Berkeley City Council
May 5, 2022

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 56
Recommendation #25
The SCU mobile team should conduct outreach and build
relationships with potential service utilizers.

In addition to a public awareness campaign that promotes the SCU as a community resource, shares how to access the SCU, and emphasizes the non-police design, many service utilizers may still be reluctant to engage with a new entity. As a result, to most equitably meet the needs of potential service utilizers and especially substance users, the SCU may need to conduct in-person outreach. This outreach should be targeted to specific groups who are most likely to call the SCU with the aim of establishing trusting relationships and sharing more about their harm reduction approaches.

Targeted sites for relationship building with potential service utilizers:
• Encampments
• Safe parking RV lots
• Drop-in centers
• Downtown Berkeley
• People’s Park
• Emergency department waiting rooms
Why might service utilizers be reluctant to engage in services with the SCU? Many community members have personally experienced the criminalization of substance use and mental health emergencies, whether through their own experiences or having witnessed the experiences of family, friends, or community members. Such carceral approaches include involuntary psychiatrist holds and unnecessary transport to hospitals. In particular, unsheltered residents and substance users may be more distrustful of a new team and be less likely to call during a crisis. In interviews, unsheltered residents shared that not all of their substance use management are being adequately addressed by current crisis responders and they experience high rates of transport to emergency departments. Many also shared that they fear police retaliation for their substance use. In general, there are several reasons why community members may be hesitant about engaging crisis responders, which could be addressed by individual, relational outreach.

Why would relationship building improve utilization of the SCU? Despite many service utilizers reporting overall distrust of first responders, they also shared that EMTs have developed trusting relationships and strong rapport for handling overdoses. Because of this relationship, service utilizers are more willing to call for an EMT to respond to an overdose. Similarly, h aving strong relationships built on trust will be key to the success of the SCU.

Considerations for Implementation
● If there are periods of low call volume, the SCU may use those times as opportunities to build relationships in communities of potential service utilizers and proactively provide services . ● This outreach may also be implemented based on data and findings or in preparation for Phase 2 expansion and changes.

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 57

System-Level Recommendations
The development of a mental health crisis response model as a component of the City of Berkeley’s emergency services should be understood as a systems-change initiative of great magnitude. There are several critical factors that must be attended to in order to realize the full implementation of the SCU and to progress towards its intended outcomes.

Addressing the Needs of Dispatch
There is an urgent need for a 24/7 mental health and substance use crisis response model that does not rely on law enforcement to provide specialized mental health care.

To provide this service, crisis responders must be connected to those in crisis. Thus, the role of Dispatch is essential.

Dispatch needs a full assessment and planning process to address the complexity of the 911 response system. This assessment and planning, though urgent, cannot be done hastily. The SCU will benefit if Dispatch is able to:
• Address the understaffing, under-resourcing, and identified training needs of call takers.
• Plan for a sustainable integration.
• Plan for a variety of scenarios to ensure crisis responder and community safety. • Participate in the SCU phased-implementation approach and ongoing collaboration with SCU leadership.
• Establish trusting relationships and rapport with the SCU so that call takers are confident in deploying the SCU for scenarios they previously would have deployed MCT or Police.

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 58
A Sufficient Investment of Resources
A lack of sufficient resources is not only a challenge for Dispatch, but is a common challenge expressed by service providers in Berkeley and in other locales. Within the City of Berkeley, both TOT and MCT have challenges meeting the needs of community members because their hours of operation are limited, and they do not have enough staffing and resources to provide 24/7 services. This results in the perception of slow or delayed response times and can decrease the likelihood that callers continue to seek that service. Efforts in other cities, such as the Mental Health First and MACRO initiatives in Oakland and the Street Crisis Response Team in San Francisco, have also had to restrict their hours of availability and services due to a lack of sufficient funding.

Mental health crisis response could be essential in promoting health equity in the City of Berkeley. However, if it is not sufficiently resourced to provide 24/7 crisis response without long wait times, it will not achieve trust, and will become utilized less often and will therefore not achieve the desired systems-change results. This resourcing includes not only the SCU mobile crisis team, but the entirety of the model and related infrastructure, from the call center to program manager. Sufficient resourcing also includes dedicated time by city leadership to support coordination, collaboration, and problem -solving.

The Role of Trust
Trust was one of the most discussed factors across stakeholder engagement and will be a critical ingredient to the success of this system-wide change initiative. The public awareness campaign and all Phase 0 planning processes must address the concerns and doubts that could undermine trust across community stakeholders, the service provider network, and city leadership.

Trust will shape whether community members utilize the SCU. Community members must trust that the SCU:
• Is a non-police crisis response.
• Is accessible and available 24/7.
• Is responsive to emerging needs and ongoing community input and feedback. • Provides competent harm reduction and non-carceral approaches to mental health and substance use crisis intervention.

Trusting relationships affect the quality of referrals, warm handoffs, and service linkages across the service provider network. Service providers emphasized that trust plays a role in:
• Whether they will refer a client to another provider. • The amount and type of information they disclose about a shared client. • Whether systems will choose to share and integrate data.

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 59
• The quality of collaboration and communication during warm handoffs, care coordination, or at client discharge.

Trusting relationships are essential to centralized coordination and collaboration among city leadership. The SCU model will require a variety of agencies and departments to work together in new ways and toward new ends. Other cities implementing alternative crisis models shared that trust was enhanced across leadership by:
• Aligning on shared values and commitment to improving health outcomes for people in crisis.
• Recognizing and adapting to the varied cultures of city departments, agencies, and CBOs.
• Ensuring decision-making power is allocated in alignment with the aims of the crisis model, such as ensuring that law enforcement does not have an unaligned or inequitable of voice or power in making decisions.
• Reviewing data to promote accountability and celebrate successful outcomes. • Planning for sufficient time to prepare and participate in collaboration.

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 60

Conclusion: Next Steps &
Future Considerations
This report presents recommendations for a model that is responsive to community needs. Still, there were numerous questions, issues, needs, and considerations that surfaced that were beyond the scope of the project. Decisions around those factors could significantly shape the types of services the SCU provides as well as how it is coordinated and administered across agencies. Such considerations are pertinent to the future of the SCU, crisis response, and the mental health service system in Berkeley, and therefore should continue to be discussed by city leadership and those implementing the SCU.

Long-Term Sustainable Funding
The SCU model requires long-term sustainable funding. A sound fiscal strategy must recognize the robustness of costs associated with the SCU and plan for institutionalizing and sustaining those costs. There are a number of potential funding sources for the SCU model, including Medi-Cal reimbursement, Medi-Cal opportunities through CalAIM, and DHCS grants. However, these funding streams are unlikely to sustain a crisis response model on their own. Other funding and resources may need to be braided in to the SCU to effectively implement this model.

While braiding allows for maximizing funding resources, it also requires clear and separate tracking of services based on funding sources and requirements. With multiple funding streams, the target populations, reporting requirements, eligibility criteria, and performance measures can vary greatly. A braided funding model, therefore, requires knowledgeable administrators as well as dedicated time to manage. This can be especially resource-intensive for a CBO implementing the SCU. The SCU model will need to be very clear about the funding requirements and develop an appropriate syst em for ongoing tracking and reporting.

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 61
Different financing mechanisms provide varying levels of sustainability and predictability, considerations which should inform the development of a fiscal strategy for the SCU model. Unfortunately, these recommendations may not be fully realized if there is not a long-term sustainable fiscal strategy. Modifications to the SCU model could negatively impact the quality of service delivery or lessen the population impact .

Across the country, some cities have used a sales tax to fund their alternative crisis response models while others have redirected funds away from police departments.

Rather than identifying new or short-term grant awards, a primary consideration for the City of Berkeley should be to look to dollars that can be reinvested from the Berkeley Police Department, in alignment with the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, to develop a sustainable and comprehensive SCU model.

Continue Planning for 24/7 Live Phone Access to the SCU Significant planning will be required to fully realize the 24/7 live phone access to the SCU (refer to recommendations #8, 9, and 10). Reaching out to existing call centers— such as Alameda County CSS— or to other cities implementing similar crisis models could support the development of the phone access to the SCU. Additional planning is needed to determine, at a minimum:
• Equipment and technology needs
• Staffing requirements for the estimated call volume
• Recruitment, hiring, and training
• Workflow and protocol development
• Cost and funding availability
The Location of 911 Dispatch Within the Berkeley Police Department
The 911 Communications Center is currently operated by the Berkeley Police Department.

This structure affects how Dispatch is funded and who makes decisions. As the role of Dispatch is broadened to coordinate a greater variety of responses to emergencies, there may be advantages to moving Dispatch outside of the Berkeley Police Department, such as improved communication and coordination across relevant agencies. For instance, it has been expressed that Dispatch call takers are currently more comfortable deploying the police than other crisis responders given their long tenure and rapport wi th police officers, so call takers’ ability to establish rapport with the SCU team is needed for them to be comfortable deploying the SCU. Structural changes like this may also align to several of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative’s aims. This consideration can be explored as part of the assessment and planning processes of the phased implementation approach.

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 62
Preventing Social Monitoring: Clarifying the SCU’s
Guiding Principles
The SCU model is designed to ensure that mental health specialists respo nd to people experiencing mental health crises. However, there is significant and justified concern that the SCU could be co-opted to support the social monitoring and enforcement of unsheltered residents. Clarifying the SCU’s guiding principles could support in reifying the intentions of the model to ensure that all practices are aligned with those principles.

There are several elements within the model design where data, ongoing conversation, and service utilizer feedback can ensure that the SCU lives out its intention. One such example is whether and how the SCU would be deployed with the police and/or how the SCU is distinguished from MCT. For example, if a caller reports an unsheltered neighbor is residing on their sidewalk or driveway, this may not qualify for an SCU response. However, if that call is deployed to the police, then the response effectively criminalizes unsheltered Berkeley residents. Such scenarios should be explored as the SCU model is implemented, refined, and expanded.

Address the Full Spectrum of Mental Health and
Substance Use Crisis Needs
Mental health and substance use crises vary in severity along a spectrum. A crisis can present as someone in immediate danger to themselves or others, someone who needs regular support to address their basic needs, or someone who is generally able to manage their needs but needs occasional support to prevent a future crisis.

Throughout this project, many stakeholders expressed that in order to effectively address the challenges of the current system, solutions and changes must engage with the nuances and spectrum of mental health crises:
• Some forms of crisis are readily visible while others are not. • Some forms of neurodivergence are reported as a mental illness or crisis, but they are not.
• Some forms of crisis occur because the person is unable to access services to meet their needs.
• Some forms of emergency service utilization stem from ongoing unmet basic needs such as food and affordable housing.

Stakeholder participants urged that the concept and definition of a mental health crisis and crisis services be expanded to not only support crisis intervention but also prevention, diversion, and follow-up. The following two considerations should be further explored because they may support the SCU model. Both considerations represent a form of

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 63
reimagined public safety and may be realized with additional resources, such as funds divested from Berkeley Police Department:

Expand the SCU Model to Include a Follow-up Care and
Coordination Team
There will likely be a need for a team to receive referrals from the SCU mobile team and connect with service utilizers for follow-up care. Follow-up care could include referrals, system navigation, and case management support. This team may also need to conduct outreach to make contact with service utilizers and address barriers to care as needed. For example, some service utilizers may be unable to follow through with a referral if they do not have reliable access to transportation or experience challenges maintaining scheduled appointments. This team could potentially be funded by the 988 funding allocated to dedicated follow-up teams deployed from 988 crisis call centers.
30 There are many lessons that should be learned from the existing Transitional Outreach Team (TOT), such as challenges they face with adequate staffing and funding or constraints and limitations with who they can serve. Any initiatives around follow-up care should augment rather than duplicate the TOT.

Increase the Number of Sites for Non-emergency Care for Berkeley Residents
Throughout this project, stakeholder participants emphasized the need for sites for non-emergency care, such as drop-in centers, day centers, sobering sites, and respite centers. These services are important for harm reduction and crisis prevention, and as such would support the outcomes of the SCU model. There may be opportunities in Phase 0 or Phase 1 to reserve beds at a shelter or similar care facility as a temporary measure, ensuring persons in crisis have access to these beds after engaging with the SCU. However, increasing the overall number of sites for non-emergency care would require a longer-term investment

30 Santos, M (2021). New suicide prevention hotline aims to divert callers from police. Crosscut. https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/07/new-suicide-prevention-hotline-aims-divert-callers-police

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 64

Appendix

Appendix A: Launch Timeline & Phased Implementation Approach Nov 2021 - May 2022
System-Level: Planning, Launch, Implementation HHCS
Steering
Committee
Dispatch
Contracted
CBO
Engage community on feedback to SCU Model recommendations x x Engage community on SCU RFP requirements x
Dispatch leadership communicates and champions (internally) the SCU change-initiative
x
Plan for Dispatch assessment (e.g., determine if RFP needed) x x Jan Make decisions about 24/7, live phone line to SCU (option A, B, C) x x x Issue RFP for SCU x
Issue RFP for SCU alternative phone line (TBD) x
RFP Deadline
Review all RFPs x x
Select awardee for SCU x x
Begin planning for site visits x x x
Apr Contract process for SCU x
Hire SCU personnel (mobile team, supportive and administrative roles, Dispatch/phone staff)
x
Hire mental health clinician to support Dispatch assessment & planning x x Build relationships across all new personnel x x x x
June - Aug
Plan & Implement Recommendations: Refer to Phase 0 Implementation Approach
Phase 0 - Launch Timeline
Dec
Feb
Mar
May

Phased Implementation Approach
Implementation Planning for Phase 2
Nov 2021 - Aug 2022 Sept 2022 - Aug 2023 Sept 2023 - Feb 2024 Feb 2024+ SCU Mobile Team Recommendations
1 The SCU should respond to mental health crises and substance use emergencies without a police co-response
Clarify specific factors and codes for all suggested
SCU call types
Develop triage criteria and workflows across all SCU
call-types and services.

Coordinate with other entities (BPD, MCT, UCPD) for
differentiation and/or collaboration.

SCU mobile team goes live,
providing services
Consider additional types of calls for service that
they can respond to where armed police officers
are not needed or aligned to a reimagined
definition of public safety, such as:
- Completing documentation while providing
crisis services where a traditional “police report” is
needed, such as in cases of sexual assault, sexual
harassment, and rape
- Petty theft
- Nonviolent conflicts, such as neighbor disputes
or youth behavioral issues
- Minor assaults, with no weapons present
- Proactive support at events that may trigger a
crisis (e.g., during an encampment sweep)
Integrate other SCU model
elements (e.g., follow-up care
team [Report Section V])
2 The SCU should operate 24/7
3 Staff a 3-person SCU mobile team to respond to mental health and substance use emergencies
4 Equip the SCU Mobile Team with vans Procure vans
5 The SCU Mobile Team should provide transport to a variety of locations Introduce SCU to emergency facility staff at all
transport destinations
6 Equip the SCU mobile team with supplies to meet the array of clients' needs
Procure supplies
7 Clearly distinguish the SCU from MCT
Develop clear roles and parameters for SCU and MCT
teams by collaborating across Dispatch, the SCU
Steering Committee, the current MCT team, and other
relevant leadership
Note: These decisions are essential for developing
triage criteria and workflows and for communicating
to the general public in a public awareness
campaign.

Evaluate the role of MCT and the
efficacy of having both teams.

Make recommendations for Phase
2, such as changes to each team’s
scope or processes.

Communicate to general public and relevant
service providers about changes relevant to the
distinguished roles of MCT and SCU
Phase 1 Future, Beyond Phase
2 Phase 0 Phase 2

Phased Implementation Approach
Implementation Planning for Phase 2
Nov 2021 - Aug 2022 Sept 2022 - Aug 2023 Sept 2023 - Feb 2024 Feb 2024+ Phase 1 Future, Beyond Phase
2 Phase 0 Phase 2
Accessing the SCU Crisis Response
8 Participate in the Dispatch assessment and planning process to prepare for future integration
Decide the most effective method for 24/7, live phone
access to the SCU (Option A, B, C)
Dispatch makes investments in staffing and
technologies, as needed
SCU model discusses with Dispatch the necessary
data (variables, definitions, timelines, privacy, etc.) to be collected during each Phase of implementation
Dispatch begins planning for changes to CAD or
other data systems
Dispatch makes investments in
staffing and technologies, as
needed
Dispatch implements Phase 1
protocols, as determined by Phase
0 planning (Option A, B, C)
Implement new triage criteria and
workflows
9 Ensure the community has a 24/7 live phone line to access the SCU Implement and adapt 24/7, live phone line access to
SCU (Option A, B, C)
Adapt protocols for other Berkeley crisis responders
(Fire, EMS/Falck, MCT, Police) to request SCU support
through the alternative phone number
Dispatch and HHCS/SCU identify opportunities for
Phase 1 implementation (based on Option A, B, C),
such as:
- Phase 1 call types for SCU deployment OR
preliminary calls that Dispatch will transfer to the
alternative phone line in early Phase 1 (e.g., welfare
checks)
- Dispatch supports alternative phone line to develop
aligned triage criteria and workflows to support
future integration
If Option B or C:

Plan for how calls will be triaged
and prioritized from the two
separate sources (alternative
number and 911) in deploying the
SCU mobile teams in Phase 2
Determine if the SCU should
respond to crises by sight
("proactive" deployment and
intervention)
Determine if the SCU should self-
deploy by listening to the police
radio (based on other models:

Eugene's CAHOOTS, Denver's STAR,
and San Francisco's Street Crisis
Response Team)
If Option B or C:

Integrate SCU into 911
10 Plan for embedding a mental health or behavioral health clinician(s) into Dispatch to support triage and SCU deployment
Dispatch hires one clinician to support the Dispatch
assessment process and to support triage criteria
and workflow development for calls routed to SCU
Clinician attends trainings and site observations with
Dispatch and SCU
Clinician(s) supports planning for triage criteria, call- types, etc. (as relevant: Option A, B, C may affect
timing of this)
If Option A:

Dispatch prepares for fully embedding clinician(s),
including clarifying their roles and supervision
structure
If Option B or C: implement this in Phase 2
Clinician(s) support Dispatch
based on the assessment findings
and next steps, such as:
- supervises call-takers triaging
mental health crisis calls
- provides trainings to call-takers
based on 2019 Auditor's Report and
ongoing assessment
Assess whether clinician(s) can
provide services beyond SCU
deployment, including basic
telemedicine and psychiatric
screenings or psychiatric crisis
assessment

Phased Implementation Approach
Implementation Planning for Phase 2
Nov 2021 - Aug 2022 Sept 2022 - Aug 2023 Sept 2023 - Feb 2024 Feb 2024+ Phase 1 Future, Beyond Phase
2 Phase 0 Phase 2
Implement a Comprehensive, 24/7 Mental Health Crisis Response Model 11 Fully staff a comprehensive model to ensure the success of the SCU mobile team, including supervisory and administrative support roles for SCU
12 Operate one SCU mobile team per shift for three 10-hour shifts 13 SCU staff and Dispatch personnel should travel to alternative crisis programs for in-person observation and training
Incorporate into RFP and hiring timelines to allow for
these periods of travel and training.

Note: City of Berkeley and/or the contracted CBO
may need to reach out to the other cities and
programs to solidify travel and training plans prior to the hiring of any individual personnel.

Allot time after the site visit(s) for debriefing,
reflecting on lessons learned, and discussing how to
integrate key takeaways into the SCU model.

Include in debrief and planning conversations
personnel that traveled for site observations, HHCS
staff, additional Dispatch leadership, and Steering
Committee members, as needed
14 Prepare the SCU mobile team with training, informed by community needs
Plan the training schedule based on community
needs, ongoing assessment and planning, and
prerequisite skills and experiences of hired personnel

Phased Implementation Approach
Implementation Planning for Phase 2
Nov 2021 - Aug 2022 Sept 2022 - Aug 2023 Sept 2023 - Feb 2024 Feb 2024+ Phase 1 Future, Beyond Phase
2 Phase 0 Phase 2
Administration and Evaluation
15 Contract the SCU Model to a CBO
Extend contract and provide
funding for Phase 2, as applicable
Determine if the SCU can be
administered through the City of
Berkeley, elevating it to the status
of Police and Fire as an essential
citywide emergency service and
ensuring long-term sustainability
16 Integrate SCU into existing data systems
Assess feasibility of data integration across various
systems and sources: assess system capacity needs
to realize integration, seek consultation on legal
issues surrounding patient protections and sharing
health data across providers
Evaluate implications for Recommendation 18 (care
coordination case management meetings) based on
feasibility and adaptations from this
recommendation (Recommendation 16)
Maintain and strengthen data privacy before SCU is
integrated with Dispatch (given that Dispatch is
situated within Berkeley Police and that many health
conditions can be criminalized and prosecuted)
Continue: Assess feasibility of data
integration across various systems
and sources: assess system
capacity needs to realize
integration, seek consultation on
legal issues surrounding patient
protections and sharing health
data across providers
Coordinate with Alameda County
Care Connect to plan for bi-
directional data feeds with the
Community Health Record (CHR)
Plan for access to EHRs and other
relevant data systems
17 Collect and publish mental health crisis response data publicly on Berkeley’s Open Data Portal
Coordinate with City of Berkeley to add new data to
Portal
Plan for how regularly data will be refreshed/updated
on Portal
Publish data regularly
18 Implement care coordination case management meetings for crisis service providers
Involve all relevant agencies in planning to define,
align, and adjust data definitions, variables, and
collection practices. (e.g., 911-Dispatch, MCT, BPD, BFD, Falck, HHCS, SCU, etc.)
Engage potential participates to plan for Phase 1
implementation of care coordination case
management meetings (identify and confirm
participants, confirm meeting intervals, set meeting
times, etc.)
Convene and implement care
coordination meetings
19 Implement centralized coordination and leadership across city agencies to support the success of mental health crisis response Engage potential participates to plan for Phase 1
implementation of centralized coordination and
leadership meetings (identify and confirm
participants, confirm meeting intervals, set meeting
times, etc.)
Convene and implement
centralized coordination and
leadership meetings

Phased Implementation Approach
Implementation Planning for Phase 2
Nov 2021 - Aug 2022 Sept 2022 - Aug 2023 Sept 2023 - Feb 2024 Feb 2024+ Phase 1 Future, Beyond Phase
2 Phase 0 Phase 2
Administration and Evaluation (continued)
20 Continue the existing SCU Steering Committee as an advisory body Identify additional Steering Committee members
Invite and engage new members
Adapt processes, group norms and agreements,
and/or meeting schedules, as relevant
Hold regular meetings of SCU
Steering Committee; incorporate
decision-making processes across
other Recommendations
21 Solicit ongoing community input and feedback
Decide on methods and intervals for collecting
community input and feedback during Phase 1
Develop a plan to communicate the opportunities for
community and feedback; incorporate into public
awareness campaign
Solicit ongoing community input
and feedback; incorporate
decision-making processes across
other Recommendations
22 Adopt a rapid monitoring, assessment, and learning process 23 Conduct a formal, annual evaluation
Plan for the evaluation and rapid assessment
processes to use overlapping data and be mutually-
supportive and streamlined
Plan for all data definitions and collection processes
to be aligned across rapid assessment and
evaluation aims.

Ensure that the evaluation findings
are available for the latter six-
months of Phase 1 to support
planning for Phase 2
Review evaluation findings
Plan for Phase 2
24 Launch a public awareness campaign to promote community awareness and education about the SCU
Plan for public awareness campaign, including
targeted modalities, targeted audiences, and/or
phased timing
Launch public awareness campaign
Continue public awareness
campaign, as necessary
25 The SCU mobile team should conduct outreach and build relationships with potential service utilizers
Conduct targeted outreach and establish trusting
relationships between SCU and community
members, promoting utilization of SCU
Continue targeted outreach and
build relationships as necessary

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 66
Appendix B: Sample Shift Structure & Redundancy Needs
Model
Compo
nent
Phase
Staffin
g
Needs
Shift
Type M T W Th F Sa Su
No.
of
shift
s
(wee
k 1)
No.
of
shift
s
(wee
k 2)
No.
of
staf
f
per
unit
No.
of
unit
s
No.
of
FTE
need
ed
Notes
SCU Phase 1 Shift 1 10-hour
shift
mobile
unit A
mobile
unit A
mobile
unit A
mobile
unit B
mobile
unit E
mobile
unit E
mobile
unit E

mobile
unit a
3 4 3 6 18 Assumes
one
mobile
unit per
shift
Shift 2 10-hour
shift
mobile
unit B
mobile
unit B
mobile
unit B
mobile
unit C
mobile
unit F
mobile
unit F
mobile
unit F

mobile
unit b
4 3 3 Assumes a
three-
person
mobile
unit
Shift 3 10-hour
shift
mobile
unit C
mobile
unit C
mobile
unit C
mobile
unit D
mobile
unit D
mobile
unit D
mobile
unit D

mobile
unit c
4 3 3 Six
clinicians,
six peers,
six
therapists
mobile
unit d
4 3 3

mobile
unit e
3 4 3

mobile
unit f
3 4 3
SCU Phase 1 Shift 1 10-hour
shift
clinical
supervi
sor A
clinical
supervi
sor A
clinical
supervi
sor A
clinical
supervi
sor B
clinical
supervi
sor E
clinical
supervi
sor E
clinical
supervi
sor E
clinical
supervi
sor A
3 4 1 6 6
Shift 2 10-hour
shift
clinical
supervi
sor B
clinical
supervi
sor B
clinical
supervi
sor B
clinical
supervi
sor C
clinical
supervi
sor F
clinical
supervi
sor F
clinical
supervi
sor F
clinical
supervi
sor B
4 3 1
Shift 3 10-hour
shift
clinical
supervi
sor C
clinical
supervi
sor C
clinical
supervi
sor C
clinical
supervi
sor D
clinical
supervi
sor D
clinical
supervi
sor D
clinical
supervi
sor D
clinical
supervi
sor C
4 3 1

clinical
supervi
sor D
4 3 1

clinical
supervi
sor E
3 4 1

clinical
supervi
sor F
3 4 1

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 67
SCU Phase 1 shift
busine
ss
8-hour
shift
progra
m
manag
er
progra
m
manag
er
progra
m
manag
er
progra
m
manag
er
progra
m
manag
er
- -

progra
m
manag
er
5 n/a 1 1 1 Assumes
mobile
unit peers
are
supervised
by clinical
supervisor
during
shift; this
specialist
is for other
profession
al
supports
for Peer
Specialists
shift
busine
ss
8-hour
shift
peer
supervi
sor
peer
supervi
sor
peer
supervi
sor
peer
supervi
sor
peer
supervi
sor
- -

peer
supervi
sor
5 n/a 1 1 1

Alternati
ve
Phone
Line
Phase 1 Shift 1 12-hour
shift
call
team A
call
team A
call
team A
call
team B
call
team D
call
team D
call
team D

call
team a
3 4 2 4 8 Assumes
two call
receptioni
sts per
shift
Shift 2 12-hour
shift
call
team B
call
team B
call
team B
call
team C
call
team C
call
team C
call
team C

call
team b
4 3 2

call
team c
4 3 2

call
team d
3 3 2

Dispatc
h
Phase
0 shift
busine
ss
8-hour
shift
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n
- -

BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n
5 n/a 1 1 1
Phase 1 Shift 1 12-hour
shift
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n A
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n A
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n A
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n A
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n C
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n C
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n C
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n A
4 3 1 4
Assumes
one
clinician
per
dispatch
shift

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 68
Shift 2 12-hour
shift
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n B
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n B
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n B
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n B
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n D
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n D
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n D
BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n B
4 3 1

BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n C
3 4 1

BH/MH
triage
clinicia
n D
3 4 1

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 69
Appendix C: Budget
Salaries, wages, benefits FTE Salary Cost/Year Notes Source BH Licensed Clinician / Psych-NP 6 $ 178,000.00 $ 1,068,000.00 JobsEQ "Nurse Practitioner" JobsEQ Mean Annual Wages for
San Francisco-Oakland-Bay Area
Mental Health Peer Specialist 6 $ 77,500.00 $ 465,000.00 JobsEQ "Health Education Specialists" JobsEQ Mean Annual Wages for
San Francisco-Oakland-Bay Area
BH Licensed Therapist / LCSW 6 $ 85,800.00 $ 514,800.00 JobsEQ "Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Social Worker"
JobsEQ Mean Annual Wages for
San Francisco-Oakland-Bay Area
Clinical Supervisor 6 $ 178,000.00 $ 1,068,000.00 JobsEQ "Nurse Practitioner"; unable to
find accurate salaries for a supervisory
position
Peer Specialist Supervisor 1 $ 85,800.00 $ 85,800.00 unable to find accurate salary range;
using LCSW range
Program Manager 1 $ 105,000.00 $ 105,000.00 Phase 0 Dispatch MH/BH
Clinician 1 $ 105,782.00 $ 105,782.00 "SUPERV PUBLIC SFTY DISP" https://www.cityofberkeley.info/u
ploadedFiles/Human_Resources/
Level_3_-
__General/ClassificationAndSala
ryListingByTitle.pdf
Subtotal $ 3,412,382.00 Total FTE Salary
Subtotal $ 853,095.50 Fringe Benefits, 25% Total Salary + Benefits $ 4,265,477.50

Ongoing materials and services Cost/Year Notes
Evaluation $ 185,000.00
Used cost of RDA feasibility study as
estimate
Vehicle maintenance 4 $ 20,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Estimate provided by Berkeley Fire Advertisement & PR 12 $ 2,000.00 $ 24,000.00 Includes community education
workshops, advertising, outreach and
engagement
Small equipment & supplies 1200 $ 20.00 $ 24,000.00 Wound care, hygiene, harm reduction, meals, transportation vouchers,

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 70
clothing, blankets, etc.

Based on SF SCRT data, assumes 100
contacts with clients per month, $20 per
client contact; SF SCRT budgeted 10k
and said they needed more
Office supplies and postage 12 $ 200.00 $ 2,400.00 Communications 12 $ 600.00 $ 7,200.00 Printing and copying 12 $ 100.00 $ 1,200.00 Travel and transportation 12 $ 100.00 $ 1,200.00 Local travel for care coordination &
meetings
Training and meetings 12 $ 1,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Equity, team dynamics, and other
ongoing training
Licenses/fees/subscriptions 12 $ 50.00 $ 600.00 Insurance $ -
Contract services $ -
Legal services $ -
Audit and consulting $ - Utilities $ -
Facilities $ -
Subtotal $ 337,600.00 ongoing materials and services Subtotal: Personnel and non-
personnel recurring subtotal $ 4,603,077.50
Administrative overhead $ 276,184.65 6% for all recurring costs Total recurring cost $ 4,879,262.15

One time cost Cost/Year Notes
Vehicle 5 $ 60,000.00 $ 300,000.00
Assume 60k per van with wheelchair
capacity
Recruitment 27 $ 4,000.00 $ 108,000.00
Median national average of recruiting
new employee

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 71
Training (SCU staff and
Dispatch) $ 75,000.00
Assume training for all Dispatch, BPD,
Fire, MCT, & SCU staff; both program
onboarding and emerging best
practices related to crisis response
Technology (computers, phones,
etc.) $ 25,000.00
Laptop/tablets, cell phones for all staff,
MiFi, portable chargers
Rapid assessment $ 40,000.00
Evaluation planning meetings, data
request development, community-input
meetings
Community outreach and
education (including materials
development) $ 25,000.00
Curriculum development, materials,
advertisement, outreach (SF SCRT hired
consultant to do this work)
Subtotal $ 573,000.00
Administrative overhead $ 34,380.00 6% for all one-time costs Total one-time cost $ 607,380.00

Recommendations Cost/Year Notes
Signing bonus 7 $ 5,000.00 $ 35,000.00 Signing bonus recommended for
licensed clinical staff
Technical Assistance $ 15,000.00
Consultation from existing similar
alternative models

Total additional
recommendations $ 50,000.00

Total cost with
recommendations $ 5,536,642.15
Estimated cost for program and
recommendations

SCU Crisis Response Recommendations | 72
Appendix D: Anticipated Incident Volume
Potential Daily Incidents
for SCU (Average)
Potential Incidents per
shift for SCU (Average)
Average daily BMH-Crisis incidents (FY15-19)

MCT, TOT, CAT

10.73 incidents 19.82 6.61
Average daily BPD MH Incidents (FY14-20) 28.91 incidents Average time on task for transports BFD & Falck 101.48 minutes

Denver31
6 months, 1 team, not
citywide, not 24/7
Portland32
6 months, 1 team, not
citywide, not 24/7
CAHOOTS33
Annual, 1-2 teams, 24/7
Average incidents per shift 5.75 3 (Per hour) 1.81
% incidents that resulted in a transport 14.30% 6.27% 23.38% % transports that were to the hospital 16.82% 58.33%
Average minutes on task 24.65 19.33
Reduction of BPD calls 2.75% 4.60% 5-8%

31 STAR Program Evaluation (2021, January 08). https://wp-denverite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/STAR_Pilot_6_Month_Evaluation_FINAL-REPORT.pdf 32 City of Portland
Bureau of Fire and Rescue (2021, October). Portland street response: Six-month evaluation. https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2021/psu-portland- street-response-six-month-evaluation-final.pdf
33 Eugene Police Department Crim Analysis Unit (2020, August 21). CAHOOTS program analysis. https://www.eugene- or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/56717/CAHOOTS-Program-Analysis

Reimagining Public Safety Task Force

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY TASK FORCE

SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
6:00 PM

District 1 - Margaret Fine Youth Commission - Nayo Polk District 2 - Sarah Abigail Ejigu Police Review Commission - Nathan Mizell District 3 - boona cheema Mental Health Commission - Edward Opton District 4 - Paul Kealoha Blake Berkeley Community Safety Coalition - Todd Walker District 5 - Dan Lindheim Associated Students of U. California - Alecia Harger District 6 - La Dell Dangerfield At-Large - Alex Diaz District 7 - Barnali Ghosh At-Large - Liza Lutzker District 8 - Pamela Hyde At-Large - Frances Ho
Mayor - Hector Malvido

PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH

VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE

Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N -29-20, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, this meeting of the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force will be conducted exclusively through teleconference and Zoom videoconference.

Please be advised that pursuant to the Executive Order, and to ensure the health and safety of the pu blic by limiting human contact that could spread the COVID-19 virus, there will not be a physical meeting location available.

To access the meeting remotely using the internet: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device: Use URL https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83826470218. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the "raise hand" icon on the screen.

To join by phone: Dial (669) 900 9128 and Enter Meeting ID: 838 2647 0218 . If you wish to com ment during the public comment portion of the agenda, press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

Please be mindful that all other rules of procedure and decorum will apply for Commission meetings conducted by teleconference or videoconference.

Preliminary Matters

1. Roll Call

2. Public Comment (speakers will be limited to two minutes)

3. Approval of Minutes
Draft minutes for the Commission's consideration and approval

• Meeting of May 13, 2021

Reimagining Public Safety Task Force - Agenda
May 19, 2021

Discussion/Action Items
The public may comment on each item listed on the agenda for action as the item is taken up. Public comments are limited to two minutes per speaker.

• Election of Chairperson

• Fair and Impartial Policing Presentation – Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group

• Fair and Impartial Policing Implementation of Recommendations – Jennifer Louis, Interim Police Chief
• BerkDoT Overview – Liam Garland, Director of Public Works

• Subcommittee Discussion

Subcommittee Reports
Each report should be limited to 15 minutes.

• Policing, Budget & Alternatives to Policing – Members Opton, Ghosh, cheema, Dangerfield, Lindheim, Mizell, Harger, Hyde

• Community Engagement – Members Fine, Harger, Malvido, Lutzker, Ejigu, Blake

Items for Future Agenda

Adjournment

This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953. Any member of the public may attend this meeting. Questions regarding this matter may be addressed to Mark Numainville, City Clerk, (510) 981-6900.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force regarding any item on this agenda are on file and available upon request by contacting the City Manager’s Office attn: Reimagining Public Safety Task Force at
[email protected], or may be viewed on the City of Berkeley website: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/commissions.

Written communications addressed to the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force and submitted to the City Manager’s Office by 5:00 p.m. the Friday before the meeting will be distributed to members of the Task Force in advance of the meet ing.

Communications to the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e- mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the secretary of the task force. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your co mmunication. Please contact the secretary for further information.

********************************************************************************************************** COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION:

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

Reimagining Public Safety Task Force - Agenda
May 19, 2021

Reimagining Public Safety Task Force Contact Information:

David White and Shamika Cole
Co-Secretaries, Reimagining Public Safety Task Force
City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
[email protected] (email)

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 1

AN N O T AT E D AG E N D A

S P E CI AL M E E T I NG O F THE

B E R K E LE Y CI T Y C O U N CIL

Tuesday, February 23, 2021
4:00 P.M.

JESSE ARREGUIN, MAYOR
Councilmembers:

DISTRICT 1 – RASHI KESARWANI DISTRICT 5 – SOPHIE HAHN
DISTRICT 2 – TERRY TAPLIN DISTRICT 6 – SUSAN WENGRAF
DISTRICT 3 – BEN BARTLETT DISTRICT 7 – RIGEL ROBINSON
DISTRICT 4 – KATE HARRISON DISTRICT 8 – LORI DROSTE

PUBLIC ADVISORY: THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH

VIDEOCONFERENCE AND TELECONFERENCE
Pursuant to Section 3 of Executive Order N -29-20, issued by Governor Newsom on March 17, 2020, th is meeting of the City Council will be conducted exclusively through teleconference and Zoom videoconference. Please be advised that pursuant to the Executive Order and the Shelter -in-Place Order, and to ensure the health and safety of the public by limiting human contact that could spread the COVID -19 virus, there will not be a physical meeting location available.

Live audio is available on KPFB Radio 89.3. Live captioned broadcasts of Council Meetings are available on Cable B-TV (Channel 33) and via int ernet accessible video stream at http://www.cityofberkeley.info/CalendarEventWebcastMain.aspx.

To access the meeting remotely: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android devic e: Please use this UR L https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81676274736. If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop down menu and click on "rename" to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the “raise hand” icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.

To join by phone: Dial 1-669-900-9128 or 1-877-853-5257 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 816 7627 4736. If you wish to comment during the public comment portion of the agenda, Press *9 and wait to be recognized by the Chair.

To submit an e -mail comment during the meeting to be read aloud during public comment, email [email protected] with the Subject Line in this format: “PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM ##.” Please observe a 150 word limit. Time limits on public comments will apply. Written comments will be entered into the public record.

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

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

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 2

Preliminary Matters
Roll Call: 4:06 p.m.

Present: Taplin, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin

Absent: Kesarwani
Councilmember Kesarwani present at 4:13 p.m.

Action: M/S/C (Arreguin/Wengraf) to adopt a special rule for this meeting to limit public comment to one minute per speaker, with the option to yield time up to a total of four minutes.

Vote: Ayes – Taplin, Bartlett, Harrison, Hahn, Wengraf, Robinson, Droste, Arreguin; Noes – None; Abstain – None; Absent - Kesarwani
Action Calendar – New Business

1. Report and Recommendations From Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group
From: Mayor Arreguin (Author), Councilmember Harrison (Author) Recommendation:

1. Accept and acknowledge the report from the Fair and Impartial Working Group (Attachment 1).

2. Direct the City Manager to implement the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1, with at minimum, quarterly progress updates to the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and/or the Working Group. -Focus traffic stops on safety
-Use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects -Use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria
-Eliminate stops for low-level offenses
-Implement an Early Intervention System (EIS) and a risk-management structure -Immediately release stop, arrest, calls for service and use of force data from 2012 to present to the Working Group
-Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), probation, or parole -Require written consent for all consent searches
-Address Profiling by Proxy (PAB Policy Development, Dispatcher Training) -Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens -Address Profiling by Proxy (Council develop & pass CAREN policy) -Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data -Make resources on police-civilian encounters more publicly available such as RAHEEM.org
-Adopt Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms; -Hire consultant to develop implementation plan
-For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with info on a website similar to RAHEEM and info on complaint process with PAB

3. Refer the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 to be included in the process to reimagine public safety:

Action Calendar – New Business

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 3
-Create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized with the Police Review Commission or its successor and includes a basic report card and quarterly neighborhood check-ins
-Conduct a baseline community survey

4. Refer the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 to the Police Review Commission, to be taken up by the Police Accountability Board when it is established
-Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training required by California Penal Code 13519.4
-Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police -Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity

5. Acknowledge and reaffirm the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 that are already underway:
-Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises -Conduct a Capacity Study of police calls and responses and use of officer time outside of case work

6. Refer $50,000 to the FY 2022 budget process for a consultant to develop an implementation plan as described in Attachment 1 and other minor costs the Department may confer
Financial Implications: See report
Contact: Jesse Arreguin, Mayor, (510) 981-7100
Action: 40 speakers. M/S/C (Arreguin/Harrison) to:

1. Accept and acknowledge the report from the Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group;

2. Acknowledge and appreciate the work already completed or underway by the City Manager’s Office and Police Department to implement policing reforms including:
• Adoption and implementation of Policy 401, Fair and Impartial Policing • Public reporting of stop data on the BPD Open Data Portal • Initiation of the Center for Policing Equity study
• Implementation of the Body Worn Camera Program
• Early adoption of Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data collection and reporting
• Updates to the Use of Force Policy, Policy 300
• Development and passage of Measure II to create a new Police Accountability Board
• Launching of the Public Safety Reimagining process

3. Refer to the City Manager to implement the following recommendations summarized below, with quarterly progress updates to the City Council and Police Review Commission/Police Accountability Board (when established):

Implement a new evidence-based Traffic Enforcement Model • Focusing the basis for traffic stops on safety and not low-level offenses; • Reaffirming and clarifying that the Berkeley Police Department will use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects; • Reaffirming and clarifying that the Berkeley Police Department will use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria
• Minimize or de-emphasize as a lowest priority stops for low-level offenses.

Action Calendar – New Business

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 4
Implement Procedural Justice Reforms
• Refer amendments to existing BPD policy and the creation of an Early Intervention System (EIS) related to traffic, bike and pedestrian stops; • Adopt a policy to require written consent for all vehicle and residence searches and update the consent search form in alignment with best practice and community feedback;
• Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), probation, or parole; • Address Profiling by Proxy (PAB Policy Development, Dispatcher Training); • Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens;
• Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data; • Make resources on police-civilian encounters publicly available such as through RAHEEM.org;
• For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with info on the commendation and complaint process with PAB and Berkeley Police Department.

Request that the City Manager report back at a Council Work Session in three months with budget estimates for implementation (to be considered along with the FY 22 budget process), information on legal and operational considerations, and a short-term action plan of recommendations which can be implemented without the hiring of a consultant, and those that will require the assistance of a consultant and additional resources.

Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms
• The City Manager will create an implementation plan with the assistance of a consultant that includes a timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the Working Group’s policy proposal.

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

4. Refer the following recommendations summarized below to the Reimagine Public Safety process:
• Create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized with the Police Review Commission or its successor and includes a basic report card and quarterly neighborhood check-ins
• Conduct a baseline community survey.

5. Refer the following training recommendations summarized below to the Police Review Commission, to be taken up by the Police Accountability Board when it is established, and consider the resources required to implement this expanded training:
• Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training required by California Penal Code 13519.4
• Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police • Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity

Action Calendar – New Business

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 5
• Refer to the PRC/PAB to consider a departmental policy on requiring written consent for person searches and report back in 6 months.

6. Acknowledge and reaffirm the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 that are already underway and have been completed:
• BPD released stop, arrest, calls for service and use of force data from 2012 to present to the Working Group;
• Fund and implement a specialized care unit for mental health crises; • Conduct a Capacity Study of police calls and responses and use of officer time outside of case work.

7. Refer $50,000 to the FY 2022 budget process for a consultant to assist the City Manager/Police Department in the implementation of these recommendations and other minor costs the Department may confer; and also refer to the FY 2022 budget process a line item for police training for the new evidence-based stop program (costs to be determined by BPD).

Vote: All Ayes.

Adjournment
Action: M/S/C (Robinson/Taplin) to adjourn the meeting.

Vote: All Ayes.

Adjourned at 7:07 p.m.

Communications
• None
Supplemental Communications and Reports 1
• None
Supplemental Communications and Reports 2
Item #1: Report and Recommendations From Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group

1. Elizabeth Ferguson
Supplemental Communications and Reports 3
Item #1: Report and Recommendations From Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group

2. Material, submitted by Mayor Arreguin

3. Presentation, submitted by the Police Department

4. Janice Schroeder

5. Thomas Luce

6. Ben Gerhardstein, on behalf of Walk Bike Berkeley

7. Diana Bohn

8. Sivan Orr

9. Ali Lafferty

Tuesday, February 23, 2021 ANNOTATED AGENDA Page 6

10. Allegra Mayer

11. Chimey Lee

12. Moni Law

ACTION CALENDAR
February 23, 2021

1 To: Members of the City Council

From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín and Councilmember Kate Harrison

Subject: Report and Recommendations From Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Accept and acknowledge the report from the Fair and Impartial Working Group (Attachment 1)

2. Direct the City Manager to implement the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1, with at minimum, quarterly progress updates to the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and/or the Working Group
● Focus traffic stops on safety
● Use a clear, evidence-based definition for stops of criminal suspects ● Use race and ethnicity as determining factors in stops only when paired with clear, evidence-based criteria
● Eliminate stops for low-level offenses
● Implement an Early Intervention System (EIS) and a risk-management structure
● Immediately release stop, arrest, calls for service and use of force data from 2012 to present to the Working Group
● Limit warrantless searches of individuals on supervised release status such as Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS), probation, or parole
● Require written consent for all consent searches
● Address Profiling by Proxy (PAB Policy Development, Dispatcher Training)
● Fire racist police officers identified through social media and other media screens
● Address Profiling by Proxy (Council develop & pass CAREN policy) ● Require regular analysis of BPD stop, search, and use of force data ● Make resources on police-civilian encounters more publicly available such as RAHEEM.org

2 ● Adopt Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms
■ Hire consultant to develop implementation plan
● For any individual detained, BPD officers shall provide a business card with info on a website similar to RAHEEM and info on complaint process with PAB

3. Refer the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 to be included in the process to reimagine public safety:
● Create a formalized feedback system to gauge community response to ongoing reforms and ensure this constructive input system is institutionalized with the Police Review Commission or its successor and includes a basic report card and quarterly neighborhood check- ins
● Conduct a baseline community survey

4. Refer the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 to the Police Review Commission, to be taken up by the Police Accountability Board when it is established
● Include a scenario-based training component in the existing officer training required by California Penal Code 13519.4
● Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police ● Accelerate Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) activity

5. Acknowledge and reaffirm the following recommendations summarized below and detailed in full in Attachment 1 that are already underway:
● Fund and implement a specialized care unit for
mental health crises
● Conduct a Capacity Study of police calls and
responses and use of officer time outside of case
work

6. Refer $50,000 to the FY 2022 budget process for a consultant to develop an implementation plan as described in Attachment 1 and other minor costs the Department may confer

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The working group organized its policy proposals into five council actions to ensure swift action on the measures directly related to reducing racial disparities, to avoid duplicating

3 efforts in parallel processes on public safety, and to ensure sufficient follow-up and oversight to build public trust.

Recommendation 2: Direct the City Manager to implement recommendations summarized above and detailed in full in Attachment 1, with at minimum, quarterly progress updates to the PAB and/or the Working Group (see list in recommendations above)

These recommendations received consensus support from the working group and were identified as top priorities for action. Many of these proposals are drawn from the best practices and recommendations provided by experts that spoke to the working group throughout their process. Additionally, the working group recommended quarterly progress updates on the implementation of these recommendations. These progress updates will be valuable for oversight and will allow for the department to share the efficacy of these efforts in reducing disparities, which will be easier to track and evaluate with the new RIPA data collection system.

Recommendation 3: Refer the recommendations summarized above and detailed in full in Attachment 1 to be included in the process to reimagine public safety

These proposals extend beyond the working group’s focus on racial disparities in policing and are appropriate to consider in the process the City has initiated to reimagine public safety where there will be robust community engagement efforts.

Recommendation 4: Refer the following recommendations summarized above and detailed in full in Attachment 1 to the Police Review Commission, to be taken up by the Police Accountability Board when it is established

These recommendations, which relate to additional training for BPD are supported by the working group but require further consideration by the city’s police oversight body.

Additional training will require more resources to either coordinate with outside entities or to build internal capacity, which the Council will need to balance against other priorities.

Recommendation 5: Acknowledge and reaffirm the following recommendations summarized above and detailed in full in Attachment 1 that are already underway

The working group believes that these efforts can have an impact on reducing racial disparities. However, since the working group began formulating their recommendations, efforts to implement a specialized care unit and to conduct a

4 capacity study are already underway in the city. The working group supports and reaffirms these efforts.

Recommendation 6: Refer $50,000 to the budget process for a consultant to develop an implementation plan as described in Attachment 1

The working group was clear that efficient and effective implementation of these recommendations is critical to reducing disparities and meeting the City’s goal of fair and impartial policing. The working group believes the process would be more effective if facilitated by a consultant at a cost of approximately $50,000. To that end, pages 8-9 in the The Mayor’s Working Group on Fair and Impartial Policing Policy Proposals (Attachment 1) outlines a compliance and accountability mechanism that includes the hiring of an experienced consultant to draft an implementation plan. The plan should include a timeline to monitor, assess, and report on the implementation of the items outlined in the Working Group’s policy proposal. Regardless of allocation, all of these recommendations have already been agreed to and can move forward without significant new resources. The working group acknowledges and expects that long-term monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of the police oversight body.

BACKGROUND
The Mayor along with Councilmembers Harrison and Robinson convened the Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group on Thursday, November 14, 2019. The purpose of the Working Group was to analyze relevant information and develop a report and departmental action plan with short-term and long-term steps to address disparities in police stops, searches, use of force, and yield rate from stops, and to build a foundation for a subsequent community processes to build trust between Berkeley Police and the community. The working group met twice monthly from January through March 2020 when it suspended its work temporarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The working group resumed in May and continued meeting regularly via Zoom video conferencing through December when it finalized its recommendations via a consensus decision making process.

History of Council Action on Fair and Impartial Policing

The concept of “Fair and Impartial” policing has a long history in Berkeley, arising from anecdotal and statistical data regarding racially disparate policing outcomes.

5 In June 2014, the Council voted unanimously to approve a policy prohibting racial profiling,1 and On December 31, 2014, BPD issued General Order B-4 prohibiting racial profiling by law enforcement officers, clarifying the circumstances in which officers can consider race, ethnicity and other demographics, and to reinforcing procedures that serve to assure the public that we are providing service and enforcing laws in an equitable way.
2 These new policies required officers to internally report demographic and other statistical data about vehicle and pedestrian stops.

In 2015, community advocates concerned with perceived disparities in policing, analyzed police stop data acquired through a Public Records Act request and found evidence for disparate policing outcomes in Berkeley.
3 BPD subsequently contracted
with the Center for Policing Equity (CPE), an academic non-profit focused on providing police departments and communities with actionable stop data analysis, to better understand Berkeley’s data. In June 2017, Council voted to release a draft version of the study, which BPD provided in July 2017 and detailed further statistical evidence of racially disparate outcomes across police use of force and vehicle and pedestrian stops.
4 In response to the CPE report and community feedback, Council took various unanimous legislative actions to address disparities, including:

1. Direction to City Manager to overhaul BPD Use of Force Policy with various deadlines (10/31/17);
5 2. Direction to City Manager to track and address racial disparities with various deadlines (11/14/17);
6 1 Nico Correia, “Anti-racial profiling policy passes unanimously in Berkeley City Council,” The Daily Californian, June 18, 2014, https://www.dailycal.org/2014/06/18/anti-racial-profiling-policy-passes- unanimously-berkeley-city-council/.
2 “General Order B-4.” Berkeley Police Department General Order B-4, December 31, 2014, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_-_General/GO%20B-04_12-31-14.pdf. 3 Trevor Greenan, “Civil rights leaders say Berkeley police disproportionately stop, search underrepresented minorities” The Daily Californian, September 30, 2015, https://www.dailycal.org/2015/09/30/civil-rights-leaders-say-berkeley-police-disproportionately-stop- search-people-of-color/.
4 Draft Interim Center for Policing Equity Report, July 14, 2017, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_- _General/CPE%20Draft%20Report%2007142017(2).pdf.
5 Berkeley City Council Meeting Annotated Agenda, “Direct the City Manager and the Berkeley Police Department Regarding the Berkeley Police Department’s Use of Force Policy” October 31, 2017, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/10_Oct/Documents/10- 31_Annotated.aspx. 6 The Council voted unanimously to “[d]irect the City Manager to track yield, stop, citation, search and arrest rates by race, develop training programs to address any disparities found, and implement policy and practice reforms that reflect cooperation between the Berkeley Police Department (‘BPD’), the Police Review Commission (‘PRC’) and the broader Berkeley community” and that the “City Manager will report findings in September 2018 and annually thereafter, using anonymized data.” Council followed up with additional legislation including legislation to update the department’s use of force policies. See Berkeley

6 3. Appropriation of $50,000 for BPD to hire a Data Analyst (12/5/17).7

In response to a lack of progress towards addressing referrals to the City Manager and a related Police Review Commission report entitled To Achieve Fairness and Impartiality, Council unanimously adopted legislation on April 24, 2018 requiring a written Departmental Action Plan to study and address disparate policing outcomes.

Council also directed that the City Manager convene a task force/working group, including representatives of the BPD, Berkeley Police Association, PRC, interested community organizations (particularly of constituencies of color), and academic experts, to ensure that the final plan was “effective and broadly accepted.” 8 Council stipulated
that the working group and action plan process would convene upon the issuance of the final CPE report, be run by a professional mediator/facilitator, and that the group would report back with an action plan within one year’s time.

Although the final CPE report was released in May 2018, 9 the City Manager neither
convened the working group nor did the Department release an action plan.

Councilmember Harrison also submitted a supplemental Council informational report on October 30, 2018 noting the absence of a City Manager report on racial disparities findings as required by November 14, 2017 Council motion. 10 The first report was to
coincide with the 2018 Crime Report.

Ahead of the May deadline for the City Manager to present a Departmental Action Plan, the Police Chief on behalf of the City Manager submitted an April 30, 2019 referral

City Council Meeting Annotated Agenda, “Direct the City Manager to analyze and address disparate racial outcomes in policing and implement policy and practice reforms,” November 14, 2017, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/11_Nov/Documents/11- 14_Annotated_Agenda.aspx.
7 “Mayor’s Recommendations for Allocation of Unassigned General Fund Excess Equity,” December 5, 2017, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2017/12_Dec/Documents/2017- 12- 05_Item_B2_Mayor%E2%80%99s_Recommendations_-_Supp.aspx. 8 Berkeley City Council Meeting Annotated Agenda, “Accept and Acknowledge Report from the Berkeley Police Review Commission, ‘To Achieve Fairness and Impartiality,’ and Refer Key Recommendations to the City Manager for Policy Development and Consideration in September 2018 Report to City Council,” April 24, 2018,
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/04_Apr/Documents/04- 24_Annotated.aspx. 9 Final Center for Policing Equity Report, May 20, 2019, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Police_Review_Commission/Commissions/2018/Berkel ey%20Report%20-%20May%202018.pdf
10 “Informational Report about Absence of City Manager Report on Racial Disparities Findings as Required by November 14, 2017 Council Motion -2018 Mid-Year Crime Report,” Councilmember Harrison, October 30, 2018,
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2018/10_Oct/Documents/2018- 10- 30_Supp_1_Reports_Item_29_Supp_Harrison_pdf.aspx.

7 response regarding the status of various Council disparate policing referrals.11 The report briefly noted that the Department was still seeking a request for proposal to “support analysis of stop data, to create tools to facilitate data analysis, to foster community, and to create a community engagement strategy.” This update was provided more than year and a half from the first Council referral to address racial disparities, and after various other missed deadlines.

Council referred the Chief’s response to the Public Safety Committee, and on June 3, 2019 the Committee voted unanimously, in recognition of a lack of progress to date and the urgency of the matter at hand that the Mayor supplant the City Manager and convene the task force in “an expeditious manner” and as outlined in the April 2018 Council referral.
12 Fair and Impartial Working Group Development and Process

At the July 23, 2019 Council Meeting, Mayor Arreguín announced that he would independently convene a task force through his office on an ad hoc basis with assistance from the offices of Councilmember Harrison and Robinson.13 Building from the council referral, the Mayor convened a group with the following community representatives:Elliot Halpern (ACLU Northern California), Mansour Id-Deen (NAACP), Héctor Malvido (Latinxs Unidos de Berkeley), Izzy Ramsey and Kitty Calavita (Police Review Commission), Nathan Mizell (UC Berkeley ASUC and PRC), Perfecta Oxholm (PhD candidate at UC Berkeley
14, Moni Law (Berkeley Community Safety Coalition),
and Jim Chanin (Civil Rights Attorney). The Mayor met multiple times with the City Manager and Chief Greenwood in developing a framework for the working group and discussing a work plan. Chief Greenwood and his Staff were invited to all meetings, and the group had consistent participation from Chief Greenwood, Captain Rolleri, Lieutenant Montgomery, Lieutenant Tate, and Officer Matt Yee. Goldman Public Policy

11 “Referral Response: Update on Various Referrals and Recommendations Regarding Stop Data Collection, Data Analysis and Community Engagement,” Berkeley Police Department, April 30, 2019, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/04_Apr/Documents/2019- 04- 30_Item_29_Referral_Response_Update_on_Various.aspx
12 Berkeley City Council Public Safety Committee Meeting Annotated Agenda, “Referral Response:

Update on Various Referrals and Recommendations Regarding Stop Data Collection, Data Analysis and Community Engagement,” June 3, 2019,
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Clerk/2019-6-3%20Annotated%20Agenda%20- %20Public%20Safety.pdf
13 Berkeley City Council Meeting Annotated Agenda, “Referral Response: Update on Various Referrals and Recommendations Regarding Stop Data Collection, Data Analysis and Community Engagement(Reviewed by the Public Safety Committee),” July 23, 2019, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Clerk/City_Council/2019/07_Jul/Documents/07- 23_Annotated_Agenda_pdf.aspx
14 Perfecta Oxholm, PhD Student, https://gspp.berkeley.edu/directories/phd-students/perfecta-oxholm

8 student Arlo Malmberg was brought on to the BPD team to assist with data analysis.

Leadership from the Berkeley Police Association were invited to all meetings but did not attend.

At its first meetings the working group chose Izzy Ramsey as the Chair, and developed a work plan. The working group organized their work into five phases and invited relevant subject matter experts locally and nationally to speak to the group to inform their research and recommendations. Key takeaways from the working group meetings and presentations for each phase are summarized below. For a more detailed meeting by meeting account, minutes, and in some cases full meeting recordings and presentations, are in the publicly accessible google drive. 15 Phase 1: Establishing Process and Information Gathering

● The working group focused on building a common understanding of past work surrounding this issue and progress that has been made in this field .
● The group reviewed the open data portal to understand how data is currently collected and presented.
● The group provided feedback on draft RFP language for BPD to hire a professional facilitator. Ultimately, it was determined that there was not a sufficient need and the money was reallocated to support Arlo Malmberg’s data analysis for the department.
● Councilmember Harrison presented an overview of outstanding referrals related to fair and impartial policing.
16 ● The group reviewed a spreadsheet of relevant council referrals and received a progress update on each item from BPD.
17 Phase 2: Quantitative Analysis

● The group discussion included analysis of possible drivers of disparities, the disparity themself, appropriate metrics to analyze disparities, and policies that can be implemented to ensure fair and impartial policing. ● Jack Glaser, Professor at UC Berkeley, an expert in the field of bias, stereotyping, and racial profiling provided the group with an overview on the

15 Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Working Group Google Drive, https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19xsOXIJvYtXQzaeJZzmSg2Mk3pJT6JYq?usp=sharing 16 Kate Harrison,”Key Council Referrals” January 22, 2020, https://drive.google.com/file/d/10EjYrd7EzExXlfmA2gVsX8-LtXrr2_-O/view?usp=sharing, 17Spreadsheet on Fair and Impartial Policing Items, January 24, 2020 https://drive.google.com/file/d/18ofsjsFAE7r3k-3REMvYU5nncQtCrZxL/view?usp=sharing

9 drivers of disparities in policing.18 Key drivers of disparity include deployment patterns, crime category priorities, officer bias, complaint bias and the possibility of higher rates of offending among certain racial groups. ● Perfecta Oxholm, working group member, and PhD candidate at UC Berkeley working with Professor Glaser presented her analysis of stop data using the open data portal.
19 Her analysis reviewed all the available metrics from the time the CPE report was published to present day and found similar trends with the exception of 2018 when staffing levels were at a historic low. ● George Lippman presented his memo “Racial Disparities in Berkeley Policing” (Attachment 6).
● There was robust discussion about the challenges in using census data as a baseline measurement for analyzing disparities. Ultimately, the group acknowledged that using yield rates, the ratio between stops and arrests or contraband seized was among the key metrics to analyze disparities and bias until more refined data was available through the new RIPA system implemented in October 2020. The idea is that in the absence of discrimination or bias, officers should cite and arrest people of color at the same rates as white people. ● Arlo Malmberg and Officer Matt Yee presented BPD’s a beta version of a fair and impartial policing data dashboard, which included analysis of yield rates, a “veil of darkness test,” and a measurement of implicit bias in officer deployment. The presentation acknowledged that there are disparities according to yield rates, and there is evidence that officer decisions may be biased. 20 Phase 3: Qualitative Analysis

● Originally, the working group hoped to conduct surveys and listening sessions to gather qualitative input on experience with the Berkeley Police Department. With limited staff resources to support this effort, a subcommittee of working group members formed in February to do outreach through community based organizations. These efforts were complicated and ultimately postponed due to COVID-19, however some of the recommendations speak to the continued desire to gather qualitative input on the relationship of community members and the BPD.

18Jack Glaser, “Understanding Disparities in Police Stops” February 5, 2020, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nJp1jIBKFVyHKtw633cwJQ5rjqWdjgOL/view?usp=sharing 19 Perfecta Oxholm, “Hit Rate Analysis, Berkeley Police Department Data February 2015-J uly 2019” February 2020,https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xlg9uY7vGqAEnrjcHhzeC-wukCF6-DN9/view?usp=sharing

20 Arlo Malmberg and Matt Yee, BPD Data Dashboard Screenshots, June 2020, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AvUFZwLM0X6y1XksTJd0s1POCo5FPJ9R/view?usp=sharing

10 Phase 4: Formulating Recommendations

● The working group held several meetings in the summer of 2020 to listen to presentations on best practices to reduce disparities in stops and searches and improve police and community relations. Expert recommendations were incorporated into a list of high-level recommendations. A subcommittee of the civilian working group members developed these into a detailed report with rationales for each recommendation.
● BPD presented on piloting a new approach, called “Problem Oriented Policing” to address disparities with a data-driven focus.
21 The goal of this approach is to limit
stops that provide low public safety value and enhance data-driven policing to deploy officers more appropriately.
● Dr. Frank Baumgartner, Professor of Political Science at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, author of the book Suspect Citizen, presented to the group. Dr. Baumgartner encouraged the group to consider whether current police policies generate enough public safety value to warrant the impact that a stop and search has on an individual and a community. He provided two concrete recommendations, which the group ultimately incorporated: (1) reduce the number of people pulled over for investigatory stops that are not safety-related, and (2) require people to sign a written consent form before officers search their vehicle.
22 ● Oakland Police Captain Chris Bolton gave a presentation to the group titled “Precision-Based Approaches to More Legitimate Policing.” Captain Bolton’s presentation provided an overview of how police under his command in North Oakland reduced stops of black people from 58% to 35% in two years without a corresponding increase in crime. He emphasized the importance of clear leadership, utilization of data, and a risk-management program to review trends in officer behavior and community crime.
2324
● Former Stockton Police Department Captain Scott Meadors, presented training on procedural justice, implicit bias and trust building, which he has been a leader in statewide. He emphasized teaching about the history of American policing, and that each trust-building workshop must be built on the unique community

21Berkeley Police Department, “Addressing Racial Disparities in Enforcement Outcomes”, July 1, 2020, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x5NZzT9F6AZaArI_kEFyAYItB7q8Ka20/view?usp=sharing 22 Frank Baumgartner, Suspect Citizens Ch. 9 “Reforms that Reduce Alienation and Enhance CommunitySafety”,https://drive.google.com/file/d/17I0vaDd1GOOxqV3zEvUu4eXxeWkT24Tn/view?usp= sharing
23 Captain Chris Bolton, “Precision Based Approaches to More Legitimate Policing” July 15, 2020, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XuRt3Qo-_Ty5SLo6Gh9rWK3s8zmlZ5Xl/view?usp=sharing 24 Fair and Impartial Working Group Meeting Recording, July 15, 2020 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sbTwvY2EAMj9pFDythECFsXPTdnXZ0Ph/view?usp=sharing

11 circumstances. There is no one-size fits all approach. Mr. Meador’s work has been featured in the New York Times, and Citylab.25
● Brandon Anderson presented to the group about his non-profit Raheem, an independent service for reporting police conduct in the United States. When people report to Raheem, they do three things: (a) file a complaint on their behalf, (b) connect them to local advocacy groups, and (c) connect them to free legal representation. Raheem has developed a widget to allow reporting from third-party websites to have true community-centered reporting.The working group ultimately recommended the City use Raheem or something similar, and also Anderson’s suggestion of requiring police to provide a business card that includes information on how to file a complaint.
2627

Phase 5: Developing Final Report and Next Steps

● The subcommittee of the working group provided their draft recommendations to the whole group and requested written feedback by BPD. The working group spent several meetings discussing each recommendation in detail. ● After these discussions, the subcommittee developed a revised set of proposals and a full account (Appendix C) of how BPD feedback was incorporated into the recommendations. The working group meetings were extended and postponed several times to provide time for additional dialogue and feedback on revised recommendations.
● The working group finalized the report through a consensus process. They first identified the recommendations that had complete agreement. Then, they worked through the list of proposals and made revisions on the recommendation itself and/or the recommended Council action to achieve agreement. ● During this final phase, BPD implemented its new data collection system to comply with RIPA. The department provided the group a walkthrough on how the new custom data collection system will work and the group asked questions on the data categories and method of collection.
2829

25Michael Friedrich, “A Police Department’s Difficult Assignment: Atonement” Citylab, October 23, 2019, https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/10/police-violence-history-community-trust-reconciliation/600544/ Tina Rosenberg, “A Strategy to Build Police-Citizen Trust” New York Times Opinion, July 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/opinion/a-strategy-to-build-police-citizen-trust.html

26 Fair and Impartial Working Group Meeting Minutes, August 5, 2020 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6x32rCaWa38z427608t9ttXB51oZBg9DUNEQ4U8Jo/edit 27 About Raheem, https://www.raheem.ai/en/about
28 Berkeley Police Department, “AB 953 Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA)”, September 16, 2020 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yZ-9n4qJZQyM80tK1yTN6o1BRexF5WLz/view?usp=sharing 29Berkeley Police Department, RIPA App Presentation Screenshots, September 16, 2020 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PzwJrZjXAMJCNbQqB7-lIG2wOJtZal3G/view?usp=sharing

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

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

Attachments:

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

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

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

4. Center for Policing Equity Report,

5. PRC Report

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

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

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

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

10. Spreadsheet of Outstanding Referrals, January 24, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensuring Timely and Effective Implementation:

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

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

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

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

Compliance and Accountability Mechanisms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRAFT
10

DRAFT
11 Appendix A: Additional Recommendations

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

See table 1 for recommended actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRAFT
15 Appendix C – Incorporation of BPD Feedback

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

Focus traffic stops on safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Require enhanced annual implicit bias training for police.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately release the following data to the Working Group:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Address Profiling by Proxy
BPD supports this item.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of Note:

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

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

DRAFT
23 Appendix D - Unfulfilled Council Mandates to BPD

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

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

Significantly, these directions remain unfulfilled as of August 2020:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Council referral from April 24, 2018

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

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

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

4. Enhance Search Consent Policies.

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

6. BPD Data Dashboard.

7. Enhance Existing “Early Warning” Systems

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

III. CPE recommendations from early 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

NICJR’s scope and contract documents are complete.4

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

APPROACHES

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

SHIFTING FUNCTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

INPUT RECEIVED FROM COMMISSIONS TO DATE

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

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

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

PHASED APPROACH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec Council considers adoption of Vision Zero enforcement policy.

Complete Racial Justice and Equity Action Plan, Part 1.

BerkDOT TASK FORCE
May 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

Jun 2025 Final report closi ng BerkDOT referral.

Attachment:
1: Budget and Position Inventory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -2-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -3-

SCALE: Poor Only fair Good Excellent (No response)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -4-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -5-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -6-

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -7-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -8-

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -9-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -10-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -11-

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

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

50. Walk
48 19 24 6 0 0 3 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -12-

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

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

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

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

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

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

EMC Research #21-8226 -13-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total
Pos.

Total
Neg.

Net
Pos.

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

Total
Pos.

Total
Neg.

Net
Pos.

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

How would you rate the ease of getting around Berkeley?

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

How would you rate the safety of getting around Berkeley?

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

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

5.56 5.01

4.82 4.49

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

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

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

5.65 3.99

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

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

5.65 5.51

5.76 5.66

5.79 6.07

5.69 5.70

5.78 5.59

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

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

4.98 3.52

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

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

3.44 3.10

3.76 3.33

3.70 3.39

3.80 3.46

3.62 3.35

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

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

3.52 3.20

3.81 3.37

3.53 3.25

3.94 3.67

3.72 3.41

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

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

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

5.58 5.65

5.53 5.70

5.68 5.67

5.57 5.14

5.47 5.64

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

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

5.36 4.78

3.61 2.81

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

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

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

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

5.46 5.41

5.47 5.52

5.45 5.28

5.50 5.07

5.33 5.53

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

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

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

5.25 5.36

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

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

3.85 2.59

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

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

5.25 5.13

5.34 5.26

5.18 5.30

5.13 5.26

5.23 5.26

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

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

5.36 5.21

5.51 5.38

5.42 5.86

5.17 5.49

5.40 5.34

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

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

2.59 2.58

2.58 2.07

3.61 4.27

3.24 3.75

3.58 2.07

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

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

2.58 2.70

2.41 2.38

3.14 3.45

2.64 3.20

2.96 2.37

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

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

3.85 3.85

3.88 3.66

3.98 4.11

4.28 4.23

4.23 3.65

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

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

2.21 2.40

1.99 2.00

2.82 3.03

2.18 2.75

2.55 2.03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2, 2021
Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

health and homelessness calls.

Department activity data on the Open Data Portal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information on our methodology, see page 62.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 2. Berkeley Police Department’s Response Process

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

Source: Berkeley City Auditor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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