Berkeley City Council
May 5, 2022

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 90 Houston Crisis Call Diversion (CCD)
The Crisis Call Diversion (CCD) program in Houston,
Texas is a joint effort between the fire department,
police department, emergency center, and mental
health service providers in the area. In 2017, the
Houston Police Department (HPD) received 37,032
calls for service that involved behavior or mental
health problems. When calls for service come in,
dispatchers flag any that would necessitate CCD
response-- non-emergency behavioral and mental
health calls. Once flagged, these callers are connected to CCD counselors. The CCD counselor evaluates
the situation and the mental health of the caller and
attempts to provide assistance over the phone.
36 If additional community response or police presence
is needed, the dispatcher can request that as well.

The call is taken off the police dispatch line when the CCD dispatcher verifies that the CCD team is on the
way to the scene. CCD teams can contact the caller
while traveling to the specified location in order to
collect as much relevant information as possible.

Upon examination of the data, each rerouted call
generates savings of nearly $4,500. The CCD costs
approximately $460,000 annually and is estimated to
generate over $860,000 in annual savings.
37 City of Albuquerque Community
Safety Department (ACS)
The City of Albuquerque’s recently created
Community Safety Department (ACS) serves as the
third branch of Albuquerque’s first responder system.

The ACS responds to non-violent and non-medical
Calls for Service (CFS) related to mental health,
substance use, and homelessness as well as non-
behavioral issues such as abandoned vehicles and
needle pickups.
38 Once a call is received through 911,
it is routed to the Albuquerque Police Department
(APD) Dispatch Center, who will then facilitate the
deployment of ACS responders.

ACS’ Field Response Unit is made up of four types
of responders: Behavioral Health Responders,
36 https:/ /www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal-justice/ reports/2020/10/28/492492/community-responder-model/
37 https:/ /www.houstoncit.org/ccd/
38 https:/ /www.cabq.gov/acs/our-role
Community Responders, Street Outreach and
Resource Coordinators, and Mobile Crisis Team
(MCT) Licensed Clinicians.

Each responder’s role is as follows
39:
• Community
Responders: provide support to
community members related to inebriation,
homelessness, addiction, mental health as well as
minor injuries, incapacitation, abandoned vehicles,
non-injury accidents, and needle pickups
•
Beha
vioral Health Responders: respond in pairs
to requests for assistance regarding mental and
behavioral health, inebriation, homelessness,
addiction, chronic mental illness, etc.
•
Str
eet Outreach and Resource Coordinators:
provide street outreach to individuals experiencing
homelessness in encampments
•
Mobile
Crisis Team (MCT) Licensed Clinicians:
co-respond to high acuity mental and behavioral
health emergencies
In its first operational month (August 30- October 1,
2021), ACS responders addressed an average of nine
calls daily, for a total of 212 CFS. 50% of those CFS
were provided with either resources, direct services,
or transportation. The average response time for ACS
responders is slightly over 14 minutes.
40 Once ACS is
fully scaled, as many as 3,000 calls could be diverted
per month.
41 Los Angeles County Alternative
Crisis Response (ACR)
The LA County Alternative Crisis Response is a
collaboration between the Department of Mental
Health (DMH) and the Chief Executive Office’s (CEO)
Alternatives to Incarceration Initiative to address
gaps within LA County’s current crisis response
system.
42 Set to rollout in July of 2022, preliminary
recommendations put forth to the Los Angeles
County Board of Supervisors include designing
and implementing a Regional Crisis Call Network,
39 https:/ /www.cabq.gov/acs/our-response
40 https:/ /www.cabq.gov/mayor/news/albuquerque-
community-safety-responders-hit-the-streets
41 https:/ /www.abqjournal.com/2428380/abqs-community-
safety-department-launches-patrols.html
42 https:/ /ceo.lacounty.gov/ati/alternative-crisis-response/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 91 instituting a crisis mobile response team, and
increasing behavioral health bed capacity.43
In accordance with recent ACR recommendations, the
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) expanded its
Didi Hirsch Pilot, which diverts 911 behavioral health
CFS to the Didi Hirsch Suicide Prevention Center.

The ACR will utilize a 988 number for behavioral
health emergency needs also overseen by the Didi
Hirsch Suicide Prevention Center.
44 Seattle Department of Community
Safety & Violence Prevention
The Seattle City Council passed Resolution 31962
in August of 2020, which lays the foundation for
a civilian led Department of Community Safety &
Violence Prevention. This Department, which is
expected to be up and running by the fourth quarter
of 2021, will assume responsibility for manning 911
call lines, replacing police operators with “civilian-
controlled systems.”
45 Ithaca Department of Community
Solutions and Public Safety
In February 2021, the Mayor of Ithaca, New York,
proposed the creation of a new Department of
Community Solutions and Public Safety that would
replace the Ithaca Police Department.
46 This new
department would include both armed officers
and unarmed workers who focus on crime and
neighborhood service. The department would work
with a new alternative service provider that provides
non-law enforcement crisis intervention and support.

All current police officers would have to reapply to
be employed by the new department.

The proposal is a part of the Ithaca Reimagining Public Safety Collaborative and a response to the New York
State Governor’s Executive Order mandating every
43 https:/ /file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/149254.pdf 44 https:/ /file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/149282.pdf 45 https:/ /www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/ seattle-city-council-passes-cuts-to-police-budget-and-
resolution-to-establish-civilian-led-department-of-community- safety-violence-prevention
46 https:/ /www.gq.com/story/ithaca-mayor-svante-myrick- police-reform
police department in the state to submit a reform
plan by April 1, 2021.47
The new Department of Community Solutions and
Public Safety would be charged with implementing
an alternative to the police response system and
establishing a pilot program for non-emergency
calls, implementing a culturally responsive training
program that includes de-escalation techniques, and
developing a comprehensive community healing plan.

Other initiatives proposed under this strategy include
standardizing a data review process on traffic stops
as well as consistent reviews of officers’ body camera
footage. Minor grievances would be outsourced
to neighborhood mediation centers. Adolescent
engagement support programs would be broadened
in order to reach those at high risk of violence. The
new personnel of the Department would be recruited
from a more varied body of applicants as well to reflect the residents of the city in which they operate.
48 In order to oversee the recommendations made
by the Mayor and Ithaca Reimagining Public Safety
Collaborative, the City of Ithaca has arranged for
the creation of an operations hub known as the
Community Justice Center (CJC). The CJC will have
its own full-time staff including but not limited to a
project manager and a data analyst. The CJC is set
to give progress updates to the Tompkins County
Legislature and the City of Ithaca Mayor to ensure
each recommendation is properly addressed.
49 Tiered Dispatch & Community
Emergency Response Network
NICJR has developed a tiered dispatch model for
CFS, one that includes a robust, structured, and
well-trained team of community responders – a
Community Emergency Response Network (CERN).

Pursuant to the NICJR methodology, CFS are initially
allocated to CERN Tiers based on a standardized
approach outlined below:
47 https:/ /www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-
announces-new-guidance-police-reform-collaborative-
reinvent-and-modernize
48 https:/ /drive.google.com/drive/u/0/
folders/1NTZ6j6WRze75m5fTuf-wC4BgC-1ddJnO
49 Id.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 92 Tier 1:

CERN dispatched only
Event type: Non-Criminal
Tier 2:

CERN lead, with officers present
Event type: Misdemeanor with low potential
of violence
If CERN arrives on scene and determines
there is low potential for violence and an arrest
is unnecessary or unlikely, officers leave.

Tier 3:

Officers lead, with CERN present
Type 4:

Officers only
Event type: Non-Violent Felony or an arrest
is likely
If officers arrive on scene and determine
there is no need for an arrest or an arrest is
unlikely and violence is unlikely, officers step
back and CERN takes the lead.

Event type: Serious Violent Felony or high
likelihood of arrest

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 93 NON-LAW

ENFORCEMENT CRIME

REDUCTION STRATEGIES
New York City Mayor’s Action Plan
(MAP) for Neighborhood Safety
The Mayor’s Action Plan for Neighborhood Safety
(MAP) was launched in 2014 in fifteen New York
City Housing Authority (NYCHA) properties.

MAP was designed to foster productive dialogue
between local residents and law enforcement
agencies, address physical disorganization, and
bolster pro-social community bonds. Disorganized
neighborhoods are characterized by dense poverty,
a lack of social mobility, and underdeveloped
community connections. These factors contribute to
circumstances that make a given neighborhood more
vulnerable to crime and violence.
50 The 15 housing
developments chosen for the program account for
approximately 20 percent of violence in NYCHA
housing.
51 MAP’s focal point is NeighborhoodStat, a
process that allows local officials and residents
to communicate directly with each other. Issues
in each particular housing development are
addressed in local meetings which involve multiple
stakeholders, including residents, community-based
organizations, law enforcement, and government
officials. NeighborhoodStat allows residents to have
a say in the way New York City (NYC) allocates its
public safety resources. The process is facilitated
by a team of 15 community members who conduct
polls and interviews to determine what the residents
feel are the biggest issues in their neighborhoods.

NeighborhoodStat also utilizes data analyses
regarding employment, physical structure, access
to resources, and other metrics in developing
its recommendations for key areas of focus. At
50 http:/ /www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/
professionals/oyap/roots/volume5/chapter04_social_disorg anization.aspx
51 https:/ /criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/programs/map/

community meetings, this data and other benchmarks
for performance are presented by community-based
partners, allowing for full transparency. Residents
and law enforcement also put forward their concerns
and ideas. Once problems are pinpointed through
meaningful dialogue, residents and NYC officials
come together to generate solutions, which are then
implemented by the Mayor’s Office and assessed
over time.
52 Other initiatives MAP has undertaken include
providing employment and life coaching services
to youth who are at most risk for violence. MAP
also focuses on addressing major chronic disease
determinants, including low physical activity levels
and nutrient-poor diets. Programs such as NYPD
Anti-Violence basketball games and pop-up healthy
food stands have been established. In addition, public
infrastructure has been improved through enhanced
lighting, green spaces, and park improvements.
53 Early evaluations of MAP show promising results for
a reduction in various crimes as well as increased
perception of healthier neighborhoods. Significantly,
misdemeanor offenses against individuals decreased
in developments where residents expressed a
positive change in their neighborhood’s condition.
54 Furthermore, shootings in MAP sites decreased by

17.1 percent in 2015 and 2016 when compared with
non-MAP sites.
55 52 https:/ /www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal- justice/reports/2019/10/02/475220/neighborhoodstat-
strengthening-public-safety-community-empowerment/
53 https:/ /criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/programs/map/ 54 https:/ /johnjayrec.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/
MAP_EvalUpdate06.pdf
55 https:/ /www1.nyc.gov/assets/operations/downloads/pdf/ mmr2016/mayors_action_plan_for_neighborhood_ safety.pdf

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 94 Domestic Violence
Every year, an estimated 10 million people in the
US experience domestic and family violence. Often
a cycle of abuse is perpetuated in these situations,
as experience with previous violence is a strong
predictor for future abuse.
56 The financial expense of
domestic and family violence is projected to be $12
billion each year. In Berkeley, approximately 2,000
reports related to domestic violence are registered
annually; the actual number of incidents is probably
much higher.
57 Domestic violence is a difficult and complex problem.

Laws have been established that mandate arrests
even for minor incidents; these same laws have
generated a growing movement of survivors calling
for non-enforcement responses. The challenges here
are significant, as a lack of intervention can lead to
serious injury and death, primarily of women and
transgender women.

An additional complication in domestic violence
work is the retraumatization of survivors that occurs
in the judicial system. When survivors of domestic
violence endeavor to obtain recourse through
the courts, they are often blamed for the abuse
and undergo a disparagement of their character.

Moreover, testimony is often given in an open court
setting, which requires that a survivor recount the
abuse they have undergone while simultaneously
appearing composed in order to credibly convey
their trauma, often in the presence of their abuser.
58 Reliving one’s trauma and facing an abuser can cause feelings of helplessness, anxiety, and PTSD to surface
in the survivor. Unfortunately, retraumatization often
results in a major roadblock for survivors to pursue
justice in domestic violence cases.
59 There is a significant overlap in addressing domestic violence incidence and anti-poverty work, as intimate
partner violence is correlated with devastating
monetary effects on survivors who seek to leave their
abusive situations. Interventions such as economic
education and employment training can both reduce
56 https:/ /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499891/
57 https:/ /www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Health_ Human_Services/Level_3_-_General/dvfactsheet.pdf
58 https:/ /www.seattletimes.com/opinion/a-justice-system- that-re-traumatizes-assault-survivors/
59 https:/ /arizonalawreview.org/pdf/62-1/62arizlrev81.pdf violence and provide critically necessary financial
support.

Major domestic violence support programs
implemented by the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) include STOP Sexual Violence (SV) and
the Preventing Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).
60 According to the CDC, these strategies focus on
promoting social norms that protect against violence;
teaching skills to prevent SV; providing opportunities, both economic and social, to empower and support
girls and women; creating protective environments;
and supporting victims/survivors to reduce harms.

Research indicates that IPV is most prevalent in
adolescence and young adulthood and then begins
to decline with age, demonstrating the critical
importance of early prevention efforts.
61 Analyses of
these financial support programs have demonstrated
results including increased confidence for survivors
as well as decreases in domestic assault incidences.
62 Another area of focus has been to revisit the
mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence
calls in place in many jurisdictions.
63 Alternatives to
this approach emphasize coordinated community
response teams that maximize the role of community.

An effective model integrates other providers,
including faith leaders and the courts.
64 Commercial Sexual Exploitation
Sexual exploitation of minors has historically been
difficult to adequately address. This is due to a plethora of factors, ranging from difficulty in identifying
adolescents who experience sexual exploitation
to a limited understanding of the various methods
used to traffic children and the best approaches to
engage the victims.
65 Too often, sexually exploited
minors have faced arrest and incarceration instead of
60 http:/ /www.preventconnect.org/2019/08/addressing-
poverty-to-prevent-violence/
61 https:/ /www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-
technicalpackages.pdf
62 https:/ /vawnet.org/material/economic-empowerment-
domestic-violence-survivors
63 https:/ /opdv.ny.gov/help/fss/part22.html
64 https:/ /www.bwjp.org/our-work/topics/ccr-models.html 65 https:/ /ojjdp.ojp.gov/mpg/literature-review/csec-sex- trafficking.pdf

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 95 intervention and support.66 More than 1,000 children are arrested for “prostitution” annually. However,
anywhere from 57,000 to 63,000 individuals are
estimated to be involved in commercial sexual
exploitation in the United States, a disproportionate
number being youth of color.
67 The Vera Institute has produced a screening
procedure for service providers to follow when
encountering an individual who could potentially
be a survivor of sexual exploitation. Consisting of a
thirty-subject questionnaire, the Trafficking Victim
Identification Tool (TVIT), serves to aid in trafficking victim identification. Evaluations have proven that
the tool has high accuracy and validity rates.
68 Health
care providers, social workers, legal aid personnel,
and others can use the screening tool to better
identify those who have experienced commercial
sexual exploitation.
69 Jurisdictions have also begun to halt prosecution of prostitution. In April of 2021, the District Attorney’s Office of Manhattan, New York, announced it would
dismiss all open cases with a prostitution charge.

Prostitution adjacent crimes such as sex trafficking
and soliciting sex workers would still be charged.

The cities of Baltimore, Maryland, and Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, have stopped any prosecution of sex
workers as well.
70 Many community-based organizations have
established programs that outreach, support, and
provide services to minors who have been sexually
exploited. It is critical that community-based service
providers have the requisite training and education
to provide appropriate services and interventions to
this population who have experienced abuse, trauma,
and exploitation. The training should be trauma-
informed, and screeners should be focused on
66 https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/
wp/2014/12/05/child-prostitutes-arent-criminals-so-why-do- we-keep-putting-them-in-jail/
67 https:/ /www.vera.org/publications/out-of-the-shadows- identification-of-victims-of-human-trafficking
68 https:/ /www.vera.org/downloads/publications/human-
trafficking-identification-tool-summary-v2.pdf
69 https:/ /www.vera.org/publications/out-of-the-shadows- identification-of-victims-of-human-trafficking
70 https:/ /www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/nyregion/
manhattan-to-stop-prosecuting-prostitution.html
establishing trust with their clients. 71 Organizations like FAIR Girls (Washington, D.C.) and MISSEY
(Oakland, CA) have initiatives that intervene directly
with girls who have been exploited. At MISSEY, case
workers engage at-risk youth in the Alameda County
foster system and offer them support and services
in the form of financial resources, life coaching, and
housing.
72 In Washington DC, young girls that stayed
at the FAIR Girls group home had a 58 percent
higher likelihood of permanently withdrawing from
commercial sexual exploitation when compared with
those who were not provided housing.
73 Traffic Enforcement
Data from The Stanford Open Policing Project shows
that Black men and women are stopped at a higher
rate than white drivers and are more likely to be
71 https:/ /www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/nyregion/
manhattan-to-stop-prosecuting-prostitution.html
72 https:/ /misssey.org/foster-youth-program/
73 https:/ /fairgirls.org/vida-home/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 96 fatally shot during the course of that traffic stop.74 To significantly lessen the exposure of the general public to the police and instead address transportation
violations without law enforcement involvement, a
number of strategies have been employed including:
reallocation of certain traffic services to non-law
enforcement organizations; the implementation of
automation; and decriminalization.

In the City of Berkeley, the Berkeley Police
Department (BPD) performed approximately 11,000
traffic stops in 2019. Black people were stopped by
BPD at a rate 4.3 times than their representative
population in the City.
75 This disproportionate traffic
enforcement highlights the need to change policies
and practices regarding traffic stops.

Reducing the use of police officers in traffic
enforcement is one potential solution; this approach
can be greatly enabled by technology. Speeding and
red-light violations are two areas that constitute
a large portion of traffic enforcement. There are
19 states that allow speed cameras, and 21 states
that allow red-light camera usage.
76 Implementing
automatic speed citations along with red-light
cameras could allow for a reduction of up to 20
percent of police interactions. It is important to
note that although this technology is successful at
reducing the need for police, it can generate other
issues such as enforcement problems and privacy
concerns.
77 As Berkeley is considering through the Berkeley
Department of Transportation (BerkDOT) initiative,
transferring traffic enforcement duties to an agency
of unarmed staff can limit problematic police
contact with motorists. Analogous programs have
been proposed in Cambridge, Massachusetts; St.

Louis Park, Minnesota; and Montgomery County,
Maryland.
78 In 2019, automation-based traffic
enforcement capabilities were transferred to the
74 https:/ /openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/
75 https:/ /sites.google.com/view/saferstreetsberkeley/home 76 https:/ /www.ghsa.org/state-laws/issues/speed%20and%20 red%20light%20cameras
77 https:/ /www.governing.com/archive/gov-cities-hit-brakes- red-light-cameras.html
78 https:/ /theappeal.org/traffic-enforcement-without-police/ Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C.79
New York’s Attorney General proposed the end of
the NYPD’s involvement with traffic enforcement in
September of 2020.
80 Another potential strategy can be illustrated by a
pilot program in Staten Island, New York, aimed at
reducing the number of calls for service related to
minor collision.
81 When a call comes in regarding a
collision, dispatch will determine if the collision is
minor or serious enough to merit police response.

If a collision is deemed to be minor, all individuals
involved in the crash simply complete a collision
report and then exchange contact and identification
information.
82 Lastly, ending pre-textual stops for minor traffic
infractions, as proposed by the Berkeley Mayor’s Fair
and Impartial Policing Workgroup and approved by
the City Council in March 2021, could significantly
reduce traffic stops. This issue is addressed in more
detail in the Policing section of this report.

Neighbor Disputes
Police officers are frequently the first personnel
called in when there is a dispute, even a minor one,
between neighbors. These events can encompass a
broad array of issues, from property damage, blocking
a driveway, to noise complaints. Even if police do
intervene, the solution is often only temporarily,
rather than resolving the root problems that caused
the conflict. Police response wastes time and
resources and can lead to escalation and violence.

Furthermore, neighbor conflicts in low-income and
communities of color have a higher likelihood of
resulting in an arrest.
83 79 https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/
transportation/2019/10/01/bowser-does-an-end-run-
around-dc-council-transfers-speed-red-light-camera-
program-ddot/https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/
transportation/2019/10/01/bowser-does-an-end-run-around- dc-council-transfers-speed-red-light-camera-program-ddot/ 80 https:/ /apnews.com/article/bronx-arrests-traffic-archive- new-york-c93fa5fc03f25c2b625d36e4c75d1691
81 https:/ /www.silive.com/news/2019/03/nypd-dont-call- 911-for-crashes-without-injuries.html
82 https:/ /abc7ny.com/traffic/nypd-rolls-out-pilot-program- wont-respond-to-every-accident/5205383/
83 https:/ /mdmediation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ Giving_Police_and_Courts_a_Break.pdf

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 97 Community mediation is a strategy that has proven
to reduce police calls for service and decrease the
burden on police for nuisance complaints. Several
cities have implemented community mediation
programs to utilize non-enforcement options to
resolve neighbor disputes. In areas where community
mediation is prioritized, neighborhood social ties
are strengthened, and communities are more
harmonious. Moreover, residents who participate
in community mediation use less court and police
resources. In a study analyzing mediation’s effect in
Baltimore, Maryland, for example, researchers found
that community mediation for neighbor disputes
decreased calls for service to the Baltimore Police
Department. For a single mediation session, the
Baltimore Police Department produced cost savings
between $208 and $1,649. Among individuals who
went through a mediation, the likelihood of arrest
and prosecution was lower when compared to those
who did not participate.
84 Neighbor disputes can also be triaged through a
311 system. Priority is given to complaints based
on frequency and the potential to escalate into
violence. Outsourcing responses to neighborhood
organizations and associations that can operate in
conjunction with police officers can be valuable in
order to promote a peaceful resolution to violent
disputes. These organizations can also conduct
sweeps through neighborhoods in order to gain
valuable information regarding any disputes.
85 Substance Use
In 2016, 25 percent of lethal law enforcement
shootings in the US affected individuals undergoing
behavioral health or substance use crises.
86 Data
regarding drug-related charges demonstrates
that Black and LGBTQIA+ individuals are
disproportionately charged and experience lower
rates of treatment.
87,88 In addition, calls for service
84 Id.
85 https:/ /popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/2020-spi_ spotlight_series-retailiatoryviolentdisputes_final.pdf
86 https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police- shootings-2016/
87 https:/ /www.americanprogress.org/press/
release/2016/02/23/131547/release-broken-criminal-justice- system-disproportionately-targets-and-harms-lgbt-people/ 88 https:/ /www.marylandaddictionrecovery.com/impact-of- addiction-african-american-community/
stemming from substance use place an undue strain
on emergency departments as well as jails, both of
which are often ill-equipped to handle substance
use crises. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, increases
in drug and opioid related overdoses have been
observed across California, underscoring the need
for adequate substance use response.
89 It is important to note that this “adequate response” must reflect the reality that successfully addressing
substance use is about management, not halting usage.

The establishment of safe injection facilities (SIF) is a potential avenue for reduction of drug-related deaths.

These facilities are supervised areas that allow the
uptake of drugs in a safe and hygienic setting.

There are a plethora of positive impacts that stem from SIF implementation. SIF have prevented thousands
of overdoses with most reporting zero overdose
fatalities.
90 Studies have noted a significant decrease
in transference of blood-borne diseases such as
HIV and Hepatitis B/C at SIFs due to their clinical
standards.
91 An increase in uptake of treatment for
substance use disorder was also observed after SIF
involvement. An evaluation done by the Vancouver
Mental Health and Addiction Services demonstrated
a significant curtailment of drug injection in public
areas as well as a reduction in associated litter post-SIF implementation.
92 SIFs have also been shown to reduce
emergency ambulatory calls for service while open.93
San Francisco recently approved a bill that would
implement safe injection facilities in the City.
94 The
Department of Public Health would oversee the
establishment of two pilot SIFs. The City estimates
that cost savings generated by reducing HIV and
Hepatitis C caseload would be approximately $3.5
million annually.
95 89 https:/ /www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-12/issue- brief-increases-in-opioid-related-overdose.pdf
90 https:/ /www.ohtn.on.ca/rapid-response-83-supervised- injection/
91 Id.
92 http:/ /www.healthyalamedacounty.org/promisepractice/ index/view?pid=3840c
93 https:/ /kingcounty.gov/~/media/depts/community-human- services/behavioral-health-recovery/documents/herointf/ Safe_Consumption_Facilities_Evidence_Models.ashx?la=en
94 https:/ /www.ktvu.com/news/san-francisco-supervisors- unanimously-approve-legislation-for-safe-injection-sites 95 https:/ /www.glide.org/safe-injection-sites-are-coming-to- san-francisco/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 98 Syringe services programs (SSPs), also known as
Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs), are a harm
reduction mechanism that offer individuals with
hygienic and safe needles and syringes along with
referrals to other services. These services can
include further medical care, treatment programs,
and therapy access. SSPs also provide testing for
diseases, vaccinations, and naloxone dispensation.

A critical component of SSPs is the communication
of education regarding overdose signs and proper
injection technique. They are typically overseen
by local public health departments that work in
conjunction with community-based organizations.
96 Numerous benefits have been linked to proper SSP
implementation including decreases in the rate of
drug use frequency when compared with individuals
who have never utilized an SSP.
97 Sterile equipment
provided by SSPs is also associated with a reduction in bloodborne infections, sexually transmitted diseases,
and other health issues. When an SSP is instituted in
a community, there is no corresponding increase in
drug usage or crime in the area.
98 The Needle Exchange Program in Baltimore,
Maryland provides clean needles to intravenous
drug users in order to reduce related health issues.

There are currently 16 locations across Baltimore,
with plans for expansion.
99 An evaluation of the
intervention program found that participation in the
program was correlated with a 33 percent increase in
the likelihood of entering treatment.
100
Berkeley’s Needle Exchange Emergency Distribution
(NEED) is an SSP operating out of a mobile van
created in 1990. Naloxone training, fentanyl testing
strips, and screening for HIV/ AIDS are all offered
via one of NEED’s three sites.
101 Berkeley’s NEED
program is currently funded by grants from the City
of Berkeley and Alameda County.
102
96 https:/ /www.cdc.gov/ssp/syringe-services-programs-faq. html
97 https:/ /pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11027894/
98 https:/ /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446444/ 99 https:/ /health.baltimorecity.gov/hiv-std-services/
community-risk-reduction
100 https:/ /pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16364566/
101 https:/ /www.berkeleyneed.org/sp/index.php
102 https:/ /pha.berkeley.edu/2019/12/01/the-needle-
exchange-program-crisis/
Street outreach programs that connect intravenous
drug users and individuals suffering from substance
use disorder to services are also beneficial.

The City of San Francisco is launching a sobering
site for individuals using methamphetamines. In
non-emergent cases, clients will be transported to
the sobering site and offered medication such as
antipsychotics or sedatives. This site will reduce
the burden on emergency departments and free up
psychiatric services in hospitals.
103 HealthRIGHT
360, a community-based organization, will oversee
the sobering site after it is opened.
104 In order
to recruit clients to the sobering center, the site
will collaborate with San Francisco’s Street Crisis
Response Team (SCRT), referenced in detail in the
Emerging Non-Enforcement Models of Community
Response section of this report.

The Arlington Opiate Outreach Initiative was created
in 2015 in Arlington, Massachusetts. The partnership
brings together social workers, community-based
organizations, health workers, and public health
clinicians housed in the Arlington Police Department
in order to foster relationships with residents of the
community and then connect them to treatment
and supports. Individuals in the community are
identified for possible treatment after frequent police encounters, prior history of drug usage, or previous
hospitalization related to overdoses.
105 Public health
clinicians will then attempt to engage the identified
community member through home visits, contact
with family/ friends, and provision of naloxone kits.

Conversations for Change, a program based in
Dayton, Ohio, is marked by its emphasis on meetings
that serve to engage the community and offer
residents education regarding potential treatment
choices and services. The program is a partnership
between the Dayton Police Department and East
End Community Services, a non-profit, community-
based organization. Individuals are recruited
through an array of avenues, from parole officers to
community-based organizations that are involved
103 https:/ /www.sfdph.org/dph/files/Meth TaskForce/
Meth%20Task%20Force%20Final%20Report_FULL.pdf
104 https:/ /www.sfexaminer.com/news-columnists/new-
search-launched-for-meth-sobering-center-site/
105 https:/ /icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/rethinking- law-enforcement-s-role-on-drugs-community-drug-
intervention-and-diversion-efforts#fnref52#fn44

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 99 with substance use disorders. Monetary benefits
in the form of grocery store gift cards are used to
incentivize individuals to attend meetings. Meetings
first involve a direct, one-on-one conversation with
a motivational mediator from the Dayton Mediation
Center about a client’s current status and goals. After this initial conversation, presentations from health
officials and residents with similar lived experiences
are given. Providers finally offer naloxone training to the clients at the meetings.
106 The Conversations for
Change program also includes an SSP.107
A more direct approach to curbing the impact of
substance use disorders on the demand for policing
is decriminalization.

Oregon became the first state in the United
States to decriminalize the possession of all drugs
effective February 2021. Possessing heroin, cocaine,
methamphetamine and other drugs for personal use
is no longer a criminal offense in Oregon.
108
Those drugs are still against the law, as is selling
them. But possession is now a civil – not criminal –
violation that may result in a fine or court-ordered
therapy, not jail.

There are three main arguments for
decriminalization:
106 Id.
107 https:/ /icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/rethinking- law-enforcement-s-role-on-drugs-community-drug-
intervention-and-diversion-efforts#fnref52#fn46
108 Oregon discussion draws heavily from: https:/ /www. usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-12-10/oregon- just-decriminalized-all-drugs-heres-why-voters-passed-this- groundbreaking-reform
Criminalization has failed
Decriminalization allows
reinvestment in treatment
The drug war disproportionately
impacts people of color3
The reason for punishing drug users is to deter
drug use. But decades of research have found
the deterrent effect of strict criminal punishment
to be small, if it exists at all. This is especially true among young people.

Because criminalizing drugs does not really
prevent drug use, decriminalizing has not
been found to increase it. Portugal, which
decriminalized the personal possession of all
drugs in 2001 in response to high illicit drug
use, has much lower rates of drug use than the
European average. Use of cocaine among young
adults age 15 to 34, for example, is 0.3 percent in
Portugal, compared to 2.1 percent across the EU.

Arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning people
for drug-related crimes is expensive.

The Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates
that all government drug prohibition-related
expenditures were $47.8 billion in 2016. Money
spent arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating
individuals for drug-related offenses can be
more effectively, from both outcomes and cost
perspectives, reinvested in treatment services.

Another aim of decriminalization is to mitigate
the significant racial and ethnic disparities
associated with drug enforcement.

Illegal drug use is roughly comparable across
races in the U.S. But people of color are
significantly more likely to be searched, arrested
and imprisoned for a drug-related offense.
2 1

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 100

COMMUNITY DRIVEN

VIOLENCE REDUCTION

STRATEGIES
Crime is often concentrated low-income
neighborhoods, with Black and Latinx individuals
disproportionately experiencing higher rates of
violence. These ‘hot spots’ of violent crime experience a complex array of challenges, ranging from high rates
of poverty and incarceration to poor quality education
and a lack of trust in government institutions.

Unfortunately, the effects of exposure to violence are
widespread, affecting the health and development of
not only those directly involved but also that of their families and communities. Neighborhoods with these
characteristics necessitate immediate intervention
to disrupt the cycle of interpersonal violence and its
devastating consequences.
109
There has however been consistent success in a
small number of effective strategies summarized
briefly below and described more comprehensively
in a 2021 NICJR publication, Four Proven Violence
Reduction Strategies. When implemented with
fidelity, these interventions have been successful
at reducing violence, with many initiatives showing
improvements in the first six to twelve months of
implementation.

The four highlighted strategies, Gun Violence
Reduction Strategy, Hospital-Based Violence
Intervention, Office of Neighborhood Safety/
Advance Peace, and Street Outreach – all incorporate
similar best practices:
•
Iden
tifying and focusing on individuals, groups,
and communities at the highest risk of being
involved in violence;
• Emplo
ying Credible Messengers/community
outreach workers to engage those individuals/
groups in a positive and trusting manner; and
109 https:/ /www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/
summer16/highlight2.html
• Providing ongoing services, supports, and
opportunities to high-risk individuals.

T
hese core elements are essential to the success of
any violence intervention strategy.

Gun Violence Reduction Strategy
Gun Violence Reduction Strategy (GVRS) is known by
many other names: Ceasefire, Focused Deterrence,
and Group Violence Intervention. GVRS is a
comprehensive strategy that utilizes a data-driven
process to identify the individuals and groups at the
highest risk of committing or being involved in gun
violence and deploying effective interventions with
these individuals. Initially developed in Boston, where it was referred to as the “Boston Miracle”, GVRS has
evolved as it has been implemented in cities including
Oakland and Stockton, California, to include more in-
depth and intensive services and supports.
110
Identification of Program Participants
GVRS employs a data-driven process to identify the
individual and groups who are at the very highest
risk of being involved in a shooting. This involves
an initial Gun Violence Problem Analysis, which
provides a thorough examination of the shootings
and homicides in a given city over the past two to
three years in order to produce information about
victim and suspect demographics, group conflicts in
the area, prior history of violence, and general trends. 110 https:/ /www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/dec/06/
bostons-miracle-how-free-nappies-and-a-little-mentoring-are- curbing

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 101
Engagement: Direct and Respectful
Communication
Once high-risk individuals and groups are identified,
the GVRS strategy requires immediate engagement.

This engagement involves direct and respectful
communication to inform identified individuals
of their risk and offering them services. There are
two primary formats for these discussions: Group
meetings, referred to as “Call-Ins” and individual
meetings, sometimes referred to as “Customized
Notifications”. At Call-Ins, the recently identified very high-risk individuals are invited to attend a meeting
with community leaders, law enforcement officials,
formerly incarcerated individuals, survivors of
violence, and service providers. Custom Notifications
convey similar messages about the risk of violence
and the availability of services. However, Custom
Notifications are individual meetings where a high-
ranking police officer and a community leader directly
make contact with an individual at their home or
community.

Provision of Services
Subsequent to a Call-In or a Custom Notification,
individuals identified as being at very high risk of gun violence are directly connected to available services,
supports, and opportunities. The first and primary
service is a positive and trusting relationship with a
Life Coach or Violence Intervention worker, someone
with similar lived experiences as the people they
are serving. These individuals are often known as
Credible Messengers. The Life Coach or Intervention
Worker is an intensive and personal relationship –
which is the most important aspect of the services.

Unlike service brokering based case management,
contact between the Life Coach and the client must
be frequent, flexible, consistent, and on-going for a
long period of time.

In Oakland’s GVRS, clients are also eligible to receive monthly, modest financial incentive stipends for
achieving certain milestones.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 102
Focused Enforcement
One of the overt goals of GVRS is to reduce the
footprint of police by focusing enforcement on
serious and violent crime. For those individuals and
groups who do not respond to the GVRS message and
continue to engage in violence, this means that there
is follow-up supervision and focused enforcement
by police, probation, parole, and prosecutors;
enforcement action is not taken simply for failure to
participate in GVRS programming.

Hospital-Based Violence Intervention
Programs (HVIPs)
Hospital-Based Violence Intervention Programs
(HVIP), view violence through a public health-
centered lens. Analogous to the spread of an illness,
violence has been shown to proliferate with increased
proximity and exposure to others.
111 That is, contact
with violence itself increases the probability that
those exposed will be directly involved in violence.
112
Identification of Program Participants
Under the HVIP model, the physical location of a
trauma center or emergency room is seen as valuable
in the fight against violence. One of the major risk
factors for future violence is a history of previous
violence. With this in mind, the HVIP model places
the responsibility for identifying clients with hospital workers who pinpoint patients that are at highest
likelihood for future victimization.

Engagement Strategy
HVIPs make use of the distinct cross-section of time—
known as a “teachable moment”— in which after an
injury an individual is open to making changes in their behavior and circumstances. During this time period,
specialized hospital staff and community-based
partners come together in support of the patient
in order to diminish the chance of retaliation and
further violence. HVIPs are especially important right
now in the fight against violence, as injury recidivism 111 https:/ /www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html
112 https:/ /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207245/
rates have been shown to be as high as 60 percent in
certain areas.113
Provision of Services
Once this initial bond is created, Intervention
Specialists construct a comprehensive plan with their
clients to spur on meaningful change. These plans
typically include non-violent crisis management
methods, counseling for both the client and their
family, information on risks and outcomes associated
with violence, as well as access to community services
including employment assistance, mentoring,
education, and court assistance. Consultation with
family and health providers is necessary to develop a
plan that is feasible and trauma-informed.

Office of Neighborhood Safety/
Advance Peace
In 2007, the City of Richmond, CA launched the
Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS), amid escalating
homicide rates and increasing numbers of firearm
cases. Prior to the establishment of the ONS, the
Richmond City Council analyzed violence in Richmond
and found that gun violence disproportionately
affected Black men aged 18-24, with that population
constituting 73 percent of homicide fatalities.
114 This
finding served as the basis for the creation of the
Office of Neighborhood Safety.

Identification of Program Participants
The ONS employs a data-driven approach in
identification of individuals at highest risk.

Leveraging their relationships in the community, ONS
Neighborhood Change Agents (NCA) conduct daily
sweeps of their communities, an effort that provides
a continuous flow of critical information that informs
staff response. NCAs are able to gather information
regarding those individuals that are most prone to
violence, current conflicts or family issues that may
result in violence, and other information that is used
to directly inform subsequent intervention activity.
113 https:/ /journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2020/08000/ Recidivism_rates_following_firearm_injury_as.17.aspx
114 https:/ /www.evidentchange.org/sites/default/files/ publication_pdf/ons-process-evaluation.pdf

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 103
In addition, ONS obtains data from the Richmond
Police Department (RPD) to support identification of
those individuals at highest risk based on the data
from law enforcement.

Provision of Services
ONS’s main program is the Peacemaker Fellowship. ®
The Peacemaker Fellowship interrupts gun violence
by providing transformational opportunities to young
men involved in lethal firearm offenses and placing
them in a high-touch, personalized fellowship.

The Fellowship provides life coaching, mentoring,
connection to needed services and cultural and
educational excursions, known as Transformative
Travel, to those deemed to be the most dangerous
individuals in the city. Fellows travel across the
country and to several international destinations.

Fellows can also receive significant financial
incentives for participation and positive behavior
as a gateway to developing intrinsic motivation that
arises from internal and not external rewards.

SEVEN TOUCHPOINTS:

LifeMAP
Milestone
Allowance
LifeMAP
Goals
Elders
Circle
Daily
Check-ins
Social
Services
Intership
Travel
Street Outreach
Referred to by a variety of names and long seen
as the primary entry point for violence reduction
programs, Street Outreach can be an effective
intervention when implemented correctly. A number
of organizations and programs throughout the
country have successfully operated Street Outreach
initiatives, including Urban Peace Initiative in Los
Angeles, who also provide a Street Outreach training
academy; the Newark Community Street T eam; and
the Professional Community Intervention Training
Institute.

Identification of Program Participants
Street Outreach programs are designed to address
the manner in which violence spreads from person
to person. Studies show that those who have been
continually in contact with violence can be thirty
times more likely to commit a violent act in the

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 104
future.115 Moreover, violence often has ripple effects
in the community, whether it be in the form of
retaliation or further escalation of conflict.116
Because of this pattern in violence, Street Outreach
programs recognize potentially lethal conflicts in the
community by utilizing trained Violence Interrupters.

These Violence Interrupters identify ongoing conflicts
by speaking to key members of the community about
ongoing disputes. Information regarding arrests,
prison releases, and prior criminal history are also
utilized to pinpoint violent outbreaks.
117
Engagement and Services Strategy
Engagement is primarily facilitated by the work of
trained Violence Interrupters. Following a shooting,
these individuals immediately operate in the
community and at hospitals to pacify heightened
emotions and prevent retaliations. This involves
coordination with local groups and business owners
to hold constructive dialogue around community
violence and the appropriate actions to take in
response. Events are then organized by Violence
Interrupters to promote a change in overall
neighborhood attitudes towards violence.
115 https:/ /1vp6u534z5kr2qmr0w11t7ub-wpengine.netdna-ssl. com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Infographic-T op-10-v1.pdf 116 https:/ /www.lagryd.org/mission-comprehensive-strategy 117 https:/ /cvg.org/what-we-do/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 105

POLICE TRAINING
The following strategies have shown to be effective
in reducing crime, resolving incidents, and improving
the quality of policing without a focus on heavy-
handed enforcement.

SARA Problem Solving Model
The Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment
(SARA) model was created in Virginia in 1987 to
facilitate the problem-oriented policing procedure.
118
The cornerstone of this model is a priority on
outcomes; the model outlines four steps that
are necessary for a proper police response to
problems within their jurisdictions. To ensure proper
implementation, a significant facet of this method is
that officers must be ready to build trust between
the community and the police department through
the establishment of interpersonal relationships.
119
Scanning. This step consists of pinpointing and then
triaging repeated issues that necessitate a response
from the police department.
120 Frequent problems
that occur in the community are given priority.

Relevant outcomes of the problem are matched to
their corresponding cause. For example, examining
which properties in a given area have the highest
number of calls for service in a year or given time
period is an important initial step in the SARA model.

Analysis. Here, law enforcement officers examine
the root causes of the issue, community sentiment
regarding the problem, and gather needed contextual
data.48 This step also involves assessing the status
quo response to the problem and identifying the
shortcomings of that strategy. Ultimately, the cause
of the problem and potential solutions are determined
during this phase.

Response. Officers utilize collected data to ascertain
potential intervention strategies. When determining
118 https:/ /www.researchgate.net/publication/297556988_ Police_innovation_Contrasting_perspectives
119 https:/ /movementforward.org/a-look-inside-strategies- contributing-towards-community-policing-sara-model/
120 https:/ /www.evidence-basedpolicing.org/refresher-sara- model-and-problem-oriented-policing/
strategies, a thorough review of implemented
interventions in different areas with comparable
issues is critical. Once a strategy is selected, clear
goals must also be established. Execution of the
chosen plan is the last part of this step.

Assess. After a plan is implemented and officers
have attempted to address a problem, the police
department must analyze the efficacy of their
strategy. Continued evaluation of the intervention is
necessary to guarantee lasting success. Alternatives
or additions to the strategy are considered as well.
121
Many police departments have incorporated the
SARA model into their interventions. In San Diego,
the police department reported that a trolley station
was the location of gang fights, violent crimes,
and narcotic activity. A squad of officers collected
information to show the local transit board that the
design of the station contributed to crime. Based
on the information provided by the officers, the
transit board agreed to provide funds to redesign the
station.
122
Ethical Policing Is Courageous (EPIC)
The EPIC program is a peer-to-peer intervention
strategy that was created by the police department
in New Orleans, Louisiana in 2016. EPIC involves
training officers to be accountable to each other
and intervene before an unlawful act takes place,
irrespective of hierarchy. This initiative aims to alter the culture surrounding policing in order to limit
police misbehavior and promote a collaborative
environment.
123
The EPIC program is founded on active bystandership
psychology, which explains that active bystanders
intercede when they are made aware of problematic
behavior. EPIC training allows officers to overcome
factors that may prevent them from intervening.
121 https:/ /movementforward.org/a-look-inside-strategies- contributing-towards-community-policing-sara-model/
122 https:/ /www.sandiego.gov/department/problem-oriented- policing
123 http:/ /epic.nola.gov/home/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 106
These factors include a lack of confidence in their
skills to deescalate a situation, uneasiness about
potential retribution, and worry about breaking an
unwritten code of silence.
124
Leadership in police departments who participate in
the EPIC program must be committed to changing
their organizational culture. Police departments
implementing EPIC must provide education, training,
and on-going learning and support to officers for the
initiative to be successful. EPIC can also integrate
with other initiatives to boost officer well-being,
including counseling and trauma assistance as well as
stress reduction education.
125
Areas where EPIC programs have been implemented
have better community relations, lower rates of
misconduct, and lower rates of public grievances.

The majority of the feedback from New Orleans
police officers has also been positive.
126 Moreover,
there is strong research that peer intervention is
effective when successful strategies for interceding
are provided.
127
Project Active Bystandership for
Law Enforcement (ABLE)
Project ABLE is a joint effort between the
Georgetown Innovative Policing Program and the
Sheppard Mullin law firm to train officers to be
able to properly intervene in a crisis situation and
promote a policing atmosphere that reinforces peer
intervention. Project ABLE is based on the principles
of the New Orleans EPIC Peer Intervention Program
124 http:/ /epic.nola.gov/epic/media/Assets/EPIC-Overview.pdf 125 Id.
126 https:/ /www.apa.org/monitor/2017/10/police-misconduct 127 https:/ /epic.nola.gov/epic/media/Assets/Aronie-Lopez,- Keeping-Each-Other-Safe.pdf
and curriculum created by Dr. Ervin Staub for
California law enforcement. Through Georgetown,
law enforcement agencies are able to receive training
in Project ABLE along with a host of other resources
to assist them in advancing their own bystandership
strategies.
128,129 The training consists of a minimum
of a one-time eight hour ABLE-specific training along
with a minimum of two hours of annual refresher
training.
130 All of these resources are provided to law
enforcement agencies free of charge.

Project ABLE’s aim is to reduce police misconduct
and errors and assist in improving officer health
and well-being. In order to prevent any retaliation
from occurring to those officers who intervene,
police departments must implement stringent anti-
retaliation guidelines. Since its inception, over 70
police departments have enlisted in Project ABLE.
131
Research has shown that there are many advantages to
the implementation of significant bystander training.

This is critical because most police departments have a culture that dissuades officers from intervening when
they see problematic behaviors.
132 Identified benefits
include a decrease in violence to civilians, a decrease in violence to police officers, enhanced relationships
between community residents and the police officers,
128 https:/ /www.law.georgetown.edu/innovative-policing- program/active-bystandership-for-law-enforcement/
129 https:/ /www.law.georgetown.edu/innovative-policing- program/active-bystandership-for-law-enforcement/our-
mission/
130 https:/ /www.law.georgetown.edu/innovative-policing- program/active-bystandership-for-law-enforcement/able-
program-standards/
131 https:/ /www.wsj.com/articles/nypd-officers-to-get- training-on-speaking-up-against-bad-policing-11611838809 132 https:/ /assets.foleon.com/eu-west-2/uploads-
7e3kk3/41697/pdf_-_duty_to_intervene.6e39a04b07b6.pdf

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 107
and growth in officer well-being. 133 Evidence also
suggests a strong correlation between departments
that maintain robust duty to intervene protocols and
decreased rates of police deaths per capita.

Community Safety Partnership (Watts)
Established in November 2011, the Community
Safety Partnership (CSP) is a joint effort between
the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the
Housing Authority of the City of LA (HACLA), and
local residents.
134 The program was created in
order to address the high violence levels in housing
developments in the Watts area and offer residents
there supports and services. The broader goal of the
CSP is to implement “relationship-based policing.” This process involves police officers creating legitimate
relationships with residents of their precinct in order to meaningfully benefit community wellness for
the long-term.
135 One of the major stakeholders in
the project is the Watts Gang Task Force, a team of
neighborhood residents, local faith leaders, and other
community-based organizations.

Along with high violence rates, the community
was also grappling with concentrated poverty,
low education quality, and deteriorating physical
infrastructure. Community engagement initiatives
the CSP implemented in response include a football
team coached by police officers, Fun Runs, health
fairs, and organized walks for residents to interact
with officers in a non-confrontational setting.
136,137
In 2020, the CSP Bureau was formed within LAPD to
expand the work that was achieved in Watts citywide.

The LAPD also consolidated CSP programs creating a
centralized point of contact and engagement for the
community. The main objectives of the CSP Bureau
133 https:/ /www.law.georgetown.edu/innovative-policing- program/active-bystandership-for-law-enforcement/able-
program-standards/
134 https:/ /www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-announces-new- expansion-community-safety-partnership
135 https:/ /static1.squarespace.com/
static/55b673c0e4b0cf84699bdffb/
t/5a1890acec212d9bd3b8f52d/ 1511559341778/President%2
7s+Task+Force+CSP+Policy+Brief+FINAL+02-27-15updated.pdf 136 https:/ /lasentinel.net/hundreds-of-south-la-residents- attend-launch-of-community-safety-partnership-in-harvard- park.html
137 https:/ /empowerla.org/lapds-community-relationship- division/
were to serve as a resource for officer--community
interaction and promotion of neighborhood safety.138
The CSP Bureau is also responsible for certifying
and training officers for 5-year terms. CSP officers
undergo over 100 hours of education from the
nonprofit Urban Peace Institute. The training centers
on cultural competency, de-escalation skills, and
understanding community data.
139
Originally formed for one housing site, CSP has
spread to ten additional developments. In 2017, the
program was broadened to the Harvard Park area
due to its efficacy. During the initial three years after the CSP’s formation, both violent offenses and arrest
rates decreased by over 50 percent in the Watts
housing developments. One Watts location even
had three consecutive years without a homicide.

Residents of these Watts developments have even
reported increased perceptions of safety along with
greater trust in the police.
140 An evaluation of CSP
by UCLA found that this effort reduced crime, arrest
rates, and use of force grievances from residents.
141
Focused Deterrence
Focused Deterrence strategies involve the
communication of risks, ramifications, and avenues
of support to individuals involved in gun violence.

This strategy is based on the fact that a very small
number of people are responsible for a large portion
of gun violence.

One of the most prominent implementations of
focused deterrence is Boston, Massachusetts’s
Operation Ceasefire. Experiencing an increase in
violence, Boston police identified and communicated
with individuals and groups that were pinpointed
as most at risk of engaging in violence.
142 Boston
police also partnered with the Boston Ten Point
Coalition, a group of faith and community leaders,
138 https:/ /www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-announces-
creation-lapd-community-safety-partnership-bureau
139
https:/ /static1.squarespace.com/
static/55b673c0e4b0cf84699bdffb/
t/5a1890acec212d9bd3b8f52d/ 1511559341778/President%2
7s+Task+Force+CSP+Policy+Brief+FINAL+02-27-15updated.pdf 140 Id.
141 https:/ /www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-announces-
creation-lapd-community-safety-partnership-bureau
142 https:/ /cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in- policing/research-evidence-review/focused-deterrence/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 108
in order to provide support and services to these
targeted individuals and groups. Oakland has also
implemented a version of Focused Deterrence that
is profiled in the Gun Violence Reduction section of
this report.

Focused Deterrence strategies are often tailored to
the location in which they are being implemented.

Project Safe Neighborhoods in Lowell, Massachusetts,
instituted this strategy in areas of high crime.

Lowell dealt with a significant Asian gang presence
largely comprising youth involved in illicit gambling
operations. In order to address the youth violence,
the City of Lowell worked with older Asian males in
charge of the gambling. The older Asians intervened
in youth violence in order to prevent their gambling
enterprise from being destroyed. Lowell experienced
a major decline in adolescent violence following
the implementation of this Focused Deterrence
strategy.
143
After Ceasefire was implemented in Boston,
evaluations found a 63 percent drop in youth
homicides and a 32 percent decline in calls for
service related to gun violence.
144 A meta-analysis of
several Focused Deterrence strategies found steady
reductions in violent crime of up to 60 percent,
particularly for group and gang related violence.
145
Elimination of Pretextual Stops
Pretextual or pretext traffic stops occur when police
officers stop a driver for a minor violation, like vehicle equipment failure, and then try to leverage that
opportunity to find evidence of a more significant
crime. A recent evaluation of 100 million traffic
encounters demonstrated that Black and Latino
drivers experience higher rates of pretextual stops
and searches.
146 However, most of these stops do not
actually yield any contraband or weapons.147 Because
the nature of pretextual stops relies heavily on officer discretion, there is high likelihood that implicit racial biases come into play. Such stops that end in violence
143 https:/ /cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/what-works-in- policing/research-evidence-review/focused-deterrence/
144 https:/ /www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188741.pdf
145 https:/ /prohic.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-03- 31-FocussedDeterrenceBraga.September2019.pdf
146 https:/ /www.vera.org/blog/ending-pretextual-stops-is-an- important-step-toward-racial-justice
147 https:/ /www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/7898-rudovskyoslj or death disproportionately affect Black and Latino
drivers.148
Elimination of pretextual stops does not negatively
affect crime. An analysis by the police department
in Fayetteville, North Carolina showed that violent
crime was not affected after the police department
reformed its use of pretextual stops.
149
Pretextual stops are in the process of being regulated
in many states across the country. Oregon’s
Supreme Court ruled in November 2019 that it was
unconstitutional for police to stop a driver and proceed to ask unrelated questions, thereby effectively
banning pretextual stops.
150 Virginia policy makers are
also considering restricting pretextual stops.151 Other legislation has been introduced across the country
that prevents police officers from conducting certain
types of pretextual stops including, for example,
broken tail or brake lights, objects obstructing the
rearview mirror, and tinted windows.
152 Advocates
of these bills state the proposed limitations would
decrease racial incongruities in traffic stops.
153
The Berkeley City Council has already approved
the formation of BerkDOT in order to address and
decrease the frequency of pretextual traffic stops.
154
The City Council also approved the Mayor’s Fair and
Impartial Policing Workgroup’s recommendations,
which includes elimination of pretextual stops.

Ethical Society of Police (ESOP)
Instituted in 1972 by Black St. Louis Metropolitan
Police Department officers, the Ethical Society of
Police (ESOP) is a police union that was created
in order to combat systemic racism within the
148 https:/ /www.berkeleyside.com/2021/03/02/opinion-for- berkeley-to-reimagine-public-safety-we-must-grapple-with- traffic-enforcement
149 https:/ /injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/ s40621-019-0227-6
150 https:/ /www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-supreme-court- bans-police-officers-random-questions/
151 https:/ /www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/ blogs/stateline/2020/09/03/police-pretext-traffic-stops-need- to-end-some-lawmakers-say
152 https:/ /theappeal.org/traffic-enforcement-without-police/ 153 https:/ /www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-nw-northam- legislation-traffic-20201021-3f2tmucyl5csdmbhhv2zh3atya- story.html
154 https:/ /www.berkeleyside.com/2021/03/02/opinion-for- berkeley-to-reimagine-public-safety-we-must-grapple-with- traffic-enforcement

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 109
department and greater community. The group is
comprised of 220 members, who are either police
officers or civilian contractors.
155 The organization
recently scaled up to include the St. Louis County
Police Department. ESOP has been particularly
outspoken in cases of police wrongdoing. The group
places a higher premium on ethical decision making,
even though openly criticizing actions of their fellow
police officers can be difficult.

Most recently, ESOP condemned the actions of a
police officer in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that
resulted in the death of Daunte Wright, expressing
that the officer was irresponsible in upholding her
duties.
156 ESOP has also sponsored many events in
order to improve relationships between police officers
and their community including Pizza with a Cop,
community clean-up days, and basketball games. In
August of 2020, ESOP also released a groundbreaking
report that details systemic racism throughout the St.

Louis Metropolitan Police Department.

Chicago PD Black Public
Safety Alliance (BPSA)
A group of Black Chicago Police Department (CPD)
officers created the Black Public Safety Alliance
(BPSA) in 2021.
157 The organization serves to give
Black police officers a voice amidst the deep-rooted
issues between communities of color and the CPD.

The BPSA was created in response to concerns
with the broader Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).
158
Officers in the BPSA have explained they “...do not
feel supported or comfortable at the FOP,” especially
after the local police union refused to undergo
mandated precinct reform to promote trust in the
community.
159
155 https:/ /img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/64ce42b7-f768-
43ed-9590-dbd611afb7b6/downloads/1c6lj3b8j_482336.
pdf?ver=1618276018416
156 https:/ /www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/
opinion/police-officer-unions.
html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
157 https:/ /www.wbez.org/stories/black-chicago-police- officers-form-new-group/abb12a96-1103-4ced-a068-
0ffbfb158da9
158 https:/ /movementforward.org/a-look-inside-strategies- contributing-towards-community-policing-sara-model/
159 https:/ /www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-
justice/ct-black-chicago-police-organization-20210225-
dvbzcs4z3feqvix4sumhcbbgru-story.html
The formation of the alliance is a reflection of the
national conversation that was ignited by George
Floyd’s death. The members of BPSA have expressed
that advocating for the Black community is one of
their main goals, even if that involves challenging the status quo. Currently operating as a nonprofit, the
BPSA has established working groups on diversity
policies, adolescent coaching, and police reform.
160
Police Diversity
With the recent demands for law enforcement to
address racial injustice and the disparate impact of
policing on communities of color, diversity in the
ranks of officers has emerged as a potential area
of reform. In a New York Times analysis of federal
Bureau of Justice Statistics data on nearly 500 police
departments across the country, more than 66
percent of the departments experienced a reduction
in diversity and became more white from 2007 to
2016. Although the share of police officers of color has risen in that time period as well, the demographics of
police departments do not reflect the demographics
of communities they serve.
161 Black officers are twice
as likely than their white counterparts to espouse the
belief that the deaths of people of color at the hands
of police officers are a legitimate problem.
162
Diversity in law enforcement is correlated with
stronger bonds between a department and the
community they serve, particularly communities of
color. Use of force grievances have also been shown
to decrease when there are more non-white officers
in leadership positions.
163 A new comprehensive
study of police diversity in Chicago, Illinois was
conducted by a group of academics from Princeton
University, Columbia University, the Wharton School
of Business, and the University of California at Irvine.

Their research concluded that, “Relative to white
officers, Black and Hispanic officers make far fewer
stops and arrests, and they use force less often,
especially against Black civilians. These effects are
160 Id.
161 https:/ /www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/23/us/ bureau-justice-statistics-race.html
162 https:/ /www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/12/
black-and-white-officers-see-many-key-aspects-of-policing- differently/
163 https:/ /www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/23/us/ bureau-justice-statistics-race.html

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 110
largest in majority-Black areas of Chicago and stem
from reduced focus on enforcing low-level offenses,
with greatest impact on Black civilians. Female
officers also use less force than males, a result that
holds within all racial groups.”
164
Warrior vs. Guardian Mentality
The mentality of a warrior going to battle and the
police force being an occupying army has been
referred to as the “warrior mentality” for many
years. Instilled, or reinforced, in police officers
at the academy, the warrior concept is saturated
throughout police culture. The guardian mentality is
a newer idea that promotes community engagement,
the establishment of meaningful relationships, and
providing support to residents.
165
“From Warriors to Guardians: Recommitting
American Police Culture to Democratic Ideals,” a
report by the Harvard University Kennedy School of
Government and the National Institute of Justice,
directly addresses the problems of the warrior culture
in policing. The report states: “In some communities,
the friendly neighborhood beat cop — community
guardian — has been replaced with the urban
warrior, trained for battle and equipped with the
accouterments and weaponry of modern warfare.”
166
The report goes on to highlight problems with
police academies and the aggressive, warrior type
manner in which new recruits are trained: “Another,
more insidious problem in a military-style academy
is the behavior modeled by academy staff. Those
without power (recruits) submit without question
to the authority of those who have power (academy
staff). Rule violations are addressed by verbal abuse
or physical punishment in the form of pushups and
extra laps.”
167
A novel initiative has been implemented at
the Washington State Criminal Justice Training
Commission (WSCJTC) to try to instill the guardian
culture in police departments in the state. The WSCJTC 164 https:/ /scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/bkmr.pdf 165 https:/ /www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2019/02/190226155011.htm
166 https:/ /www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248654.pdf
167 https:/ /www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248654.pdf
conducts and implements training of over 10,000
police officers annually. Curricular and approach
changes include the removal of salute requirements
for recruits, motivating instead of criticizing recruits during training, and the incorporation of behavioral
education into the curriculum. Early longitudinal
evaluations of the WSCJTC program show that the
officers that participated in the training felt more
comfortable responding to behavioral and mental
health crises when compared with officers that
did not receive the training.
168 Gains in emotional
intelligence and peer support were observed as well.

Accountability
Current police accountability mechanisms are largely
perceived to be ineffective. While the challenges
in this area are myriad, there are two particularly
critical areas of focus in the police accountability
conversation, the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of
Rights and Qualified Immunity.

Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights
Sixteen states currently employ some sort of police
officer bill of rights, including California. These bills provide workplace safeguards for police officers,
including but not limited to erasing misconduct
complaints after a time period, a bar against
civilian investigation, and a waiting period before
any investigation can begin.
169 They have been
consistently cited as a central barrier to police
accountability in jurisdictions across the country.

Maryland, the state which enacted the first police
officer bill of rights and had what many consider
the most draconian, recently repealed its Law
Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights in April 2021 in
order to increase police accountability drastically.
170
Maryland’s replacement legislation involves a
stringent use-of-force measure, incorporation of
168 https:/ /www.seattleu.edu/media/college-of-
arts-and-sciences/departments/criminaljustice/
crimeandjusticeresearchcenter/documents/Helfgott-and-
Hickman-2021_Longitudinal-Study-of-the-Effect-of-Guardian- Training-for-LE.pdf
169 http:/ /www.cato.org/blog/police-misconduct-law-
enforcement-officers-bill-rights
170 https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/08/29/ police-bill-of-rights-officers-discipline-maryland/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 111
civilian panels for discipline, and an emphasis on de-
escalation tactics.171
Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity, established by the Supreme
Court in 1967, effectively protects state and local
officials, including police officers, from personal
liability unless they are determined to have violated
what the court defines as an individual’s “clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights.” The
doctrine can be used only in civil cases, not criminal, and allows victims to sue officials for damages only
under those circumstances.

Critics and reform advocates say that the doctrine
gives officers free rein to use excessive force with
impunity and argue that what it defines as “clearly
established” law remains largely elusive and difficult
to prove, as it requires the victim to present a previous case with nearly identical circumstances that a court
ruled as unconstitutional. They also assert the law
helps officers escape accountability and prevents
victims from achieving justice.

Elimination of qualified immunity is thus another
component of increasing police accountability.

Colorado and New Mexico
172 have recently passed
legislation modifying their respective qualified
immunity provisions; similar legislation in California
is pending.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 calls
for the national elimination of qualified immunity.
173
Additional Accountability
Measures of Note
A routine check of officers’ social media can also
be a powerful tool to address potentially racist or
other problematic posts. After a 2019 analysis of
approximately 4 million stops by police in California,
the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board has
recommended that police departments perform
171 Id.
172 https:/ /custom.statenet.com/public/resources.
cgi?id=ID:bill:NM2021000H4&ciq=ncsl&client_
md=562236734bdbcb53a3148c2e8d11ebbd&mode=current_
text
173 https:/ /www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house- bill/7120/text
checks on assigned department software as well as
social media accounts in order to identify and hold
accountable officers who are actively biased and
reflect that bias on the job.
174
Early intervention systems (EIS) are an additional
mechanism by which police accountability can be
fostered. These systems analyze a variety of indicators for potentially problematic behavior including use of
force incidents, citizen grievances, and disciplinary
history. Identification of habitual misconduct by
officers is often accomplished through a ‘peer
officer comparison system,’ where officers assigned
to the same beat are juxtaposed.
175 Once an officer
is identified by the EIS for habitual misconduct,
supports, and services to aid the officer are provided
in order to encourage officer well-being and aid in
behavioral change. Continued monitoring of officer
progress as well as frequent reviews of EIS data are
necessary for successful implementation.
176
174 https:/ /www.policemag.com/589521/advisory-board-
recommends-ca-agencies-check-officers-social-media-activity- for-r
175 https:/ /samuelwalker.net/issues/early-intervention- systems/
176 https:/ /www.policefoundation.org/publication/best- practices-in-early-intervention-system-implementation-and- use-in-law-enforcement-agencies/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 112

POLICE TRAINING
Increased training and education programs are
frequently promoted to police departments to help
improve the quality of policing and support officers
in gaining new skills. As noted by two Columbia Law
School professors in an article on police reform, “...
training does not take root unless officers are held
accountable for obeying the rules and practicing
the skills they are taught.”
177 Training alone is not
adequate to transform a police department or change
the behavior of an officer. But combined with culture
change, new policies and accountability, training can
be an effective tool to improve and reform the police.

Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice in policing improves police-
community relations and emphasizes police
departments and officers being transparent in their
actions, fair in their processes, allowing community
voice, and using impartiality in decision making.

According to the Department of Justice’s Community
Oriented Policing Services, “Procedural justice refers
to the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve
177 https:/ /www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/19/the- new-new-policing

PROCEDURAL

JUSTICE
Fairness
Being fair in
processes
Transparency
Being
transparent
Voice
Providing
opportunity
for voice
decision maker
disputes and allocate resources. It is a concept that,
when embraced, promotes positive organizational
change and bolsters better relationships.”
178
A comprehensive evaluation of procedural justice
training found that “training increased officer support for all of the procedural justice dimensions. . . Post- training, officers were more likely to endorse the
importance of giving citizens a voice, granting them
dignity and respect, demonstrating neutrality, and
(with the least enthusiasm) trusting them to do the
right thing.”
179
Several evaluations of procedural justice have
found the education has been correlated with an
improvement in relations between a community
and a police department.
180 In Oakland, the police
department trained all officers in procedural justice
and provided specialized procedural justice training
to the department’s gun violence reduction unit.

Oakland’s police department was also the first
department in the country to have members of the
178 https:/ /cops.usdoj.gov/prodceduraljustice
179 https:/ /www.researchgate.net/publication/269723704_ Training_police_for_procedural_justice
180 https:/ /www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police/ Level_3_-_General/Principled%20Policing_outline.pdf

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 113
community teach a portion of the procedural justice
training.

To aid in procedural justice incorporation into police
departments, the Justice Collaboratory at Yale Law
School has created a compilation of procedural
justice training guides, departments who have
implemented procedural justice training, and other
pertinent resources.
181
While also suggesting procedural justice training as
a way to combat the “warrior mentality” in police
departments, a Harvard University Kennedy School
of Government report advises that “Police leaders
dedicated to establishing practices in their agencies
based on procedural justice principles must ensure
that their organizational culture is not in conflict with these same principles.”
182
Implicit Bias
Implicit bias, as the name denotes, is an unconscious
belief, attitude or bias against another race, ethnicity, or group. When Stanford University psychologist
Jennifer Eberhardt conducted a large-scale study
of policing, she discovered that the unconscious
link between Black individuals and criminality is so
high that even contemplating lawlessness can cause
someone to fixate on Black people.
183 These societal
biases end up affecting the judgment of police
officers whether they are aware of it or not.

In Oakland, Professor Eberhardt and her team
reviewed body camera footage from 1,000 traffic
stops to elucidate the difference in officer language
in encounters with Black versus white drivers. The
research found that Oakland Police Department
(OPD) officers consistently communicated with Black
drivers in a less civil manner when compared with
white drivers they addressed.
184 Various programs
to address implicit bias were then recommended
for implementation in OPD in response to these
findings. Short, repeated education sessions were
found to be associated with higher levels of officer
181 https:/ /law.yale.edu/justice-collaboratory/procedural- justice/guides-practitioners
182 https:/ /www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248654.pdf
183 https:/ /psychology.stanford.edu/news/we-understand- implicit-bias-now-what-conversation-stanford-psychologist- jennifer-eberhardt
184 Id.
comprehension and knowledge. 185 The training was
accompanied by more community engagement and
data transparency in order to allow officers to start
the process of unlearning implicit biases.

A novel approach to implicit bias training is the
Counter Bias Training Simulation (CBTSim). This
strategy utilizes shooting automation and video
sequences to demonstrate the risks of implicit bias
in a realistic setting.
186 In the curriculum, officers are
forced to deal with potentially explosive situations
without reacting in a way that reflects preconceived
notions.
187
De-escalation
With an increase in the number of deadly interactions
between police and unarmed civilians going viral, there has been an on-going call for officers to be required
to utilize effective verbal de-escalation strategies.

Law enforcement officers in the United States
kill nearly 1,000 civilians annually, many of whom
are unarmed.
188 However, many law enforcement
agencies provide little to no de-escalation training
to officers, and 34 states have no mandate for de-
escalation training.

Successful de-escalation programs operate to assist
law enforcement personnel in relaxing the situation in
order to gain valuable time in a crisis. Ideal guidance for officers suggests that 40 hours of de-escalation
instruction is needed. The Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF) de-escalation training is a program
that has seen substantial reductions in use of force
complaints and civilian injury. The training includes
active listening, forming physical space between
the individual and officer, and education regarding
mental illness and well-being.
189
When the Dallas Police Department implemented a
training curriculum involving de-escalation tactics,
185 https:/ /news.stanford.edu/2016/06/15/stanford-big-data- study-finds-racial-disparities-oakland-calif-police-behavior- offers-solutions/
186 https:/ /www.npr.org/2020/09/10/909380525/nypd-
study-implicit-bias-training-changes-minds-not-necessarily- behavior
187 https:/ /www.faac.com/milo/cognitive/cbtsim/
188 https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/local/deescalation- training-police/2020/10/27/3a345830-14a8-11eb-ad6f-
36c93e6e94fb_story.html
189 Id.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 114
use of force grievances declined by 18 percent
the following year. After the San Francisco Police
Department incorporated de-escalation training into
their curriculum, use of force incidents dropped by
24 percent annually.
190
Community Engagement
A tense relationship between police and the
community, especially communities of color, has
been a long, intractable problem. Mistrust of law
enforcement is not just theoretically problematic; it
has also been proven to be linked to an increase in
crime and violence.
191 Police officers should work to
develop meaningful and positive relationships with
members of the community by taking measures
including regularly and actively attending community
meetings, special events, neighborhood gatherings,
positively communicating with area youth, and
participating or hosting local sporting events. By
doing saw law enforcement conveys the message that
residents have a voice and that their input matters.

Police should also connect with individuals in the
community who advocate for greater social cohesion,
such as faith leaders, in order to successfully engage
a broad swath of the community.
192
Crime Prevention Through Community Engagement
(CPTCE), an extensive training guide for improving
relations between police departments and the
community, was recently developed by The American
Crime Prevention Institute (ACPI). The training
consists of strategies to engage communities of
color, employ social media to interact with residents,
coordinate with faith-based leaders, and partner with
community-based organizations.
193
In New Haven, Connecticut, the police department
implemented 40-hours of community engagement
education for its recruits, including education about
the area’s history as well as continuous outreach
activities. Officers overwhelmingly supported the
initiative and reported having positive interactions.
190 https:/ /www.washingtonpost.com/local/deescalation- training-police/2020/10/27/3a345830-14a8-11eb-ad6f-
36c93e6e94fb_story.html
191 https:/ /giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/
Giffords-Law-Center-In-Pursuit-of-Peace.pdf
192 https:/ /courses.acpionline.com/community-engagement/ 193 http:/ /acpionline.com/seminars/cptcelou/
After the pilot, the police department expanded the
program to partner with the local community-based
organization, Leadership, Education, & Athletics
in Partnership (LEAP).
194 Community engagement
training for law enforcement in general is correlated
with increased trust and stronger social ties in
neighborhoods.

Open Policing is a research-based strategy that
incorporates elements of procedural justice to
improve police-community relations. Residents of
communities are able to offer their comments and
observations regarding their exchanges with police
officers anonymously. All comments are collated into
Agency Pages, which can be explored by residents
and officers.
195 In addition to the Open Policing policy,
some departments have initiated CFS reviews. After
any call for service, community members are able to
give details about their interaction in a three-minute
review without any fear of consequence.
196
The four main components of procedural justice
have been assimilated into Open Policing, including
promotion of vocalization from the community,
serving individuals with respect, objectivity in
decision-making, and credibility with the community.

The main goals of the strategy are to improve officer-
civilian relations and responses to incidents as well
as promoting accountability within the department.

All comments are collated into Agency Pages, which
can be explored by residents and officers.
197 Open
Policing has been correlated with a 35 percent
decrease in resident grievances and increased trust
in police departments.
198
Data Driven Risk Management
The Oakland Police Department (OPD) recently
implemented a series of 15 Microsoft Power BI
(Business Intelligence) dashboards that allow for
a precise review of police behavior. Working with
Slalom, a data consulting firm, OPD has increased
transparency and accountability through data
194 https:/ /www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/08/IAP_Outside-the-Academy-Learning-
Community-Policing-through-Community-Engagement.pdf
195 https:/ /www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/pl_police_ commun%20engage_121714_c.pdf
196 https:/ /www.openpolicing.org/how-open-policing-works/ 197 Id.
198 https:/ /www.openpolicing.org/try-open-policing/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 115
analysis. Patterns of enforcement, historical activity, and performance over time are all monitored in close
to real-time.
199
The dashboards were created with input from OPD
staff and leadership, community-based organizations,
other law enforcement agencies, and Stanford
University’s SPARQ (Social Psychological Answers
to Real-world Questions). Each dashboard can be
accessed by OPD leadership, depending on security
clearance. The dashboards have a simple interface,
allowing supervisors to access and understand the
data easily. Police supervisors can access a variety
of data, from long-term information to arrests made
within the last 24 hours.
200 Dashboards allow for an
easy breakdown of incidents by factors including
race, gender, ethnicity, and officer. This permits police departments to monitor problematic patterns and
address them quickly.
201 Early Intervention Systems
(EIS) such as these dashboards have been correlated
with increased personnel safety, improved officer
welfare, and an increase in police accountability.
202
One necessary improvement to these systems and
their deployment is to universally allow the public to
have access to the information they capture.
199 https:/ /www.slalom.com/case-studies/city-oakland-
creating-police-transparency-and-trust-data
200 https:/ /medium.com/slalom-data-analytics/data-is-the- new-sheriff-in-town-but-is-it-biased-4aa140904dd7
201 https:/ /cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Police- Commission-7.23.20-Agenda-Packet.pdf
202 https:/ /www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ PIJPSM-02-2020-0027/full/html

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 116

APPENDIX I
Alternative
Responses Report
116

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 117

INTRODUCTION AND

REPORT OVERVIEW
In the effort to provide meaningful information and recommendations to the Berkeley Reimagining Public Safety process, the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) was tasked by the City Manager’s Office to conduct research and analysis to produce a series of reports for the Taskforce, City of Berkeley (City) leadership, and the public. NICJR reviewed the City Auditor’s Calls for Services assessment, conducted further analysis of Berkeley Police Department Calls for Service (CFS), used the previously submitted New and Emerging Models of Public Safety report, and drew upon our team’s experience and expertise, to develop this Alternatives Responses report.

This report provides an actionable roadmap for providing community and other non-law enforcement alternatives to a police response for 50 percent of CFS types to which the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) currently responds.

The initial section of this report presents the NICJR analysis of BPD’s CFS and compares that analysis to the Berkeley City Auditor’s report. The next section provides an overview of NICJR’s alternative response model – Tiered Dispatch, which includes the Community Emergency Response Network (CERN) – and describes how specific call types are assigned to CERN tiers.

The report concludes with an overview of a framework for the City’s alternative response model, drawing upon both existing and planned City resources. The specific parameters and scope of the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) have not yet been defined. The present analysis assumes that the SCU’s role will be focused on mental- health and substance abuse related call responses.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 118

CALLS FOR SERVICE ANALYSIS
Summary of City Auditor Findings, NICJR Category Assignment and Crosswalk The Berkeley City Auditor (Auditor) recently conducted an analysis of over 350,000 BPD calls for service covering calendar years 2015-2019. The BPD CFS audit, which can be found here, focused on the following questions:

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

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

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

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

5. Can the
City improve the transparency of Police Department calls through the City of Berkeley’s Open Data Portal?
The Auditor categorized over 130+ call types into 9 categories in an effort to answer these questions: Violent Crime (FBI Part 1), Property Crime (FBI Part I), FBI Part II Crimes, Investigative or Operational, Medical or Mental Health, Information or Administrative, Community, Traffic, and Alarm.

Figure 1. BPD Calls by Auditor Call Categories
Between 2015 and 2019 the Auditor found that BPD responded to an average of 70,160 CFS annually, and that ten call types accounted for 54 percent of all CFS.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 119
Table 1. T op T en Call Types, Auditor Report
Call Types T otal Count
Traffic Stop 44,795
Disturbance 35,696
Audible Alarm 19,920
Noise Disturbance 15,773
Security Check 15,262
Welfare Check 15,030
Suspicious Circumstance 11,547
Trespassing 11,058
Theft 10,556
Wireless 911 9,899
The top ten call types fell into four categories: Traffic, Community, Alarm, and Property Crime. Mental health related CFS accounted for approximately 12 percent of all call types, while homelessness CFS accounted for 6.2 percent of all events. These types of CFS were identified by looking at keywords in narrative reports, disposition codes, call types, and/or Mobile Crisis Team response.

During the period reviewed, BPD officers spent most of their time (69 percent) responding to CFS that were categorized as Traffic (18 percent), Community (30 percent), or FBI Part II crimes (21 percent). Seven percent of BPD officers’ time was spent handling Medical Mental Health CFS, another 9 percent on Property Crime CFS, and 2 percent on Alarms. The remainder of BPD officer time (14 percent) was spent on Information or Administrative, Investigative or Operational, and Violent Crime CFS.

Figure 2. BPD Officer Time Allocation, Auditor Report
T op 10 call
types account
for 54% of
all events

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 120

NICJR EXPANDS UPON
AUDITOR’S ANALYSIS
As a first step in developing this Alternative Response Report, NICJR reviewed the CFS analysis completed by the Auditor and compared the results of that analysis to its own CFS classification results.

As outlined above, the Berkeley City Auditor aggregated all BPD call types into 9 categories, while NICJR uses 4 Categories to organize the same events. A crosswalk between the Auditor’s 9 and NICJR’s 4 CFS Categories is outlined in Table 2. NICJR categories are aligned with state specific penal codes and their associated penalties.

If a call type is not found in the penal code, it is placed into the Non-Criminal Category.

Table 2. Crosswalk, Berkeley City Auditor and NICJR Call Type Categories Berkeley Auditor Categories NICJR Categories
Violent Crimes (FBI Part I) Serious Violent Felony: Any event identified in the California Penal Code as a Serious Violent Felony
Property Crimes (FBI Part I) Non-Violent Felony: Any event identified in the California Penal Code as a Non-Violent Felony
FBI Part II Crimes Misdemeanor: Any event identified in the California Penal Code as a Misdemeanor
Community
Non-Criminal: Any event not identified in the
Penal Code
Medical or Mental Health
Traffic
Informational or Administrative
Investigative or Operational
Alarm Calls
NICJR uses this method of categorizing events because it affords the most linear association between the event and its associated criminal penalty. By categorizing events in this manner, NICJR can clearly identify the portion of CFS that are either non-criminal or are for low-level and non-violent offenses. Categorizing call data into a simple criminal vs. non-criminal, violent, vs. non-violent, structure also supports conversations with the community about alternatives to policing for specific call types grounded in easily understandable data.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 121
Figure 3. BPD Events by NICJR Crime Category1
There were 22 call types 2 (11 percent) that differed in assignment when comparing the Auditor’s report to NICJR results. A summary of these variances is outlined in Table 3 and described below.

Table 3. Key Variances, NICJR vs. Auditor Call Type Categorization NICJR Classification Auditor Classification # of Impacted Call Types
Non-Criminal FBI Part II Crimes 7
Serious Violent Felony Traffic, Property Crimes (FBI Part I, FBI Part II Crimes 10
Non-Violent Felony Investigative/Operational 1
Misdemeanor Traffic, Informational or
Administrative 4
Of the 22 call types, 7 (31.8 percent) were assigned to NICJR’s Non-Criminal Category whereas the Auditor classified the same 7 as FBI Part II Crimes. For example, family disturbance is classified by the Auditor as an FBI Part II Crime while NICJR places it in the Non-Criminal Category. The largest source of variance between 1 Figure excludes null or missing values in the dataset. 2 There is a discrepancy in the number of call types evaluated by the Auditor versus NICJR. The Auditor evaluated approximately 130 CFS types; NICJR, 183. Part of this discrepancy is due to the fact that the Auditor and NICJR reviewed slightly different data sets.

Additionally, NICJR reviewed all CAD data while the Auditor only reviewed those CFS resulting in a sworn response.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 122
NICJR’s Non-Criminal Category and the Auditor’s classifications relates to the call type disturbance, which the Auditor classifies as an FBI Part II Crime while NICJR categorizes it as Non-Criminal. The disturbance call type accounted for nearly 10 percent of the 360,242 CFS reviewed in the Auditor’s analysis.

Four out of the 22 (18.1 percent) differing call types were assigned to NICJR’s Misdemeanor Category while the Auditor assigned them as Traffic and Informational or Administrative. These call types include reckless driver, hit and run with injuries, and exhibition of speed. Both reckless driver and hit and run with injuries were assigned as Traffic by the Auditor while NICJR assigns them as Misdemeanors. Property Damage was classified by the City Auditor as Informational or Administrative. NICJR classifies this call type as a Misdemeanor.

One out of the 22 (4.5 percent) differing call types, lo jack stolen vehicle, was assigned to NICJR’s Non-Violent Felony Category while the Auditor assigned it as Investigative or Operational.

A final source of the variation in call type categorization between the Auditor and NICJR stems from NICJR’s Serious Violent Felony assignment. The auditor used FBI UCR categories while NICJR used the California Penal Code to determine the penalty associated with the qualifying offense. Ten out of the 22 (45.4 percent) differing call types were assigned to NICJR’s Serious Violent Felony Category. Out of the total 360,242 calls for service analyzed, NICJR classified 2.9 percent in the Serious Violent Felony Category. The Auditor only classified 0.7 percent of CFS in its Violent Felony Category. The variance is due to the fact that 9 call types classified by the Auditor as Traffic, Property Crime (FBI Part I), and FBI Part II Crimes fall into NICJR’s Serious Violent Felony Category. This scenario is illustrated by the call types hit and run with injuries and vehicle pursuit.

Both are classified by the Auditor as Traffic. NICJR classifies both calls in its Serious Violent Felony Category.

Another example is arson, which is classified by the Auditor as Property Crime (Part I) while NICJR classifies arson as a Serious Violent Felony. Other call types generating this variance include battery, bomb threats, kidnapping, spousal or domestic abuse, child abuse, and sexual molestation.

The complete crosswalk is provided as Appendix A.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 123

NICJR CERN CATEGORIZATION
In our work to Reimagine Public Safety and transform policing, NICJR has developed a tiered dispatch system to provide alternatives to police response to CFS, increase public safety, and improve the quality of emergency response.
3 This model includes the CERN, which builds upon NICJR’s CFS classification structure.

Once each call type is associated with one of NICJR’s four CFS Categories, they are given a default assignment on the Tiered Dispatch depicted in Figure 4:

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 124
The Tiered Dispatch assignments for the 2015-2019 BPD CFS analyzed are outlined below.

Table 4. Tiered Dispatch Default Assignment Table
Crime
Category CERN BPD % of Call
Types
# of Call Types
in Each Tier
Tier 1 Only 50% 92
Tier 2 Lead Present 14% 25
Tier 3 Present Lead 9% 16
Tier 4 Only 27% 50
Default Tier Assignment Modified Based on Arrest Data and Other Factors A. Arrest Rates
Subsequent to the default classification, NICJR examines arrest data to determine if adjustments to default Tier assignments are warranted. Most typically, this results in CFS “moving up” a Tier based on the likelihood of arrest. The arrest analysis includes the identification of the overall jurisdiction arrest rate, as well as the high-end of that rate, below which the vast majority of CFS arrest rates fall. For Berkeley, 10 percent was set as the arrest rate triggering Tier assignment review; only 6 of 91 CFS that resulted in an arrest had an arrest rate in excess of 10 percent in the years 2015 to 2019. Call types with arrest rates that significantly exceed the triggering arrest rate generally moved to higher Tiers. For example, the Non-Criminal CFS warrant service was moved from Tier 1 to Tier 4 based on arrest rate data.

Table 5. CFS CERN Tier Assignments After Arrest Review
Crime
Category CERN BPD % of Call
Types
# of Call Types
in Each Tier
Tier 1 Only 50% 91
Tier 2 Lead Present 13% 24
Tier 3 Present Lead 9% 16
Tier 4 Only 28% 52
B. Alternate Response Warranted
Beyond arrest data, CERN Tier assignment is modified based on NICJR’s assessment of call types that would benefit from an alternate response. Some Serious Violent Felony call types typically move from Tier 4 to Tier 3 pursuant to this aspect of the analysis, in order to allow for a CERN response with an officer leading. For example, the call type assault, gang related has been downgraded from a Tier 4 to a Tier 3 in order to allow the CERN to assist officers involved. Warrants have similarly been downgraded from a Tier 4 to a Tier 3 with this rationale in mind. These call types would be led by police only, but members of the CERN would be present to provide family members with information and support. Conversely, some call types have been moved from lower to higher Tiers as a result of this aspect of the default Tier assignment modification methodology. Various events that fall under the assist call type, for example, are allocated to Tier 4 even though these CFS are Non- Criminal in nature. The rationale here is that if the BPD is being asked to assist another law enforcement

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 125
agency, for example, a BPD response is required. Additionally, traffic-related calls are in Tier 3 or 4 due to current state law requiring sworn officers, but in the event that state law is amended as envisioned in some of the discussion related to BerkDOT, the calls would move to Tier 1. Appendix D includes calculations of calls and expenses with traffic calls shifted to Tier 1.

Table 6. CFS CERN Tier Assignments After Alternate Response Review Crime
Category CERN BPD % of Call
Types
# of Call Types
in Each Tier
Tier 1 Only 50% 92
Tier 2 Lead Present 10% 19
Tier 3 Present Lead 18% 33
Tier 4 Only 21% 39
Based on NICJRs analysis, and as reflected in Table 6, 50 percent of BPD CFS could be handled by a community- response, only. A detailed breakdown of Berkeley CFS by CERN Tiers can be found in Appendix B.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 126

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

OF CERN ASSIGNMENT
A major driver of the police reform conversation has been the desire to shift resources from traditional law enforcement to alternative, more appropriate, responses for specific types of calls for service. As Table 6 illustrates, the City can realistically expect to divert nearly 50 percent of call types from the BPD to an alternate response that requires no law enforcement involvement. In order to understand the potential fiscal impact of the adoption of this type of alternate response model, various analyses of the BPD budget were conducted.

As outlined in Table 7, the BPD budget grew from approximately $61 million to $69 million during the period of CFS review, reflecting a nearly 15 percent increase; CFS remained steady during the same period, experiencing a slight decline of approximately 4 percent. The Police Operations Division budget, which houses costs associated with Patrol, comprised between 52 and 60 percent of the Department’s budget during the review period; Patrol is responsible for responding to CFS in the City of Berkeley.

Table 7. BPD and Patrol Operations Division Budget, 2015-2019 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
T otal Budget $60,832,054 $63,115,430 $66,428,530 $66,351,534 $69,567,103 General Fund (GF) $57,057,838 $59,074,465 $62,156,096 $62,628,518 $65,493,664 Police Operations
(OPS) Division $34,781,350 $37,050,106 $39,867,224 $39,673,087 $36,284,878 OPS Division % of
T otal Budget 57.2% 58.7% 60.0% 59.8% 52.2%
In order to determine the proportion of Operations Division expenses that are directly attributable to responding to CFS, NICJR undertook several analyses:

Calculating Officer Time:
•
Responding
to CFS: On-Scene to Close. The time between when an officer arrives on-scene to a particular CFS and closes the call. This time frame is used to measure the actual time officers spend on calls for service. This calculation does not include travel time; the time officers take to write incident reports is only accounted for if the officer does this before a particular CFS is closed. •
Responding
to CFS: Event Creation to Close. The time between when a call comes in and is created in the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and when an officer closes the call. This time period is used to capture the total amount of time from when a caller calls into the Communications Center to when an officer closes the call, accounting for the totality of time it takes to complete a CFS. •
Offic
er Time. Under either the On-Scene to Close or Event Creation to Close approaches, officer time is calculated based on the number of responding officers to a unique call multiplied by the amount of time spent on the call.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 127
Identifying Median Officer Hourly Rates:
• Median
hourly rates were generated from the City of Berkeley’s Salary List for benefited employees.

The minimum salary (step 1) in that schedule is $49.73/hr and the maximum, (step 7), $61.90/hr. The median salary is $56.24 (step 4).

Applying Applicable Overhead Rate to Median Officer Hourly Rate:
• As of
the City’s 2021 Benefits and Compensation Matrix, this rate was 110 percent.

The results of this analysis are provided in Table 8.

Table 8. Cost of Responding to CFS: On-Scene to Close and Create to Close Officer Costs Associated with Responding to CFS: On-Scene to Close Total Hours 2015 - 2019, CERN Tier 1 Calls (BPD Response Hours) 98,119 Total Hours 2015-2019, All other CERN Tiers (BPD Response Hours) 89,525 Median BPD Officer Salary $56.24
BPD Officer Salary Range $49.73 - $61.90
Berkeley Composite Fringe Benefit Rate 110%
Calculation of CERN Tier 1 Costs (# of hours * Median Salary * Benefit Rate) $11,587,854 Calculation of All other CERN Tier Costs (# of hours * Median Salary * Benefit Rate)
$10,572,903
Average Annual CERN Tier 1 Officer Costs, On-Scene to Close $2,317,571 Average Annual Officer Costs Tiers 2-4 $2,114,581
Officer Costs Associated with Responding to CFS: Create to Close Total Hours 2015 - 2019, CERN Tier 1 Calls (BPD Response Hours) 266,832 Total Hours 2015-2019, All other CERN Tiers (BPD Response Hours) 367,422 Median BPD Officer Salary $56.24
BPD Officer Salary Range $49.73 - $61.90
Berkeley Composite Fringe Benefit Rate 110%
Calculation of CERN Tier 1 Costs (# of hours * Median Salary * Benefit Rate) $31,512,859 Calculation of All other CERN Tier Costs (# of hours * Median Salary * Benefit Rate)
$43,392,538
Average Annual CERN Tier 1 Officer Costs, Create to Close $6,302,572 Average Annual Officer Costs Tiers 2-4 $8,678,508
*Note: Berkeley PD salaries used for this analysis are based on the MOU which expired June 30, 2021. A new MOU has resulted in a salary increase not reflected in this report.

Depending on the officer time calculation used, and using 2019 budget data alone, the costs associated with responding to Tier 1 CFS range from between approximately 7 (On-Scene to Close) and 19 (Create to

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 128
Close) percent of the Police Operations Division budget, and 4 and 10 percent of the total BPD budget. Costs associated with responding to CFS Tiers 2-4 comprise between approximately 5 (On-Scene to Close) and 23 (Create to Close) percent of the Police Operations Division budget and 3 and 12 percent of the total BPD budget.

Table 9. Tier 1 CFS as % of Operations Division and BPD Overall Budget Implementation converts the estimated number of officer hours saved into FTEs as reflected in Table 10 on the following page.

Table 10. CFS FTE Analysis
CERN Tier T otal Hours (Create to
Close) (Avg Annual)
Average Hours4,
1 FTE Officer
Estimated # of
FTE Per Tier
1 53,366 2080 25.7
2 24,012 2080 11.5
3 32,331 2080 15.5
4 17,140 2080 8.2
Redirection of Tier 1 CFS to a CERN would thus generate approximately $6.8 million in annual BPD savings annually, equating to slightly less than 26 FTE.
4 2080 is the standard number of working hours per year for a full-time equivalent position; BPD actual annual hours/FTE may vary.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 129

BUILDING THE ALTERNATIVE

RESPONSE INFRASTRUCTURE
In order to facilitate the development of Berkeley’s own alternate response network or CERN, NICJR further analyzed the 92 CFS in CERN Tier 1. Although an alternate response is also contemplated in response to CFS in Tiers 2 and 3, as the CFS category which contemplates no corresponding police response, Tier 1, is an appropriate focal point for initial alternate response analyses.

To facilitate this assessment, Tier 1 CFS were divided into 11 topical/activity- based sub-categories as outlined in Table 11.

Table 11. CERN Sub-Category
CERN Category Definition Example Call Type(s)
Administrative Calls that involve administrative
duties
subpoena service; VIN verification;
information bulletins, test call, report
writing
Alarm Calls that involve activation of
alarms
residential alarm, commercial alarm,
bank alarm, audible alarm, GPS alarm
Animal Calls that involve animals stray animals, barking dogs, cat in a tree Investigation Calls that require some form of
investigation to ensure all is in
order
investigating an open door, residential
welfare checks, business premise
checks, follow up on previous crime to
collect evidence (witness statements,
video footage, etc.)
Medical or Mental Health Calls that require or involve
medical or mental health
assistance
mutual aid medical support, gunshot
victim, suicide, 5150 transport
Municipal Calls that involve municipal issues fall on city property; COVID-related violations; BPC violations - signage,
lighting, etc.; sidewalk regulations
Other Call types that do not fit into any
of the other CERN categories
create new call; no longer used, wireless
911 call got dropped
Public Order Calls that interfere with the
normal flow of society
demonstrations, civil unrest
Quality of Life Calls that create physical disorder
or reflect social decay
loitering (homeless), panhandling, noise,
trash/dumping, urinating in public

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 130
CERN Category Definition Example Call Type(s)
Substance Use Calls that involve substance use open air drug use and distribution, overdose related, down and out, public
intoxication
Traffic Calls that involve traffic or vehicle
related concerns
abandoned vehicles
Leveraging Existing and Planned City Resources and
Ideas from New and Emerging Models Report
CERN T eam Types
The Community Emergency Response Network may need to have different types of teams that respond to certain calls.
•
SCU: Respond t
o Mental Health & Drug issue calls
• Media
tion T eam: Respond to Disturbance and Noise calls
• Possibly
include specialists in Family Disturbance calls
• Report
Takers/T echnicians: Take crime reports
• Specialists f
or evidence collection as the City has now
• Outr
each: Respond to non-MH homeless calls, welfare checks, etc. • BerkDO
T: Respond to traffic calls
• Including t
echnology
In an effort to identify existing and planned resources by Tier 1 Category, NICJR reviewed:
• The
list of City-funded community-based organizations (CBOs) provided in the City Manager’s Proposed Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2022, submitted to the City Council on May 25, 2021 • City B
oards, Commissions, and Departments, as identified on the City’s website • Rele
vant examples of potential programs or approaches as provided in the New and Emerging Models of Community Safety and Policing Report
• Other
relevant local CBOs/resources
Table 12, which can be found on the next several pages, summarizes the results of NICJRs services scan; a list of the specific CBOs identified by Tier 1 sub-category can be found in Appendix C. A detailed description of each Table 12 organizing category follows.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 131
Table 12. CERN Build Out: CBO’s, City Departments, Other Resources CERN
Category Call Type(s) Existing City-Contracted
CBOs
Existing City
Departments
Planned
City
Resources
Other Relevant
Resources
Potential Oversight
Commission/Board
Innovations,
New and
Emerging
Administrative subpoena
service; VIN
verification;
information
bulletins, test
call, report
writing
BerkDOT
(VIN
verification)
Private
subpoena
servers
Alarm residential
alarm,
commercial
alarm, bank
alarm, audible
alarm, GPS
alarm
The Downtown Berkeley
Association/ Downtown
Ambassadors Street Team
provides alarm assistance
services
UCPD
Community
Service Officers
provides alarm
assistance
services
Animal stray animals,
barking dogs,
cat in a tree etc.

Animal Rescue City Manager’s
Office: Berkeley
Animal Care
Services
Animal Care
Commission

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 132
CERN
Category Call Type(s) Existing City-Contracted
CBOs
Existing City
Departments
Planned
City
Resources
Other Relevant
Resources
Potential Oversight
Commission/Board
Innovations,
New and
Emerging
Investigation investigating
an open door,
residential
welfare checks,
business
premise checks,
follow up on
previous crime
to collect
evidence
(witness
statements,
video footage,
etc.)
Downtown Berkeley
Association/ Downtown
Ambassadors Street Team:
investigating open doors,
residential welfare checks,
business premise checks
UCPD
Community
Service Officer
(CSO) Program:
investigating
open doors,
residential
welfare checks,
business
premise checks

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 133
CERN
Category Call Type(s) Existing City-Contracted
CBOs
Existing City
Departments
Planned
City
Resources
Other Relevant
Resources
Potential Oversight
Commission/Board
Innovations,
New and
Emerging
Medical or
Mental Health
mutual aid
medical support,
gunshot victim,
5150 transport,
mental illness,
suicide attempt,
threat of suicide,
mental health
4 CBOs contracted for
health services; 1 CBO
contracted for mental
health services (Alameda
County Network of Mental
Health Clinics); several
homeless oriented CBOs
include a mental health
component
Fire
Department;
Mental Health
Division Mobile
Crisis Team,
and Crisis,
Assessment,
and Triage
Team (loitering,
panhandling,
urinating in
public); Health,
Housing, and
Community
Services
Department
SCU Bonita House’s
Bridges to
Recovery In-
Home Outreach
Team (IHOT)
Bonita House’s
Community
Assessment &
Transportation
Team (CATT)
program
New Bridge
Foundation:
drug and alcohol
rehabilitation
center in
Berkeley,
California that
offers inpatient
and outpatient
services as well
as detoxification
treatment
Community Health
Commission;
Mental Health
Commission
Crisis
Response
Unit (CRU),
Olympia,
Washington
Municipal fall on city
property;
COVID-related
violations; BPC
violations -
signage, lighting,
etc.; sidewalk
regulations
City Manager’s
Office: Code
Enforcement,
Public Works
Public Works
Commission

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 134
CERN
Category Call Type(s) Existing City-Contracted
CBOs
Existing City
Departments
Planned
City
Resources
Other Relevant
Resources
Potential Oversight
Commission/Board
Innovations,
New and
Emerging
Other create new call;
no longer used,
wireless 911 call
got dropped

NA NA NA NA NA NA
Public Order Demonstrations,
civil unrest
Downtown Berkeley
Association’s Safety
Ambassadors Program:
provides public order
services/ assistance
UCPD
Community
Service Officer
(CSO) Program:
provides public
order services/
assistance
Quality of Life loitering
(homeless),
panhandling,
noise, trash/
dumping,
urinating in
public
16 CBOs contracted
for homeless services,
approximately 50%
with case management
component. These
resources could be
leveraged to address
loitering, panhandling,
and public urination/
intoxication complaints.

Other CBOs (Eden
Information and Referral
as well Telegraph Business
Improvement District)
assist with quality of life
calls as well.

Downtown Berkeley
Association’s Safety
Ambassadors Program: all
Quality of Life CFS
Mental Health
Division,
Mobile Crisis,
and Crisis,
Assessment,
and Triage
Team (loitering,
panhandling,
urinating in
public); City
Manager’s
Office: Code
Enforcement
(trash/dumping)
UCPD
Community
Service Officer
(CSO) Program:
all Quality of
Life CFS
Homeless
Commission;
Human Welfare
and Community
Action Commission
Mayor’s Action
Plan (MAP) for
New York City

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 135
CERN
Category Call Type(s) Existing City-Contracted
CBOs
Existing City
Departments
Planned
City
Resources
Other Relevant
Resources
Potential Oversight
Commission/Board
Innovations,
New and
Emerging
Substance Use open air
drug use and
distribution,
overdose
related, down
and out, public
intoxication
1 CBO directly contracted
for substance abuse
services (Options Recovery
Services); other homeless-
oriented CBO’s provide
various substance abuse
related services
Mental Health
Division Mobile
Crisis Team,
and Crisis,
Assessment,
and Triage
Team (loitering,
panhandling,
urinating in
public)
New Bridge
Foundation:
drug and alcohol
rehabilitation
center in
Berkeley,
California that
offers inpatient
and outpatient
services as well
as detoxification
treatment
Bonita House’s
Bridges to
Recovery In-
Home Outreach
Team (IHOT)
Bonita House’s
Community
Assessment &
Transportation
Team (CATT)
program
Health
Commission,
Community;
Homeless
Commission;
Mental Health
Commission
Arlington
Opiate
Outreach
Initiative
Traffic abandoned
vehicles,
speeding,
reckless driving
City Manager’s
Office: Code
Enforcement
(abandoned
vehicles)
BerkDOT Transportation
Commission
NYPD Staten
Island’s Motor
Vehicle
Accident
Program

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 136
CERN
Category Call Type(s) Existing City-Contracted
CBOs
Existing City
Departments
Planned
City
Resources
Other Relevant
Resources
Potential Oversight
Commission/Board
Innovations,
New and
Emerging
Weapon person with a
gun
Building
Opportunities
for Self-
Sufficiency
appears to
be only City-
contracted CBO
with significant
experience with
and focus on
incarcerated/
formerly
incarcerated.

May be a
resource for this
particular CFS
and others in
that vein.

Peace and Justice
Commission

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 137
Existing City-Contracted Community Based Organizations
NICJR reviewed all City-contracted CBOs and, where possible, aligned CERN Tier 1 sub-categories with community-based organizations; identified organizations are those that could potentially be leveraged to build out the CERN approach. Although the City has contracts with a number of CBOs, there is a significant concentration in homeless services, with few contracted providers in many of the other CERN Tier 1 sub- categories. Where able to identify, NICJR has lifted up those CBOs working in any area that appear to be doing some type of case management or street outreach work, as well as those that have experience with a criminal justice population. These organizations are likely best positioned to serve as the starting point for the development of the CERN infrastructure. There is at least one City-contracted CBO that NICJR is aware of that engages in case management and outreach work and has extensive experience with justice-involved community members; that organization, Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS), is an obvious candidate to serve as one of the City’s anchors and foundational CERN partners. BOSS is an example of a capable organization, but there are others in Berkeley as well. The City would need to conduct a Request for Proposals process to select the most appropriate service provider(s).

The Downtown Berkeley Association (DBA), an independent non-profit organization that has recently contracted with the City, provides a variety of services including but not limited to cleaning and beautification, hospital and outreach, marketing and business support, and prevention of crime and other threats to merchants.
5 Positions encompass hospitality workers, cleaners, social workers, and trained guards, known as Safety Ambassadors. Safety Ambassadors carry batons, pepper spray, and handcuffs and are outfitted with neon vests.

Safety Ambassadors often have backgrounds in law enforcement and are required to undergo an 8-hour general training along with additional trainings covering topics such as sexual harassment, mental illness, and de-escalation tactics. The stated objective of this program is to increase the quality of life in downtown Berkeley and ensure that any potential disturbances are curtailed. 6 Low-level municipal or quality of life
violations, open use of illicit drugs, and threats to businesses are all addressed by the Safety Ambassadors. As such, the DBA itself may serve as an important CERN resource. However, it is important to note that many community members and organizations have expressed concerns with the enforcement-type equipment that Safety Ambassadors carry.

Lastly, the Mental Health Division’s (MHD) Mobile Crisis Team provides immediate crisis intervention services for the community and supports BPD in capacities including co-responding to calls for service upon BPD request. This Team, as well as the MHD’s Crisis, Assessment, and Triage Team, are obvious foundations for the SCU which is currently under development. The Mobile Crisis Team has very limited resources and available hours. At the time of this report, the Team only has two members. In Listening Sessions held with BPD officers, many expressed the need to expand the work of the Mobile Crisis Team. 7 Existing City Departments
There are a number of City Departments that are either currently deployed, or could be deployed to address CERN Tier 1 sub-categories. For example, the BPD currently partners with the Mental Health Division’s Mobile Crisis Team, and the Code Enforcement Unit within the City Manager’s Office is responsible for addressing illegal dumping. The roles and responsibilities of existing City Departments could be expanded to support absorption of specific Tier 1 CFS. BPD also employs civilian technicians who could be used to take reports or collect evidence in cold CFS that may not need an officer present. 5 https:/ /www.downtownberkeley.com
6 https:/ /www.berkeleyside.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Safety-Ambassador-Pilot-Program-2-Month-Report.pdf 7 Community members have expressed concerns about the Mobile Crisis Team’s ability to properly assist with calls for service.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 138
Existing Berkeley Commissions, Boards and Departments
NICJR reviewed the City’s Boards and Commissions to identify those that might be most appropriate for supporting the development and oversight of various components of the CERN. While ultimately the effort is likely most effectively administered by a single oversight body, the development of various components of the alternate response model may lend itself to disaggregation by topic, although an effective coordination and overall project management approach should be employed from the outset.

Planned City Resources
The City has two significant alternative response initiatives currently underway: the Berkeley Department of Transportation (BerkDOT) and the Specialized Care Unit (SCU). While the scope of these efforts is unclear, NICJR has assigned Tier 1 sub-categories to these City-initiated alternate responses as follows:
•
BerkDO
T: All tr
affic CFS
• SCU: All men
tal health and drug use CFS
The following relevant excerpts from the City Manager’s Proposed Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2022 suggest that the 2021-2022 budget year is a planning period for BerkDOT, while the SCU is on more accelerated implementation timeline:

BerkDOT
“The Public Works Department is evaluating the potential to create a Berkeley Department of Transportation to ensure a racial justice lens in traffic and parking enforcement and the development of transportation policy, programs, and infrastructure.
8 • Estimated Budget: $75,000
• Descrip
tion: Develop plans for establishing a Berkeley Department of Transportation to ensure racial justice and equity in Transportation policies, programs, services, capital projects, maintenance, and enforcement. Coordinate this with the Reimagining Public Safety effort.” Current state law does not allow non-law enforcement to conduct traffic stops. Given the City’s decision to establish BerkDOT, in Appendix D we have assigned all traffic CFS to CERN Tier 1.

SCU
“The Health, Housing and Community Services Department is working with a steering committee to develop a pilot program to re-assign non-criminal police service calls to a Specialized Care Unit.” 9 • $8 million is curren tly allocated for programs addressing community safety and crisis response.10 • Before the SCU is deployed, community safety concerns have been proposed to be addressed through:
• Expanding pre
vention and outreach
• Le
verage existing teams and CBOs
• Addr
ess basic needs (i.e., wellness checks, food, shelter)
• Equipmen
t and supplies
8 Page 24, Proposed Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2022
9 Page 24, Proposed Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2022
10 https:/ /www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/Level_3_-_City_Council/FY%202022%20CM%20Proposed%20 Budget%20Recommendations.pdf

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 139
• Estimated budget: $1.2 million
• Crime
prevention and data analysis to support data driven policing and identify areas of community need
• Establish da
ta analysis team (2 non-sworn positions)
• Deplo
y Problem Oriented Policing Team (overtime)
• Estima
ted budget: $1.0 million
Other Relevant Resources
NICJR has identified three non-City funded CBOs as potential alternate response providers related to Tier 1 sub-categories: the New Bridge Foundation (NBF); Bonita House’s Community Assessment and Transport Team (CATT) and Bridges to Recovery In-Home Outreach Team (IHOT); and the University of California’s Community Service Officer Program. Again, these are examples, the City would need to conduct a Request for Proposals process to select the most appropriate service providers.

Members of the RPSTF have compiled a master list of local community-based organizations to assist in the CERN build-out process as well. This list can be found in Appendix E.

New Bridge Foundation
NBF was identified as a possible alternative solution by Berkeley Reimagining Public Safety Task Force Members.

NBF is a residential and outpatient addiction treatment center that provides comprehensive services and has a community outreach component to their program. NBF was assigned to the Tier 1 sub-category, substance use.

Bonita House
While Bonita House receives City funding for its Creative Wellness Center (CWC) which serves as an entry point for recovery and supportive services for people with mental health needs and co-occurring conditions, it does not currently receive financial support for its Community Assessment and Transport Team (CATT); a crisis response system to get clients “to the right service at the right time”, or its Bridges to Recovery In-Home Outreach Team (IHOT); a short-term outreach, engagement and linkage to community services program for individuals with severe mental illness. Both of these teams could potentially play important roles in a new alternate response network.

University of California Police Departments (UCPD)
Most University of California Police Departments (UCPD) have some type of Community Service Officer (CSO) Program.
11 CSOs are uniformed, civilian personnel comprised of students that assist the UCPD in a variety of ways. They provide evening and night escorts, patrol campus buildings and residence halls, perform traffic control duties, and act as liaisons between university students and their corresponding police departments. 12 CSOs generally carry pepper spray and work anywhere from 10-20 hours each week. The majority of UCPD CSO Programs also employ tasers.
13 Some are trained to aid in cases of medical emergencies.14 General security and deterrence of crime are the goals of the CSO program.15 11 It’s important to note that there have been use of force concerns expressed by UC students about the UCPD CSOs. This should be taken into account by the City when allocating Tier 1 responsibilities. 12 https:/ /www.police.ucla.edu/cso
13 https:/ /dailybruin.com/2006/11/28/a-closer-look-uc-campuses-exhi 14 https:/ /police.ucsd.edu/services/cso.html
15 https:/ /www.police.ucla.edu/cso/about-cso

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 140
At UC Berkeley, the CSO Program is made up of 60 part-time students. CSOs offer the BearWalk, a night escort for all faculty and students at the University. Berkeley CSOs are also contracted to patrol residence areas and university buildings. Often, CSOs assist in special events or sports games to promote safety and security. Applicants to the CSO Program must be in good academic standing, undergo a background check, and an oral board interview as part of the hiring process. 16 Because the CSO program is already established in
the campus area, it may make sense for the City to partner with the University to expand the responsibilities of this student-staffed community service to include for example responding to suspicious circumstances or vehicles CFS. Other example CSO activities include processing complaints and taking reports.

New and Emerging Models
In addition to reviewing existing and planned local resources, NICJR reviewed the New and Emerging Models of Community Safety and Policing Report, to identify programs that might be appropriate for Berkeley implementation. Five initiatives were identified pursuant to this review: San Francisco’s Street Crisis Response Team (SCRT); Olympia, Washington’s Crisis Response Unit (CRU); Mayor’s Action Plan (MAP) for New York City; The Arlington Opiate Outreach Initiative; and NYPD Staten Island’s Motor Vehicle Accident Pilot Program.

Seattle, Washington’s new Specialized Triage Response System is also highlighted.

The Street Crisis Response T eam (SCRT) is a pilot program administered by the Fire Department in San Francisco, California, for individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis. SCRT Teams consist of a behavioral health specialist, peer interventionist, and a first responder who work in 12-hour shifts. 911 calls that are determined to be appropriate for the SCRT are routed to SCRT by dispatch. A team responds in an average of fifteen minutes.

The City of Olympia, Washington implemented their Crisis Response Unit (CRU) in April of 2019 to serve as an option for behavioral health calls for service. The CRU teams consist of mental health professionals that provide supports such as mediation, housing assistance, and referrals to additional services to their clients.

Calls for service for the CRU originate from community-based service providers, the City’s 911 hub, and law enforcement personnel.

The Mayor’s Action Plan (MAP) for New York City (NYC) was launched in 2015 in fifteen NYC Housing Authority properties with high violence rates in order to foster productive dialogue between local residents and law enforcement, address physical disorganization, and bolster pro-social community bonds. MAP’s focal point is NeighborhoodStat, a process that allows residents to have a say in the way NYC allocates its public safety resources. Early evaluations show a reduction in various crimes as well as increased perception of healthier neighborhoods.

The Arlington Opiate Outreach Initiative was established in 2015 in Arlington, Massachusetts and brings together social workers, community-based organizations, and public health clinicians housed in the Arlington Police Department in order to foster relationships with residents of the community and then connect them to treatment and supports. Individuals in the community are identified for possible treatment after frequent police encounters, prior history of drug usage, or previous hospitalization related to overdoses.

NYPD Staten Island’s Motor Vehicle Accident Pilot Program is aimed at reducing the number of calls for service related to minor collisions. When a call for service comes in regarding a collision, dispatch will determine if the collision is minor or serious enough to merit police response. If the collision is deemed to be minor, all individuals involved in the crash will simply complete a collision report and then exchange contact information.

In partnership with the City of Seattle, NICJR produced a report analyzing the 911 response of the Seattle Police Department and suggested CFS that can be addressed by alternative community response. This analysis 16 https:/ /ucpd.berkeley.edu/services/community-service-officer-cso-program

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 141
was instrumental in Seattle’s new commitment to a Specialized Triage Response System, a response that at full operational capacity will be able to potentially respond to 8,000 to 14,000 non-emergency calls. This new department will be receiving training from CAHOOTS and STAR staff. 17 17 https:/ /durkan.seattle.gov/2021/07/mayor-jenny-durkan-announces-proposal-to-create-a-new-specialized-triage-response-to- provide-alternative-to-sworn-police-response/

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 142

COMMUNITY SURVEY
In partnership with the City of Berkeley’s (City) Reimagining Public Safety Task Force and the City Manager’s Office, Bright Research Group (BRG) conducted an online-based community survey (survey) in both English and Spanish between May 18 and June 15, 2021. The survey was disseminated by the City of Berkeley, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, community-based organizations, and other key partners. The survey was designed to gather insight into residents’ perceptions and experiences in three primary areas: the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) and crisis response; priorities for reimagining public safety; and recommendations for alternative responses for calls for service. A total of 2,729 responses were collected.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 143

SURVEY SUMMARY
Community Safety
While most survey respondents indicated that they view Berkeley as safe or very safe, these results were not consistent across all demographic groups. Slightly over 30 percent of respondents perceived Berkeley as safe or very safe; an additional 46.4 percent of respondents perceived Berkeley as somewhat safe. White residents were more likely to perceive Berkeley as safe or very safe; Black, Latin, Asian and Other Non-white residents were more likely to perceive Berkeley as unsafe or very unsafe.

Figure 5. How safe do you think Berkeley is?
Table 12. How safe do you think Berkeley is? By race and ethnicity.

White
N = 1,622
Black
N = 139
Latin
N = 103
Asian
N = 159
Other
Nonwhite
N = 168
Undisclosed
N = 478
Very unsafe 4.0% 14.4% 9.7% 7.5% 15.5% 19.5%
Unsafe 14.7% 25.9% 25.2% 24.5% 23.2% 34.9%
Somewhat safe 50.5% 36.0% 46.4% 45.3% 46.4% 33.1%
Safe 26.2% 22.3% 13.1% 20.8% 13.1% 10.0%
Very safe 4.6% 1.4% 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% 2.5%

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 144
Key Public Safety Concerns
Survey respondents ranked homelessness and sexual assault as the most important public safety concerns.

These were followed by shootings and homicides and mental health crises. The lowest priorities were substance use, drug sales, and police violence.

Figure 6. How important are the following issues to community health and safety in Berkeley to you? (weighted)18
Nearly half of survey respondents reported experiencing street harassment, and 41 percent reported being the victim of a crime. Black survey respondents reported experiencing higher rates of mental health crisis, homelessness, and family victimization, as well as police harassment and arrest, than did other survey respondents.

Patterns in priorities for safety were consistent across race and ethnicity, except for survey respondents with an undisclosed race and ethnicity.

When assessing the findings on priorities of Berkeley residents for community health and safety, survey respondents ranked investments in mental health, homeless and violence prevention services highest. There are differences along race and ethnicity for investment priorities, with White respondents rating all listed programs higher overall. Black respondents were also rated an investment in mental health services higher in comparison to other prevention services.
18 4: very important; 3: important; 2: somewhat important; 1: not important

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 145
Figure 7. How important is it to you for the City of Berkeley to invest in each of these programs and services to ensure a public safety system that works for all? (weighted)19 Table 13. How important is it to you for the City of Berkeley to invest in each of these programs and services to ensure a public safety system that works for all? By race and ethnicity.
20 White
N = 1,599
Black
N = 136
Latin
N = 103
Asian
N = 154
Other
Nonwhite
N = 167
Undisclosed
N = 462
Not important
at all 6.8% 8.8% 4.9% 5.2% 10.2% 5.2%
Somewhat
Important 36.3% 36.0% 41.7% 43.5% 30.5% 35.9%
Important 43.4% 27.2% 32.0% 35.1% 39.5% 34.0%
Very Important 13.4% 27.9% 21.4% 16.2% 19.8% 24.9%
Views on the Berkeley Police Department
A majority of respondents (53.3 percent) perceived the BPD as being effective or very effective. Only 6.7 percent of respondents perceived BPD as being not effective at all. Nonwhite respondents were more likely to indicate that BPD is not effective at all, while White respondents were more likely to indicate that BPD is effective.
19 4: very important; 3: important; 2: somewhat important; 1: not important 20 4: very important; 3: important; 2: somewhat important; 1: not important

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 146
When assessing experiences of residents when contact is made with BPD, survey results found that almost 75 percent of respondents who indicated they’ve had contact with BPD indicated their experience was positive or very positive, while Black and Asian residents were more likely to report negative experiences with BPD.

Table 14. When it comes to public safety, how effective is the Berkeley Police Department? By race and ethnicity.

White
N = 1,599
Black
N = 136
Latin
N = 103
Asian
N = 154
Other
Nonwhite
N = 167
Undisclosed
N = 462
Not effective
at all 6.8% 8.8% 4.9% 5.2% 10.2% 5.2%
Somewhat
effective 36.3% 36.0% 41.7% 43.5% 30.5% 35.9%
Effective 43.4% 27.2% 32.0% 35.1% 39.5% 34.0%
Very effective 13.4% 27.9% 21.4% 16.2% 19.8% 24.9%
Views on Alternative Responses to Calls for Service
A large majority of survey respondents (81 percent) among all racial and ethnic groups indicated a preference for trained mental health providers to respond to calls related to mental health and substance use, with most also indicating that police should be available to support a response to those calls if needed.

An even greater percentage (83.6 percent) of survey respondents indicated a preference for homeless services providers to respond to calls related to homelessness, with police present when necessary.

Figure 8: Who should respond to calls related to mental health and substance use?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 147
Figure 9. Who should respond to calls related to homelessness? Focus Group Feedback
In collaboration with NICJR, Bright Research Group facilitated a series of focus groups to gather data on community sentiment regarding the current state of public safety, the role of the Berkeley Police Department (BPD), and the future of public safety. Outreach to Black, Latino, system-impacted, and unstable housed/ food-insecure residents was facilitated by the McGee Avenue Baptist Church, Center for Food, Faith, and Justice, and the Berkeley Underground Scholars. Researchers conducted four focus groups comprised of 55 individuals.

Youth under the age of 18 and Latino residents are underrepresented in the focus groups. The qualitative data collected is also not necessarily representative of Black. Latino, formerly incarcerated, or housing-insecure residents.

Table 15. Focus Group Participants
Focus Group Description Number of Participants
Black Residents 18
Housing- / Food-Insecure Residents 27
Black and Latin Youth 4
Justice-System-Impacted Students 6
T otal Stakeholders 55

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 148
Focus group participants shared concerns regarding gang involvement, racism, and the availability of guns in Berkeley. Black and Latino youth and Justice-System-Impacted students expressed significant concerns about their personal safety and police violence. Participants identified homelessness and the housing crisis as critical public health and safety issues. Black residents, housing-insecure residents, and system-impacted individuals all expressed distrust in the City government. Black residents, youth, system-impacted students, and low- income residents also expressed that policing in Berkeley allows for race and income-related profiling. Focus group participants also stated that police resources are mismanaged.

Diverse perspectives were collected regarding the future role of BPD. Youth would like police officers who are part of the community and interact positively with young people. Participants who discussed divestment from police recommended investment in trained peacekeepers and community safety patrols as alternatives.

With regard to mental health crises and homelessness, focus group participants across demographic groups suggested that clinicians and social workers play a role in interventions. Focus group participants expressed broad support for the power of community-driven crime prevention strategies and expressed trust in community-based and faith-based organizations; conversely, there was some suspicion expressed regarding the idea that BPD functions would simply be performed by another government agency.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 149
PROPOSAL: TIERED

DISPATCH SYSTEM
Based on the information and analysis described above, and in accordance with City Council ordinances and the Berkeley Reimagining Public Safety Process, NICJR and its team recommends that Berkeley initiate a phased implementation of a Tiered Dispatch system, reflecting the CERN framework described above, and tailored to the needs of the City.

The
Tiered Dispatch model contemplates diverting a substantial portion of calls for service that are currently handled by BPD sworn officers to a newly-established CERN that leads with a non-law-enforcement response.

This diversion includes “Tier 1” responses, which do not include dispatch of law enforcement officers (at least at the outset), and “Tier 2” responses, which are led by alternative responders but include presence of officers as a precaution. The model also includes non-law-enforcement participation in “Tier 3” responses that are led by sworn officers.

The CERN – which should be robust, structured, and well-trained – will have radio connection directly into BPD dispatch in order to be able to call for an officer if needed. On Tier 2 responses, the alternative responders leading the team will determine the necessity for active engagement of the on-site officers. During the pilot phase, the frequency of active police assistance can be assessed and certain call types can be moved to different tiers based on the assessment.

Our analysis of call-for-service data indicates that over 80 percent of the calls are for non-criminal matters (see Fig. 3, above). A substantial subset of these calls can be handled as Tier 1 and Tier 2 responses, led by alternative responders.

Alternative responders may include: non-governmental entities, including community-based organizations retained by the City through service contracts; City employees, who are staff of departments other than BPD; and/or BPD employees who are not sworn officers. Each arrangement presents a variety of benefits and challenges, and different approaches can be adopted for different elements of the Tiered Dispatch program.

The new BerkDOT and the SCU may be integrated as appropriate, as these new arms of City government get off the ground. These decisions can be made during the phased implementation described below.

Alternative responses should be piloted and scaled after proven effective. As the Tiered Response system is built out, BPD budget needs will be reduced, and more funds should be available to support alternative responses, whether performed by City staff or community-based organizations under contract with the City.

Development and implementation of the Tiered Dispatch advances the Berkeley City Council’s July 14, 2020, direction “to evaluate initiatives and reforms that reduce the footprint of the Police Department and limit the Police’s scope of work primarily to violent and criminal matters.” 21 In addition, phased implementation of the
Tiered Dispatch model would reflect substantial public and community sentiment expressed in the surveys described above, and in Task Force discussions to date. Finally, the model builds on innovative best practices being advanced in various cities around the country; Berkeley can learn from initial experiences in this rapidly- changing field, and develop an approach suitable to the City’s needs. 21 Berkeley City Council, Omnibus Motion on Public Safety Items (Council Agenda Items 18a-e, Recommendation #2), approved July 14, 2020.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 150
Implementation of Tiered Dispatch System
As described above, we recommend that the Tiered Dispatch system be implemented on a phased basis over time, commencing with a pilot program. This will enable assessment for efficacy; give time for administrative, employment, and contracting structures to be put in place; and allow for thorough and focused program development. NICJR will provide detail on a proposed implementation plan in its final report, but includes some initial thoughts at this stage for public consideration.

Pilot Program
As a first step, we recommend establishment of an Alternative Response Pilot Program, focused on a subset of the “Tier 1” calls. The following subset of BPD call types can be used in the pilot phase in order to work out logistical and practical challenges.

Table 16. Tier 1 Subset of Call Types
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Abandoned Vehicle 403 449 481 476 496
Disturbance 6741 6955 7447 7540 6709
Found Property 900 914 888 779 726
Injury Accident Report – – – 31 29
Inoperable Vehicle – – – 1 6
Lost Property 16 16 17 15 14
Noise Disturbance 3359 3307 3239 3158 2709
Non-Injury Accident 561 617 571 564 492
Suspicious Circumstances 2586 2354 2254 2184 2041
Suspicious Person 1628 1698 1756 1653 1479
Suspicious Vehicle 1560 1687 1626 1385 1448
Vehicle Blocking Driveway – – – 345 953
Vehicle Blocking Sidewalk – – – 15 45
Vehicle Double Parking – – – 6 14
T otal 17754 17997 18279 18152 17161
Once the pilot has been initiated then we recommend the following steps:

1. Assess the pilot pr
ogram, including response times, resolution of emergency, how often officers are
being requested to the scene by the CERN, and other measures;

2. Ev
aluate administrative, budget, and staffing implications from the transfer of services;

3. Expand additional
alternative response programs, over time, to achieve City Council’s direction of concentrating police response on violent and criminal matters;

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 151
With the implementation of alternative responses through the phased in Tiered Dispatch approach, we anticipate that a hiring freeze and natural attrition will reduce the numbers of sworn officers employed by BPD, as the alternative response system is built out. NICJR is not recommending layoffs of officers. As alternative response is implemented, BPD should concentrate its officers’ efforts on serious, violent felonies, with a top priority on gun crimes. We also recommend shifting BPD resources and staff time (sworn and non-sworn) to investigations, with a focus on solving violent crimes and improving clearance rates.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 152

CONCLUSION
Berkeley is a relatively safe and well-resourced city. However, thefts, robberies, and incidents involving people with potential mental health and/or substance use challenges are of significant concern. By reducing BPD’s focus on non-criminal and low-level CFS, the Department can improve its response, investigation, and prevention of more serious crime. Over time, a transition of responsibility for response to Tier 1 CFS could generate between $2-$6 million of annual savings to the BPD budget. 22 If invested in the build-out of the alternative
response network, these funds would comprise a 35 percent increase in the City Manager’s proposed FY22 funding level for community-based organization, or alternative City staffing. This type of targeted redirection of BPD resources would represent a significant and meaningful step in the City’s efforts to reimagine public safety.

These new, reimagined ideas will take time and effort to implement successfully. Any reduction in policing services should be measured, responsible, and safe. A Final Report and Implementation Plan will be submitted to the City that includes detailed recommendations. Financial and organizational impacts and resources for implementation recommendations as well as a detailed timeline and plan for implementation will be included. 22 See Fiscal Implications section above, estimating Tier 1 savings at $6.3 million.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 153

APPENDIX
Appendix A. NICJR/ Auditor Crosswalk
Appendix B. Breakdown of Berkeley CFS by CERN Tiers
Appendix C. CBOs by Tier 1 Subcategory
Appendix D. Tiered Dispatch with Traffic Calls as Tier 1 Appendix E. Master List of CBOs*
*Courtesy of Janny Castillo, boona cheema, and Margaret Fine

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 154

APPENDIX J
Community
Engagement Report
154

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 155
Table of Contents
Overview .....................................................................................................................................................................156 C
ommunity Engagement Timeline ................................................................................................... .....................156
Community Survey Summary Analysis .................................................................................................................158 C
ommunity Perceptions Summary ................................................................................................... .....................187
Latin Community Perceptions Summary .............................................................................................................196 A
bbreviated Summarized Responses Berkeley Police Department Listening Groups ..............................202 R
eimagining Public Safety Berkeley Merchants Association Listening Session ..........................................204 PEERS List
ening Session Report ................................................................................................... .........................207
Pacific Center for Human Growth LGBTQIA+ Staff/Provider Listening Session ........................................216 G
ender-Based Violence Subcommittee Report .................................................................................................221 B
erkeley Community Meeting Feedback.............................................................................................................270

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 156

OVERVIEW
The Reimagining Public Safety process in Berkeley
includes comprehensive outreach and engagement
of local community members. The National Institute
for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) and our partners
Bright Research Group (BRG), with significant
support and input from the Reimagining Public Safety
Taskforce, developed a multi-pronged community
engagement strategy. The process included a broadly
distributed survey along with a series of listening
sessions designed to engage marginalized, hard
to reach, or communities with high rates of police
contact. With guidance from the City Manager’s
Office, BRG focused on four populations for listening
sessions: Black, Latinx, formerly incarcerated and
low-income individuals struggling with food and/
or housing insecurity. The following report includes
initial findings from these events and the survey.

Additional Community Engagement efforts were
organized and facilitated by Task Force members
with the support of NICJR in an effort to include
additional marginalized populations: LatinX, those
who have experienced mental health challenges,
the LGBTQIA+ community, and those who have
experienced partner violence. Following the initial
release of the draft final report, three community
wide virtual listening sessions were held to gather
feedback and input from the broader Berkeley
community. Information and perspectives garnered
from this wide array of community engagement
provide valuable information for the work of the
Taskforce and the City of Berkeley moving forward.

Berkeley Reimagining Public Safety Process Community Engagement Timeline Community Engagement
Event Lead Entity Date Attendance Status of
Summary Data
BPD focus group with
command staff NICJR May 6, 2021 In report
Community Survey BRG May 14, 2021 2,729 In report
Listening Session/Community
meeting – focus on Black
community
BRG-Pastor Smith May 25, 2021 18 In report
BPD focus group with line
staff
NICJR June 2, 2021 &
June 3, 2021
In report
Berkeley Merchant
Association Focus group
NICJR - In
coordination with
Telegraph BA and
Downtown BA
June 2, 2021 6 In report
Listening Session/Community
meeting – Housing Unstable
and Formerly Incarcerated
(focus on POC)
BRG-Center for Faith
Food and Justice
June 9, 2021 27 In report
Vulnerable Youth Listening
Session (ages 13-17)
BRG-Pastor Smith Jun 28, 2021 4 In report

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 157
Community Engagement
Event Lead Entity Date Attendance Status of
Summary Data
Listening Session for
residents experiencing mental
health challenges
NICJR - In
coordination with CE
TF Commissioner Fine
June 29, 2021 14 In report
BIPOC students Listening
Session
BRG-Underground
Scholars
Jun 30, 2021 4 In report
LGBTQ/Trans Community
Listening Session
NICJR - In
coordination with CE
TF Commissioner Fine
July 1, 2021 0 In report
Develop Report on process
and findings from Community
Engagement/Outreach and
Community Survey results
BRG Jul 6, 2021 In report
Latinx Listening Session TF Commissioner
Malvido-with support
from NICJR
July 8, 2021 Pending
submission of
notes from TF
members
Latinx Listening Session
Youth from Berkeley High
School
TF Commissioner
Malvido-with support
from NICJR
no updates as
of 10/25/2021
Pending
submission of
notes from TF
members
Gender-Based Violence Gender-Based
Violence
Subcommittee
8/19/2021 8
organizations
represented
In report
Gender-Based Violence Gender-Based
Violence
Subcommittee
9/21/2021 In report
Citywide Community
Meetings: 3 virtual
1 in-person
(The in-person Community
Meeting was canceled due to
public health/safety concerns)
NICJR/Task Force CE
Subcommittee/City
Mgr’s office
11/10/2021
11/15/2021
11/23/2021
In-person
11/30/2021
In report
A toll free number will be
available for community
members to add additional
feedback on the Final report
888-299-1118
Two messages have
been received as
of the publication
of this report.

Both messages left
were related to
procedural matters;
i.e. Task Force
meeting schedules
and postings on the
City website.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 158
5 City of Berkeley
Reimagining Public Safety
Survey— Summary Report

Moira DeNike, PhD., and Alice Hu-Nguyen, MSPH
Bright Research Group | July 1, 2021

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 159
6 INTRODUCTION
The City of Berkeley is developing a community safety model that reflects the needs of the community and creates increased safety for all. In collaboration with the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety Task Force and the City Manager’s Office, Bright Research Group (BRG) developed and conducted a community survey to gather residents’ experiences with and perceptions of the Berkeley Police Department and crisis response; their perspectives on and priorities for reimagining public safety; and recommendations for alternative responses for community safety. This report summarizes the key quantitative findings from the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety Survey.

METHODS AND SAMPLE
A total of 2,729 responses were collected between May 18 and June 15, 2021. The City of Berkeley, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, community-based organizations, and other key partners disseminated the community survey through various online channels and websites to those who live, work, and study in Berkeley, in English and Spanish. Respondents completed the survey online.

Descriptive and statistical analyses were conducted. To allow for disaggregated analysis by race and ethnicity, the survey responses were recoded into six discrete race and ethnicity categories: white, Black, Latin, Asian, Other Nonwhite, and Undisclosed. For all the findings provided below in aggregate (i.e., not disaggregated by race and ethnicity), the analysis includes weighting by the race and ethnicity factors in order to correct for the disproportionate representation among some racial and ethnic groups in the sample. Cross-tabulations and a chi-square test for significance were conducted to examine the relationship between race and ethnicity and categorical survey responses. A comparison of means and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test for significance were also used. Both of these tests look at differences across the independent variables as a whole. These tests can show whether the differences observed on the basis of race and ethnicity are different from one another in general, but cannot tell us if answers from one racial and ethnic group are specifically different from another. Given that race and ethnicity have been shown to be substantive factors associated with perceptions of community safety (Whitfield, et al., 2019), and given the limitations with respect to the representativeness of this sample, this analysis is particularly attentive to racial and ethnic differences in responses. All reported differences by race and ethnicity in the findings are statistically significant (p<.05) for both chi-square tests and ANOVA test.

LIMITATIONS
The survey sample was not representative of the Berkeley population with regard to race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, zip code, and age. White, older (45 years and older), women, and LGBTQ residents, as well as those who live in the 94702, 94705, and 94707 zip codes, were overrepresented in the sample. Black, Latin, Asian, male, and younger residents were underrepresented in the sample. The nonrepresentative nature of the sample should be noted when interpreting the findings from this survey.

The results of this survey are likely to be biased and may not truly reflect community impressions of safety.

See the Appendix for detailed methods and a sample profile.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 160
7 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS AND PRIORITIES FOR SAFETY IN BERKELEY Perceptions of Safety in Berkeley
The respondents expressed a range of perspectives regarding the safety of Berkeley, with a plurality selecting “Somewhat safe” in response to this item. Respondents who indicated they are white were more likely to perceive Berkeley as safe and very safe. Respondents who are Black or Other Nonwhite were significantly more likely to perceive Berkeley as unsafe and very unsafe. Respondents who identified as Latin and Asian were more likely than white respondents, but less likely than Black and Other Nonwhite respondents, to perceive Berkeley as unsafe and very unsafe. Unexpectedly, respondents who declined to indicate their race and ethnicity were the most likely to perceive Berkeley as unsafe and very unsafe.

It is worth noting that while Middle Eastern / North African and Native Americans each represented a small number of the respondents (42 and 33, respectively), they were substantially more likely to perceive Berkeley as unsafe and very unsafe than most other racial and ethnic groups (52% and 42%, respectively). Similarly, Pacific Islander / Native Hawaiian respondents represented a small number (N = 22) but were substantially less likely to perceive Berkeley as safe and very safe (0%), but they were not more likely to indicate it as unsafe with 60% selecting somewhat safe.

Table 1. How safe do you think Berkeley is? By race and ethnicity.

White
N = 1,622

Black
N = 139

Latin
N = 103

Asian
N = 159
Other
Nonwhite
N = 168

Undisclosed
N = 478
Very unsafe 4.0% 14.4% 9.7% 7.5% 15.5% 19.5%
Unsafe 14.7% 25.9% 25.2% 24.5% 23.2% 34.9%
Somewhat
safe 50.5% 36.0% 46.4% 45.3% 46.4% 33.1%
Safe 26.2% 22.3% 13.1% 20.8% 13.1% 10.0%
Very safe 4.6% 1.4% 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% 2.5%

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 161
8 Resident Priorities for Safety
Survey respondents ranked homelessness and sexual assault as the most important public safety concerns, followed by shootings and homicides and mental health crisis. Respondents ranked substance use, drug sales, and police violence as their lowest priorities.

Some responses varied on the basis of the respondents’ race and ethnicity—although the differences were not large—and patterns were fairly consistent across the array of race and ethnicity groups, with the exception of the respondents with an undisclosed race and ethnicity. Notably, this group collectively rated police violence substantially lower in importance to community health and safety as compared with other groups. This group was also far more likely to indicate that theft was an important issue in Berkeley.

Homelessness

3.69 Sexual assault

3.67 3.6

3.57 3.55

3.54 3.42

3.3 3.28
Thefts

3.23 3.11

2.93 Drug sales

2.87 2.78

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 162
9 Table 2. How important are the following issues to community health and safety in Berkeley to you? By race and ethnicity.

White Black Latin Asian Other
Nonwhite
Undisclosed
Substance use 2.68 2.97 2.73 2.91 2.95 2.97
Drug sales 2.77 3.00 2.86 3.01 3.03 3.14
Police violence 3.00 2.90 2.74 2.95 2.76 2.34
Traffic safety 3.07 3.24 3.09 3.13 3.22 3.18
Thefts 3.16 3.35 3.26 3.32 3.25 3.57
Domestic abuse and
Intimate partner
violence

3.28 3.31 3.34 3.23 3.24 3.18
Human trafficking 3.27 3.48 3.38 3.23 3.42 3.27
Burglaries and
break-ins

3.35 3.51 3.46 3.50 3.46 3.73
Robberies 3.46 3.67 3.59 3.64 3.56 3.82
Child abuse 3.54 3.68 3.63 3.47 3.63 3.55
Mental health crises 3.59 3.68 3.50 3.54 3.48 3.45
Shooting and
homicides

3.51 3.77 3.69 3.67 3.68 3.77
Sexual assault 3.61 3.80 3.77 3.70 3.77 3.71
Homelessness 3.71 3.59 3.65 3.73 3.59 3.60

Priorities for Community Health and Safety
The mean responses show the highest community support for investment in mental health services, with investment in homeless services programs and violence prevention program also rating fairly high. There are some differences along race and ethnicity in terms of investment priorities, with white respondents rating all listed program investments higher overall, and those with an undisclosed race and ethnicity rating all listed program investments lower overall. While all racial and ethnic groups rated mental health services higher than the other listed program investments, Black respondents rated it particularly high in comparison to other investment options.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 163
10 Table 3. How important is it to you for the City of Berkeley to invest in each of these programs and services to ensure a public safety system that works for all? By race and ethnicity.

White

Black

Latin

Asian
Other
Nonwhite

Undisclosed
Traffic safety programs 2.91 2.90 2.77 2.84 3.02 2.81
Youth employment and
opportunities programs

3.26 2.99 3.23 3.15 3.14 2.74
Substance use services 3.27 3.03 3.21 3.19 3.17 2.81
Violence prevention
programs

3.35 3.19 3.32 3.33 3.41 3.06
Homeless services
program

3.56 3.12 3.26 3.44 3.22 2.86
Mental health services 3.69 3.48 3.46 3.53 3.43 3.15

Experiences in Berkeley
Nearly half of the respondents reported experiencing street harassment, and 41% reported being the victim of a crime. Differences along race and ethnicity appear on a number of self-reported personal experiences. Black respondents were more likely to indicate that they have experienced multiple incidents and conditions, including arrest, police harassment, a mental health crisis, homelessness, family victimization, and crime victimization.

3.59 3.44

3.34 3.22

3.2 2.88

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 164
11 Table 4. Have you personally experienced any of the following in Berkeley? By race and ethnicity.

White

Black

Latin

Asian
Other
Nonwhite

Undisclosed
Spent time in jail 1.3% 5.0% 1.9% 0.0% .6% 1.4%
Substance use crisis 1.3% 4.3% 4.8% 0.0% 1.7% 1.0%
Police violence 1.5% 2.1% 2.9% 2.5% 1.7% .8%
Arrested 1.8% 7.1% 4.8% 1.9% .6% 2.2%
Homelessness 3.1% 12.1% 7.6% 1.9% 6.4% 6.6%
Mental health crisis 5.1% 8.6% 7.6% 4.3% 5.8% 6.2%
Police harassment 4.3% 17.1% 7.6% 5.0% 6.4% 4.0%
Family member of
a crime victim

17.0% 35.0% 24.8% 16.8% 32.0% 32.5%
Involved in a traffic
collision or violence

20.5% 22.9% 20.0% 21.1% 20.3% 25.9%
Victim of a crime 40.2% 50.7% 43.8% 37.3% 43.0% 53.3%
Victim of street
harassment

43.1% 55.7% 61.9% 52.2% 64.0% 64.1%

Crime Victimization
Approximately 30% of the respondents indicated having been a crime victim in the City of Berkeley during the past three years. Respondents who are Black and who declined to disclose race and ethnicity were the most likely to indicate that they have been the victim of a crime in Berkeley during the past three years. White respondents were the least likely to do so.

Substance use crisis

20.3%

6.0%

5.6%

4.3%

2.5%

1.9%

1.6%

1.3%

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 165
12 EXPERIENCE WITH THE BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Over half of the respondents (54%) indicated that they have had contact with the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) during the past three years. Respondents who are Black and who declined to disclose race and ethnicity were the most likely to report that they have had contact with the BPD during the past three years.

Perceived Effectiveness of the Berkeley Police Department Many respondents (38%) perceived the department to be somewhat effective and over half (55.3%) perceived it to be effective or very effective. Only a small number and percentage of the respondents (6.7%) indicated that the Berkeley Police Department is not effective at all.

Some differences in perceived effectiveness of the Berkeley Police Department emerged when the data were disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Nonwhite respondents were more likely to indicate that the

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 166
13 BPD is not effective at all; Asian and Latin respondents were more likely to indicate that the BPD is somewhat effective; and white respondents were more likely to indicate that the BPD is effective. Black residents held diverse views regarding the BPD, and the analysis found that they were more likely to view the BPD as either very effective or not effective at all compared to other groups. Those with undisclosed race and ethnicity were more likely to indicate that the BPD is very effective.

Table 5. When it comes to public safety, how effective is the Berkeley Police Department? By race and ethnicity.

White
N = 1,599

Black
N = 136

Latin
N = 103

Asian
N = 154
Other
Nonwhite
N = 167

Undisclosed
N = 462
Not effective at
all

6.8% 8.8% 4.9% 5.2% 10.2% 5.2%
Somewhat
effective

36.3% 36.0% 41.7% 43.5% 30.5% 35.9%
Effective 43.4% 27.2% 32.0% 35.1% 39.5% 34.0%
Very effective 13.4% 27.9% 21.4% 16.2% 19.8% 24.9%

Trust that the Berkeley Police Department treats all people fairly and equitably A little over half of the respondents trust the BPD to usually treat people fairly and equitably, with the remaining 26% demonstrating low confidence in the police on this measure. A minority of the respondents (22%) always trust the BPD to treat people fairly and equitably. Some differences emerged along race and ethnicity with respect to confidence in the BPD to exercise fairness and equity. Black and Latin respondents hold a variety of perspectives on police. They were more likely than other groups to either not trust the BPD or to have confidence in them. Respondents with an undisclosed race and ethnicity were the most likely to demonstrate confidence in the BPD in this regard, and the least likely to demonstrate low confidence.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 167
14 Table 6. Do you trust the Berkeley Police Department to treat all people equitably and fairly? By race and ethnicity.

White
(N = 1,632)

Black
(N = 139)

Latin
(N = 102)

Asian
(N = 159)
Other
Nonwhite
(N = 169)

Undisclosed
(N = 474)
Not at all 10.3% 16.5% 16.7% 10.1% 10.7% 3.0%
A little 16.1% 12.9% 12.7% 13.9% 12.4% 8.2%
Usually 55.0% 38.8% 37.3% 56.3% 48.5% 44.9%
Always 18.6% 31.7% 33.3% 19.6% 28.4% 43.9%

Quality of Experience with the Berkeley Police Department Among the respondents who indicated that they’ve had contact with the BPD and chose to report on the quality of those experiences, three out of four (74.8%) indicated that the experience was positive or very positive. Differences in experiences with police across race and ethnicity include Black and Asian respondents as the most likely to report negative experiences, and respondents with undisclosed race and ethnicity as the least likely to report negative experiences and the most likely to report positive experiences with the BPD.

Usually (1137)

46.4%

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 168
15 Table 7. How was your experience with the Berkeley Police Department? By race and ethnicity.

White
N = 864
Black
N = 90
Latin
N = 59
Asian
N = 82
Other
Nonwhite
N = 95
Undisclosed
N = 318
Very negative 2.3% 4.4% 5.1% 2.4% 4.2% 0.6%
Negative 6.1% 6.7% 1.7% 11.0% 5.3% 3.8%
Neither positive nor
negative

17.0% 13.3% 20.3% 11.0% 13.7% 12.6%
Positive 31.0% 21.1% 18.6% 31.7% 25.3% 15.1%
Very positive 43.5% 54.4% 54.2% 43.9% 51.6% 67.9%

LIKELIHOOD TO CALL EMERGENCY RESPONSES
Respondents are far more likely to call 911 in response to an emergency situation not involving mental health or substance use (86.2%) than they are to an emergency that does relate to a mental health or substance use crisis (57.9%). Over half of the respondents did, however, indicate that they are likely or very likely to call 911 in response to a mental health or substance-use-related crisis (57.9%).

Black and Latin respondents indicated a wide range of responses to the question regarding their likelihood of calling the 911 in response to a mental health or substance use crisis. On the other hand, racial and ethnic groups responded similarly in response to the question about calling 911 when there’s an emergency not related to mental health or substance use. Substantially more Black respondents indicated extreme reluctance as compared with other groups.

Unlikely
Likely
Very likely

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 169
16 Table 8. How likely are you to call emergency services (911) in response to an emergency NOT related to a mental health or substance use crisis? By race and ethnicity.

White
N =
1,632

Black
N = 140

Latin
N = 104

Asian
N = 156
Other
Nonwhite
N = 171

Undisclosed
N = 468
Very
unlikely

3.7% 9.3% 3.8% 1.9% 2.9% 4.1%
Unlikely 10.9% 11.4% 7.7% 8.3% 10.5% 9.8%
Likely 33.8% 27.9% 33.7% 34.6% 32.2% 26.7%
Very likely 51.5% 51.4% 54.8% 55.1% 54.4% 59.4%

Table 9. How likely are you to call emergency services (911) in response to a mental health or substance use crisis? By race and ethnicity.

White
N = 1,628

Black
N = 140

Latin
N = 104

Asian
N = 158
Other
Nonwhite
N = 170

Undisclosed
N = 471
Very
unlikely 15.2% 20.0% 20.2% 6.3% 14.7% 15.9%
Unlikely 26.7% 25.0% 20.2% 35.4% 31.2% 22.9%
Likely 30.8% 20.7% 21.2% 32.9% 28.8% 28.5%
Very
likely 27.4% 34.3% 38.5% 25.3% 25.3% 32.7%

PREFERENCE FOR CRISIS RESPONSE
A large majority of the respondents (80.8%) indicated a preference for trained mental health providers to respond to calls related to mental health and substance use, with most among those respondents indicating that police support should be available when needed. Some respondents (19%) indicated a preference for a police response, with over two-thirds of those respondents indicating that mental health providers should be available for support.

All racial and ethnic groups show a preference for “Trained mental health providers, with support from police when needed” to respond to calls related to mental health and substance use. Respondents whose race and ethnicity were undisclosed were the most likely to prefer a police response (42%) in comparison to other groups.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 170
17 PREFERENCE FOR RESPONSE TO HOMELESSNESS
A large majority of the respondents (83.6%) indicated a preference for homeless services providers to respond to calls related to homelessness, with most among those respondents indicating that police support should be available when needed. Some of the respondents (15.7%) indicated a preference for a police response, with the majority of those respondents indicating that homeless services providers should be available for support.

All racial and ethnic groups show a preference for homeless services providers, with support from police when needed to respond to calls related to homelessness. Respondents whose racial and ethnic were undisclosed were the most likely to prefer a police response (41%) in comparison to other groups.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

0%

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 171
18 REFERENCES
Conron, K.J., W. Luhur, and S.K. Golberg. LGBT Adults in Large US Metropolitan Areas. Los Angeles: UCLA School of Law Williams Institute, 2021. Retrieved on 6/24/21 from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/MSA-LGBT-Ranking-Mar-2021.pdf.

Jones, J.M. “LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest U.S. Estimate.” Gallup News, February 24, 2021.

Retrieved on 6/24/21from https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest- estimate.aspx.

Whitfield, G. P., S. A. Carlson, E. N. Ussery, K. B. Watson, D. R. Brown, D. Berrigan, and J. E. Fulton. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Perceived Safety Barriers to Walking, United States National Health Interview Survey—2015.” Preventative Medicine, no. 114 (June 9, 2018): 57–63.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 172
19 APPENDIX

SAMPLE PROFILE
Relationship to City of Berkeley
The vast majority of the survey respondents live in Berkeley (84.4%). A portion work in Berkeley (but don’t live there), and a small number have other situations or provided no information. Notably, very few houseless residents responded to the survey.

Live or work in Berkeley (N = 2,729) Percent
Live in Berkeley 84.4%
Work in Berkeley 12.0%
I am currently experiencing homelessness 0.1%
I do not live or work in Berkeley 2.3%
No information 1.1%

Zip Code
The Berkeley population is spread out primarily across the 10 zip codes listed in the table and chart below, which compare the survey responses with Berkeley population figures.1 These data show that certain zip codes are overrepresented in the sample (e.g., 94702, 94705, 94707), while others are underrepresented (e.g., 94704, 94706).

Age
The sample skews significantly toward older respondents, with approximately 70% of the respondents who provided information on their age identifying themselves as 45 years or older, and over 40% of the respondents identifying themselves as 60 years or older. By comparison, among the adult population of

1 Zip-code data for the residents of Berkeley from Zip-code.com. Retrieved on 6/24/21 from https://www.zip- codes.com/city/ca-berkeley.asp.

16%

10%
8%

7%

94702 94703 94704
94705

94706 94707 94708 94709 94710 94720

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 173
20 Berkeley, 42% is estimated to be 45 or older, and only 25% is estimated to be 60 or older.2 Note that there were 55 respondents who did not respond to this question.

Age Range (N = 2,674) Percent
Under 14 years (1) 0.04%
14–17 (3) 0.1%
18–29 (182) 6.8%
30–44 (21) 23.2%
45–59 (788) 29.5%
60+ years (1,079) 40.4%

Sexual Orientation
Of the respondents who responded to the question pertaining to sexual orientation (84 respondents declined to answer the question), 67% indicated that they are heterosexual or straight; nearly 17% indicated a preference not to disclose; and approximately 16% indicated a sexual orientation generally classified under the umbrella of LGBTQ. While there are no reliable existing figures to show the percentage of the LGBTQ population among Berkeley residents, it is reasonable to speculate that the LGBTQ population is overrepresented in the sample on the basis of recent figures estimating that the LGBTQ population in the wider Bay Area is 6.7% (Conron, et al., 2021). Furthermore, new analyses show that younger populations are more likely to indicate an LGBTQ identification as compared with older populations (Jones, 2021). Given this research and the age of the sample, one would anticipate a lower-than-average LGBTQ percentage in the sample rather than a higher-than-average percentage— which again suggests over-sampling of the LGBTQ population.

Sexual Orientation (N = 2,645) Percent
Heterosexual or straight (1,771) 67.0%
Prefer not to say (447) 16.9%
Gay or lesbian (155) 5.9%
Bisexual (133) 5.0%
Queer (72) 2.7%
Questioning or unsure (16) 0.6%
Other, please specify (51) 1.9%

2 Population estimates from Census Reporter. Retrieved on 6/24/21 from https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0606000-berkeley-ca/.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 174
21 Gender Identity
In terms of gender, men are underrepresented in the sample. A substantial portion of the respondents (nearly 10%) preferred not to disclose their gender identity.

Gender Identity (N = 2,662) Percent
Woman (1,439) 54.1%
Man (893) 33.5%
Genderqueer / nonbinary / other (73) 2.7%
Prefer not to say (257) 9.7%

Race and Ethnicity
The table below represents all survey responses to the question of race and ethnicity before any recoding or weighting, so the total number exceeds the number of respondents. Please note that for this survey, respondents were invited to select all racial and ethnic categories that applied to them. In other words, an individual who selected White, as well as Black or African American and South Asian is counted three times in the table below.

Race and ethnicity Number % of Total
White 1787 65.5%
Black or African American 137 5.0%
Latin 126 4.6%
East Asian 168 6.2%
South East Asian 53 1.9%
South Asian 47 1.7%
Middle Eastern / North African 42 1.5%
American Indian / Native American / Alaskan
Native
33 1.2%
Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian 22 0.8%
Other 113 4.1%
Prefer not to say 409 15.0%

In order to simplify the data to allow for disaggregated analyses and to enable the creation of a weighting scheme, the analysts created a reduced number of discrete (i.e., not overlapping) racial and ethnic categories. To condense the data into discrete categories, the data were recoded in the following manner:
• White: Respondents who selected only White as their race and ethnicity were coded as white; respondents who selected “Other” and then wrote in only an ethnicity that is considered white (e.g., European, Irish, Jewish, etc.) were coded as white. • Black: Respondents who selected Black were coded as Black, even if they also selected other racial and ethnic identities.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 175
22 • Latin: Respondents who had selected Latin were coded as Latin, even if they also selected other racial and ethnic identities (unless they also selected Black, in which case they were recoded as Black).
• Asian: Respondents who selected East Asian, Southeast Asian, or Other and then wrote in an ethnicity that is considered Asian (e.g., Japanese, Chinese, etc.) were coded as Asian, even if they also selected other racial and ethnic identities (besides Black or Latin) • Other Nonwhite: All other nonwhite racial and ethnic categories were combined into a single “Other Nonwhite” variable, including Native American / Alaskan, South Asian, Arab / Middle Eastern, and Pacific Islander / Native Hawaiian, as well as anyone who selected multiple racial and ethnic identities that did not include Black, Latin, or Asian, and anyone who selected “Other” and then wrote in an ethnicity that was outside the aforementioned categories.

Notably, after White the most common response in the data set was “Prefer not to say,” which was recoded to include blank responses as well as anyone who selected “Other” and then wrote in a nonresponsive category (e.g., “human race,” “race does not exist,” or “irrelevant”). These respondents comprise 18% of the sample (478 out of 2,708) and are listed as Undisclosed under race and ethnicity. In the disaggregated analyses, their responses are included to show how this group’s answers differed from those of other groups, but for the purposes of devising a weighting scheme on the basis of race and ethnicity, these respondents are omitted, as the race and ethnicity data for them is essentially missing.

Sample
Berkeley Population
US Census QuickFacts
Est. 2019

Weighting
Factor
Asian 161 7% 21% 3
Black 140 6% 8% 1.333
Latin 105 5% 11% 2.2
Other Nonwhite 172 8% 7% 0.875
White 1652 74% 53% 0.716
Subtotal 2230 100% 100% --

Asian

US Census Quick Fact Est 2019

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 176
23 Undisclosed 478 18% -- --
Total sample 2708 100% -- --

The Berkeley Community Safety survey sample (respondent population) is not representative of the Berkeley population in terms of race and ethnicity. The table above shows the breakdown of race and ethnicity for the Berkeley population and the sample (for the respondents who provided race and ethnicity information).

For all findings provided below in aggregate (i.e., not disaggregated by race and ethnicity), the analysis includes weighting by the race and ethnicity factor (as listed above) in order to correct for the disproportionate representation of some racial and ethnic groups in the sample. So, for example, respondents who are Asian comprise only 7% of the sample but 21% of the Berkeley population. So in the frequency tables in the findings section, responses from Asian-identified respondents are amplified by a factor of 3. Similarly, white and Other Nonwhite respondents are overrepresented in the sample, so the value of their responses is discounted to 71.6% and 87.5% of their original value, respectively.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 177
24 Race and ethnicity by Zip Code
Ethnicity
Blank

94701

94702

94703

94704

94705

94706

94707

94708

94709

94710

94712

94720
Not
sure

Total
White # 48 4 264 247 126 264 33 229 186 129 91 1 25 5 1652 % 2.9% .2% 16.0% 15.0% 7.6% 16.0% 2.0% 13.9% 11.3% 7.8% 5.5% .1% 1.5% .3% 100.0% Black # 4 0 31 24 16 11 2 6 9 7 24 0 4 2 140
% 2.9% 0.0% 22.1% 17.1% 11.4% 7.9% 1.4% 4.3% 6.4% 5.0% 17.1% 0.0% 2.9% 1.4% 100.0% Latin # 3 0 18 15 15 22 7 7 5 4 6 0 0 3 105
% 2.9% 0.0% 17.1% 14.3% 14.3% 21.0% 6.7% 6.7% 4.8% 3.8% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% 100.0% Asian # 7 0 27 27 19 14 2 10 18 19 11 0 7 0 161
% 4.3% 0.0% 16.8% 16.8% 11.8% 8.7% 1.2% 6.2% 11.2% 11.8% 6.8% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 100.0% Other
Nonwhite
# 11 1 19 23 28 15 6 15 18 15 13 0 7 1 172
% 6.4% .6% 11.0% 13.4% 16.3% 8.7% 3.5% 8.7% 10.5% 8.7% 7.6% 0.0% 4.1% .6% 100.0% Undisclosed # 63 3 72 75 56 56 8 53 32 25 30 0 8 18 499 % 12.6% .6% 14.4% 15.0% 11.2% 11.2% 1.6% 10.6% 6.4% 5.0% 6.0% 0.0% 1.6% 3.6% 100.0% Total # 136 8 431 411 260 382 58 320 268 199 175 1 51 29 2729 % 5.0% .3% 15.8% 15.1% 9.5% 14.0% 2.1% 11.7% 9.8% 7.3% 6.4% .0% 1.9% 1.1% 100.0%

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 178
25 If you would like to take this survey in Spanish, please select Spanish on the right (in the black bar above).

Si le gustaría responder a esta encueta en español, por favor escoja “Español” a la derecha (en la barra color negro que aparece arriba).

The City of Berkeley is looking to create a community safety model that reflects the needs of the community. We invite those who live, work, and study in the City of Berkeley to provide their input on the following:
• The current state of public safety in Berkeley
• The role of the Berkeley Police Department
• Your ideas for the future
Your participation in the survey will inform our decisions about funding and strategy for community safety in Berkeley.

We want your honest feedback and perspective. Your survey responses are completely anonymous and confidential. You can skip any questions and end the survey at any time. Only Bright Research Group, a third-party outside research firm, will have access to the survey responses. Bright Research Group will summarize de-identified survey responses in a report to the City of Berkeley.

If you have any questions, please contact David White at [email protected].

1) How safe do you think Berkeley is?
Very safe
Safe
Somewhat safe
Unsafe
Very unsafe

2) For you, what would make Berkeley a safer city?

CITY OF BERKELEY REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY SURVEY
Community Safety

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 179
26 3) How important are the following issues to community health and safety in Berkeley to you? Please rate each of the issues.

Very
important

Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Shooting and
homicides

Robberies
Domestic
abuse and
intimate
partner
violence

Sexual assault
Child abuse
Burglaries and
break-ins

Thefts
Traffic safety
Mental health
crises

Homelessness
Drug sales
Substance use

Human
trafficking

Police
violence

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 180
27 4) Have you personally experienced any of the following in Berkeley? Please check all that apply.

Homelessness
Arrested
Spent time in jail
Victim of a crime
Family member of a crime victim
Victim of street harassment
Involved in a traffic collision or traffic violence
Mental health crisis
Substance use crisis
Police harassment
Police violence
None of the above

5) Have you been a victim of a crime in the City of Berkeley in the past 3 years? Yes
No

6) Have you had contact with the Berkeley Police Department in the past 3 years? Yes
No

7) How was your experience with the Berkeley Police Department? Very positive
Positive
Neither positive nor negative
Negative
Very negative

8) What recommendations do you have to improve police response?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 181
28 9) When it comes to public safety, how effective is the Berkeley Police Department? Very effective
Effective
Somewhat effective
Not effective at all

10) Please share examples of how the Berkeley Police Department has worked well in your community.

If you feel it would be helpful, please describe your community (for example, by race and ethnicity, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, housing status, age, physical or mental disabilities, class, religion, immigration status).

11) Please share examples of how the Berkeley Police Department has not worked well in your community.

If you feel it would be helpful, please describe your community (for example, by race and ethnicity, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, housing status, age, physical or mental disabilities, class, religion, immigration status).

12) Do you trust the Berkeley Police Department to treat all people fairly and equitably? Always
Usually
A little
Not at all

13) In what ways could the Berkeley Police Department work to build more trust with the community?

Reimagining Public Safety

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 182
29 14) How important is it to you for the City of Berkeley to invest in each of these programs and services to ensure a public safety system that works for all?

Very
important

Important Somewhat
important
Not
important
Youth
employment
and
opportunities
programs

Homeless
services
program

Mental
health
services

Substance
use services

Violence
prevention
programs

Traffic safety
programs

15) What other programs and services do we need to invest in within our community to ensure a public safety system that works for all?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 183
30 As part of the city’s Reimagining Public Safety Initiative, the city is developing a pilot program to reassign noncriminal police service calls to a Specialized Care Unit.

This Specialized Care Unit (SCU) will consist of trained crisis-response workers who will respond to calls that are determined to be noncriminal and that pose no immediate threat to the safety of community members and/or responding personnel.

Your answers to the following questions will help the city in the design of the pilot program.

16) How likely are you to call emergency services (9-1-1) in response to a mental health or substance use crisis? Very Likely
Likely
Unlikely
Very unlikely

17) How likely are you to call emergency services (9-1-1) in response to an emergency not related to mental health or substance use ?
Very likely
Likely
Unlikely
Very unlikely

18) Who should respond to calls related to mental health and substance use? Trained mental health providers, with no police involvement at all Trained mental health providers, with support from police when needed Police, with support from trained mental health providers Police who have received additional training
No one should respond

19) Who should respond to calls related to homelessness? Homeless service providers, with no police involvement at all Homeless service providers, with support of police when needed Police, with support from homeless service providers
Police who have received additional training

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 184
31 No one should respond

20) Please share any experiences you have had with mental health and/or substance use crisis response services in Berkeley.

21) What recommendations do you have to improve mental health and/or substance use crisis response in Berkeley?

Demographic Information
22) What best describes you?
Live in Berkeley
Work in Berkeley
I am currently experiencing homelessness
I do not live or work in Berkeley

23) Which City of Berkeley zip code do you live or work in? 94701
94702
94703
94704
94705
94706
94707
94708
94709
94710
94712
94720
Not sure

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 185
32 24) How old are you?
Under 14 years
14–17
18–29
30–44
45–59
60+ years

25) What is your race and ethnicity? (Check all that apply.) Black or African American
Latinx
White
East Asian
South Asian
South East Asian
Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian
American Indian, Native American, or Alaskan Native
Middle Eastern or North African
Prefer not to say Other—
please specify:

26) Do you identify as transgender?
Yes
No
Unsure / prefer not to say

27) What is your gender?
Woman
Man
Genderqueer
Nonbinary Other—
please specify: Prefer
not to say

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 186
33 28) How would you describe your sexual orientation?
Gay or lesbian
Bisexual
Queer
Questioning or unsure
Heterosexual or straight
Other—please specify: *
Prefer not to say

29) Are you familiar with the City of Berkeley’s efforts to reimagine public safety? Yes
No

30) Would you like to know more about the city’s efforts to reimagine public safety? Yes
No

Thank you!

Thank you for taking our survey! Your response is very important to us. You can find more information about the City of Berkeley’s ongoing efforts to reimagine public safety at https://berkeley-rps.org.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 187
34 CITY OF BERKELEY :

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY —COMMUNITY

PERCEPTIONS

Summary of Findings—July 2021

Bright Research Group
1211 Preservation Park Way
Oakland, CA 94612
www.BrightResearchGroup.com

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 188
35 INTRODUCTION
The City of Berkeley is working to develop a community-safety model that reflects the needs of the community and creates increased safety for all. In collaboration with the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Bright Research Group (BRG) facilitated a series of focus groups to gather community perspectives on the current state of public safety, the role of the Berkeley Police Department (BPD), and the future of public safety. The McGee Avenue Baptist Church; the Center for Food, Faith & Justice; and the Berkeley Underground Scholars facilitated outreach to Black, Latin, system-impacted, and unstably housed / food-insecure residents. This report summarizes the key findings from the focus groups conducted in the spring and summer of 2021.

METHODOLOGY
Bright Research Group worked with the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform and the Berkeley City Manager s Office to identify several priority populations for community focus groups—Black, Latin, formerly incarcerated, and low-income individuals struggling with food and/or housing insecurity. The research aimed to gather community insights from those most impacted by disparate policing and was guided by the following research questions:
• How do community members view public safety in Berkeley? How safe do they feel in Berkeley, and what are their most pressing public-safety priorities? • What ideas does the community have when it comes to reimagining public safety? How should public safety issues be addressed and by whom?
• How do community members experience and view the BPD? How does the BPD currently operate in communities, and what role should they play in future public safety efforts?

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Bright Research Group researchers conducted four focus groups and spoke with 55 individuals. The focus groups ran for 60–90 minutes and included questions about the participants’ perceptions of public safety in Berkeley, including their opinions about existing and proposed responses to crime, mental health crises, homelessness, traffic safety, priorities as they relate to increasing public safety, and their experiences with and opinions about the role of the BPD.

Focus Group Description Number of Participants
Black Residents 18
Housing- / Food-Insecure Residents 27
Black and Latin Youth 4
Justice-System-Impacted Students 6
Total Stakeholders 55

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 189
36 “A lot of people in our
community don’t feel safe
around Black bodies and the
reality is that there are less
Black bodies in Berkeley That
may be the plan from the
perspective of those who don’t
feel safe around Black
bodies...”
—Resident
BRG analyzed the data from the focus groups and conducted a thematic analysis by research question.

The themes uncovered during the thematic analyses are documented in this report as findings and recommendations, and they are intended to support the City of Berkeley and the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force as they work to develop a community safety model that reflects the needs of the community, creates increased safety for all, and reduces inequities and disparities about access to safety.

Limitations: The focus groups reached 55 individuals. A key limitation is that the qualitative data is not necessarily representative of the perspectives of Black, Latin, formerly incarcerated, and houseless residents. Additionally, youth under age 18 and Latin residents were not well-represented in the focus groups.

As part of the community-engagement process, BRG developed a community-safety survey that was distributed by the Berkeley City Manager’s Office, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, and other community partners.

As a group, focus group participants were more critical of the Berkeley Police Department than survey participants.

FINDINGS

COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS AND PRIORITIES FOR SAFETY IN BERKELEY When it comes to feelings of safety from crime, the focus group participants described Berkeley as a city divided. The focus group participants agreed that many areas of Berkeley are relatively safe but pointed to significant disparities in neighborhood safety. Black residents named the neighborhoods below Martin Luther King Boulevard as unsafe and the hills and neighborhoods above Martin Luther King Boulevard as safe. They indicated that feelings of safety for some come at the expense of younger adults, Black people, and unhoused residents, who are targets of greater surveillance and looming displacement. Black residents and students who participated in the focus groups emphasized that gentrification is detrimental to community safety, erodes community cohesion, and negatively impacts their sense of belonging in their own neighborhoods.

Focus group participants shared concerns about gang involvement, racism, and the availability of guns in Berkeley. Black residents expressed concerns about low-income Black youth s involvement in regional gang and group activity connected to Oakland and Richmond and described a need for deeper recognition of the vulnerability of Black youth. They called for increased investments in community- based and peer-led violence-prevention programs and named a specific need for Black-centered and Black-led mentorship interventions.

Black and Latin youth and students expressed significant concerns about their personal safety and worry most about being victims of robberies, shootings, and police violence. When asked about how safe Berkeley is, students and youth said they do not feel comfortable while walking the streets or enjoying public spaces in Berkeley and therefore move through the city cautiously. Black and Latin students and youth feel hyper visible while living in Berkeley. The students described feeling equally surveilled by neighbors and police and shared that living under a

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 190
37 constant veil of suspicion is stressful, makes them feel like outsiders in their own city, and prevents them from fully engaging in the community. Black students pointed to the decreasing number of Black residents and the racism expressed by some locals as a source of stress. One Black student shared a story of being profiled by a neighbor who accused her of stealing packages from his porch.

In addition, the Black youth who participated in the focus group expressed dismay at the ease with which children and teenagers can purchase guns in the City of Berkeley. They spoke about a bustling, well-known, and easily accessible illegal gun market operating in the city and were troubled by the inability of the police and city leaders to stop the flow of guns into their communities. They named ending gun violence and police harassment of youth of color as Berkeley s most pressing community safety priorities.

The focus group participants lifted homelessness and the housing crisis as one of the most critical public safety issues in Berkeley; they feel strongly that the city is responsible for providing for the basic needs of every resident. The participants expressed dissatisfaction with the city s current management of homeless services and supports. When asked about the existing crisis system and the approach to homeless services, many of the participants explained that the police should have limited or no involvement in the issue. They cited the need to provide wraparound supports, including long-term housing, mental health care, drug treatment, and skills training for homeless residents.

Residents across the focus groups believe that most crimes in Berkeley are crimes of survival or the result of mental health issues and asserted that building an infrastructure to support a higher quality of life for homeless and low-income residents would make Berkeley safer. They called for more investment in housing, health care, and youth programs.

During the focus group with housing-insecure residents, the participants shared their critiques of the current approach to public safety advanced by city leadership. From their perspective, the city leadership prioritizes investments that fulfill the demands of wealthy residents. As examples, they cited the installation of speed bumps on roadways and the placement of surveillance cameras on city streets, while the critical needs of homeless, low-income, and formerly incarcerated residents are ignored. They recommended 24-hour street teams to provide medical and mental health care in communities, safe indoor and outdoor public spaces that stay open late, more community-run drop-in programs with the capacity to meet their basic needs, and expanded access to education, job training, and healing arts.

The focus group participants rely on each other and community -based organizations for safety and support. Black residents, housing-insecure residents, and system-impacted students expressed significant distrust in the city government. When asked about who or what makes them feel safe in Berkeley, they emphasized that they do not feel seen, heard, or protected by government entities.

Instead, they rely on one another and community-based organizations for safety and supports. At the same time, they have an expectation that the government should care about, work for, and be accountable to them as tax-paying and contributing residents of Berkeley. They were frustrated by what they see as the failure of city leaders to recognize their value, voice, and legitimacy when it comes to “It’s not as safe as it used to
be. It’s too many people on the
streets with severe mental
health issues and nobody to
monitor them.”

—Resident

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 191
38 “They {police} were people
persons back in the day and now
they are not. It was a different
mentality.”
—Resident
influencing the way the city is run. They called for greater decision-making power when it comes to how resources are deployed in their communities.

COMMUNITY LENS ON THE BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT
The focus group participants do not view the BPD as a community resource and instead rely on themselves and their communities for safety. Black residents, youth, system-impacted students, and low-income residents experiencing housing/food insecurity agreed that the current practices of the BPD are not in alignment with the needs and priorities of their communities. When it comes to crime and violence, the focus group participants across the demographics indicated that officers are largely absent in their communities and questioned the police department s commitment, skill, and capacity to prevent, intervene in, and solve serious crimes.

Focus group participants believe that police resources are mismanaged. They explained that the police currently prioritize high-income residents’ low-level calls for service and spend too much time enforcing quality-of-life issues and recommended that the city prioritize improvements in police response times to emergencies identified by residents, as well as building relationships with the communities who experience both the disparate impacts of policing and violence/crime.

When asked about their experiences with and perceptions of the BPD, the participants in the focus groups shared a common perception that policing in Berkeley is racist and classist. They said that they do not look to the BPD for protection and instead feel targeted and unsafe when in their presence. They asserted that the city leadership is complacent in the BPD’s racism and allows racial profiling and the harassment of Black, brown, and low-income residents to go on unchecked in the city. Many long-time Black residents described an increasingly aggressive style of policing and militarization in recent years that stands in sharp contrast to the friendlier community policing style they experienced while growing up in Berkeley. Black men, women, and youth shared recent personal experiences of being racially profiled and stopped by the BPD and expressed feelings of anger about their experiences. Similarly, individuals struggling with housing insecurity reported being targeted by the police due to their race and income level. Two Latin students explained that they and their friends are often stopped on and near the campus by both the campus police and the BPD because they do not fit the profile of the average UC Berkeley student. In addition, the youth who participated in the focus group said they’d witnessed the police harassing homeless people and immigrants working as street vendors. In response, the Black, housing insecure, student, and youth participants attempt to avoid the police whenever possible.

The focus group participants shared a range of perspectives regarding the future role of the BPD. Although they agree on the current state of policing in Berkeley, there are diverse opinions regarding the future role of the police. Some of the focus group participants believe the city should focus on police reform, while others think significant divestment from policing is needed. For those who discussed reforms, increased police training—including de-escalation, trauma-informed response, and racial-bias curriculum—were lifted as priorities along with a focus on hiring Black officers and officers of

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 192
39 color from the community to improve police-community relationships and increase trust. During the focus groups, Black participants, youth, and people experiencing food/housing insecurity lifted the importance of expanding community policing in the form of foot and bicycle patrols. In addition, residents named a need for increased police accountability in the form of mandatory body-worn-camera policies; community-led police commissions staffed with low-income people of color; the proactive, regular release of police performance and misconduct data; and swift terminations of officers who practice racially biased policing.

Youth recognized and named the power of the BPD and wish the police would use their power to protect them and support their communities. They would like to have police officers who are part of the community, live in the community, and interact positively with young people through sports and mentoring.

The focus group participants who discussed divesting from policing recommended that the city invest in trained peacekeepers and community safety patrols focused on crime prevention and intervention strategies. They lifted relationship building, cultural competency, de-escalation techniques, and restorative justice as the core strategies to be deployed by these community patrols.

Overall, the focus group participants believe that investing in community health and ensuring that all residents have equitable access to quality education, food, shelter, and jobs should be the priority over investments in and reliance on the police to create community safety.

COMMUNITY IDEAS ABOUT ALTERNATIVE RESPONSES
When it comes to mental health crises and homelessness, the focus group participants across the demographic groups suggested that clinicians and social workers play a role in interventions and responses. While most of the focus group participants characterized the police as not fit or qualified to respond to these calls and wanted police response limited to situations involving violence, they described an expectation that when police do respond, they are skilled in crisis intervention, de-escalation, and cultural competency.

The focus group participants across the demographic groups viewed traffic enforcement as a low- priority public safety issue in Berkeley. They recommended that the role of the police be streamlined and believe that officers currently spend too much time involved in car stops, which disparately target Black residents. When presented with the idea of unarmed staff handling traffic enforcement, most were open to the idea, but some expressed concerns about the safety of civilian staff. Although Black residents expressed support for non-police responses, they have little confidence in the city s ability to decrease racism and disparate stops through the creation of unarmed civilian units.

“Police ask if they can search the
car, if you are on probation or
parole, and if there are any drugs
or guns in the car before they
even tell the driver why they were
pulled over.”
—Resident

“They need more street teams;
they drive around looking for tents
and sign people up for services.

Back then there used to be street
teams, but now there’s not as
many. They need mental health
teams, not the police”
—Resident

“The police are supposed to be
superheroes who protect us, but
they’ve turned against us.”
—Youth, age 13

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 193
40 The Black residents who participated in the focus group do not trust that the city s proposed alternative programs will reduce racial oppression and racial disparities , noting that the racism and anti-blackness that exists within the police department exists throughout the city government. They feared that without a true commitment to an antiracist approach to program design and implementation, as well as an authentic process to co-create these programs with the most impacted communities, the new programs will simply replicate the racist abuse, oversurveillance, and lack of responsiveness to community needs currently practiced by the police department. They explained that hiring local Black social workers, mental health clinicians, and traffic-enforcement staff will be essential to ensuring equitable interactions between Black residents and any new programs or city departments.

COMMUNITY -C ENTERED VISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY
The focus group participants shared a common vision of public safety beyond the absence of crime as the presence of community health and equitable access to a higher quality of life for low-income, homeless, and Black and brown residents. The focus group participants expressed hope in the future of Berkeley and a desire to build close-knit, inclusive communities capable of taking care of all residents. Across the focus groups, the residents called for the city to make long-term investments in housing, educational enrichment, mentoring, health care, and job-training programs for youth and low- income residents. These, they maintained, would create authentic community safety. Other investment priorities include drug-treatment services, programs to interrupt recidivism, and prevention and advocacy to address gender-based violence and intimate-partner abuse.

Black residents expressed willingness to work collaboratively with the City of Berkeley and the BPD on relationship building, reform, and reimagining efforts, but in the meantime, they named a need for safety ambassadors who can act as a bridge between the Black community and the police. They expressed frustration about what they see as the city government’s failure to listen to and act on their experiences and expertise when it comes to designing public safety strategies. Black residents believe they have a lot to offer when it comes to creating and implementing new programs and strategies and see their involvement in reimagining efforts as essential to increasing equity, reducing harms, and increasing safety.

The focus group participants expressed broad support for and belief in the power of community - driven crime prevention strategies and expressed trust in community -based and faith-based organizations. They believe the city government should make deeper investments in the community- based organizations run by leaders of color from the community. In addition, marginalized communities want increased access to power in the city in the form of representation. They explained that seeing more Black, Latin, and people from low-income backgrounds who share similar experiences in city- leadership positions, on committees, and within the police department will make Berkeley a safer city.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 194
41 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations represent a compilation of the focus group participants’ ideas for improving public safety.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
€ Expand the city’s definition of public safety to include community health and equity € Prioritize long-term investments in housing, mental health care, and drug treatment for homeless residents
€ Increase investments in community-based and peer-led crime prevention programs € Create 24-hour street teams to provide medical and mental health care in communities € Invest in community-based drop-in centers
€ Train community peacekeepers and create community safety patrols € Hire local Black social workers, mental health clinicians, and traffic-enforcement staff to support equitable interactions between Black residents and any new public safety programs € Streamline the role of the police to focus on violence prevention and intervention and responses to emergency calls for service
€ Increase transparency and accountability of the BPD regarding racially disparate policing € Increase opportunities for positive police engagement with Black and Latin community members and youth
€ Identify opportunities to partner with impacted communities on reimagining public safety strategies

Prioritize
the safety
of youth of
color

Build
equitable
infrastructur
e

Streamline
role of the
BPD

Support for
alternatives

Community
vision of
public
safety

Community
- led
solutions

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 195
42 € Prioritize the representation of Black, Latin, youth, and criminal-justice-impacted individuals, as well as people who’ve experienced homelessness, in city leadership, police-department staffing, and committee appointments

CONCLUSION
The City of Berkeley and the Reimaging Public Safety Task Force are well-positioned to use their power and positionality to develop a community safety model that reflects the needs of the community, reduces inequities and disparities, and creates increased safety for all. This report summarizes the key findings from the focus groups conducted in the spring and summer of 2021 and represents an important step in building understanding of community strengths, needs, and public safety priorities.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 196
43 CITY OF BERKELEY :

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY SURVEY —

COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS

Latin Community Perceptions Summary of Findings—July 2021

Bright Research Group
1211 Preservation Park Way
Oakland, CA 94612
www.BrightResearchGroup.com

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 197
44 INTRODUCTION
The City of Berkeley is working to develop a community-safety model that reflects the needs of the community and creates increased safety for all. In collaboration with the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, the City of Berkeley, and the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, Bright Research Group (BRG) developed and conducted a community survey to gather residents’ experiences with and perceptions of the Berkeley Police Department and crisis response, perspectives on and priorities for reimagining public safety, and recommendations for alternative responses for community safety. This report summarizes the key qualitative findings from survey respondents who identified as Latin.

METHODOLOGY
A total of 2,729 survey responses were collected between May 18 and June 15, 2021. The City of Berkeley, the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, community-based organizations, and other key partners disseminated the community survey through various online channels and websites to those who live, work, and study in Berkeley, in English and Spanish. Respondents completed the survey online.

The survey included the following six open-ended questions related to community perceptions of safety and preferences regarding public safety strategies:
• What recommendations do you have to improve police response? • Please share examples of how the Berkeley Police Department has worked well in your community.
• Please share examples of how the Berkeley Police Department has not worked well in your community.
• In what ways could the Berkeley Police Department work to build more trust with the community?
• What other programs and services do we need to invest in within our community to ensure a public safety system that works for all?
• Please share any experiences you have had with mental health and/or substance use crisis response services in Berkeley.

During the research design, Bright Research Group worked with the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform and the Berkeley City Manager’s Office to identify several priority populations for engagement beyond the community survey. The McGee Avenue Baptist Church; the Center for Food, Faith & Justice; and the Berkeley Underground Scholars facilitated outreach to the identified priority populations. Bright Research Group conducted a series of focus groups to gather their perspectives on the current state of public safety, the role of the Berkeley Police Department (BPD), and the future of public safety. Although the focus groups engaged 55 individuals, Latin residents were not well- represented. In order to learn more about the priorities of Latin residents, BRG analyzed the qualitative data responses from survey respondents who identified as Latin. Of the 2,729 survey respondents, 126 individuals identified as Latin. BRG conducted a thematic analysis by qualitative research question. This report documents the key findings and recommendations from this thematic analysis.

Limitations: Of the 126 Latin respondents, only 2 completed the survey in Spanish. This suggests that the opinions, experiences, and preferences of recent immigrant, monolingual Spanish speakers are under- represented. Latin respondents were under-represented in the survey responses and these results may not be generalizable to the city as a whole.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 198
45 FINDINGS

COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS AND PRIORITIES FOR SAFETY IN BERKELEY When it comes to feelings of safety in Berkeley, the survey respondents expressed significant concerns related to their safety and the safety of their family members and were dissatisfied with the city’s response. Many Latin survey respondents associated the homeless crisis with feeling unsafe in Berkeley. Respondents described homelessness as the source of crime and reason that Berkeley is unsafe. Respondents recounted instances of street harassment by unhoused residents and expressed frustration that many parks, streets, and neighborhoods including downtown are not usable due to blight and on-going street harassment associated with the homeless population. The current state of public spaces in Berkeley negatively impacts Latin residents’ quality of life and influences their decisions about how they and their children move through the city. In addition, some Latin respondents expressed concerns about traffic safety and violent crime including gang violence, robberies, and shootings in Berkeley.

Overall, Latin respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the city’s current approach to public safety and shared a common expectation that city leaders should prioritize cleaning up streets and public parks, installing additional lighting in neighborhoods, improving traffic control, and urgently address the issue of a growing homeless population in Berkeley.

Additionally, they called for increased gun control, investments in youth prevention and intervention programs, and more visible police presence, such as officers patrolling on foot and bicycles.

Latin survey respondents lifted homelessness and the housing crisis as the most critical public safety issues in Berkeley but expressed divergent views about the best way to address the issues.

Many respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the city s current response to homelessness in Berkeley. While residents concurred that the city’s current response to homelessness is inadequate and needs to be reconstructed, they offered a wide range of solutions. Recommendations ranged from enforcing a zero-tolerance approach to illegally parked RV’s, criminalizing substance use and removing encampments to investing in upstream efforts to tackle homelessness and mental illness, such as investments in affordable housing, therapeutic services, and living wage employment.

When asked about the crisis response system, Latin residents offered few perspectives related to the current crisis system. Instead, they wanted the city to address the root causes of homelessness such as affordable housing, economic opportunity and treatment options. When asked specifically about their experiences with the existing crisis system and the city’s response to calls for service associated with homeless services, mental health, and substance abuse, a small number of respondents offered feedback on the existing crisis response system. Many responses “The level of people
experiencing homelessness
that are directly affecting
people’s day to day lives has
gotten to a tipping point. From
being accosted on the street to
having to swerve while driving
from people in
encampments….we need to
address the homeless issue
immediately!”
—Resident
“The city needs to have actual
housing with requirements for
homeless and facilities that can
actually deal with mental health
issues as well as drug and
alcohol issues. The current
county systems do not work.”

—Resident

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 199
46 collapsed mental health, substance use, and homelessness and expressed frustration with the city’s inability to identify and implement solutions. For those who did share personal experiences with the current crisis response system, there was a range of opinions about its effectiveness. Some respondents dealt only with the police during a mental health crisis and felt that they were professional and efficient while others expressed an unmet need for a counselor or clinician. A few respondents described positive regard for a collaborative team that includes the police and a mental health professional during crisis situations.

Overall, respondents focused on the need for long range solutions that prioritize early intervention, prevent crisis from occurring, and support people in achieving and maintaining sobriety, stability, and housing. They expressed frustration with what they see as a revolving door of people in and out of justice and mental health systems and called for strategies that effectively stop cycles of violence and recidivism, chronic homelessness, and drug abuse. When it comes to investments, respondents expressed diverse views. Some articulated growing frustration with the tax burden associated with program investments and believe that Berkeley attracts people from out of town struggling with homelessness, mental health issues, and substance abuse because of the city’s tolerant attitudes and readily available supports. Others named the need to increase investments in long-term care facilities, treatment programs, therapeutic services, and job training.

COMMUNITY LENS ON THE BERKELEY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Latin respondents expressed a wide range of perspectives regarding their overall satisfaction with the police with many expressing positive perceptions of the police. Many respondents held favorable views of the police and experienced positive interactions with BPD; they described the police as responsive, professional, effective, and supportive of community safety. Some respondents with favorable views of the police expressed a belief that the current political climate and movement to divest from policing does not represent the majority of residents’ views. Additionally, respondents conveyed frustration with the city council who they characterized as a hindrance to effective policing. They believe that the BPD should focus on increasing community safety through crime prevention, intervention, and response. Some promoted a tough on crime perspective and expressed a belief that the BPD are mismanaged, over- controlled, and under-appreciated by city government. These respondents called for increased police presence, more investment in community policing, and proactive policing.

Latin respondents who held unfavorable views of the police, cited slow response times, inability to prevent and solve crimes, and harassment of residents as the most salient features of the BPD.

Respondents expressed concerns about racial profiling by the Berkeley Police and named it as a priority public safety issue. This sentiment was expressed by respondents supportive and unsupportive of the

“The police have stopped
members of my family in West
Berkeley in what was clearly racial
profiling (Hispanics) on several
occasions .”
—Resident

“The department needs to be
supported by our community and
allowed to do their jobs rather
than being hamstrung by
members of the city council….”
—Resident

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 200
47 police and was recognized as an issue that must be addressed by the Berkeley Police Department. Many respondents described specific instances of racial profiling and overly aggressive interactions between Black and Latin residents and the BPD. Although a few respondents called for divestment from the police department, the majority of respondents expressed an expectation for a high-functioning, service- oriented, police department responsive to the needs of communities of color and capable of equitable interactions. They recommended training on implicit bias, racial profiling, cultural competency, community policing, and de-escalation and expressed an unmet need for increased transparency, greater community engagement, and positive interactions between the police and communities.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations represent a compilation of the focus group participants’ ideas for improving public safety.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
€ Prioritize clean-up of streets and public parks
€ Install additional lighting in neighborhoods
€ Increase traffic control, create car free zones and areas where speed limits are reduced € Focus on long-term planning to address homelessness
€ Identify early intervention and prevention strategies to prevent mental health crisis and substance abuse issues
€ Increase police visibility via walking and bicycle patrols

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 201
48 € Reduce police response times to calls for service
€ Expand community policing initiatives and increase opportunities for positive engagement between the police and communities
€ Address racial profiling and aggressive police encounters by the BPD with cultural competency, anti-bias, and de-escalation trainings and deepened relationships between the police and communities of color

CONCLUSION
The City of Berkeley and the Reimaging Public Safety Task Force are well-positioned to use their power and positionality to develop a community safety model that reflects the needs of the community, reduces inequities and disparities, and creates increased safety for all. This report summarizes the key findings from the Latin survey respondents’ answers to open-ended questions and represents an important step in building understanding of community strengths, needs, and public safety priorities.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 202

ABBREVIATED SUMMARIZED

RESPONSES BERKELEY POLICE

DEPARTMENT LISTENING GROUPS
Facilitator Question: How do you respond when you
hear the phrase or idea “Reimagining Public Safety”?
Strong themes emerged around officer’s feeling a lack
of voice or input, the Berkeley Police Department
being compared to or attacked for incidents that
happened elsewhere, or not being recognized for
policies and programs that have been in place for
years that other departments are just now enacting.

Officers recognized the community may have ideas as
to how to change processes in the police department
but wanted to be able to share their successes and
efforts and not be seen as defensive especially
around low numbers of complaints and uses of force.

Officers expressed a clear desire to be a meaningful
part of the reimagine process, and for their expertise
and efforts to be heard, considered and valued.

Facilitator Question: Officers we have talked with have agreed that police are asked to do too much, including
non-police work. What do you think of this and are there responsibilities that should be taken off of your plate? Some officers felt there are definitely some calls,
such as civil matters that police would like to remove
themselves from, however we are not sure the
public understands the nuances of the job and the
fact that BPD are currently the only operational
response to many of society’s emergencies. Police
investigations of crimes demand a great deal of
department resources, as does the investment in
police community engagement; we have to find the
best way to do both with the limited resource of
police officers.

Officers understand and appreciate that there may
be alternative responses and services other than the
police. While the infrastructure is created to possibly access those alternatives the community demand
of emergency calls to the police will continue, and
the police response will be necessary. We need to
continue to support the police department, while
investigating possible alternatives that are realistic
and viable, long-term solutions.

Facilitator Question: What are your thoughts on having
trained mental health providers/responders respond to
disturbance incidents, like someone screaming outside
of a business, but is not harming or threatening anyone? BPD currently works with Berkeley Mobile Crisis
Team (MCT) members, who have been part of our
culture at BPD for over 40 years. MCT members are
a valued part of our organization, and they will not
go to calls without the police. MCT members are
concerned for their safety without police presence,
in fact a few years ago a suspect was charged with
the attempted murder of an MCT member who was
responding to a call of a person exhibiting symptoms
of being in a mental health crisis.

Many officers regularly work with MCT and believe it
is an effective and proven approach.

We need to fix the back end of the mental health
system, the aftercare for a patient once they are
placed on a 5150 hold has to be addressed. We will
continue to see the cycle of hospitalization until the
overburdened Mental Health system receives the
support it so desperately needs.

Facilitator Question: What do you think is the biggest
crime problem in Berkeley?
Property crime is a significant crime in the city,
however of great concern to the community is the
quality of life crimes which many times stem from
mental health and/or addiction. People who are
afflicted by mental health and/or addiction, are
repeatedly contacted by the police because they are
quickly released from custody/hospitalization, and

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 203
never have the opportunity to receive the proper
interventions or support necessary to create the
positive behavior change they may desire.

Facilitator Question: What is the greatest need for
improvement in BPD?
We need a crime analysis unit to track and identify
the who, what, when, where and why of crimes in
our city, so that we may deploy the most precise and
appropriate police intervention, thereby addressing
the crime while leaving the smallest police footprint.

We need police officers, as our police department is
shrinking, the city population is increasing and those
numbers just don’t work as greater demands are put
onto fewer officers.

Facilitator Question: Comments from PEOs related to
BerkDoT:

The PEOs are the most diverse group of officers in
the department and just moving the PEOs from the
police department to transportation is not genuinely
reimagining. The community shows more respect to
the badge of the PEO, as the badge indicates we have
gone through a validated hiring process which means
we get quality people who are working as PEOs.

When PEOs came to be under the police department
in 1991 it changed the culture of PEOs and made
the department more professional. Maintaining
PEOs in the police department produces a more
professional and respected workforce both internally
and externally.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 204

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY

BERKELEY MERCHANTS

ASSOCIATION LISTENING SESSION
NICJR facilitated a Listening Session with the
Berkeley Downtown Merchants’ Association and the
Telegraph Merchants’ Association on June 2, 2021.

Thirteen people attended the listening session.

Following closely to the guidelines defined by BRG,
the facilitators engaged in a robust discussion with
participants. Below are summary findings from the
Listening Session:

Concerns over the Safety of Berkeley
and the most pressing public safety
issues:

Participants shared concerns over the safety of the
City, the most pressing concerns their employees
and patrons face, as well as their perceptions on how
these concerns are being addressed. They expressed
their disheartening perception that the city council
and mayor are less than responsive to the needs of the
business community and have allowed a permissive
environment that creates the opportunity for
crime to take place with an “apathetic enforcement
policy”. Some participants feel as though businesses
deal with a lot of problematic street behavior with
ambassador staff regularly called upon to respond to
situations where merchants and shopkeepers can’t
deal with the situations. Sharing specific stories of
people experiencing homelessness and/or substance
use addiction attacking employees and customers
and creating unsafe and unhealthy conditions,
participants feel that the current environment has
definitely had an impact on people who visit local
businesses because they have to park around the
corner, and walk to businesses.
“It does not feel safe especially during the later
hours of the day. ”
Addressing how these public safety
issues should be approached:

Participants feel there is a contradiction in saying
that we stand united against hate and we are
reimagining public safety and allow people to smoke
crystal methamphetamine on our streets. There is a
fear that with continued acceptance of specific drugs
being used on the streets that the incidents of people
experiencing mental health breakdowns will increase
and that a stronger use of punishment to deter this
behavior is warranted. Some participants expressed
the need for there to be a choice: we can choose
to allow those drugs to be used and then we can
expect more violence or we can actually take a stand
against that.

Additionally, members of the business association
feel that prevention is what’s going to shift the
environment. They recognize that the City of
Berkeley has mental health services but feel they are
really not getting support from the city, when they
have seen the mobile crisis unit drive away from a
situation because it was deemed that no one was
an immediate danger to themselves or others. There
is a perception that there is no follow through with
identifying a person with a problem and then going
forward with next steps.
“We need to focus on Berkeley Mental Health as
an institution and get them more deeply involved
with the police department and the community. ”
Community investments that would
support increased public safety:

The participants engaged in a discussion around the
complexity and depth of the issues that need to be
addressed, for example, where do those experiencing

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 205
homelessness go? At the same time, there is an
acknowledgement that businesses are seeing a drop
in patrons and employees because of safety concerns.

In response to questions regarding a trained,
alternative, civilian response that was trained to be
able to engage with this population and might include
people who have had similar experiences of being
unhoused, the Berkeley Mental Health department
was identified as already available, but having been
less visible downtown, limited in their ability to take valuable, sustainable steps to help someone in crisis
unless there is a direct and immediate threat of harm
and/or unsupported by the city in recent years.

A participant identified the call center now under
construction near a local synagogue and expressed
the desire to see the community do more of that type
of thing. A suggestion was also made that the City
should look into a policy that can allow the mental
health units to take more initiative.

Addressing the ways in which the
Berkeley Police Department currently
works in the community:

A general sentiment was that merchant interactions
with the police have been very positive, yet there
is often a hesitation to call on them for concern
over unnecessarily escalating a situation. Concern
was expressed that there is a national narrative
demoralizing police departments as a whole and
police departments are not given the tools they need
to do their jobs. In Berkeley it was expressed that
there was a shift in the amount of police presence
and response in the community and that police
officers were told by the City to not do anything.

In addressing some areas where the Berkeley
Police Department’s presence has been particularly
effective, the bike detail was mentioned with the
sentiment that this unit is about community policing
and they get to know the street population and
merchants which is helpful in problem solving and
helping people. The Ambassador program was also
identified as a unit that is helpful in de-escalating
individuals in crisis, and working well in collaboration when police officers are present. With the CAHOOTS
model and the SCU - the biggest issue participants
feel the City faces is beds and how to get people into
care ‘with a little bit of tough love’. The possibility was raised of mental health professionals and police
officers working together when responding to a
situation.
“I have great support for what the bike detail is
doing since they have been back on the force.

They have a calming effect for a lot of the folks out
there that get a little wild, actually seeing a person
in a position of authority calms them down. ”
BerkDOT and SCU Program
Opportunities:

There was a desire to learn more about exactly
how these programs would be able to best serve
the community with the current policies in place.

Additional concern was expressed with the national
narrative and how the City of Berkeley needs to
ensure that whatever changes are being made, need
to address the specific issues and needs facing the
residents of Berkeley.

With respect to the BerkDOT program a participant
shared: “I don’t understand why that was even
thought of. It just seems like we are focusing energy
away from the problem, which is the fact that we have
a ginormous mental health, drug, and homelessness
problem in Berkeley. I do not agree that adding that
additional agency would help the problem.”
For the SCU, the specific need for case management
and a presence in the community later at night was
discussed. An overlap with the Police Department to
partner with mental health workers in responding to
situations and help assess whether SCU is reducing
the number of calls and can cut back on the overload
of the work of the Police Department. A suggestion
was made for the SCU to work with both the
Downtown and Telegraph Business Associations
to identify the handful of folks that are causing a
majority of the problems.
“Until we enforce our sidewalk ordinances, until
we make people go to sanctioned encampments,
stop the revolving door of violent crime and until
we stop the hard drug use and open-air Drug
Market this is an absolute waste of your time and
our tax dollars. Prevention first. ”

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 206
Visioning community-centered public
safety:

Considering what public safety can and should look
like, a question was raised asking for better use of
vacant space to set up housing and full services that
could be helpful for as many Berkeley residents as
possible. It was expressed that Berkeley has an
abundance of laws and ordinances currently that
don’t get enforced, which is helping to create the
unsafe environment that exists. Therefore compiling
new variables instead of using existing laws to
address the foundational issues did not sound like
a good idea. There was frustration that participants
themselves have invested hundreds of hours into
issues of public safety and nothing ever gets done.
“If you look at the relationship between what we
pay in taxes and regulations and everything else
versus what we get back, the disparity is anything
but equitable and people love to throw the word
Equity around in Berkeley. ”

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 207

PEERS LISTENING

SESSION REPORT
by Janavi Dhyani and Margaret Fine1
The Peers 2 Listening Session raised fundamental
questions about how people who live with mental
health challenges experience and perceive “safety” in
the Berkeley community.

Throughout the Peers Listening Session the
participants described their notions of “safety” in
terms of their own safety; the safety of people who
they observed in the community living with mental
health challenges; their “safety” as a collective group of people in the “Peers community;”
3 and “public
safety” at-large as a pressing societal issue such
homelessness.
4 The participants spoke about their
interactions and perceptions of Berkeley police, and
how that impacts their feelings of “safety” in their
1 Janavi Dhyani is the Associate Executive Director for the Alameda County Network for Mental Health Clients, and Project Manager and Youth Empowerment Consultant at the Mosaic
Collaborative, LLC. She was also a Peace Corps Volunteer in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa from 2018-2020. Janavi has dual Bachelor degrees in Economics and International Relations.

Margaret Fine is a Commissioner on the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force and Chair of the Mental Health Commission for the City of Berkeley. Since 1991, she has worked as a legal aid lawyer and a deputy city attorney in child welfare for the Philadelphia Law Department. She earned a master’s degree in criminal justice and human rights in 2010, and a PhD in sociology (and human rights) in 2016 in the UK. Janavi and Margaret have written this report in their individual capacities and do not represent any organization or the City of Berkeley.
2 A Peer is a person who self-identifies with lived experience with mental health challenges, substance use experience, and/or someone with experience navigating the public behavioral health care system.
3 The Peer Community is composed of diverse people who use their lived experience with mental health challenges, substance use experience, housing challenges, and/or navigation of the public behavioral health care system to increase peer-led support and services for people in the mental health community. The Peer Community is also active in de-stigmatizing mental health challenges, and normalizing wellness and recovery.
4 For the purposes of this report, homelessness is defined as housing insecurity ranging from being at risk of losing housing, being in transition of unstable housing (i.e. staying temporarily in a housed location like a friend’s house or shelter, but not maintaining a personal address), or living in a location not intended to house humans (i.e. a car, an underpass, or in a tent). community as Peers. Primarily they expressed their
fears, based on lived experiences, interacting with
police during a mental health crisis
5 in the community,
and how a policing response generally had a negative
impact on their ability to feel “safe” in Berkeley. Peers offered several recommendations about how they
would like to experience “safety” including increasing
their involvement as responders to mental health
crises. It is noteworthy that additional research with
Peers would be highly useful to account for the role
of race, ethnicity, gender identity and expression,
sexual orientation, disability, age, class and other
factors, and their impact on a policing response to a
mental health crisis.

Additionally during this Listening Session participants expressed the need for police to acknowledge
when they are “wrong” in their treatment of Peers,
particularly for purposes of establishing trust and
rapport with the overall Peers community. Moreover,
when discussing a non-police crisis response through
a Specialized Care Unit (SCU) to non-violent events
in the community, one participant said they “like the
idea but it takes the onus off the cops to do better”
and that it “still feels troubling, seems like a Band-Aid,” as opposed to addressing systemic mistreatment by
police of people living with mental health challenges
and overall within the Peers community. Based
on the lived experiences expressed during this
Listening Session, it is indicated there is a need for
a reconciliation process, particularly as a response to traumatic experiences with police. A reconciliation
process, as well as a restorative justice process, with people living with mental health challenges may help
build trust and rapport with police officers in the
future.
5 A mental health crisis is an umbrella term that may refer to: 1) different levels of personal distress such as anxiety, depression, anger, panic and hopelessness; 2) changes in functioning including neglect of personal hygiene, unusual behavior; and/ or 3) life events which disrupt personal relationships, support systems, living arrangements, and result in victimization and loss of autonomy.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 208
It is also important to recognize that the Public Safety Dispatch Operators in the Communications Center
located at the Berkeley Police Department address
emergency and non-emergency dispatch calls for
service, including for people experiencing a mental
health crisis in the community. It is understood that
police act on their own accord responding to these
crises in Berkeley; some police have CIT training
(Crisis Intervention Training) and in some instances
police co-respond with the Mobile Crisis Team (MCT)
of the Division of Mental Health to assist people
experiencing a mental health crisis in the community.

The MCT currently operates in Berkeley for 10.5
hours/day, 5 days/week, excluding holidays (see City
of Berkeley, MCT webpage). In the systems currently
in place, it appears protocol mandates that police
first secure the scene before an MCT clinician can
step up and support the person experiencing a crisis
(including to interact with an individual experiencing
an “altered state of consciousness”).
6 Please
kindly inform if incorrect. It is noted that the Fire
Department, including an EMT, may also respond
to mental health crises in the community with other
first responders or on their own accord.

In addition, there were participants at the Listening
Session who have used emergency services to
address a person experiencing a mental health crisis,
saying that “I’ve had to call the police on people with mental health issues and it broke my heart and that is
something I would not like to do.” Indicating that folks did not feel proud of their decision to call emergency
services, knowing that police would arrive, but did
so because they did not feel like they had alternative
options to provide that person with appropriate
support.

There is a need for clarification about how Public
Dispatch Operators and the police use their discretion
to make decisions about “public safety threats.” It is
not clear if the current protocol is designed to not
only determine if someone is a “danger to themselves
or others,” or “gravely disabled” to meet the standard
6 An altered state of consciousness may be defined as a temporary change in the overall pattern of subjective experience, such that the individual believes that his or her mental functioning is distinctly different from certain general norms for normal waking state of consciousness.
for a 51507 involuntary hold, and/or if the assessment
offers a more nuanced evaluation for persons who do
not meet this standard, particularly to assist with next steps in care if needed. There is a need for people
with mental health challenges to provide nuanced
input about their perceptions and experiences in
this context, particularly given that a “crisis” can be used as an umbrella term for diverse array of human
behavior; and the role of race, ethnicity, gender
identity and expression, sex, sexual orientation,
disability, age, class and their intersections can
impact the nature of a policing or co-responder crisis
response in the community.

Further participants talked about their own lived
experiences with police during a time of crisis and
whether they felt “safe,” as well as their overall
perceptions and feelings about them. Specifically, the
main emerging themes included their perceptions
and experiences about: 1) officers unease connecting
with people experiencing a mental health crisis; 2)
feeling stigmatized as dangerous and regarded so by
officers; 3) the role of de-escalation if any; 4) feeling traumatized or re-traumatized by police during a
mental health crisis; and 5) recommendations to
improve mental health crisis response in Berkeley.

At the outset it is noted one participant felt treated
“pretty good” by police despite run-ins over four
years.

Another participant talked about witnessing the
police when someone was lying on the ground.

He described how the police, fire, and ambulance
showed up, “asked the person do they know where
they are, asked them a variety of questions, stayed
there with them, and even seen them give them a
blanket before.” However among many experiences
and perceptions described during the Peers Listening
Session, these experiences were outliers.
7 In the State of California, a 5150 is “when a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to self or others, or gravely disabled, a peace officer, professional person in charge of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, member of the attending staff, as defined by regulation, of a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment, designated members of a mobile crisis team, or professional person designated by the county may, upon probable cause, take, or cause to be taken, the person into custody for a period of up to 72 hours for assessment, evaluation, and crisis intervention, or placement for evaluation and treatment in a facility designated by the county for evaluation and treatment and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. See WIC 5150(a).

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 209
Section 1: Peers and Mental Health
Crisis Response
I. “Really important to speak their own
language”—participant
Peers indicated the importance of
understanding and empathy during a crisis.

During the Peers Listening Session some participants
raised questions about how police approach them
and/or other Peers in the community. They discussed
their perceptions and feelings about being seen as
“public safety threats;” and generally as something
to be controlled rather than human beings who need
emotional “safety” to resolve their crisis. In
particular, the participants expressed their fears
of being met with police violence instead of with
compassion and empathy for their plights. The notion
of “safety” ranged from people feeling exceedingly
vulnerable and “unsafe” while experiencing a mental
health crisis in the community to a wide variety of
crisis responses (based on actions, words, physical
harm, and/or lack of response/over response) by
police to them. Overall participants mentioned that
most people experiencing a mental health crisis are
not violent.

Consequently, it is critical to further explore how Peers would describe developing a human connection, and
develop trust and rapport, with a distressed person
in terms of defusing a situation. People living with
mental health challenges may experience a non-
threatening altered state of consciousness and the
police presence may exacerbate the intensity of their
situation. Instead, Peers indicated that it would be
more effective to make a human connection with
the distressed person and de-escalate the situation
so they felt “safe.” Moreover, public safety dispatch
operators and police officers may not be trained to
understand the intersecting challenges and systems
that may be contributing to and/or exacerbating the
Peer in crisis and the mental health community as a
group.

Specifically, one participant commented that
Berkeley police are “not ready to deal with people
who are upset with emotional disturbances,” and that
people in crisis “don’t need violence when people
are angry” to resolve their crisis. Another participant felt the police “get scared of mental health” and
said they “need to not be afraid of people, people
who are eccentric.” This participant spoke to the
stigmatization of the Peers Community, and
the need for additional training and public education
about how to interact with community members
who interact with the world differently than they do.

Peers indicated the need to further explore the types
of human behaviors that meet the 5150 standards
and/or constitute criminal behavior, as opposed to
other behaviors that may not fall within social norms
but do not pose a threat to the public.

A second participant expressed concern that “some
cops [do] not feel safe…don’t speak a whole lot.”
She commented about feeling “really uneasy” when
you need “someone to talk more, like hostage
negotiator, convey sort of friendship and comradery.”
She discussed seeing someone “high energy, manic,
talking real fast, as an opportunity for person in the
crisis to grow rather than shut down with drugs,
incarceration, hospitalization,” and stated,
“we need to learn, develop a field of knowledge of
people in altered states.” This participant alluded to a common understanding in the Peers Community that
mental health crises can bring about positive change
for the person involved and should be allowed to
occur in a safe setting when possible. There is a
need to further explore perceptions and experiences
of people living with mental health challenges to
better understand the nature of stigmatization, and
how it impacts a policing and mobile crisis response,
especially when addressing intersecting identities of
Peers based on race, ethnicity, gender identity and
expression, sexual orientation, disability, age, class, and other factors.

This same participant attributed the lack of human
connection exhibited by police with people
experiencing a mental health crisis “as most cops
[are] not trained that way.” The participant went on
to say that police officers “use major tool like [a]
gun and bullets; something startles them, go for the
gun.” The point was further underscored by another
participant, who stated based on their experience
with police, “that it is always with guns;

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 210
it’s a threat, always a threat of violence out there,
police come with their guns,” and that we are “much
better served with people not heavily armed, I don’t
know how, I think the conversation and non-violent
tactics.” It is noted that the lack of Peer involvement in the training of police officers, and the resistance to use Peers in the response to mental health crises, can
inhibit responders from understanding how Peers
would like to experience “safety” in a time of crisis.

Participants talked about the lack of Peers in crisis
response, that Peers have been left out of the
conversation, and that for crisis response to improve,
trained Peer Specialists
8 need to be involved. This
perspective became clearer when talking about the
Specialized Care Unit (SCU) program that Berkeley
will be implementing as a non-police crisis response
in the community. Everybody in the group generally
liked the idea of non-police responders to non-
violent calls, however, with two exceptions: 1) one
person named that without retraining police officers,
police would still respond in public with the ability
to cause harm; and 2) that Peers would feel safer
if the SCU team included Peers. The importance of
Peer staffing on the SCU team was highlighted by
different participants.
“Facilitator: Who do you think should do the
training for the SCU?
8 A Peer Support Specialist is a peer (a person who draws on lived experience with mental illness and/or substance use experience and recovery) who has completed a specialized training to deliver valuable support services in a mental health and/or substance use setting and/or in the community. According to the Peer Certification Fact Sheet from Senator Jim Bael on SB 803: “Studies demonstrate that use of peer support specialists in a comprehensive mental health or substance disorder treatment program helps reduce client hospitalizations, improve client functioning, increase client satisfaction, alleviate depression and other
symptoms, and diversify the mental health workforce. ” As of SB 803 Peer Support Specialist Certification Act of 2020, Peer Support Specialists in the State of California will have a standardized certified body to regulate and certify Peer Support Specialists. SB 803 will allow Peer Support Specialists to bill Medi-Cal for the services they offer to their peer partners in the State of California. With SB 803 California will join 48 other states in the country that have peer certification programs as part of their Medicaid behavioral health network. https:/ /namisantaclara.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/09/ SB_803_Beall_Peer_Certification_2020_Fact_Sheet.pdf https:/ / leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=201920200SB803
Participant 1: Someone with lived experience.

Participant 2: I agree.

Participant 3: I agree. I totally agree. ”
During the Listening Session, it became clear that
the Peer participants could clearly identify that it
was important for the crisis response training to
include people who have lived experiences alongside
other first responders as a team. Another participant
explained the importance of peer specialists for
training by saying, “What better person can teach
them how to respond, body language, than someone
who is on the other end and who has walked the walk,
and already been through it. ” The participants seemed
to be in agreement that one Peer could not respond
to crisis situations alone, but was an essential part
of the team in both training and in-person response
situations. Moreover, participants underscored the
importance of Peer-involvement in ongoing post-
crisis support to “Make sure there is continuity of
care” and pointed out that “The peer specialists are
helpful for transition to a wellness center or the next social service. ” This continuum of care would include:
wrap-around services and support in navigating
the intersecting and often complicated systems of
care (i.e. housing, public benefits [SSI, SSDI, SNAP,
GA, Medi-Cal, Medicare]; disability; health, mental
health, and substance use support; meal assistance;
support groups; drop-in services; community
programming; employment support). There is a need
for further input from people living with mental health challenges about the community-based services they
use in Berkeley and Alameda County, particularly
ones considered to be compassionate and effective
in providing tailored culturally safe and responsive
services.

II. “When I see police, it can be triggering, it can
be negative, not friendly” – participant
Peers indicated a history of mistrust towards
police officers.

In addition, there were emerging themes about
how people living with mental health challenges
have experienced police as threatening, which may
perpetuate and reinforce trauma in responding to

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 211
mental health crises. One participant stated that
“many people have negative feelings on police” and
when they see police “it can be triggering, it can be
negative, not friendly, open.” Another participant
“witnessed police in action in Berkeley,” and said they did not want police on mental health calls, as they
were traumatized to the point of seeing police in a
“whole different light.” Yet another participant stated that “So many of us have been harmed when we are
treated when we are in crisis” and mentioned Soteria
House, a community service that provides space for
people experiencing mental distress or crisis, as a
recovery model. Other participants also discussed
how drop-in centers can offer this space, provide a
restroom, a cup of coffee, and a welcoming space in
which the person can get their basic life needs met
and make meaningful connections with other Peers.

Peers indicated that distress could be better met by
safe spaces in which a person is allowed to move
through the emotions they are feeling without fear
of judgment, retaliation, or incarceration while being
met with basic life needs (food, water, bathroom,
a sense of safety, and human connection). There is
an essential need to explore how a Peer can feel
“safe” transitioning from experiencing a crisis in the
community to a respite space with the support of a
Peer specialist and other responders, as opposed to
feeling treated as dangerous and in need of social
control and being subdued.

Participants further talked about how the presence
of police could exacerbate the intensity of personal
distress and create feelings of extreme terror and
instant fear of extinction, as opposed to creating ones of emotional “safety.” While the participant did not
describe the basis for officers’ arriving at the scene, he described his feelings about a police response by
stating “it is multiple police cruisers, you feel like the world out to get you and annihilate you, officers are
intimidating, 3-4 cruisers with multiple cops, very,
very troubling and high-risk situation.” This feeling of being responded to, instead of being met with, is a
sentiment people shared. One participant said that
“If someone is having a mental health crisis, sit with
them and let them be.” Peers indicated that they
are not “safety threats” that need to be responded
to, rather they are humans that need to be met and
supported with and through a situation they are not
able to safely endure alone. It would be beneficial to
further understand when Peers perceive their own
behavior as threatening and how they expect first
responders to interact with them as a result.

III. Policing and mental health crisis response
During the Listening Session, it was clearly conveyed
by the majority of the participants that police officers should not be the first responders to mental health
crises. When asked what situations police would be
able to respond to appropriately, the Peer participants discussed when they would feel police intervention
may be necessary. Overall there was a range of
different perspectives about the role of the police
officers in the mental health community. Initially,
Peers felt police officers need specific training for
crisis response. One participant questioned the
amount of de-escalation training that police receive
as he regarded it as the “major pain point” in defusing a mental health crisis. In this light, another participant asked about situations where a person may have a
weapon and the type of response to them.

Another participant indicated having a mental
health person upfront and police shadowing if
needed. A fourth participant stated he would want
police if his car was burglarized, but he wants a
skilled person with lived experience to respond and
police second to ensure safety if needed. This area
deserves considerably more exploration about the
nature of situations where people with mental health
challenges may feel police need to respond. Generally,
participants suggested that there may be different
people and/or teams responding depending on the
type of situation. There is a further need to explore
the nuances of specific situations among people
living with mental health challenges in order to better understand from Peers when they perceive certain
types of teams responding to a mental health crisis in
the community. Moreover, there is a need for Peers
to discuss their lived experiences and perceptions
of crisis response; the role of race, ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, class, and age; and its impacts on police response to
those living with mental health challenges.