Berkeley City Council
May 5, 2022

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.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 212
IV. De-escalation is the “Major Pain Point”—
participant
Further research is needed with people who
live with mental health challenges, including
the PEERS community for understanding
peer-informed/peer-created de-escalation
practices.

There is a critical need to have a nuanced
understanding about how people with lived
experience of the mental health crisis in the
community describe levels of personal distress
such as anxiety, depression, anger, panic, and
hopelessness and how to meet their needs for
“safety,” as well as how changes in basic functioning
can impact the capacity to stay “safe” and not be a
danger to themselves or others, or deemed gravely
disabled—the 5150 involuntary hold standard in
California. Depending on the type of crisis response
provided to individuals experiencing distress, the
physical and psychological impacts on “safety” may
vary widely. They can range from de-escalating
crises using specific mental health practices to using
coercive controls and force to restrain individuals in
crisis. In the latter circumstance, an individual may be restrained, arrested, taken into custody, transported,
put in secure detention and there may be violence,
brutality, or even death. It is critical to extending this research in order to clarify the levels and types of
personal distress, and how they impact functioning
according to Peers who are living with mental health
challenges, and the types of crisis response that work
for them in the community.

There is a specific critical need to explore the degree to which police approach a distressed person and defuse
the situation versus using coercion, particularly during 5150 assessments. Both commissioned consultants,
National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform and
Research Development Associates, should account
for the role of police and policing interactions when
conducting research with people experiencing
mental health challenges and providers, particularly
to understand how people can work collaboratively
with providers in order to facilitate productive
relationships. Whether the research focuses on police
interactions with people experiencing mental health
challenges in the community on their own accord or
when corresponding with the Mobile Crisis Team of
the Division of Mental Health, police play a significant role and impact the nature of crisis response.

Without this key data, the consultant researchers
will be gathering unrepresentative pieces about a
comprehensive crisis response system that operates
at all times with the police. Moreover, people living
with mental health challenges may have lives that
interplay among multiple systems, including policing
and mobile crisis response systems, and it is critical
to understand the overarching impacts and how to
support their well-being and recovery.

During the Peers Listening Session, participants
had overriding concerns about police choosing
to use violence and guns as a first resort during a
mental health crisis in the Berkeley community and
not communication and non-violent tactics to de-
escalate the situation. It is further important to gather data about policing behavior and accountability
during Mobile Crisis Team calls. Gathering this data is essential to the Reimagining Public Safety Initiative
and the Specialized Care Unit for the City of Berkeley
and the overlap among systems means we need to
include not only these inherently critical pieces but
analysis about how the systems interplay and impact
people living with mental health challenges and their
well-being and recovery.

Overall crisis response to people experiencing
mental health challenges in the community requires
a commitment to conducting empirical research
that is nuanced so we understand the complexities
required to properly serve and protect all of our
community members. It is clearly evident that the
role of police during a mental health crisis is a turning point for people with mental health challenges in
the community and we must thoroughly understand
the nature of their police behavior in order to begin
healing. It is further important again for people with
lived experience of mental health challenges to have
restorative justice and reconciliation processes to
describe events such as police responses to their
crisis and how they can disrupt relationships, social
networks and communities, living arrangements,
and other mainstays of personal life, as well as
to understand when a police crisis response is
necessitated for “public safety” reasons in the
Berkeley community.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 213
Section 2: Peers and Homelessness
Several participants considered “homelessness”
as one of the most pressing public safety issues
both in Berkeley and generally. Participants shared
their perspectives based on: 1) lived experiences
of homelessness in the past; 2) living as a housed
person with unhoused neighbors and/or 3) being
Peer advocates for partners with housing challenges.

One person saw the homeless conditions such as lack
of safe water, toilets, rodents and other problems
impacting both those housed and homeless. She had
mixed feelings about the encampments, particularly
given the chaos and havoc at night. Another
participant talked about how he “enjoyed living on
fringe of society without any accountability, really
free, [but said] looking back, I was really incarcerated.” He is now housed.

Generally the participants felt it was “unsafe” to be
homeless and even harder for people living with
mental health challenges. For people living with
mental health challenges and homelessness, one
participant described their difficulties: “the ones
that have had problems, have gone through what
they have gone through, makes [it] harder to want
to be in a home….” Another participant further
talked about the intricate nature of homelessness,
and the intersectional approach necessary to meet
the needs of unhoused folks. He was someone who
experienced homelessness, as well as mental health
and substance use challenges. This participant
clarified how organizations may offer a free shower
and food to “clean people up;” but are not designed to
house people (using a Housing First model); provide
wrap-around services; or job training for work.

A third participant talked about how homelessness
does not “build healthy [a] community” as you’re
“living where you shouldn’t really live,” while another pointed to issues like
“deprivation and exhaustion that these poor people
go through.” Potentially further research with people
living with mental health and housing challenges
could inform how homelessness impacts the nature
of people’s mental health challenges, and the type
of services needed—one person suggested crisis
management and conflict resolution. Another person
had sympathy for folks’ experiences of homelessness
and having their possessions thrown away.

Participants generally described the grinding efforts
needed to survive, including constantly dealing with
lack of necessities and fear of having their household
belongings abruptly discarded.

In addition another participant talked about one of
the driving forces of homelessness being the increase
of housing prices in Berkeley, saying “gentrification
and homelessness...Some people can’t afford to live
in a home on their own.” This participant indicated
that homelessness is not a challenge that can be
met by services alone, but that economic disparity
continues to play a role in people becoming unhoused.

Another participant echoed this comment by saying,
“most homeless people not [the] problem, situation
drives it, it’s an economic thing.” He indicated that
homelessness cannot be met with social services,
but needs to also look at through an economics-
informed lens.

A few participants discussed other services that were
offered in San Francisco that they did not believe
are currently available in the City of Berkeley. One
participant liked that “In San Francisco they are
doing foot patrol” and indicated it would be helpful
to have people who provide services going directly
to the unhoused in their community too. Another
participant mentioned that in San Francisco “they
have peers in the library” and said they liked that idea and that Berkeley might also benefit from having
Peers in public spaces where unhoused people
congregate. More about San Francisco’s street
crisis response, that the participants may have been
indicating, can be found here: https:/ /sfmayor.org/
article/san-franciscos-new-street-crisis-response-
team-launches-today
It is important to indicate that further research is
needed with the unhoused population to understand
the intersecting nature of mental health and substance
use challenges and homelessness, particularly to
explore the nature of policing and crisis response and
whether the systemic responses are service-oriented
and/or designed to stigmatize and criminal human
behavior or both. It is also important to further
understand this intersectional approach as including
exploration about the role of race, ethnicity, gender
identity, and expression, sexual orientation, disability, age, class, and potentially other factors.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 214
Although it is indicated that further research is
recommended, the Peers Listening session did
provide considerable insight on the intersection
between mental health challenges and homelessness.

The majority of the participants agreed that the
most important pressing public safety concern is
homelessness. One participant pointed out that
“mental health crisis[es] and homelessness are
synonymous,” and as such should not be treated
as completely independent challenges. Within the
challenge of housing insecurity, several other sub-
concerns were addressed including: (1) the lack of
intervention by systems of safety in Berkeley; (2)
economic disparity and increasing housing prices
driving long-time residents out of their homes;
(3) lack of wrap-around services, and systems of
care addressing challenges in isolation instead of
as addressing homelessness as a product of other
underlying challenges, which are often intersecting
and multi-dimensional.

Peers Recommendations

1. The first and most important recommendation is
t
o outreach and includes Peers who have worked
on mental health reforms since the 1990s, when
this movement began. There are trained Peers in
Berkeley who are experts in crisis response, and
they would be invaluable to developing responses
to mental health crises and supporting the
transition to new systems of safety in Berkeley.

This role is, especially, crucial for unpacking
the scope and nature of mental health crises to
provide a nuanced understanding, approach, and
framework for responding with appropriate levels
of care to people with mental health challenges
in the community—particularly for a non-police
crisis response through a Specialized Care Unit.

Peer participants discussed the San Francisco
Crisis Response Street Team, and how this city is
employing Peer Specialists on foot patrol as part
of its team.

2. Dr
op-in and wellness centers for people living
with mental health challenges need sufficient
funding and staff with full-time Peer Support
Specialists where folks experiencing non-
threatening altered states and/or mental health
crises can move through their crisis is a safe and
supported state (in opposition to tactics which
aim to shutdown mental health and/or altered
states at any means necessary). It would be
essential to make drop-in and wellness centers
available 24/7 and on holidays, and to make sure
there are also Peers involved in the transit from
the mental health crisis to the Peer staffed drop-
in/wellness center. Peer navigators are also key to
assisting people in navigating complex systems,
including how to get appropriate services in the
City of Berkeley and Alameda County.

3. Ther
e is a need to account for intersectionality
and the role of race, ethnicity, gender identity
and expression, sexual orientation, disability,
age, class and other factors that can impact the
scope and nature of crisis response for diverse
people living with mental health challenges in the
community. It is, particularly, important to address
the stigmatization of diverse people living with
mental health challenges and how the role of
these additional demographic characteristics may
or may not perpetuate and/reinforce problems
during a mental health crisis (including as to the
roles of people such as police, fire, mental health
clinicians, peer specialists responding in the
community). There is a specific need to focus on
interviewing diverse people with mental health
challenges who are unhoused in order to explore
the nature of policing and systemic responses to
people, particularly to examine if human behavior
is criminalized and/or met with service delivery.

4. Ther
e is a further need to account for overlapping
systems of care, including medical, mental health,
substance use, social services and other systems.

Participants in the Peers Listening Session, who
identify with homelessness, discussed how
current systems are not set up in a way that
enables long-term sustainable wellness of the
mental health community. Housing-first methods,
for instance, are only successful in addressing
homelessness if the other factors that contribute
to housing insecurity are also addressed such
as mental health and substance use services.

Overall creating comprehensive wrap-around
services may be the key to addressing public
safety concerns. Moreover, including people with
lived experiences of mental health, substance

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 215
use, and homelessness will enable systems to be
consumer-informed, and in turn more sustainable
in the long term.

5. Ther
e is a further need to conduct research with
people who use alcohol and drugs and have
lived experiences with policing and mobile crisis
response, as this qualitative research focused
almost solely on people living with mental
health challenges. It is crucial to consider the
nature of trauma-informed, de-escalation and
harm reduction approaches for people who use
alcohol and drugs during crisis response in order
to discern how service-oriented practices may
reduce harms from alcohol and drug use and
avoid punitive measures resulting from criminal
legal and incarcerations involvement due to
alcohol and drug use. Specifically there is a need
to assess how systemic responses to people who
use alcohol and drugs may result in fluctuating
among multiple systems without well-integrated
coordination of care.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 216

PACIFIC CENTER FOR

HUMAN GROWTH
LGBTQIA+ Staff/Provider Listening Session9
Note: The following information represents an
LGBTQIA+ mental health provider’s perspective that
serves Berkeley and other cities in Alameda County.

It is important to note that by-proxy information can
be useful in providing context for the systems that
LGBTQIA+ people may navigate in order to obtain
services, however, it cannot be used to assume the
exact lived experiences of the individuals/clients
using them.

The Pacific Center for Human Growth
The Pacific Center for Human Growth, or namely the
Pacific Center, is a LGBTQIA+ mental health provider
serving LGBTQIA+ people, or Queer and Trans
people including QTBIPOC, with individual, peer
support and community mental health programs and
services. The Center is designed to serve LGBTQIA+
people with mild to moderate mental health
needs, and not those who are experiencing severe,
persistent mental illness or substance use disorder,
or in crisis. The Center operates from a Victorian
house on Telegraph Avenue south of the University of
California in Berkeley, California in Berkeley. Clients and community members come from Berkeley and
other cities in Alameda County. Currently the Pacific
Center offers a full range of programs and services
remotely due to COVID.

The Pacific Center as a Socially
Constructed Space
The Pacific Center is well-known as the largest
regional LGBTQIA+ mental health provider, including
for its physical space located in a Victorian house and 9 This report is developed from the Pacific Center’s Listening Session and a qualitative interview with a staff member who could not attend that session. Please contact Margaret Fine and Janavi Dyhani with questions or concerns: margaretcarolfine@ gmail.com.
the LGBTQ+ and Trans flags flying from outside of
it. While the Pacific Center’s programs and services
are designed to support Queer and Trans people,
including QTBIPOC, with their mental health and
substance use struggles, there have been incidents
in front of the Pacific Center. There has been hate
crime by people outside of the community that can
be perceived as violently challenging the legitimacy
of LGBTQIA+ people, as well as a negative incident
from a person within the community who did not feel
as though they were served.

In one instance a person burned a flag and punched
one of the Pacific Center staff, and they called the
police as a result of feeling scared for their safety—
although the staff did not want to call. In another
instance, a man yelled “You should have bi groups for
people like me, for men like me.“ He was a community
member and upset that the Pacific Center staff did
not meet his needs. This man seemed to feel unsafe
and marginalized as a result of perceiving the Pacific
Center’s services as excluding him. The Pacific Center
staff felt threatened by people both inside and
outside its own community. Likewise a Pacific Center
provider mentioned people can feel scared entering
a building marked with flags—some even wait in
their cars until they enter the building. The socially
constructed meaning of the Pacific Center space
can challenge notions of “safe” space for Queer and
Trans people who are seeking a sense of belonging
to people violently challenging the existence and
cultural representation of LGBTQIA+ people as a
group in the community at-large.

More than one provider talked about the lack of Queer
and Trans “safe” spaces in the community at-large,
especially for transgender women of color, unhoused,
youth and BIPOC. Historically the Pacific Center’s
service model resembled more of an LGBTQIA+
community center (1980s-1990s). The Center had
a men’s night and a hotline to call for assistance.

Now the Pacific Center is closer to a mental health

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 217
and medical model, although one person mentioned
interest in a hybrid model. There is a further need to
know more about how organizations, outside of the
Pacific Center, can support and respect Queer and
Trans people, and ways that they can be educated
to include LGBTQIA+ community members and
groups—from posting material in organizational
settings to hiring experienced people from the Queer
and Trans community, particularly for QTBIPOC.

It was noted the Berkeley Wellness Center has not
created time/space for Queer and Trans groups
Crisis Response/Intervention, De-
Escalation and the Presence/Role of Police
The Pacific Center staff had several comments and
recommendations about crisis response and the
presence/role of police:

This LGBTQIA+ provider listening session highlighted
the critical need to have a nuanced understanding
about how Queer and Trans people, particularly
QTBIPOC people, describe their lived experiences
with crisis response. There is a need to understand
their levels of distress and how crisis first responders met their needs for “safety” or do not meet them.

Specifically the providers discussed the role of police and how there may be psychological impacts as a
result of the mere presence of police, or further
escalation of a crisis due to the presence or role of
the police.

One provider described how crisis response with
police presence made her immediately think of
trauma, including for everyone involved. She stated,
“I think of families, traumatic for everyone, police
show up, it makes a huge scene for the neighborhood,
flashing lights, and then having to unpack it with
families, clients….” She further commented about how
people are resistant to services because of traumatic
experiences, and how they need a calm, peaceful
approach to addressing crisis and to abide by the
ethical standard, “do no harm.” She mentioned it may
require a lengthy time period to unpack the trauma.

In addition there was also a provider who dreaded if
police were present and thought they tend to escalate
a situation for a person who is feeling fearful and
unsafe. Another provider commented that it takes
time to de-escalate a crisis by talking to someone
in order to calm down at the scene, particularly so
people in crisis do not perceive the team as seeking
to incarcerate or institutionalize them. This provider
described the “need to get rid of the urgency” or the
notion of an “immediate solution” during the crisis
response. The provider discussed how they should
not immediately think about removing the person
from public space, and avoid “twisting” the situation
into a public safety and policing issue. Overall the
provider stated there is a need for a “triage” approach to crisis management and not “moving from 0 to 60”
in record time. This provider also had concern about
how the “urgent” approach was “rubbing off” on the
crisis management team/mobile crisis team.

One provider, who was very explicit about their
feelings about the police, said: “I stay away from the
Berkeley Police Department and advise young people
to do the same. The Berkeley Police Department are
not my friends, they are not people who I trust as
an entity, and not people I say should be called for
help. There are difficult situations in which there is a Queer Black Femme Cis Woman and warm violence,
but the person does not want to call the police.

Every single interaction will not lead to hot violence, but we know statistically that Queer Trans BIPOC
people with mental health issues, who are disabled
or developmentally challenged, are far more likely to
experience violence, be harmed and be killed.”
This provider further brought up an important note
that providers with lived experience similar to clients they serve (in this case Queer and or/Trans BIPOC
provider serving diverse Queer and/or Trans clients)
may also be shielding their clients from the police
based on their own lived experiences. The provider
brought up the importance of intersectionality when
talking about police response, and additional identity
markers that statistically place QTBIPOC people at
risk—which is different from factors based solely on
race and ethnicity and reflects non-binary gender
identity and expression and non-heterosexual
orientation. This provider indicated that the role of
police would be that they support services to the
community, especially LGBTQIA+ police officers
supporting LGBTQIA+ community members.

Moreover, the provider recommended that crisis
response workers have an accumulation of direct
experience with Queer and Trans people including

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 218
QTBIPOC. In this regard, one provider gave an
example about how there is a need for a crisis team
member to recognize a meth-induced episode, and
understand the cycle of peaking and coming down in
order to inform the crisis response, including to know
the options for follow-up and the next step in care.

The provider mentioned Herrick and John George
will not individuals for substance use treatment.

One provider also commented on how diverse crisis
team members can provide multiple opportunities for
a person in crisis to: 1) gravitate towards one person
and 2) feel a sense of safety, human connection
and community. Some of the recommendations for
crisis team members included people with different
identity markers, lived experiences, and professional
training (such as an EMT, peer support specialist, and
a mental health clinician—noting that developing the
critical rapport is not necessarily tied to education).

A provider added that having “a few different eyes to
have different perspectives” can allow for assessing
and consulting continually to help the person in
crisis to feel safe and calm down. Another provider
mentioned how peer support specialists are “great at
telling when someone is triggered,” building rapport
and being a role model for change, particularly when
they represent the community served—and do not
misgender people and create emotionally damaging
experiences. Another provider recommended that
the Specialized Care Unit, a non-police crisis response program, should be as separate from the police as
possible. It was recommended to house the SCU in a
human services department or other city department
and not the Berkeley Police Department.
“Public Safety”
Note: Providers cannot represent their clients’
perspectives in determining the most pressing “public
safety” concerns in our community. One provider
pointed this out by
saying, “I think that one of the most important
factors is group determination, or rather the group’s
ability to determine what feels like safety as a group.

The violence is systemic, and the group must hold
responsibility for telling us what the issues are, and
what would be helpful solutions, to feel safety.”
The upcoming listening session with LGBTQIA+
community members will likely provide better
understanding about the most pressing “public
safety” concerns.

In terms of violence being a threat to “public safety,” this provider talked about the two kinds of violence
currently inhibiting “safety” for the LGBTQIA+
community: “There is hot and cold violence happening
for LGBTQ folx and most marginalized Black and
Brown people, especially Trans Femme Black and
Brown people—most susceptible.” This provider was
able to define the terms “hot violence” and “cold
violence” as the following:

Hot violence is immediate, active, perceptible
violence that touches you. It can be physical or
verbal, very loud, aggressive, and immediately
unsafe. Hot violence can change the dynamic in
the situation instantly.

Cold violence is a more underlying source of
violence than hot violence, and is more than
a microaggression, like an intentional micro
aggression. An example is a Queer Trans BIPOC
looking for an appropriate bathroom and being
surveilled by police. Cold violence reflects the way
in which systems are set up by police to surveil
and monitor human behavior where it does not
feel safe to move around fear freely.

On the topic of intersectionality, one provider
explained the importance of factoring in additional
identity markers by saying “it is hard to conceptualize intersectionality, especially to understand how Queer
Black women are different from Queer women and
from heterosexual normative women. If you do not
have lived experience, it is hard to conceptualize
how positionality—how you present to the world—
changes everything.” Given this perspective, it
is important to ensure diverse Queer and Trans
community members have the opportunity to define
and explore their lived experiences in terms
of race,
ethnicity, gender identity and expression, sexual
orientation, disability, age, class and other identity
markers in order to understand the impacts of policing
and notions of “public safety”—which is different from
solely racial, ethnic and heterosexual norms.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 219
“Public Safety” as Having Resources and
Support to Meet Basic Human Needs
In this Queer and Trans Listening Session, the
providers discussed the conceptualization of “public
safety” or “community safety” as not related to the
police but rather to people having sufficient resources and support in order to have their basic human needs
met and a stable life existence. Like many of the
other providers, this provider recommends that the
way to make Berkeley safer “is not rooted in police
surveillance but rather rooted in resources and access
to them.” Access to resources was a clear emerging
theme when talking about the topic of “public safety”
in order to create a sense of security for LGBTQIA+
people in Berkeley. One provider saying “The main
point is to have resources so that there is a way to
decrease people from feeling unsafe”.

Wraparound Services
The Pacific Center providers further talked about
basic needs in terms of food security, housing,
mental health, substance use, wellness, wraparound
services. There was a discussion about what
constitutes wraparound services, and efforts to fully
provide them. One provider referred to formally
working at GLIDE where they had food, a free clinic,
health services, acupuncture, and housing vouchers.

One provider mentioned the term “wraparound” may
be a misnomer; that it may mean referrals; and that
organizations are pressured to use the term. It was
also acknowledged that substance use is a significant
problem in the Queer and Trans community, and that
emergency rooms cannot provide tailored care for
substance use problems.

Housing and Homelessness
In addition one provider further noted that Queer
and Trans people will arrive on the Pacific Center’s
front porch from other states and need support to
find housing. The provider described the individuals
as very vulnerable and marginalized, and shelters
as not designed for low-income, non-binary and
transgender people. The staff mentioned how
Queer and Trans people need a sense of autonomy
and agency in order to feel safe in a shelter
environment, and choosing a women’s or men’s side
of a shelter does not necessarily respect gender,
much less prevent discrimination against non-binary,
transgender people. (Note: There may also be gay,
lesbian or bi-sexual people with another perspective,
and it is noted that gender identity and expression
are not separate or mutually exclusive from sexual
orientation. A transgender person may also be gay,
lesbian or bi-sexual.) In fact, one provider further
described how police can raid encampments, which
is very stressful and creates trauma, and results in
more instability for the unhoused population than
any sense of protection.

Moreover, it seemed people are not having a seamless
entry into the government systems designed to serve
them, and the Pacific Center does not have case
management services to guide them in an ongoing,
consistent relationship to meet these needs. The
staff discussed how they’re understaffed, there
are more referrals than staff available, and they’re
under resourced for serving the Queer and Trans
community. Sometimes they indicated it can prove
difficult to connect to case management services
in the wider community. Ultimately, the provider
indicated LGBTQIA+ people may use an emergency
room for ongoing services. They may also potentially
become destabilized from being “pushed around” as
a result of emergency room visits with no continuity
of care and vulnerability to experiencing crisis—
particularly for low-income, unhoused QTBIPOC.

We spoke to Queer and Trans mental health and
community program professionals who are trained
and educated to guide clients in navigating these
systems; however they also described the systems
as “not really clear” and that there are “blockages”
due to grant specifications, which can deny service
delivery to people who need them. Specifically,
there were frustrations with how the narrow grant
criteria could eliminate access to services for a
person that is nominally above the income eligibility
line. Other difficulties reflected the challenges that
vulnerable, marginalized LGBTQIA+ people face
when attempting to navigate intricate systems that
are designed, ostensibly, to provide for their needs.

It is noted that there is considerable need for mental
health workers, such as peer navigators, who can
directly guide clients in navigating these systems—

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 220
particularly given the shortage of case management
services available from CBOs in the community at-
large.

Ultimately, as one provider mentioned, collaboration
among service providers is key in to become a more
well-integrated system with coordinated services
tailored to meet client needs, including ones that are
culturally safe and responsive.

It is important to do a follow-up listening session with the Queer and Trans populations as providers can
shed light on critical issues they are unable to speak
on their clients behalf. Further it is important to move forward with reforms using an intersectional lens
that accounts for the overlapping and intersecting
identity markers, which create inequities, disparities
and systems of oppression for Queer and Trans
people of color.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 221

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 222

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 223

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 224

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 225

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 226

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 227

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 228

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 229

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 230

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 231

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 232

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 233

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 234

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 235

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 236

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 237

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 238

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 239

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 240

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 241

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 242

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 243

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 244

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 245

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 246

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 247

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 248

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 249

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 250

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 251

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 252

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 253

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 254

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 255

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 256

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 257

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 258

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 259

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 260

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 261

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 262

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 263

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 264

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 265

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 266

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 267

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 268

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 269

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 270

BERKELEY COMMUNITY

MEETING FEEDBACK
Overview:

The three virtual Community Meetings were the culmination of the Community Engagement process.

Following the distribution of the survey and 15 listening sessions focused on vulnerable populations and stakeholders, the Community Meetings were scheduled after the submission of NICJR’s Draft Final Report and Recommendations. The intention with the timing of these events was to offer the broader Berkeley community an opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Final Report while also sharing thoughts and ideas on ways in which the City of Berkeley can continue this process of Reimagining Public Safety.

Each meeting identified a specific group of districts listed below:

January 13, 2022: Districts 1,2
January 20, 2022: Districts 3,4
February 3, 2022: Districts 5, 6, 7, 8
NICJR incorporated several ways in which feedback could be provided during the Community Meetings.

In addition to a Question and Answer session the following pages include direct feedback from interactive platforms Mentimeter and Jamboard; which was utilized during the Breakout Rooms.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 271

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 272

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 273

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 274

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 275

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 276

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 277
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?
Cheryl-some of your
retorts are invalidating.
*Listening* doesn’t
require a response.

The purpose of these
meetings should be
*listening* to what the
community’s concerns,
not railroading through
your agenda
2017 through
September 2021
shows the department
responded to an
average of 72,738
calls for service per
year and averaged
2,804 arrests. = 0.038!
Why are reiminging
safety for such a small
It sounds like you
are removing the
ability of officers to
be proactive - by
reducing interactions,
by reducing police, by
reducing their ability
to be effective. This is
not what we want.

CIT left
out of the
report.

In my experience,
the BPD have been
professional and
courteous. I do
not agree with the
premise that fewer
officers will result in
increased safety.
made, Berkeley’s
Police Department
needs to maintain the
ability to respond to
and investigate violent
crime, they are an
essential institution
in Berkeley and have
made me and my
family safer as we
have experienced
I am deeply
concerned about the
implementation of
the CERN program.

Replacing 911 calls
with community
personnel instead of
police is extremely
high risk.
there are only
~50 people at this
meeting out of
~120k Berkeley
residents, how will
this potentially
dramatic departure
from current policies
be communicated
to a much wider
audience?
less- I am worried this
“reimaging” process
is being used as an
excuse to raise taxes
for more from an
already overburdened
tax base. I would
feel much more
comfortable
supporting this
initiative with a
pledge for funding
we have CERN and
SCU? Should be
1 entity. Seems
problematic. We
need 1 additional
new phone line
mental health crisis/
overdoses, etc.

Only 1% of calls are
actually violent crime
in Berkeley. We need
police out of mental
triage of different
calls relies on
accurate information
from callers- this is
often not the case,
and a well staffed
call center, which
Berkeley currently
does not have. Will
the proposed system
work without this
triage?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 278
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?
very helpful
presentation. I see
a level of humility
that is appropriate in
any ground-breaking
proposal like this.

But we are also being
appropriately ambitious
due to the challenges
we face in revisioning
public safety.

Policing plan proposed
by the mayor’s working
group and adopted
by the city council.

However, the specifics
of the program are vital
for the “improve” part
of the initiative, and
they are not called out
and supported.

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 279
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 280
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 281
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 282
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?
effective traffic (safety)
enforcement for
several years. If CERN
officers could respond
to reported incidents
AND follow-up that
would likely result in
many more reports (of
dangerous drivers for
example). As it stands
now few are reported
because nobody

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 283
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 284
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 285
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 286
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 287
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?
Good presentation.

Would like to
hear more about
implementation
obstacles re City
Council etc.

To me, it’s
about efficient
use of dollars,
not hostility
toward police
Why do we
have CERN
and SCU when
it could be
all put under
SCU?
In many cases, the
anticipated CERN
people will be in
potentially dangerous
and escalatory
situations. We need
to protect THESE
people as well as
offenders. They will
need police backup
to stay safe.

Totally support
using our public
safety dollars
more effectively to
address root causes
Agree with the
intermediate
objectives: End
pretextual stops;
make unarmed
people the lead
responders to
low-hazard calls.

Can our city reverse
some effects of
cash bail reform
so offenders can
be kept off the
streets, rather than
coming back and
re-offending?
Using pilot project
to learn -- but also
to KEEP MOVING
FORWARD -- makes
a lot of sense.
police. This seems to
be a longtime NICJR
mission (which is OK),
but it seems stuck in
2020’s summer of rage.

With violent crime
spiking, most cities are
trying to expand their
police forces, with
better training and

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 288
Please share feedback on the
presentation you just heard
What additional ideas or recommendations
do you have for the City to consider in the
Reimagining Public Safety process?
public safety, we need
to also realize that
many of the people
arrested for crimes,
including violent
crimes in Berkeley, live
in other surrounding
communities and
we cannot provide
services for them.
should be given to the
BPD’s feedback on
types of calls that need
police response. I’m sure
officers would be glad to
have other calls covered
by appropriately trained
responders, but many
of the calls may need a
police response at the
outset regardless
Traffic enforcement is
a huge gap in current
public safety. Too many
dangerous drivers are
endangering the public
with no consequences.

We need a much larger
staff to handle traffic
enforcement all over
the city.

I think it would be
valuable to specify
the difference
between CERN and the
Specialized Care Unit
because it seems like
the default with CERN
is to still have police
on the scene
Our BPD should be
supported for the
challenging and mostly
excellent work they do.

We need to fully staff
the police department
to have the necessary
resources to keep our
city safe.

I would like to see
the data that shows
a problem with
pretextual stops as
an issue in Berkeley.

Abandoning traffic
enforcement leads to
more problems and
less safety.
hope its
recommendations can
be implemented. I’m
concerned that the
UBI proposal, which
is race-based rather
than solely based on
income, is a political
liability. For example,
a demagogue could
readily use the racial

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 289
Glossary
of T erms
289

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 290
ACPD: Alameda County Probation
Department
ACPI: American Crime Prevention
Institute
ACR: Alternative Crisis Response
ACS: Albuquerque Community Safety
Department
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance
ASUC: Associated Students of the
University of California
APD: Albuquerque Police Department
APD: Austin Police Department
BACS Bay Area Community Services
BAPA: Bay Area Progressive Academy
BCSC Berkeley Community Safety
Coalition
BerkDOT: Berkeley Department of
Transportation
B-HEARD: Behavioral Health Emergency
Assistance Response Division
BI: Business Intelligence
BIPOC: Black, Indigenous People of Color
BOSS: Building Opportunities for Self
Su
fficiency
BPC: B
usiness and Professions Code
BPD: Berkeley Police Department
BPSA: Black Public Safety Alliance
BRG: Bright Research Group
BWC: Body Worn Camera
BYA: Berkeley Youth Alternatives
CAD: Computer Aided Dispatch
CAHOOTS: Crisis Assistance Helping Out on
The Streets
CATT: Community Assessment and
Transportation Team
CBO: Community Based Organization
CBTSim: Counter Bias Training Simulation
CCD: Crisis Call Diversion
CDC: Center for Disease Control
CE: Community Engagement
CEO: Center for Employment
Opportunity
CEO: Chief Executive O
ffic
e
CES: Coordinated Entry System
CERN: Community Emergency Response
Network
CFS: Calls for Service
CHP: California Highway Patrol
CJC: Community Justice Center
CPD: Chicago Police Department
CPTCE: Crime Prevention Through
Community Engagement
CRU: Crisis Response Unit
CSO: Community Service O
ffic
er
CSP: Community Safe Partnership
CWC: Creative Wellness Center
DBA: Downtown Berkeley Association
DJJ: Department of Juvenile Justice
DMH: Department of Mental Health
DPD: Denver Police Department
DPN: Delinquency Prevention Network
EIS: Early Intervention Systems
EMCOT: Expanded Mobile Crisis Outreach
Team
EMS: Emergency Medical Services
EMT: Emergency Medical Technician
EPIC: Ethical Policing Is Courageous
ESOP: Ethical Society Of Police
EU: European Union
EWIS: Early Warning Intervention System

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 291
FAIR Girls: Free Aware Inspired Restored
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation
FOP: Fraternal Order of Police
FTE: Full Time Employee
FTO: Field Training Offic
er
FY: Fiscal Year
GF: General Fund
GVRS: Gun Violence Reduction Strategy
HACLA: Housing Authority of the City of
Los Angeles
HALO: Highly Accountable Learning
Organization
HPD: Houston Police Department
HRC: Housing Resource Center
HVIP: Hospital Violence Intervention
Program
IHOT: In-Home Outreach Team
IPV: Intimate Partner Violence
JJCPA: Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention
Act
LAPD: Los Angeles Police Department
LEAP: Leadership, Education, and
Athletics in Partnership
LGBTQ: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans,
Queer/Questioning
LGBTQIA+: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans,
Queer/Questioning, Intersex,
Asexual
MACRO: Mobile Assistance Community
Responders of Oakland
MAP: Mayor’s Action Plan for
Neighborhood Safety
MCT: Mobile Crisis Team
MHD: Mental Health Division
MISD: Misdemeanor
MISSSEY: Motivating, Inspiring, Supporting
& Serving exually Exploited Youth
NBF: New Bridge Foundation
NC: Non-Criminal
NCA: Neighborhood Change Agent
NEED: Needle Exchange Emergency
Distribution
NEP: Needle Exchange Program
NIBRS: National Incident Based Reporting
System
NV FEL: Non-Violent Felony
NYC: New York City
NYCHA: New York City Housing Authority
NYPD: New York Police Department
ONS: O
ffic
e of Neighborhood Safety
OPD: Oakland Police Department
OPD: Olympia Police Department
OPS: Police Operations
PD: Police Department
PERF: Police Executive Research Forum
POC: People of Color
Project
ABLE:

Active Bystandership for Law
Enforcement
PTSD: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
QAT: Quality Assurance Training
QTBIPOC: Queer, Trans, Black and Indigenous
People of Color
RAMS: Richmond Area Multi-Services
RIPA: Racial Identity and Pro
filing
A
dvisory
RPD: Richmond Police Department
RPSTF: Reimagining Public Safety Task
Force
SARA
model:

Scanning, Analysis, Response,
Assessment

Remaining Public Safety in Berkeley: Final Report and Implementation Plan 292
SCRT: Street Crisis Response Team
SCU: Specialized Care Unit
SEEDS: Services that Encourage Effective
Dialogue and Solutions
SIF: Safe Injection Facilities
SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program
SPARQ: Social Psychological Answers to
Real World questions
SSDI: Social Security Disability Insurance
SSI: Supplemental Security Income
SSP: Syringe Services Programs
STAR: Support Team Assisted Response
STAIR: Stability, Navigation and Respite
SV: Sexual Violence
SV FEL: Serious Violent Felony
TAY: Transition Age Youth
TF: Task Force
TVIT: Tra
fficking
Victim Identifica
tion
Tool
UCLA: University of California, Los
Angeles
UCPD: University of California Police
Department
UCR: Uniform Crime Report
VOIP: Voice Over Internet Protocol
WSCJTC: Washington State Criminal Justice
Training Commission YOBG:

YSA: Youth Spirit Artworks

Introduction
As a part of the City of
Berkeley’s Reimagining Public
Safety process, the National
Institute for Criminal Justice
Reform (NICJR) was
commissioned to conduct an
assessment of programs and
models that increase safety,
properly respond to
emergencies, reduce crime and
violence, and improve policing.

Main Sections of the Report
-Emerging Non-Enforcement Models of
Community Response
-Non-Law Enforcement Crime Reduction
Strategies
-Community-Driven Violence Reduction
Strategies
-Policing Strategies

CAHOOTS (Crisis
Assistance Helping Out
On The Streets)
Eugene, OR
CRU (Crisis Response
Unit)
Olympia, WA
24/7 mobile emergency intervention service
Units consist of an EMT & mental health service provider Staff undergo classroom education and supervised field
work
Evaluations have found 5-8% of calls were diverted from the Eugene PD
Teams consist of mental health professionals that provide supports like referrals to additional services to their clients Calls for service originate from community-based service providers, the 911 hub, and law enforcement personnel
Emerging Non-Enforcement
Models of Community Response

Mayor’s Action Plan
(MAP)
New York City, NY
Traffic Enforcement
Launched in 15 NYC Housing Authority
properties with high violence rates
Focal point is NeighborhoodStat, a process
that allows residents to have a say in NYC’s
allocation of public safety resources
Pretextual stops are in the process of being
regulated across the U.S.

Washington, D.C. has transferred certain traffic
enforcement duties to an agency of unarmed
staff at the Department of Transportation
Non-Law Enforcement Crime
Reduction Strategies

Community-Driven
Violence Reduction
Strategies such as Gun
Violence Reduction
Strategy (GVRS)
incorporate three main
elements.

Identifying and focusing
on those at the highest
risk of being involved in
violence
Employing community
outreach workers to
engage those individuals/
groups in a positive and
trusting manner
Providing ongoing
services, supports, and
opportunities to high-risk
individuals

Ethical Policing Is
Courageous (EPIC)
New Orleans, LA
Early Intervention
Systems (EIS)
Peer-to-peer intervention strategy that
involves training officers to be accountable to
each other and intervene when necessary
Aims to alter the ‘warrior’ culture surrounding
policing and promote a collaborative
environment
Systems analyze indicators of potentially
problematic behavior such as use of force
incidents and citizen grievances
If an officer is identified by the EIS for habitual
misconduct, supports and services are
provided to the officer to encourage officer
well-being and aid in behavioral change
Policing Strategies

Thank you!

The top 10
call types
account for
54% of all
events

Call type
initiation
source

Top 10 Call
Types by
Initiation
Source

March 10, 2022
RPSTF response to NICJ

RPSTF votes on NICJR Recommendations: “

RPSTF votes on NICJR Recommendations: “Imp

RPSTF votes on NICJR Recommendations: “Imp

RPSTF votes on NICJR Recommendations: “Rei

Gender-based violence

12 recommendations for addressing gender-based violenc

1. Increase investment in survivor services

2. Invest in services for those who cause harm

3. Support faith -based leaders through education and techn assistance

4. Enhance prevention education for our children (K -12) Plus 8 additional recommendations on how to improve policing in these cases.

Underlying Premise – and Agreement TF and Consu
● Many calls for service do not require a badge or gun
C a
n be batter handl ed by non -p olice re spon se
● Most MH, hom eless -re lated, other fit this category ● Con tin u in g role for p olice
F o
cus on communi ty cri me and vi ol ence

Agreements mask complex questions- not studied
● W hat new systems requi red for recei vi ng cal l s/routi ng responses; ● W ho determi nes, and at what poi nt i n ti me, whi ch cal l s are handl ed by whom ( e.g., by C E R N, B PD , S C U ) and how do they mi x and match; ● Wh o will sta ff th e se n on -p olice re sp on se s (i.e ., City sta ff or con tra ctor; and professi onal credenti al ed or communi ty responders) and i f con tra ctors, u n d e r wh a t color of a u th ority will th e y p rovid e City se rvice ; ● Wh e n will th e re q u isite sta ffin g b e a va ila b le ? Eith e r City sta ff or contractor
wh a te ve r m e rits of re p la cin g p olice , ca n ’ t re p la ce som e th in g with nothi ng;
● What is the back -u p syste m in ca se se e m in gly b e n ign ca lls tu rn viole n t a n d /or crim in a l);

cont’d
● Is BPD involved (e.g., as co -re sponder, as back -u p, e tc.) in a ll ca lls or a re they requi red to be separate from some/al l non -police responses? ● W hat i mpact does real l ocati ng some number/percentage of cal l s from po
lice a ffe ct th e m in im u m police pa trol sta ffin g n e ce ssa ry to pe rform thei r functi on of focusi ng on and respondi ng to cal l s for servi ce in volvin g crim e s a n d or viole n ce .
● W hat l i abi l i ty i ssues do these new responses present to the C i ty

Inquiry 1: Determining what is considered a Tier 1
● No cl ear agreement between Di spatch and NI C J R as to how to i nterpret or
dispa tch m a n y type s of ca lls.
○ ca lls con side re d CERN -re ferral s by NI C J R may be consi dered B PD ca lls by Dispa tch .
○ why: frequentl y the cal l provi des i nsuffi ci ent i nformati on to know wha
t i s actual l y happeni ng unti l someone was di spatched to the scene

contd
● no serious vetting of the NICJR proposal by Dispatch
in TF meetings, senior Dispatch officials took serious objection ● Di spatch seemed rel uctant to send pol i ce offi cers to some cal l s with ou t a va ila b le office r b a ck-up.
○ Query: woul d Di spatch refer these, and other, cal l s to a non- p olice u n it
● BPD a gre e s th a t m a n y ca lls for se rvice m a y u ltim a te ly n ot re q u ire pol i ce, but they argue that can’ t know unti l the offi cer i s di spatched to the scene to assess
● vi ew of consul tant – m ost ca lls d on ’ t re q u ire p olice

Inquiry 2 – Defining the Relationship between CERN, SCUother ● R ei magi ni ng and S C U processes were di sti nct, though occurri ng i n pa
ra lle l
○ However, the NICJR proposals did not seem informed by the SCU process or recommendations.
● Unclear how CERN would relate to whatever SCU dispatch system is forthcoming
● Unclear whether successful SCU build -out would replace/reduce demand for CERN.
● Could be substantial confusion and complexity in piloting both SCU and CERN at the same time.

Inquiry 3 –Back-up by Police for Alternative Responders ● T here was no NI C J R di scussi on as to whether C E R N ( or S C U) staff woul d hav
e back -up from B PD shoul d that become necessary or requested. ● I mportant for two reasons:
○ ( i ) for the securi ty of the non- po l i ce responders; and ○ ( i i ) the strongl y hel d vi ew of both S C U and T ask F orce members that i t i s
i mportant for cal l ers to be assured that thei r cal l for assi stance wi l l not resul t i n referral to pol i ce and the cri mi nal j usti ce system. ● T he future of any non- po l i ce response system depends on the conti nued securi ty of non- police responders.
● Protecti ng cal l ers for servi ce from any pol i ce i nvol vement for certai n types of
cal l s was consi dered of maj or i mportance.

Inquiry 4 – Staffing and Organizational Capacity for Piloting Progra ● NI C J R i ndi cates that C E R N responses to be provi ded by l ocal non -p r ofit s. ○ Some non -p rofit s b rie fly id e n t ifie d , h owe ve rno analysis of their capacity to handle the CERN work .
● Assuming CERN system makes sense, important debate whether staffing should be by City staff or outside contractors. Not analyzed by NICJR. ● For some calls for service, particularly mental health ones to be handled by the SCU, contract responders may provide excellent service. ○ HOWEVER
● For other Tier 1, serious questions re staffing qualifications and whether better handled by City vs non -profit contractors. In particular, question whether non - City staff would have the legitimacy or authority to address conflicts between residents.

Inquiry 5 – Screening, Triaging, and Dispatching Calls for Service ● Dispatch issues are at the core of any R eimagining process. ● W hatever changes are recommended must consi der Di spatch real i ti es ● Dispa tch cu rre n tly h a s lim ite d tria ge re spon sibilitie s. It e sse n tia lly di
spatches officers to respond to calls for service.

I f a cal l seems to be a mental heal th cal l , and when the MC T i s on duty ( roughl y 25% of the ti me) , D i spatch al so sends the MC T . ● I f S C U, C E R N mental heal th, homel ess, or other T i er 1 cal l s get routed th
rou gh Dispa tch , will re qu ire a m a jor ch a n ge for Dispa tch ○ wi l l now have to determi ne who to send the cal l to: B PD or some other responders. ○ if d isp a tch in g to n on-BP D, will th e se ca lls re q u ire som e form of b a ck-up.

contd
● Questi ons requi ri ng consi derati on and not anal yzed by consul tant:
● How to m ix/m a tch /coordin a te 911 ca lls for police , SCU, CERN ● How will th e com m u n ity kn ow wh o to ca ll for wh ich se rvice s, e spe cia lly i f
want no B PD i nvol vement?
● How will re spon se s be coordin a te d if som e ca lls go to Dispa tch a n d ot
hers go to a separate di spatch phone number?
● What is the process for resolving these issues?

Inquiry 6 – Effects on Patrol Staffing and Potential Police Savings ● NI C J R recommends that by removing 50% of non -vio le n t, n on-crim in a l ca lls for se rvice from BPD th a t Pa trol sta ffin g cou ld be re du ce d by 50%. ● NICJR e xplicitly m a in ta in s a BPD role to focu s on crim e a n d viole n ce , but NICJR does no analysis of the Patrol staffing levels necessary to perform the new BPD Patrol role.
● Bottom line : the operational question is not the number of calls for service of different types per the consultant approach; rather, it is the minimum police staffing, at any point in time, required to respond to those calls for service that the City deems should be responded to by BPD as well as any other BPD Patrol duties.

This remains to be analyzed.

contd
Re: Consultant Recommendation of 50% Patrol Reduction
Query: R egardl ess of # of T i er 1 cal l s taken from B PD, ca n th e y h a n dle th e crim e /viole n ce re spon sibilitie s with re du ce d sta ff? ● how many fewer Patrol offi cers on duty at any parti cul ar ti me are su
ffi ci ent to provi de adequate coverage
● Wou ld two -thi rds of current staffi ng be suffi ci ent ( i .e., 14 -16 officers on duty duri ng maj or hours and 6 offi cers i n the wee hours) ? ● W oul d hal f of current staffi ng be suffi ci ent as stated by the consul tant (i
.e., 11 -12 office rs on du ty pe r prin cipa l sh ifts a n d 4 -5 officers for the enti re ci ty duri ng the wee hours) ?
·

contd
● W e can make assumpti ons, but determi ni ng the magni tude of such reducti ons and creati ng a reduced number of pol i ce beats requi res anal ysi s and this was not studied by the consultant .
● Task Force attempted to elicit information from the Acting Police Chief during her many presentations, but she was not forthcoming (presumably not wanting to negotiate Patrol staffing reductions in public.)

Inquiry 7: CERN and BerkDOT
● CERN pilot proposa l in clu de s m a n y Be rkDOT type ca lls. ○ abandoned vehi cl es, i noperabl e vehi cl es, non -in ju ry “a ccide n t” ve h icle blockin g drive wa y, ve h icle blockin g side wa lk, dou ble pa rkin g.
● S houl d be consi dered under B erkD OT process rather than C E R N? ● Re qu ire s m ore a n a lysis a s it re la te s to BERKDOT.

Inquiry 8: CERN Staffing and its Sufficiency
● NICJR CERN st a ffin g m od e l se e m s in su fficie n t - un derstates pilot cost ● NI C J R proposes:
○ T wo C E R N di stri cts wi th contracts to two C B Os ( 1/di stri ct) . ○ E ach to have three teams ( one team per shi ft) of two C E R N responders pl us tw
o addi ti onal fl oaters to cover staff who cal l out or are on vacati on.” ● C l ai ms to cover 3 shi fts per day wi th 3 teams but seems to i gnore weekends.

Men
ti ons some coverage for vacati on, but al so si ckness, trai ni ng, and other drai ns on staffi ng.
● As in d ica t e d re p olicin g, it rou gh ly t a ke s 5x st a ff t o cove r on e fu ll st a ff slot 24/7.

NI
CJR is on ly in d ica t in g cove ra ge a t 3x.
● Mi nor concern but understates requi si te staffi ng and consequent costs.

Reimagining Public Safety for Berkeley
Reducing the Risk of Police Violence & Liabilit
● The Fatal Force Project found about 1 in 5 people of all fatal encounters by police were experiencing a mental or emotional crisis (Burke, 2021). Other research has indicated 1 in 4 people in crisis (Saleh et al, 2018; TAC, 2015). ● There is stark racial bias revealed in police killings of older, unarmed Black men with signs of mental illness. Black men who are perceived as a threat tend to be criminalized while white men are more likely to get services (Manke, 2020; Thomas et al, 2020). Young Black men generally impacted. ● 10 cities with the largest police depts paid out $248.7 Billion in settlements & court judgments in 2014, much of which were wrongful death suits of people in mental health crisis (Elinson & Frosch, 2015).

Reducing Policing & Improving Access to Well-being Services Task Force 911 & Behavioral Health Recommendatio
Establish 24/7 Public Behavioral Health System for the City of Berkeley Adopt City Auditor’s Reforms for Improving 911 CAD System, including mental health & homelessness calls; add substance use -related ones
Behavioral Health Procedures and Call Scripts
Implement Alternative Non -Police Responder, Specialized Care Unit (SCU) Examples: Eugene (CAHOOTS), Portland, Seattle, Olympia, Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, Denver, Austin, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Ithaca, NYC (Durham, Albuquerque - separate govt dept)
Establish Crisis Stabilization Center for Behavioral Health in Berkeley Develop Behavioral Health General Order for BPD that Emphasizes Diversion Away from Policing Whenever Possibl e

911 Communications Center Operation
General 911 Communications Center Operations Manual for Berkeley ● 911 Call Processing and Dispatching Procedures
911 Operations Resources:

National Emergency Number Association’s (NENA) Industry Standards Association of Public Safety Communications Professionals’ (APCO), National 911 Industry Standards
University of Chicago, National Best Practices Recommendations, 6/22

Transportation-Related Recommendations

1. (Sh o rt-Te rm ) Tra n sfe r collision a n a lysis a n d sch ool-crossing -guard management from B PD and to Publ i c W orks

1. (Me d iu m-T erm) R evi ew T ransportati on L aws, F i nes and F ees to Promote S afety and E quity

1. (Sh o rt-T erm) F ul l y F und the B erkD OT Pl anni ng Process ( at an estimated $200,000)

Community Violence Prevention Investment/Prog
R esearch and i nvest i nto exi sti ng or new programs that curb communi ty vi ol ence through:
a. Preventi on
b. Ed u ca t io n
c. Mentorshi p
d. T rauma stewardshi p
e. E conomic Opportunity

Community Violence Prevention Investment/Prog
D rawi ng from successful model s throughout the C ountry ● Cure Violence - Ne w York, Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia ○ Reductions of
■ 45% violent crime (Trinidad)
■ 63% shootings (New York City)
■ 30% shootings (Philadelphia)
■ 45% shooting in f irst week of program (Chicago)
● Advance Peace - Sac ramento
■ Reduced homicide and nonfatal injury shootings by 20% from January 2018 and 2019 ■ Every $1 spent on program saved between $18 and $41 dollars in emergency response, health car
e, and law enforcement - saving the city money!
● United Playaz - SF
○ Taking anywhere from 200-30 0 guns off the streets through annual events while hiring formerly incarcerated and empowering youth to reduce violence in the community

Community Violence Prevention Investment/Prog
Min im u m crite ria for Com m u n ity Viole n ce Pre ve n tion p rogra m s:
● Ce n te r viole n ce im p a cte d fa m ilie s, you th , a n d in d ivid u a ls ● C reate meani ngful opportuni ti es for communi ty to tap i nto these programs
● Programs must hi re staff who are from the same background as the communi ty they serve
● Work d ilige n tly to e d u ca te a n d visib le a n d a ccou n ta b le to th e communi ty
● Fu n d in g for p rogra m s sh ou ld re m a in fle xib le , a llow it to grow a n d adapt to emergi ng needs

Support City efforts to establish an Office of Rac
& Social Justice
● T hi s i dea i sn’ t new i n B erkel ey or the B ay A rea ● A s a task force we recogni ze current efforts to create one but of
fe r th e followin g a s gu ida n ce to e n su re it is d on e in te n tion a lly a n d with in te grity:
○ Partner with trusted Community Organizations and Leaders ○ Integrate a community oversight and support body

Support City efforts to establish an Office of Rac
& Social Justice
● Partner with trusted Community Organizations and Leaders:
○ Le a d liste n in g se ssion in a n e q u ita b le a n d in clu sive wa y a c
ross a ll of Be rke le y’ s d istrict to in form a n d solicit fe e d ba ck/d ire ction s of wh a t th is office sh ou ld prioritize ○ L anguage access i s paramount to accompl i shi ng thi s ○ B udget for a low -ba rrier form of compensation for
p a rticip a n ts of liste n in g se ssion s
○ C ompensate communi ty organi zati ons for thei r i nvol vement i n
organi zi ng, pl anni ng, and l aunchi ng sessi ons

Support City efforts to establish an Office of Rac
& Social Justice
● Establish a Community Oversight/Support Body
○ T hi s body shoul d be compri sed of a vari ety of B erkel ey re
si dents, communi ty l eaders, and youth that bri ng a
vari ety of perspecti ves and i nsi ghts on communi ty needs ○ T hi s body shoul d exi st to provi de gui dance on emergi ng is
su e s, e va lu a te im pa ct of on goin g work, a n d u ltim a te ly serve as a partner to the C i ty of B erkel ey to ensure success

Communications

All communications submitted to the City Council are
public record. Communications are not published directly to the City’s website. Copies of individual communications are available for viewing at the City Clerk Department and through Records Online.

City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
(510) 981-6900

Records Online
https://records.cityofberkeley.info/

To search for communications associated with a particular City Council meeting using Records Online:

1. Select Search Type = “Public – Communication Query (Keywords)”

2. From Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting

3. To Date: Enter the date of the Council meeting (this may match the From Date field)

4. Click the “Search” button

5. Communication packets matching the entered criteria will be returned

6. Click the desired file in the Results column to view the document as a PDF