work to include broad cost estimates of police and other city agency response to different types of calls, and other information and analysis helpful to identify elements of current police work that could be transferred to other departments or programs or achieved through alternative means. Work should be completed in time for the November 2020 Annual Appropriation Ordinance revision. ii. Identify immediate and longer-term opportunities to shift policing resources to alternative, non-police responses and towards alternative and restorative justice models, to better meet community needs, that could be considered in the November 2020 AAO#1 budget process.

Some areas to be considered include homeless outreach and services, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and mental health/crisis management, as well as alternative models for traffic and parking enforcement, “neighborhood services” and code enforcement. Provide a broad timeline and process for transitioning functions not ready for transition at this first milestone.

Deliverables should coincide with budget cycles, including the November 2020 AAO and FY 2022-2023 Budget processes, and provide a suggested timeline for transitioning functions at these and other budget opportunities, so that alternative investments may be considered for funding and launched in a timely and orderly manner.
b. Contract with independent Change Management experts to initiate and facilitate a representative Community Safety Coalition, guided by a Steering Committee, that will begin meeting no later than January 2021.The CSC and its Steering Committee should be broadly inclusive and representative of Berkeley residents and stakeholders. The Steering Committee, with the support of Change Management professionals, shall be responsible for engaging the Coalition and the broader Berkeley community and relevant City Staff in a robust process, to achieve a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley.

The work of the Coalition should include but not be limited to:

3 1. Building on the work of the City Council, the City Manager, the PRC and other City commissions and other working groups addressing community health and safety.

2. Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley.

3. Recommend a new, community-centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (Attachment 3), considering, among other things:
a. The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety
b. The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and powers and duties of a well-trained police force.
c. Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.
d. Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration.
e. Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.
c. The Coalition’s goal/output will be a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives to incorporate into upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase, in the FY2024-2025 budget processes to ensure that recommended changes will be achieved. The Coalition shall return to City Council an initial plan and timeline by April 1, 2021, to ensure the first phase of changes can be incorporated into the FY2022-23 Budget Process.

4 SUMMARY
Local government’s most fundamental role is to provide for the health and safety of its residents. Cities around the country are acknowledging that they are falling behind in this basic function, and are embarking on efforts to reimagine health and safety, and to consider reallocating resources towards a more holistic approach; one that shifts resources away from policing towards health, education and social services, and is able to meet crises with a variety of appropriate responses.

The current re-energized movement for social justice and police reform highlights a problematic expansion, over many decades, in the roles and responsibilities of the police. As other systems have been defunded, most notably mental health, education, affordable housing and other health and safety-net programs, the police have been asked to respond to more and more crises that could have been avoided with a different set of investments in community wellbeing. Rather than being the responders of last resort, focused on criminal, aggressive and violent behaviors, police are now frontline responders routinely called to address mental health crises, poverty and homelessness, substance abuse, stress in the school environment, traffic and code violations and neighborhood disputes. This is an extensive set of responsibilities that is not traditionally the purview of the police.

This item initiates a restructure and redefinition of “health and safety” for all Berkeleyeans, with immediate, intermediate and longer-term steps to transform the city to a new model that is equitable and community-centered. It roots the transformative process in broad, deep and representative community engagement which empowers the community to address social determinants of health and safety and deliver transformative change, with the help of change management professionals and informed by research and analysis of current and best practices.

BACKGROUND
The recent murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery have ignited the nation in passionate protest against police brutality and racial injustice. Across the country, community members have gathered for weeks to demand change and called out the enduring, systemic racism, white supremacy and accompanying police brutality that have defined the United States for too long. Among the more immediate demands are calls to reduce funding and the scope of police work and to invest in alternative models to achieve positive, equitable community safety.

These demands for change go beyond necessary efforts in procedural justice, implicit bias training, and improved use of force policies. Activists, organizers and their allies in our community are seeking a broader discussion about the true foundations for a safe and healthy community for all people. For too long, “public safety” has been equated

5 with more police, while economic and social welfare programs have been viewed as special projects unrelated to health and safety.

Responding from the epicenter of this moment, the City of Minneapolis has voted to disband their police department and engage in a deep and detailed year long process to fundamentally transform community health and safety in their city.1 Closer to home, Mayor London Breed has announced that San Francisco will demilitarize their police force and end the use of police as a response for non-criminal activity.2 As this movement ripples across the nation, Berkeley has an opportunity to lead in transforming our approach to public health and safety. We need the right response for each crisis rather than defaulting to police. This resolution and recommendations initiate a thoughtful, thorough approach to restructuring and redefining health and safety through investment in the social determinants of health, rooted in deep community engagement and empowerment.

Community members are calling on city leaders to be creative in reimagining the city’s approach to health and safety and to make clear, demonstrated commitments and timelines for this work.

In order to earn community buy-in for these important changes it is critical that the future of community health and safety be defined by the Berkeley community, centering the voices of our Black, Native American/First Peoples and other communities of color, LGBTQ+ people, victims of harm and other stakeholders that have been historically, and continue to be, marginalized and under-served by our current system. A community-wide process would ultimately inform recommended investments and approaches to achieve a higher and more equitable level of community safety for the entire community.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Despite strong efforts and leadership on police reform, homelessness, health, education and housing affordability in Berkeley, racial disparities remain stark across virtually every meaningful measure. According to the City of Berkeley’s 2018 Health Status Summary Report, African Americans are 2.3 times more likely to die in a given year from any condition as compared to Whites. In 2013, African Americans were twice as likely to live in poverty in Berkeley. By 2018, they were eight times more likely. The Center for Policing Equity (CPE) found that Black drivers are 6.5 times as likely as white drivers to be stopped by Berkeley police officers and four times as likely to be searched.

Latinx people are also searched far more often than white people. Furthermore, there is a striking disproportionality in BPD’s use of force against Black community members. 1 https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/File/3806/Transforming%20Community%20Safety%20Resolution.pdf 2 https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor-london-breed-announces-roadmap-new-police-reforms

6 Black people comprise 8% of Berkeley’s population but 46% of people who are subjected to police force.3
Local government’s most fundamental role is to provide for the health and safety of its residents. Cities around the country are acknowledging that they are falling behind in this basic function and are embarking on efforts to reimagine health and safety, and to consider reallocating resources towards a more holistic approach; one that shifts resources away from policing towards health, education and social services, and is able to meet crises with a variety of appropriate responses.

In addition to renewed efforts around policing in places like Minneapolis and San Francisco that were prompted by George Floyd’s murder, the financial and public health impacts of COVID-19 had already required Berkeley to reimagine and innovate to meet the moment. Berkeley now faces multiple intersecting crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impacts, the effects of systemic racism and the ongoing climate emergency. There is no returning to “normal.”
COVID-19 has demonstrated that we are only as healthy and safe as the most vulnerable amongst us, and we are in fact one community. There is both a moral and fiscal imperative to restructure the way Berkeley envisions and supports health and safety.

Berkeley is facing a $40 million budget deficit, and while deferrals of projects and positions can help close the gap in the short term, the economic impacts of the pandemic will require deeper restructuring in the coming years. The current structure of the police department consumes over 44% of the City’s General Fund Budget. With the increase in payments required to meet pension and benefit obligations, the police budget could overtake General Fund capacity within the next 10 years. Thus, even before the important opportunity for action created through outrage at the murder of George Floyd, the City’s current investments in safety were unsustainable. To provide meaningful safety and continue critical health and social services, Berkeley must commit to, and invest in, a new, positive, equitable and community-centered approach to health and safety - this is affordable and sustainable. 3 https://www.berkeleyside.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Berkeley-Report-May-2018.pdf

7 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Resolution expressing City Council’s commitment to a new city-wide approach to public health and safety
Transforming our system of health and safety requires strong commitment from our leaders and the community. This resolution (Attachment 1) is an expression of commitment and a tool for accountability to the public.

The proposed set of principles as well as specific initiatives are the starting point for a robust and inclusive process. Some actions will require significantly more work and additional council direction prior to implementation. For example, moving traffic and parking enforcement from police is a concept that is recommended but would require a significant redesign of city operations. Other changes may be able to move forward more quickly. These ideas are submitted in a spirit of conviction and humility. The future of community health and safety must be addressed in a fundamentally different way and the Council is committed to collaborating with the community to define a new, positive and equitable model of health and safety for everyone.

2. Direct the City Manager to publicly track progress on actions that respond to the directives of the principles herein and others identified by the Coalition.

Progress shall be updated regularly and available on a dedicated page on the City website.

This webpage should include a summary of the actions outlined in this item, as well as other work already underway such as the Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Working group, the Use of Force policy updates, other work underway by the Police Review Commission and any other Council referrals or direction on public safety, including existing referrals addressing alternative and restorative justice, that reflect the spirit and scope of this item.

Transformative change will only be successful if processes are transparent and information widely disseminated, as the City has so successfully demonstrated in managing the COVID-19 crisis. By publicly posting this information, the public will have the capacity to keep its elected officials, city staff, and our whole community accountable for realizing a new system of community centered safety that meets the needs of all of Berkeley’s residents.

8 3. Direct the City Manager to collaborate with Mayor and select Councilmembers to complete the following work, to inform investments and reallocations to be incorporated into future Budget processes:
(a) Begin the process of structural change including directing the analysis of the activities of the Berkeley Police Department and other related departments.

Transforming community health and safety has to start by understanding the existing system, the calls to which it responds and other activities. This recommendation seeks to build on Councilmember Bartlett’s George Floyd Community Safety Act to immediately engage independent, outside experts to conduct a data-driven analysis of police calls and responses and a broader understanding of how the police actually spend their time.45
Engaging the services of outside experts will ensure a transparent and trusted process and provide accurate data required to effectuate substantive change will be identified and that data will inform immediate change and the work throughout the community engagement process. The experts must be knowledgeable about policing, code enforcement, criminal justice and community safety and have deep experience with current and emerging theories, as well as expertise in data collection and analysis to inform recommendations for transformative change.

This analysis should commence as quickly as possible with the goal of providing some recommendations in time for the November 2020 AAO and then to more broadly inform the work of the Community Safety Coalition.
(b) Identify immediate opportunities to shift elements of current policing resources to fund more appropriate community agency responses This re-energized movement for social justice also highlights a problematic expansion, over many decades, in the roles and responsibilities of the police. As other systems have been defunded, most notably mental health, education, affordable housing and other health and safety-net programs, the police have been asked to respond to more and more crises that could be avoided with a different set of investments in community wellbeing. Rather than being the responders of last resort, focused on criminal, aggressive and violent behaviors, police are now frontline responders routinely called to address mental health crises, poverty and homelessness, substance abuse, stress in the school environment, traffic and code violations and neighborhood disputes. This is an extensive set of responsibilities that have slowly accreted to the police. 4https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Update_Budget%20Request%20to%20Hire%20a%20Consul tant%20to%20Perform%20Police%20Call%20and%20Re.._.pdf
5 New York Times- How Do the Police Actually Spend Their Time?

9 By November 2020, with preliminary information provided by outside experts, the City Manager and Council should identify some responsibilities that can be quickly shifted to other programs, departments and agencies. Some areas to be considered include:
● Mental health and crisis management (consideration should be given to possible expansion of the Mobile Integrated Paramedic Unit (MIP) Pilot initiated by the Berkeley Fire Department during the COVID-19 pandemic), and other models for mental health outreach and crisis response, including by non-profits ● Homeless outreach and services
● Civilianizing some or all Code Enforcement + Neighborhood Services and placing these functions elsewhere
● Alternatives for traffic and parking enforcement, and ● Substance abuse prevention and treatment
The consultants should work with the City Manager to provide a specific timeline and process for transitioning functions as quickly as possible, with deliverables to coincide with timelines for budget processes.
(c) Contract with Change Management experts to initiate and facilitate a Community Safety Coalition (“CSC”) and Steering Committee that will begin meeting no later than January 2021.

While the Council can make some important changes and investments in the near future, a complete and enduring transformation in community safety is only possible through robust community engagement. It is critical that the future of community health and safety is defined by the Berkeley community, elevating the voices of our Black, Native American/First Peoples and other communities of color, LGBTQ+ people, victims of harm and other stakeholders that have been historically marginalized and under- served by current systems. The Community Safety Coalition, guided by a steering committee, will serve as the hub for a broad, deep and representative process, and uplift the community’s input into a new positive, equitable, anti-racist system of community health and safety.

Berkeley has a history in leading transformational change to achieve a more equitable society. The robust public process that led to school desegregation is an example of our community’s success in bringing about significant, transformative change (Attachment 4).

The robust public process, led by the Community Safety Coalition and its steering committee, will be guided and facilitated by outside experts.

10 The work of the Coalition should include but not be limited to:
● Build upon the work of the City Council, City Manager, the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group, the Use of Force subcommittee and other efforts of the Police Review and other City Commissions, and the work of other community agencies addressing community-centered health and safety ● Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley. This research should explore and propose investments in restorative justice models, gun violence intervention programs, and substance abuse support, among other things. ● Recommend a positive, equitable, community-centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (Attachment 3), considering, among other things:
○ The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety
○ The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and powers and duties of a well-trained police force. ○ Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.
○ Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration. ○ Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.

The Coalition’s goal/output will be a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives to incorporate into upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase, in the FY2024-2025 budget processes to ensure that recommended changes will be achieved. The Coalition shall return to City Council an initial plan and timeline by April 1, 2021, to ensure the first phase of changes can be incorporated into the FY2022-23 Budget Process.

11 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
$160,000 from the Auditor’s budget to assess police calls and responses $200,000 from current budget cycle from Fund 106, Civil Asset Forfeiture, for initial subject matter expertise and engagement of outside consultants Staff time to support the process of identifying and implementing change.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES AND LAWS
This effort is in support of the following strategic plan goals:
● Champion and demonstrate social and racial equity
● Create a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared City ● Create affordable housing and housing support services for our most vulnerable community members
● Provide an efficient and financially-healthy City government ● Be a customer-focused organization that provides excellent, timely, easily- accessible service and information to the community

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No Environmental Impact.

CONTACT PERSON
Mayor Jesse Arreguín 510-981-7100
Vice-Mayor Sophie Hahn
Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Councilmember Kate Harrison
Attachments:

1. Resolution

2. Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act - Budget Request to Hire a Consultant to Perform Police Call and Response Data Analysis

3. “Shrink the Beast” A Framework for Transforming Police, National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

4. School Desegregation in Berkeley: The Superintendent Reports, Neil Sullivan 1968

12 Attachment 1

RESOLUTION
Whereas, The recent murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery have ignited the nation in passionate protest against police brutality and racial injustice; and
Whereas, Demands for change go beyond necessary efforts in procedural justice, implicit bias training, and use of force policies and seek a broader discussion about investment in the conditions for a safe and healthy community; and Whereas, Investment in “public safety” has been equated with more police for too long while economic and social welfare programs have been viewed as special projects unrelated to health and safety; and
Whereas, This movement is highlighting the problematic expansion in the roles and responsibilities of police officers. Rather than being the responders of last resort, focused on criminal, aggressive and violent behaviors, police are now frontline responders to mental health crises, homelessness, drug addiction, sex work, school disruption, traffic and code violations and neighborhood conflicts; and Whereas, the adopted 2020 budget allocated $74 million to the Berkeley Police Department, which represents over 44% of the City’s General Fund of $175 million, and is more than twice as much as the combined City budgets for Health Housing and Community Services, and Economic Development; and
Whereas, It is clear that our current system of public health and safety is not working and is not sustainable in Berkeley. Despite strong efforts and leadership on police reform, homelessness and affordable housing, racial inequity remains stark across virtually every meaningful measure of health and well-being; and Whereas, Local government’s most fundamental role is to provide for the health and safety of its residents. Cities around the country are acknowledging that they are falling behind in this basic function and are embarking on efforts to reimagine health and safety, and to consider reallocating resources towards a more holistic approach that shifts resources away from policing towards equitable health, education and social services that promote wellbeing up front;678 and
Whereas, As this movement ripples across the nation, Berkeley has an opportunity to lead in transforming our approach to public health and safety. We need the right response for each crisis rather than defaulting to using the police; and 6 Transforming Community Safety Resolution-Minneapolis
7 San Francisco Mayor, Supervisor announce effort to redirect some police funding to African-American community 8 The cities that are already defunding the police

13 Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by The City Council of The City of Berkeley:

That the City Council commits to the principles of reduce, improve and re-invest: reduce the scope and investment in policing, improve the response and accountability of public and community agencies, reinvest in racial equity and community-based intervention initiatives9;
Be It Further Resolved that the City Council will engage with every willing community member in Berkeley, centering the voices of Black people, Native American people, people of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, victims of harm, and other stakeholders who have been historically marginalized or under-served by our present system.

Together, we will identify what safety looks like for everyone.

Be It Further Resolved that the process will center the role of healing and reconciliation.

The process will require healers, elders, youth, artists, and organizers to lead deep community engagement on race and public safety. We will work with local and national leaders on transformative justice in partnerships informed by the needs of every block in our city.

Be It Further Resolved that decades of police reform efforts have not created equitable public safety in our community, and our efforts to achieve transformative public safety will not be deterred by the inertia of existing institutions, contracts, and legislation.

Be It Further Resolved that these efforts heed the words of Angela Davis, “In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist. We must be anti-racist.” Be It Further Resolved that the transformation under consideration has a citywide impact, and will be conducted by the City Council in a spirit of collaboration and transparency with all constructive stakeholder contributors including the Mayor’s Office, the City Manager, the Police Chief, and community organizations.

Be It Further Resolved that the City Council of the City of Berkeley is committed to:

1. A transformative approach to community-centered safety and reducing the scope of policing

2. Equitable investment in the essential conditions of a safe and health community especially for those who have been historically marginalized and have experienced disinvestment

3. A broad, inclusive community process that will result in deep and lasting change to support safety and wellbeing for all Berkeley residents. 9 A Framework fo Transforming Police- NICJR

14 Be it Further Resolved that the City Council supports taking the following actions to realize this transformation:

1. Direct the City Manager to track and report progress on actions to implement this initiative, and other actions that may be identified by the Coalition and referred by Council to the City Manager. Updates shall be provided by written and verbal reports to Council, and posted on a regularly updated and dedicated page on the City website.

2. Direct the City Manager to collaborate with Councilmembers later selected by the Mayor to complete the following work, to inform investments and reallocations to be incorporated into future Budget processes:
a. Contract with independent consultants/Change Management and subject matter experts to:
i. Analyze the scope of work of, and community needs
addressed by, the Berkeley Police Department, to identify a more limited role for law enforcement, and identify elements of police work that could be achieved through alternative programs, policies, systems, and community investments.

Analysis should include but not be limited to: calls received by dispatch by type of complaint, stops by law enforcement generated at officer discretion (as contained in the Police Department’s open data portal) or on request of other city agencies, number of officers and staff from other city
agencies that respond to incidents, estimated time in
response to different types of calls, daily patrol activities, organizational structure, and beat staffing. Work to include broad cost estimates of police and other city agency
response to different types of calls, and other information and analysis helpful to identify elements of current police work that could be transferred to other departments or
programs, or achieved through alternative means. Work
should be completed in time for the November 2020 Annual Appropriation Ordinance revision.
ii. Identify immediate and longer term opportunities to shift policing resources to alternative, non-police responses and towards alternative and restorative justice models, to better meet community needs, that could be considered in the

15 November 2020 AAO#1 budget process. Some areas to be considered include homeless outreach and services,
substance abuse prevention and treatment, and mental
health/crisis management, as well as alternative models for traffic and parking enforcement, “neighborhood services” and code enforcement. Provide a broad timeline and
process for transitioning functions not ready for transition at this first milestone.

Deliverables should coincide with budget cycles, including the November 2020 AAO and FY 2022-2023 Budget processes, and provide a suggested timeline for transitioning functions at these and other budget opportunities, so that alternative investments may be considered for funding and launched in a timely and orderly manner.
b. Contract with independent Change Management experts to create and facilitate a representative Community Safety Coalition, guided by a Steering Committee, that will begin meeting no later than January 2021.The CSC and its Steering Committee, should be broadly inclusive and representative of Berkeley residents and stakeholders. The Steering Committee, with the support of Change Management professionals, shall be responsible for engaging the Coalition and the broader Berkeley community and relevant City Staff in a robust process, to achieve a new and transformative model of positive, equitable and community-centered safety for Berkeley.

The work of the Coalition should include but not be limited to:

4. Building on the work of the City Council, the City Manager, the PRC and other City commissions and other working groups addressing community health and safety.

5. Research and engagement to define a holistic, anti-racist approach to community safety, including a review and analysis of emerging models, programs and practices that could be applied in Berkeley.

6. Recommend a new, community- centered safety paradigm as a foundation for deep and lasting change, grounded in the principles of Reduce, Improve and Reinvest as proposed by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (Attachment 3), considering, among other things:

16 a. The social determinants of health and changes required to deliver a holistic approach to community-centered safety
b. The appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and powers and duties of a well-trained police force.
c. Limiting militarized weaponry and equipment.
d. Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration.
e. Options to reduce police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration and replace these, to the greatest extent possible, with educational, community serving, restorative and other positive programs, policies and systems.

The Coalition’s goal/output will be a set of recommended programs, structures and initiatives to incorporate into upcoming budget processes for FY 2022-23 and, as a second phase, in the FY2024-2025 budget processes to ensure that recommended changes will be achieved. The Coalition shall return to City Council an initial plan and timeline by April 1, 2021, to ensure the first phase of changes can be incorporated into the FY2022-23 Budget Process.

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

EMERGENCY ITEM AGENDA MATERIAL
Meeting date: June 16, 2020
Item Description: Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act - Budget Request to Hire a Consultant to Perform Police Call and Response Data Analysis
Submitted by: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author), Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and Councilmembers Kate Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Rationale:

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2(b) (2), Councilmember Ben Bartlett submits the attached item to the City Council for placement on the June 16, 2020 meeting agenda. Gov. Code Section 54954.2(b) (2) states that “Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of a legislative body presents at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a).”

This item meets the criteria for “immediate action” as follows:
1) The budget is being considered and there is public outcry for Council to take action.
2) Racism Is a Public Health Emergency.
3) Council is considering numerous police items right now.

Hundreds of thousands of people in every state have marched in solidarity to call for an end to police brutality, to demand police accountability, and to reform law enforcement, bringing justice to the Black lives and people of color who have been wrongfully harmed at the hands of the criminal justice system. Police brutality has taken the lives of 46-year- old Black man George Floyd, 26- year-old Black woman Breonna Taylor, and countless other people of color. Often resorting to violent means of punishment, police officers are not trained to handle noncriminal and nonviolent situations. Unfortunately, the lack of sufficient data and reporting has allowed police misconduct to be swept under the rug, which has increased police militarization, failed to prioritize community safety, and prevented providing the civilian with the necessary treatment to resolve the situation.

To respond to urgent calls for police transparency and accountability, this item requests the City Manager to hire third-party consultants to conduct a data-driven analysis of the Berkeley Police Department’s calls, responses, budget, and expenditures to determine which calls can be serviced to non- law enforcement agencies, ensuring noncriminal and nonviolent situations are properly handled by trained community professionals.

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR
June 16, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Ben Bartlett (Author), Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and Councilmembers Kate Harrison (Co-Sponsor)
Subject: Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act - Budget Request to Hire a Consultant to Perform Police Call and Response Data Analysis RECOMMENDATION:

1. Refer
to the Thursday, 6/18/2020 Budget & Finance Policy Committee and the FY 2020-21 Budget Process the $150,000 to
a. Hire a consultant to conduct a data-driven analysis of police calls and responses to determine the quantity and proportion of these calls that can be responded to by non-police services. The third-party consultant must be hired and engaged in work within three months of the item’s passage. b. Hire a consultant to conduct an analysis of the Berkeley Police Department’s budget and its expenditures by call type. The third-party consultant must be hired and engaged in work within three months of the item’s passage.

2. Direct the City Manager to:
a. Implement initiatives and reforms that reduce the footprint of the police department and limit the police’s response to violent and criminal service calls.

CURRENT SITUATION
In all 50 states and more than 145 cities, Americans are calling to end police violence and brutality, to legitimize police accountability, and to transform the police system to protect the safety of communities and people of color. Police violence and brutality led to the death of a 46-year-old Black man George Floyd and the murders of other Black people, igniting a flame that has been brewing for a long time. These events of police violence gave rise to a wave of demonstrations and demands for change, including many in the City of Berkeley.

Due to t
he Coronavirus pandemic, the City of Berkeley is facing a nearly 30+ million dollar budget deficit, sharply stalling economic growth with effects that parallel the Great Depression. At the same time, the City is projected to undergo an increase in people experiencing homelessness, trauma, and mental health crises. Therefore, the City must ensure that each dollar is spent for the residents’ best interest and will produce the maximum return.

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected] In order to better respond to the needs of the Berkeley community, it is critical that the Council takes local-level action on police reform. In particular, the City must examine the types of calls and responses from the police department and analyze the agency’s budgets and expenditures according to call type.

As a c
omponent of the REDUCE, IMPROVE, RE-INVEST framework, this item works towards the REDUCE goal: the City should implement initiatives and reforms that reduce the footprint of the police department and limit the police’s response to violent and criminal service calls. Specifically, this item proposes to hire an outside consultant to conduct an analysis of police calls and responses as well as the department budget.

With
military-style techniques and structure, police officers are trained to combat crime in a manner that exerts violence through punishments, establishing a monopoly on force in communities. While law enforcement is supposed to protect our communities and keep us safe, crime waves from the 1970s and 1980s have transformed the police community into a body for crime control, maintaining such focus until modern-day despite declines in criminal activity

1. With this focus on crime control, police officers lack the necessary training to adequately respond to noncriminal and nonviolent crimes. Non Criminal crimes refer to issues involving mental health, the unhoused community, school discipline, and neighborhood civil disputes

2. Nonviolent crimes are categorized
as property, drug, and public order offenses where injury or force is absent3. When police respond to these types of matters, they resort to violent means of arrest or problem escalation because they are ill-equipped and not trained to resolve the underlying issues.

Acc
ording to the Vera Institute of Justice’s report between 1980 and 2016, more than

10.5 million arrests are made every year; only 4.83 percent of those arrests were for violent offenses

4. Eighty percent of these arrests were for low-level offenses, such as “disorderly conduct,” non-traffic offenses, civil violations, and other offenses. This criminalization may be attributed to the arrest quotas for police productivity, which promotes punishment by rewarding the number of arrests for police funding instead of finding solutions to these issues

5. This high percentage of low-level offenses resulted in 1 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/first-step-figuring-out-what-police-are/612793/ 2 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/san-francisco-police-reforms-stop-response- noncriminal-calls
3 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/pnoesp.txt#:~:text=Nonviolent%20crimes%20are%20defined%20as ,possession%2C%20burglary%2C%20and%20larceny.
4 https://arresttrends.vera.org/arrests?compare%5Boffense%5D%5Bpart1%5D=part1&compare%5Boffens e%5D%5Bpart2%5D=part2#infographic
5 https://theintercept.com/2019/01/31/arrests-policing-vera-institute-of-justice/

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

arrest when other nonviolent, rehabilitative methods could have occurred from the solutions of community workers with the experience to handle these situations.

It is imperative that the City of Berkeley develops, implements, and enforces a clear and effective roadmap towards making real change, ending anti-Black racism, stopping police violence, and holding police accountable for their actions. Thus, the Council should direct the City Manager to hire third party consultants to conduct a data-driven analysis of police calls and responses as well as their budget and expenditures in order to determine ways in which experienced community workers can reduce the police footprint by addressing noncriminal situations. We recommend that community workers also resolve nonviolent situations.

BACKGROUND
In order to achieve the aforementioned goals, the City must implement a series of important law enforcement reforms and take action by initiating the following:

REDUCE:

I. Hire a consultant to conduct a data driven analysis of police calls and responses.

University of Denver Political Science Professor Laurel Eckhouse stated, “One method of reducing police presence… is to separate and reassign to other authorities various problems currently delegated to the police… such as the problems of people who don’t have housing… mental health issues… and even things like traffic

6.” Community organizations, civilian workers trained in mental health situations, or neighborhood problem-solvers would better address these specific issues due to their experience, ensuring that the police are not the only force addressing these issues and promoting community vitality

7. Conducting a data driven analysis of police calls and responses would signify a report of the calls and responses that police receive and would inform the city where to better allocate resources to resolve specific issues. Noncriminal and nonviolent activities can thus be properly addressed by those who are equipped to handle these situations and would relieve law enforcement from these calls to then pursue more serious criminal situations. For example, the San Francisco Police Department receives approximately 40,000 calls per year about homeless people on the streets

8. Social workers who can help unhoused citizens and those with mental health disorders are better equipped to help these citizens receive

6 https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/06/04/police-abolition-looks-like-palo-alto/ 7 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/first-step-figuring-out-what-police-are/612793/ 8 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-12/san-francisco-police-reforms-stop-response- noncriminal-calls

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

proper treatment while also protecting the safety of our communities, which would give law enforcement time to handle other crimes.

One suggestion to reduce the costs of policing is to boost productivity by allocating a portion of the calls for service to community organizations who have the resources and training to handle such situations

9. For example, in Mesa,
Arizona from 2006 to 2008, a third of calls for service are handled by civilians; these calls are for incidents of “vehicle burglaries, unsecured buildings, accidents, loose dogs, stolen vehicles, traffic hazards, and residential burglaries

10.” Approximately half of calls for service in Mesa are handled by police officers, but among those, there are ways to reduce police authority. For example, 11 percent of those calls that police officers handled were in response to burglary alarms, where 99 percent were false. Six percent of those calls included “juveniles disturbing the peace.” This situation in Mesa demonstrates the possibility of reduced police force in exchange for community based response teams who can better resolve these issues with their experience.

The City Manager should hire a third party consultant within three months of this item’s passage to conduct the data analysis, ensuring that the report is completed in an impartial and timely manner.

The third party consultant should create a report with the following information by analyzing and gathering the data from the police department, reporting their findings to the City every two years. We recommend the following data to be considered for analysis:
a. Number of calls the police department receives per day, week, month, and year, which will be categorized into noncriminal, misdemeanor, nonviolent felony, and serious and violent felony calls.
b. Demographics for these calls
c. Characteristics of traffic stops
i. Quantity
ii. Type/reason
iii. Number of those resulting in searchings paired with the frequency at which illegal items were found
iv. Police response (i.e. citation, arrest, use of force) v. Demographics of the civilian in the traffic stop that is broken into type of stop and whether a search occurred
d. Number of complaints against an officer
i. Enumerate the officers with a high number of complaints

9 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/231096.pdf
10 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/231096.pdf

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

ii. Reason behind the complaints.

With the results of the data analysis, the City can determine the portion of calls that the community crisis worker pilot can properly address with the resources and experience they have.

II. Hire a consultant to conduct an analysis of the police department budget.

Using the analysis generated by a review of police call and response data, a third party consultant should be hired to analyze the police department’s expenditures and budgets for various calls of service and report their findings to the City every two years.

According to the 2019 budget, the Berkeley Police Department’s expenditures were approximately $69 million, which consists of 5.6 percent of the city’s net expenditures. However, for the 2020 budget, the BPD is expected to have $74 million in expenditures, reflecting a $5 million increase from the previous year and approximately $8 million higher than 2017’s expenditures

11. Unfortunately,
anecdotal evidence suggests that only 20 percent of police time is spent on solving crime and the majority is spent towards addressing those experiencing homelessness and mental health crises. The City should reallocate resources to a crisis worker entity who would be tasked with responding to noncriminal calls.

We recommend that nonviolent calls also be addressed by this entity. This would give police officers more time to focus on crime, leading to better outcomes for public safety, community health, and a higher quality of life.

In Canada, Police Information and Statistics Committee police services Waterloo Police Regional Service and Ontario Provincial Police collaborated with Justice Canada and Public Safety to collect data on their calls for service and determine the costs of policing

12. Their research reported that in 2013, bylaw complaints were listed as the most frequent call for service in Waterloo at 8,769 calls and non-crime policing activities were listed as the most frequent. In contrast, the only criminal activity listed in the top 10 generated calls were domestic dispute, theft under $5000, and major violent crime in property damage. Considering the most frequent of costly calls are noncriminal activities such as selective traffic enforcement programs ($22,212.45 in sum of total unit service time in hours) and vehicle stops ($206,668.13), the greatest cost in calls were for noncriminal activities. As noncriminal activities result in the greatest costs, it would be more efficient for community workers to handle these situations in order to reduce

11 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Manager/Budget/FY-2020-2021-Adopted-Budget- Book.pdf
12 https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r018/index-en.aspx#c-1-i

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7130 ● E-Mail: [email protected]

police department costs, allowing trained professionals to resolve the issue and giving police officers time to spend on more serious criminal offenses.

By analyzing the budget expenditures for the police for each call type, the community can divest from the police and reallocate those funds for trained community organizations who can handle noncriminal and nonviolent offenses.

Considering the significantly delayed response to former requests for the police department’s budget, the data analysis should be conducted by a third party consultant that is hired and engaged in active service within three months of this item’s passage, ensuring that the police department’s budget information is transparent to the public and reported in an impartial, timely manner.

REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND LAWS
The City Manager provides regular reports on crime in Berkeley and on the policies of the Berkeley Police Department13. The data on serious crime is collected annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which consists of over 17,000 law enforcement agencies that represent over 90 percent of the United States population.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) reports crime statistics on violent crimes (including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (including burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson). This data allows the BPD to analyze national and local crime trends, determine effectiveness of response to crime, and plan for future policies and resource allocation. Additionally, the City of Berkeley implements the Daily Calls for Service Log that the community can access to see the volume and nature of police activity.

Currently, Utah requires agencies to report tactical deployment and forcible entries where such reports are summarized by the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. Utah Law Enforcement Transparency reporting interface was added to Utah Criminal Justice Information System in 2014 through the use of federal grant funding.

Law enforcement agencies are required to report incidents of forcible entry and the deployment of tactical groups, representing data collection of police use of force

14. However, these reports do not analyze the demographics or types of calls and responses from the BPD, which makes it difficult to hold police officers accountable for the mistreatment of individuals. Without this information, it becomes difficult to determine how to decrease the police footprint or implement safer policing practices if the analysis only pertains to the quantity and types of arrests and does not include the

13 https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Police/Home/Annual_Crime_Reports.aspx 14 https://justice.utah.gov/Documents/CCJJ/LETR/2018%20LET%20Annual%20Report.html