Berkeley City Council
May 5, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 11 breaks down events by the assigned priority level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part I UCR crimes are listed below:

Call Types Arrests Total
Events
Arrests
(% of Total)

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

2. 415 - Disturbance 528 35,696 1.5%

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. 484 - Theft 101 10,556 1.0%

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

1. Criminal Homicide

2. Forcible Rape

3. Robbery

4. Aggravated Assault

5. Burglary

6. Larceny-theft (except motor vehicle
theft)

7. Motor Vehicle Theft

8. Arson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. 415 - Disturbance 261 35,696 0.73%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We review the following components related to stops:

1. Officer-initiated stops by stop type

2. Time of day when stops occur

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We review the following components related to police response:

1. Response by personnel unit type

2. Number of personnel responding to events

3. Personnel time spent responding to events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. 415 - Disturbance 14:00 70,456

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. 484 - Theft 28:00 17,436

10. W911 – Wireless 911 7:00 11,146

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrative Report Disposition
Report Call Types Mobile Crisis Unduplicated Count

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

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

2. 415 - Disturbance 6792 19.0% 35,696

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. 484 - Theft 395 3.7% 10,556

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. 415 - Disturbance 3442 9.6% 35,696

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. 484 - Theft 518 4.9% 10,556

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendation:

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

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

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

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

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

Management Response: Agree with stated limitations which follow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IX. Methodology and Statement of Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UCR Return A Code Code selected by the officer and reported to the FBI as a DOJ requirement for all Part 1 crimes.

Unit Disposition Patrol-reported outcomes of the call. Includes stop dispositions and incident reports.

Call Disposition Dispatcher-reported outcomes of the call. Includes stop dispositions and incident reports.

Address* Where the event was reported to have occurred.

Address Location Type The type of address that is provided by dispatch; includes address, intersection, or longitude/latitude.

Latitude/Longitude
Police Area Beat where the event is taking place.

Create Date Time* The time and date the call was created by either the dispatcher or the officer.

Dispatch Time The time and date when the officer was dispatched to the incident.

Enroute Time Time and date in which the officer changes their status to “enroute” after being dispatched.

Onscene Time Time and date in which the officer arrived to the scene.

Clear Time Time and date in which the incident was cleared (closed) by a dispatcher.

Primary Unit Flag The primary officer designated to handle the call. All others are “assisting” officers or units.

Unit Number The number that corresponds to the police officer and/or other units assigned to the event.

Narrative Data Further documentation about details of the event used to inform dispatched officers or units.

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
67 Table 14. Berkeley Police Department Priority Codes by Call Types Appendix B. Priority Codes and Call Types According to BPD Policy Priority Code Call Type
1F & P1*
Boat Fire, Encampment Fire, Encampment Medical, Hazardous Material, Multiple Causality Incident, Water Rescue, Retrieval of a Patient, Structure Fire, Vegetation Fire, Medical Emergency with Gun Shot, Vehicle Accident, Vehicle vs Ped or Bike
P0 Pedestrian Stop, Suspicious Vehicle, Bike Stop, Vehicle Stop P1
Person Down, Person Calling For Help, Explosion, Unknown Injury Accident, Priority Code Assist, Officer Needs Help, Hit & Run w/ Injuries, GPS Tracker Alarm, Silent Alarm, Pronet Alarm, Video Alarm, Threat of Suicide, Missing Person at Risk, Missing Juvenile, Injury Accident Complaint of Pain, Ascertain 911, Aid to BFD, Bomb Tech, Officer Flagged Down, Foot Chase, Person w/ a Gun, Vehicle Pursuit, Knock & Talk, Battery w/ grievous bodily harm (GBH), Assault w/ Caustic Substance, Assault w/ Deadly Weapon, Suicide w/ Ambulance, Major Injury Accident, Suicide Attempt, Dead Body Found, Shooting w/ Ambulance, Injury Accident, Injury Accident Inv Ped or Bicyclist
Priority 1/Priority 2 Kidnap, Robbery, Carjacking, Attempted Rape, Shot At Dwelling, Rape, Spousal Abuse w/o Injury, Home Invasion, Attempt Assault w/Deadly Weapon, Child Abuse, Family Disturbance, Shoplifter In-Custody Priority 1/Priority 3 Battery, Brandishing, Arson, Burglary, Prowler, Bomb Threat, Auto Burglary, Court Order Violation, Loud Report Priority 1/Priority 4 Temporary Restraining Order Violation Priority 2
Welfare Check, Reckless Driver, DUI Driver, Shooting Cold Report, Dog Bite, Vicious Dog, Hit & Run w/ Injuries Report, Battery w/ grievous bodily harm (GBH) report, Assault w/ Caustic Substance Report, Assault w/ Deadly Weapon Report, Oral Copulation, Found Juvenile, Found Person, Create New Call, Outside Agency Assist, Unknown Problem, Wireless 911
Priority 2/Priority 3
Child Molest, Forgery, Grand Theft, Animal Cruelty, Mental Illness, Stolen Vehicle, Vandalism to Vehicle, Hit & Run Non-Injury, Speeding Vehicle, Throwing Object(s) at Vehicle, Peeper, Fall On City Property, Hate Crimes, LoJack Stolen Car, Suspicious Circumstance, Suspicious Person, Suspicious Vehicle Priority 2/Priority 4 Indecent Exposure, Disturbance, Petty Theft, Defraud Hotel/Restaurant, Malicious Damage, Forged RX Priority 3
Runaway, Missing Person, Transportation, Non-Injury Accident, Audible Alarm, Civil Standby, Injury Accident Report, Child Neglect, Under the Influence, Firearm Destruction, Stolen Vehicle Recovery, Search Warrant, Ticket Sign Off, Traffic Hazard
Priority 3/Priority 4 Possession of Stolen Property, Incorrigible, Trespassing, Drug Activity, Misc Penal Code Violation Priority 3/Priority 9 Misc Vehicle Code Violation
Priority 4
Abandoned Vehicle, Stolen Rental Vehicle, Posted No Parking, Barking Dog, Vehicle Blocking Driveway, Vehicle Blocking Sidewalk, Vehicle Double Parking, 5 or More Unpaid Parking Tickets, No Vehicle Identification, Expired Vehicle Registration, Inoperable Vehicle, Noise Disturbance, Identity Fraud, Annoying Phone Calls, Red Zone Cite, Obstructing Traffic, Construction Zone, Advice, Aid to Citizen, Animal Matter, Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Violation, Car Alarm, Court Order Report, Found Property, Parking Violation, Security Check, VIN Verification
Priority 4/Priority 5 Gambling
Priority 4/Priority 6 Prostitution, Lodging in Public
Priority 4/Priority 9 Illegal Dumping
Priority 6 Business & Professions Violation, Warrant Arrest

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
68 Source: Berkeley Police Department
Priority Code Call Type

Priority 9
Bait Bike, City Manager Report, Property Damage, Demonstration, Extra Surveillance, Information, Lost Property, Mental Health, Repossession, Storm Log, Subpoena Service, Surveillance, Test Call, Temporary Restraining Order Log, Vehicle Release

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
69 Figure 38. Officer-Initiated Stops by Race, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Appendix C. Stops by Race, 2015-2019

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
70 The graphs below show trends in enforcement outcomes of searches by race during the 2015 to 2019 audit period. Each data point on the trend lines represents the percentage of searches for that race group that resulted in the specified enforcement outcome (not the percentage of total searches for all race groups). Note that the graphs are intended to allow comparison between race groups, and the percentages on the left (y- axis) vary depending on the range of data in the graph.

Figure 39. Percentage of Searches that Resulted in Arrest by Race, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Appendix D. Enforcement Outcomes of Searches by Race, 2015-2019

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
71 Figure 40. Percentage of Searches that Resulted in a Citation by Race, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Figure 41. Percentage of Searches that Resulted in a Warning by Race, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
72 Figure 42. Percentage of Searches that Resulted in No Enforcement by Race, 2015-2019 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
73 Table 15. Berkeley Police Department Personnel Responses by Unit, 2015-2019

Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Appendix E. Responses by Units, 2015-2019
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Patrol Supervisors
Captain 38 26 34 20 17 135
Lieutenant 773 794 788 1,344 1,207 4,906
Sergeant 8,612 8,049 8,617 7,537 7,600 40,415
Patrol Officers
Reserve Officers 993 651 615 208 638 3,105
Team 1 14,053 13,614 14,128 13,395 12,823 68,013
Team 2 11,417 12,084 12,928 12,219 12,125 60,773
Team 3 14,876 13,563 14,708 13,905 13,633 70,685
Team 4 14,136 16,764 16,452 15,240 13,975 76,567
Team 5 15,510 15,926 15,909 15,236 14,840 77,421
Team 6 14,301 16,347 15,590 12,314 13,583 72,135
Team 7 20,180 20,290 21,036 18,680 18,671 98,857
Sworn non-patrol officers 8,577 7,744 8,189 6,202 9,945 40,657 Other
Animal Control - 2 1 1 - 4
Mobile Crisis 967 1,156 1,185 787 816 4,911
CSOs - 1 1 1 3 6
Crime Scene Techs 1,551 1,523 1,497 929 680 6,180
Parking Enforcement Officers 243 264 375 352 425 1,659
Police Aides - - - - 1 1
University of California Officers 22 23 12 5 6 68
Area Coordinators 386 273 357 258 1,015 2,289
Bike Unit 3,536 2,596 2,178 - - 8,310
Motor Unit 136 57 3 - - 196
Special Enforcement 8 2 4 - 6 20

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
74 Table 16. List of Mental Health and Homeless Search Terms Applied to Narrative Search Source: Berkeley City Auditor
Appendix F . List of Terms Applied in Narrative Search
Mental Health Search Terms Homeless Search Terms
1056
5150
sees things
antipsychotic
anxiety
bacs
bipolar
bmh
bonita house
breakdown
case manager
counsel
crazy
crisis
deliri
deluded
delusion
dementia
depress
disorder
dissociat
dual diagnosis
first break
hallucinat
hear voices
hearing voices
hears voices
ideation
john george
mania
manic
mct
medication
meds
mental
mh
mobile crisis
nervous breakdown
paranoi
peer support
pharmacist
psych
ptsd
residential care
schizo
seeing things
self harm
self talk
social worker
suicid
talking to self
talk to self
therap
trauma
treatment
unable to talk
warm line
warmline
bacs
bfhp
camped out
person down
berkeley covid respite
berkeley drop in center
berkeley community resource center
women’s daytime drop-in center
fred finch turning point
berkeley food and housing project
dorothy day
encamp
encampment
harrison house
homeless
homeless outreach
housing status
living on the street
nomad
obstructing sidewalk
shelter
sleeper
street outreach
tent
transitional housing
unhoused
pathways
vagrant
no address
no residence
undomicilized
coordinated entry

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
75 Appendix G. Summary Data by Call Type, 2015-2019
Call Type
2019
Events
Total
Events
Average
Yearly
events
Priorities
Assigned in
CAD
Average
Personnel
per Event
Median Time Spent on
Event after Dispatch
(Minutes and Seconds)
Alarm Classification (n = 21,317)
1033A - Audible Alarm 4,228 19,920 3,984 0,1F,2,3 1.7 9:00 1033S - Silent Alarm 234 1,314 263 0,1F 2.4 9:00
1033G - GPS Bank Alarm 8 79 16 - 7.1 21:00
1033T - ETS (Bank) Pronet alarm - 4 1 - 1 15:30
Community Classification (n = 88,031)
415E - Noise Disturbance 2,709 15,773 3,155 1F,4 1.1 9:00 SEC - Security Check 3,682 15,262 3,052 0,1F,2,4,9 1.8 29:00 SUSCIR - Suspicious Circumstance 2,145 11,547 2,309 0,1F,2,3,4 2.6 17:00 ADVICE - Advice 1,728 8,498 1,700 1F,2,3,4 1.1 26:00
SUSPER - Suspicious Person 1,512 8,247 1,649 0,1F,2,3 2.3 15:00 AID - Aid to Citizen 1,327 5,984 1,197 0,1F,2,3,4,9 2.1 18:00 FLAG - Officer flagged down 1,209 5,215 1,043 0,1F,2,4 1.6 12:00 FOUND - Found Property 722 4,202 840 0,2,3,4 1.1 30:00
SUSVEH - Suspicious Vehicle 596 3,351 670 0,1F,2,3,4 1.7 14:00 647J - Lodging in Public 33 2,221 444 1F,3,4,6 1.4 12:00 1057 - Missing Person 249 1,326 265 0,1F,2,3 1.5 42:00
LDRPT - Loud Report 183 1,071 214 0,1F,2,3 4.2 12:00
ANIMAL - Animal Matter 194 1,065 213 2,4 1.3 15:00
1067 - Call for Help 180 969 194 0,1F 3.4 14:00
1062B - Civil Standby 150 822 164 3 1.8 28:00
ILLDMP - Illegal Dumping 54 463 93 4,9 1.1 14:00
1091B - Barking Dog 72 454 91 4 1.1 10:00
601 - Runaway 46 372 74 0,3 1.6 47:00
1057AR - Missing At Risk 41 289 58 0,2,3 4.9 40:30
601I - Incorrigible 31 184 37 1F,2,3,4 2.5 38:00
FNDPER - Found Person 23 134 27 0,1F,2 1.7 29:00
1057J - Missing Juvenile 21 122 24 - 5.1 14:00
1091E - Dog Bite 16 101 20 1F,2 1.7 28:00
1091V - Vicious Animal 13 101 20 2 1.8 21:00
LOST - Lost Property 16 86 17 4,9 1.1 22:00
Table 17. Summary Data by Call Type with Auditor Classifications, 2015-2019

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
76 Call Type
2019
Events
Total
Events
Average
Yearly
events
Priorities
Assigned in
CAD
Average
Personnel
per Event
Median Time Spent on
Event after Dispatch
(Minutes and Seconds)
FNDJUV - Found Juvenile 10 74 15 2 2.5 25:00
DEMO - Demonstration 7 52 10 9 17.7 6:19:00
FIRE - Structure Fire - 34 7 - 1.4 2:00
1080 - Explosion 2 9 2 - 2.8 24:00
BART - Bart Tunnel Incident 2 2 - 6.5 36:00
BOAT-FR - Boat Fire - 1 - 1 1:00
FBI Part II Crimes Classification (n = 77,820)
415 - Disturbance 6,925 35,696 7,139 0,1F,2,3,4 2 14:00 602L - Trespassing 1,944 11,058 2,212 1F,2,3,4 1.5 12:00 242 - Battery 1,383 6,991 1,398 0,1F,2,3 3.1 22:00
BMCVIO - Berkeley Municipal Code
(BMC) Violation 1,014 5,934 1,187 1F,2,4,5 1.2 10:00
415F - Family Disturbance 583 3,254 651 0,1F,2 3.4 25:00 594 - Vandalism 330 1,939 388 0,1F,2,4 1.7 28:00
PCVIO - Misc Penal Code Violation 450 1,538 308 0,1F,2,3,4 1.3 48:00 DRUGS - Drugs Inv. 184 1,440 288 0,1F,2,3,4 1.6 11:00
10852 - Vehicle Damage 303 1,392 278 1F,2,4 1.5 33:00
530 5 - Identity Theft 175 1,112 222 4 1.1 47:00
647F - Intoxicated in Public 146 1,018 204 0,1F,2,3,4 1.9 12:00 653M - Harassing Phone Calls 132 969 194 4 1.1 33:30
417 - Brandishing Weapon 187 845 169 0,1F,2,3 4.8 23:00 314 - Indecent Exposure 140 698 140 1F,2,4 2.3 18:00
TROV - Temporary Restraining Order
Violation 140 601 120 0,1F,4 2.5 37:00
23152 - DUI 72 484 97 0,2,3 2 15:00
273 5 - Domestic Violence 67 314 63 0,1F,2 3.8 39:00
273A - Child Abuse 51 278 56 0,2,3 1.5 29:00
470 - Forgery 28 265 53 2,3 1.6 57:00
CRTVIO - Court Order Violation 58 262 52 0,2,3 1.7 34:30 GUN - Person with Gun 50 237 47 0,1F,2 8.3 24:00
23110 - Throwing Object(s) at Vehicle 39 210 42 2,3 1.4 11:00 243E1 - Domestic Violence 54 205 41 0,1F,2 3.5 44:30

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
77 Call Type
2019
Events
Total
Events
Average
Yearly
events
Priorities
Assigned in
CADK
Average
Personnel
per Event
Median Time Spent on
Event after Dispatch
(Minutes and Seconds)
537 0 Defrauding Innkeeper (Hotel/
Restaurant) 28 179 36 2,4 2 20:00
597 - Cruelty to Animals 23 160 32 1F,2,3 1.8 14:30
1070 - Prowler 13 119 24 0,3 3.4 18:00
300WI - Child Neglect 13 109 22 2,3 1.9 27:00
330 - Gambling 10 101 20 4 1.4 8:00
BPVIO - Business & Professions
Violation 18 101 20 6 1.1 8:00
CRTRPT - Court Order Violation 12 98 20 4 1.2 45:00
496 - Poss. Stolen Prop. 11 50 10 3,4 1.7 27:00
FOOT - Foot Chase 6 46 9 - 4.3 32:00
288 - Sexual molest 5 35 7 2,3 1.7 2:15:30
HATE - Hate Crime 4 34 7 2,3 1.3 48:00
647AB - Prostitution 2 15 3 4 1.5 21:00
4390 - Prescription Fraud 2 12 2 2 1.8 35:00
207 - Kidnapping 2 11 2 0,2 6.7 1:10:00
1079 - Bomb Threat - 6 1 3 4 54:00
148 - Resisting/Obstructing - 2 - 15.5 1:29:00
REG- Registration for certain criminal
offenders 1 2 - 1 1:15:30
Information or Administrative Classification (n = 12,434) W911 - Wireless 911 2,830 9,899 1,980 1F,2 1.1 7:00
INFO - Information 205 1,093 219 0,2,9 2.1 16:00
FALL - Fall on City Prop. 181 965 193 1F,2,3 1.5 23:00
DAMAGE - Property Damage 60 234 47 0,1F,2,9 2 38:00
FADEST - Firearm Destruction 37 205 41 3 1.1 58:00
CM - City Manager Report 5 18 4 9 2.3 47:30
SUBP - Subpoena Service 2 14 3 9 1 26:30
REPO - Repossession - 4 1 1.2 4:00
TROL - Temporary Restraining Order
Log 1 2 - 1.5 38:00
Investigative or Operational Classification (n = 10,350) A911 - Ascertain 911 995 6,859 1,372 0,1F,2 1.5 9:00

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
78 Call Type
2019
Events
Total
Events
Average
Yearly
events
Priorities
Assigned in
CAD
Average
Personnel
per Event
Median Time Spent on
Event after Dispatch
(Minutes and Seconds)
OUTAID- Outside Agency Assist 286 1,419 284 0,1F,2,3 1.8 22:00 KNOCK - Knock & Talk 73 463 93 - 2.1 36:00
1198- Code 1 assist 91 436 87 0,1F,2 4.4 15:00
SEARCH - Search Warrant 30 408 82 3 8.9 5:19:00
UNK - Unknown Problem 44 322 64 0,1F,2 3 14:00
WARARR - Warrant Arrest 65 269 54 0,2,3,6 2.1 47:00
LJ - LoJack Incident 36 96 19 2 3.9 16:00
SURVE - Surveillance 15 78 16 9 4.1 3:50:00
Medical or Mental Health Classification (n = 22,797)
1042 - Welfare Check 3,065 15,030 3,006 0,1F,2 1.9 19:00 5150 - Mental Illness 827 4,807 961 0,1F,2,3 2.4 20:00
1053 - Person Down 255 1,450 290 0,1F 2.1 12:00
1056 - Suicide 277 1,113 223 0,1F,2 3.6 34:00
DBF - Dead Body 97 397 79 0,1F 3.3 1:12:00
Property Crime (FBI Part I Crimes) Classification (n = 26,421) 484 - Theft 2,161 10,556 2,111 0,1F,2,3,4 1.7 28:00
459A - Auto Burglary 1,590 6,667 1,333 0,1F,2,3 1.5 32:00 459 - Burglary 597 3,911 782 0,1F,2,3 2.1 44:00
10851 - Stolen Vehicle 631 3,639 728 0,2,3 1.3 48:00
487 - Grand Theft 299 1,034 207 2,4 1.9 37:00
484C - Theft In-Custody 72 407 81 0,1F,2 1.9 48:00
451 - Arson 37 134 27 0,1F,3 2.9 26:00
10855 - Embezzled Vehicle 18 68 14 4 1.1 1:27:00
212 5 - Residential Robbery 1 5 1 - 7.4 37:00
Traffic Classification (n = 89,165)
T - Traffic Stop 9,129 44,795 8,959 0,1F,2 1.5 7:00
1194 - Pedestrian Stop 1,739 9,157 1,831 0,1F,2,4 1.8 13:00 PRKVIO - Parking Violation 1,112 6,508 1,302 0,1F,2,4 1.1 13:00 20002 - Hit & Run Prop. 917 4,562 912 0,1F,2,3 1.6 33:00 1196 - Suspicious Vehicle 859 4,360 872 0,1F,2 2 11:00
TRFHAZ - Traffic Hazard 792 3,719 744 0,1F,2,3 1.3 11:00 23103 - Reckless Vehicle 553 2,894 579 2 1.3 8:00

Data Analysis of Berkeley’s Police Response
79 Source: Auditor’s analysis of Berkeley Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch data Call Type
2019
Events
Total
Events
Average
Yearly
events
Priorities
Assigned in
CAD
Average
Personnel
per Event
Median Time Spent on
Event after Dispatch
(Minutes and Seconds)
1182 - Non Injury 496 2,819 564 0,1F,2,3,4 1.6 26:00
1194B - Bike Stop 442 2,784 557 - 1.6 9:00
1181 - Minor Injuries 478 2,635 527 0,1F,2,3 3.4 38:00
RECOVR - Stolen Vehicle Recovery 214 1,325 265 0,2,3 1.5 56:00 1183 - Unknown Injuries 200 1,261 252 0,1F,2,3 3 33:00
1148 - Transportation 255 623 125 3 1.9 2:48:00
VCVIO - Vehicle Violation 140 584 117 3,4 1.2 13:00
1124 - Abandoned Vehicle 134 459 92 3,4 1.4 13:00
20001 - Hit & Run Injuries 74 330 66 0,1F,2,3 3.3 38:00 23109 - Exhibition of Speed 49 220 44 2 1.2 8:00
VVER - VIN Verification 15 127 25 4 1.1 21:00
HOT - Vehicle Pursuit - 2 - - 4 40:00
VREL - Vehicle Release - 1 - 2 1:14:30
Violent Crime (FBI Part I Crimes) Classification (n = 2,465) 211 - Robbery 341 1,571 314 0,1F,2,3 5.8 29:30
245 - Assault w/Deadly Weapon 74 383 77 0,1F,2,3 5.3 39:00 261 - Rape 55 267 53 0,2 2.5 1:42:00
243 - Serious Battery 5 63 13 0,2 3 45:00
244 - Assault w/ Caustic Substance 13 47 9 0,2 3.3 21:00 246 - Shots at Dwelling 8 44 9 0,2 2.8 37:00
215 - Carjacking 14 40 8 0,1F,2 7 33:00
1071 - Shooting 8 24 5 0,2 11.4 1:32:00
220 - Sexual Assault 1 16 3 0,2 2.4 50:30
288A - Child molest 2 10 2 2 1.9 1:11:00

Mission Statement
Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government.

Audit Team
Erin Mullin, Senior Auditor
Caitlin Palmer, Senior Auditor
Tracy Yarlott-Davis, Auditor II (Former)
Alejandra Barrio Gorski, Auditor I

City Auditor
Jenny Wong

Office of the City Auditor
Phone: (510) 981-6750
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor

Photographs provided by Berkeley Police Department

Copies of our audit reports are available at
www.cityofberkeley.info/Auditor/Home/Audit_Reports.aspx

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-6760 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/auditor

CONSENT CALENDAR
May 11, 2021
Updated July 2, 2021

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Audit Report: Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley’s Police Response

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend City Council request that the City Manager report back by November 16, 2021, and every six months thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the Police Department.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
We analyzed the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) data from 2015 to 2019. We analyzed characteristics of events, characteristics of officer-initiated stops, and characteristics of police responses.

From 2015-2019, Berkeley police responded to a total of 350,800 events, or 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. 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.

During that time, Berkeley police initiated 56,070 stops. We found 78 percent of officer-initiated stops were vehicle stops, the majority of which did not lead to a search and most led to a warning. Mirroring prior findings by the Center for Policing Equity, data we reviewed showed Black people were stopped at a significantly higher rate than their representation in the population (34 percent compared to 8 percent), and Blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be searched following a stop.

BPD dispatched an average of 1.8 personnel per event. Three or more personnel responded to 41 percent of police responses. Events designated as (high) Priority Level 1-2 accounted for 40 percent of events, which require a response time of 20 minutes or less, while 43 percent were lower priority requiring a response time of an hour or longer from a call.

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

We recommend BPD identify all calls for service that have an apparent mental health and/or homelessness component. We also recommend BPD expand the current calls for service data available

Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley’s Police Response CONSENT CALENDAR May 11, 2021
Updated July 2, 2021
Pg. 2 of 2

on the City Open Data Portal to include all call types and data fields for as many years as possible. BPD agrees with our recommendations.

BACKGROUND
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. The Berkeley City Council held several meetings and hundreds of community members provided. Initially proposed by Councilmember Bartlett and incorporated by Mayor Arreguín, analysis of police data was included in Safety for All: The George Floyd Community Safety Act, a broader item on policing that City Council passed in July 2020. We offered to conduct the analysis.

This audit 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. Our report examined data from 2015 through 2019.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing our recommendations will increase transparency and build a richer data set. The audit does not propose recommendations with regard to police activities or personnel allocations. There is a separate community process for reimagining public safety and policing.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510-981-6750

Attachments:
1: Audit Report: Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley’s Police Response

New Resources Budgeted Resources Estimated Costs Justification Timeline $5.7 million
(already budgeted) $ 5,700,000 Included in FY23 proposed budget
and staff costs
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS) TF
Recommendation: Review Transportation Laws,
Fines and Fees to Promote Safety and Equity;
Fully Fund the BerkDOT Planning Process
Ongoing
Included in FY23 proposed budget
and staff costs
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS) TF
Recommendation: Move forward with the
transfer of both collision analysis and school-
crossing-guard management away from BPD and
over to Public Works
FY2023
$300,000
$ 300,000
Primarily for consulting support, not in proposed
budget and staff costs. Reimagining Public Safety
(RPS) TF Recommendation: Fully Fund the
BerkDOT Planning Process
FY2023-24
$150,000
$ 150,000
Primarily for consulting support, not in proposed
budget and staff costs. Reimagining Public Safety
(RPS) TF Recommendation: Review
Transportation Laws, Fines and Fees to Promote
Safety and Equity
Expect to include in FY25 proposed
budget
Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) TF
Recommendation: Fully Fund the BerkDOT
Planning Process
Decision in FY 2024
Underway to 6 months
(1) Community Services Officer
Salary and Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$150,952
(1) Police Officer Salary and
Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$ 444,286
BPD Community Service Officers (CSO) proposed
increase in staffing will support public safety
goals and build non-sworn response to address
responses where the call type or specific call
factors indicate a sworn response is not
necessary. The CSO's will be focused on
community supports and other community based
work being directed through other Departments
or personnel such as code enforcement. BPD
formalize a unit focused on revitalizing
community engagement. This team will be made
up of sworn and non-sworn personnel
developing stronger relationships with CBO, faith-
based organizations, youth groups and others.

This unit will have the lead in partnering with
community based organizations on violence
interventon programs such as Ceasefire.
12-24 months
(1) Project Manager postion Salary
and Benefits FY23 Budget FTE -
$314,465
$ 314,465
Ongoing
Ongoing
(5) Parking Enforcement Officer
Salary and Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$132,074 + (1) Parking Enforcement
Officer Supervisor Salary and Benefits
FY23 Budget FTE = $157,753
$ 818,123
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: Develop additional capacity to
provide non-sworn parking enforcement and
traffic safety response. Anticipated annual
revenue generated per employee is $222,192
based on January 2022 actuals. Budgeted at mid-
step. Expanded Preferential Parking Program
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: To ensure the required
supervision for the additional PEO positions
described above. Anticipated annual revenue
generated per employee is $222,192 based on
January 2022 actuals. This position is required to
supervise the additional PEO positions. Expanded
Preferential Parking Program
24-30 months
Ongoing
BPD expand capacity to provide non-sworn parking enforcement and emergency traffic response BPD collaborate with City Departments on redirecting enforcement responsibilities where appropriate Continue to plan for a civilian traffic enforcement unit, both by informing the content of state law changes to enable such a unit, and by developing an implementation plan once state law does change
Summary of City Manager's Response

REIMAGINE
Implement the Specialized Care Unit Pilot using all of the recommendations of the consultant and the SCU Steering Committee as a road map Continue legislative advocacy for changes in state law to grant cities the authority for non-sworn civilian traffic enforcement, enable automated enforcement for speeding, and modify red light camera enforcement. This continues the City Council’s advocacy for state law changes on these issues that started in 2021, and will help ensure the City’s input in changes are ultimately adopted by the state legislature In the FY 2023 and FY 2024 Budget, move crossing guards from the Police Department’s Traffic Unit to Public Works’ Division of Transportation. This consolidates a transportation function into the Transportation Division and aligns this function with the Vision Zero Program Review Berkeley Municipal Code for proposed changes to increase equity and racial justice in the City’s existing transportation fines and fees, especially related to parking. Involve the Transportation Commission in the recommendation of such changes to City Council.

Assess progress in incorporating equity, mobility, Vision 2050, and Vision Zero in transportation functions, and determine which organizational structure best matches a new or revised mission for transportation functions: a stand-alone Berkeley Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, or Division of Transportation Develop BPD and Community-Based organization engagement and collaboration structures Implement formal BPD community engagement unit
Support reimagining efforts of City Departments
BPD support and assistance implementing Vision Zero goals and BERKDOT process

New Resources Budgeted Resources Estimated Costs Justification TimelineSummary of City Manager's Response (9) Community Services Officer Salary
and Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$150,952 + (1) Supervising
Community Services Officer Salary
and Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$171,466
$ 1,530,037
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: To develop additional
capabilities to address public safety goals with
appropriate response level, increase capacity for
community engagement. Budgeted at mid-step
with 3% COLA.

Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: To ensure the required
supervision for the additional CSO positions
described above. Budgeted at mid-step with 3%
COLA. BPD Community Service Officers (CSO)
proposed increase in staffing will support public
safety goals and build non-sworn response to
address responses where the call type or specific
call factors indicate a sworn response is not
necessary. The CSO's will be focused on
community supports and other community based
work being directed through other Departments
or personnel such as code enforcement.
24-36 months
24 months
$200,000 for consulting support $100,000 (already budgeted) $ 300,000.00 Reimagining Public Safety(RPS) Recommendation: The
establishment of a Tiered Dispatch/CERN Pilot
Program; Contracting with local Community Based
Organizations (CBOs) for Tier 1 CERN response; Adopt
City Auditor’s Recommendations for Call Processing
and Dispatching of First Responders and Others
Contained in Report, and Add ‘Substance Use’ to 911
Recommendations; Implement Specialized Care Unit
(SCU): Alternative Non-Police Responder to Meet the
Needs of People Experiencing Behavioral Health
Challenges; Implement A Behavioral Health General
Order for the Berkeley Police Department That
Emphasizes Diversion Away from Policing Whenever
Possible; Include PEERS in Developing Behavioral
Health Responses; Have a Reconciliation Process with
People with Behavioral Health Challenges and Police;
Clarify the Risk Assessment by Call Takers,
Dispatchers, and Police for Behavioral Health;
Improve De-Escalation Training for Police & Offer
Public Education on Behavioral Health; Account for
Overlapping Systems of Care for People Living with
Behavioral Health Challenges
12-72 months
$ 3,756,911
Analyze the current dispatch center including available hardware and software, current staffing model, current level of training, existing facility, accreditation status and accreditation options, and existing quality improvement practices. Phase I includes a recommendation for a prioritized emergency fire & medical dispatch system
Develop additional capabilities to address public safety goals with appropriate response level Explore additional or alternate responses specifically related to traffic and bicycle safety

REIMAGINE TOTAL

New Resources Budgeted Resources Estimated Costs Justification TimelineSummary of City Manager's Response $50,000
(already budgeted) $ 50,000 $175,000 (Included in FY23 proposed
budget) $ 175,000 Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
(1) Supervising Public Safety
Dispatcher Salary and Benefits FY23
Budget FTE = $206,510 + (8) Public
Safety Dispatcher II Salary and
Benefits FY23 Budget FTE = $180,050
$ 1,646,910
Reimagining Public Safety (RPS)
Recommendation: To address City Auditor OT
Report and support expanding dispatch
responsibilities (including PMD) and overall
expertise.
36 months
1 FTE data analyst (already
budgeted) 12 months
Costs are ongoing and dependent on
training needs - TBD estimated at
$100,000
$ 100,000
Reimagining Public Safety (RPS)
Recommendation: Conduct ongoing training in
support of Fair and Impartial Policing concepts,
officer safety and professional development.

Ongoing
TBD estimated at +$70,000
$ 70,000
Reimagining Public Safety (RPS)
Recommendation: Conduct staffing assessment
to ensure departmental staffing levels meet
public safety expectations and employee health
and wellness. Assessment will consider quality of
service, overtime expenditures, administrative
responsibilities and ongoing training needs of
personnel.
24-30 months
Increase annual wellness budget by
$50,000 and reassess at FY23 budget
cycle to determine appropriate
funding
$ 50,000
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: Costs required to support
Critical Incident Stress Contract, Peer Support
Team, and emerging wellness needs.
6-12 months
Increase annual training budget by
$100,000 and reassess at FY23 budget
cycle to determine appropriate
funding
$ 100,000
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: Conduct ongoing training in
support of Fair and Impartial Policing concepts,
officer safety and professional development.
12-24 months
(7) Police Officer Salary and
Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$ 2,053,338
Lack of adequate staffing and limitations on
tools and technology can negatively impact not
only overall safety, but also morale and mental
health of personnel.
18-24 months
6-12 months
24 months
18 months
6 months
12-72 months
$100,000 for consultant grant writing
support
$ 100,000.00 12-72 months
(3) Police Officer Salary and
Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$ 880,002
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: These additional positions will
address various facets of enhanced community
engagement and related services to support
enhanced safety through increased criminal
investigation, collaboration with Community
Based Organizations, and victim support.
24-30 months
(10) Police Officer Salary and
Benefits FY23 Budget for 1 FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$ 2,933,340
Reimagining Public Safety(RPS)
Recommendation: To develop flexible
capabilities to support public safety goals
through problem solving focused and data driven
approaches. Building off of Bike Team success in
both engagement capabilities and violent crime
reduction. Budgeted at mid-step with 3% COLA
24-30 months
(1) Police Officer Salary and
Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$ 293,334
To support continued efforts and partnerships
with Transportation to prevent, educate, reduce,
assess impact of traffic violations and collisions
on community safety.
24-30 months
Conduct regular analysis of data to ensure that departmental responses align with Fair and Impartial Policing concepts Conduct ongoing training in support of Fair and Impartial Policing concepts Strengthen investigation capabilities and victim support network Support expanding dispatch responsibility and expertise Continued support of employee health and wellness
Continued support of employee training and professional development Ensure public and employee safety through recruitment efforts aligned with adequate staffing levels and technology Provide transparency through public facing data dashboards Provide transparency and community engagement through increased information sharing Build relationships with community groups to support best possible outcomes Gather data around mental illness and homelessness to support overall City responses and needs assessment Create a detailed implementation plan for Priority Dispatch including timelines and critical dependencies, a budget identifying one-time and on- Conduct staffing assessment including beat study to ensure departmental staffing levels meet public safety expectations and employee health and wellness

IMPROVE
Evaluate the Specialized Care Unit Pilot and use quantitative and qualitative data to make identified improvements Continue to partner with the SCU Steering Committee, the Mental Health Commission, and community members in implementation Continue the consolidation of transportation-related functions in existing Public Works’ Division of Transportation. Public Works has both the Approve a new Vision Zero staff position in Public Works’ Division of Transportation to conduct collision analysis. This will promote the City’s Vision Zero approach by boosting the City’s capacity to analyze collision data collected by the Police Department, and, with Police input, propose Continue to address disparities in traffic and other enforcement stops Continue to address disparities in Use of Force incidents Support reimagining efforts including grant writing services Promote traffic and pedestrian safety through data analysis, education and enforcement where appropriate Expand problem-oriented teams to support community needs and address violent crime

New Resources Budgeted Resources Estimated Costs Justification TimelineSummary of City Manager's Response $ 8,401,924
$50,000 (already budgeted) $ 50,000 (1) Police Officer Salary and
Benefits FY23 Budget FTE =
$293,334 (deferred)
$ 293,334
Developing Community violence prevention and
intervention programs can be effective in
reducing violent crime and create meaningful
opportunities for community members to give
back. These community based organizations
work with to interrupt cycles of violence and the
department and crime data can be critical to the
success of this work. Programs such as Ceasefire
or Voices Against Violence could be supported
through dedicated staff managing these efforts.
12-24 months
12-72 months
$ 293,334 12-24 months
$ 12,452,169
Assist the Communication Center with change management and implementation of the plan. This will include considerations for design changes to

REINVEST TOTAL

OVERALL TOTAL
Develop and implement a finance strategy for long-term sustainability of the SCU Develop and implement violence prevention programs such as Ceasefire

IMPROVE TOTAL

REINVEST

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

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

New STAIR Navigation Center.

City Manager’s Office
City of Berkeley
Central Administrative Offices
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, CA 94704

April 21, 2022
CITY MANAGER’S
OFFICE
Reimagining
Public Safety
A Guide for City Discussion

Our Team
Dee Williams-Ridley
City Manager
Shamika Cole
Sr. Management Analyst
LaTanya Bellow
Deputy City Manager
Jen Louis
Interim Police Chief
Dr. Lisa Warhuus
HHCS Director
Liam Garland
Public Works Director
Abe Roman
Fire Chief

Introduction

Overview
• Reimagining Public Safety
Ba
ckground
• Guiding Principles
(Reimagine, Improve, Reinvest)
• Recommendations
o BerkDOT
o Priority Dispatch
o Police
o SCU
• Budget
• Closing Remarks
4

Background
Reimagining Public Safety
5

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

7 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Recommendations
Recommendations &
Implementation Plan
8

Police | Recommendations
9

Police
10 MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Develop BPD and community-based organization engagement and collaboration structures
Implement formal BPD community engagement unit

DEVELOPMENT OF NON-ENFORCMENT FOCUSED APPROACHES
Expand capacity to provide non-sworn responses to parking enforcement and emergency traffic response
Develop additional resources to meet public safety goals with appropriate response Explore redirecting enforcement responsibilities where appropriate including those specifically related to traffic and bicycle safety

Police (continued)
11 ACCOUNTABILITY
Address disparities in traffic and other enforcement stops and use of force incidents Support expanding dispatch responsibilities and expertise Conduct regular data analysis to ensure alignment with Fair and Impartial Policing Conduct ongoing training in support of Fair and Impartial Policing concepts Conduct departmental staffing assessment

Police (continued)
12 OFFICER SAFETY AND WELLNESS
Continue to support employee health and wellness
Continue to support employee training and professional development Ensure public and employee safety through recruitment efforts

TRANSPARENCY
Launch public facing transparency hub (data dashboards) Build deeper relationships with community groups to support best possible outcomes

Police (continued)
13 VALUE PUBLIC SAFETY AND VICTIM SUPPORT
Strengthen investigation capabilities and victim support network Expand problem-oriented teams to support community needs and address violent crime
Promote traffic and pedestrian safety through data analysis, education and enforcement where appropriate.

Police (continued)
14 Support implementation of violence prevention programs

Priority Dispatch | Recommendations
15

Priority Dispatch
16 Possible Priority Dispatch Models
Models Considered Pros Cons
Current Model Simplicity, easier staffing Inefficient, delays for callers, expansive resources sent to call
Criteria Based Dispatch Affordable, flexible, trusts well- trained dispatchers
Non-standard, not used by
neighboring agencies
Medical Priority Dispatch
System
Standard system, used by
neighboring agencies
Expensive licensing, inflexible,
heavily scripted

Priority Dispatch
17 Federal Engineering Scope of Work
Phase I Analyze and Recommend Dispatch System
• Analyze Current Operations and perform a needs assessment • Recommend a dispatch system that would best serve the City of Berkeley Phase II Implementation Plan Report
• Implementation Plan

BerkDOT | Recommendations
18

Berkeley Department of Transportation
(BerkDOT)
•Review of national and local context
• Few cities of Berkeley’s size have a stand-alone DOT
• Existing Division of Transportation has more breadth than most cities •Three options for BerkDOT organizational structure: stand-alone D
epartment, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (BerkDOTI), or consolidated Division
•A first-of-its-ki nd scientific survey (and listening sessions) found:
• support for shifting traffic enforcement, including routine traffic stops, from poli
ce to specially trained staff
• acknowledgement of the role race can play in interactions with the police, with Bl
ack residents particularly aware
• women more likely to rate the safety of getting around Berkeley negatively 19

BerkDOT
20 Continue legislative advocacy for changes in state law to grant cities the authority for non- sworn civilian traffic enforcement, and automated enforcement for speeding/red lights Move crossing guards from the Police to Public Works’ Division of Transportation Continue to plan for a civilian traffic enforcement unit once state law does change Review Berkeley Municipal Code for proposed changes to increase equity and racial justice in the City’s existing transportation fines and fees
After assessing progress in equity, mobility, Vision 2050, and Vision Zero (or setting new vision) in transportation, determine best organizational structure : a stand-alone Berkeley Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure(BerkDOTI), or Division of Transportation
Approve new Vision Zero staff member to conduct collision analysis Continue consolidation of transportation functions

SCU | Recommendations
21

Specialized Care Unit (SCU)
•Comprehensive community engagement process to design the SCU
• Engage consultant (Research Development Associates)
• Create Steering Committee to oversee process
•3 comprehensive reports
• Crisis Response Models Report
• Mental Health Crisis Response Services & Stakeholder Perspectives Repor
t
• Specialized Care Unit Crisis Response Recommendations 22

Specialized Care Unit (SCU) ctd.
•25 recommendations for design for a 24/7 mobile crisis response for behavi
oral health crises by category
• The SCU Mobile Team
• Assessing the SCU Crisis Response: Dispatch & Alternative Phone Num
ber
• Implement a Comprehensive 24/7 Mental Health Crisis Response Model
• A
dministration & Evaluation
• Promoting Public Awareness
•Steering Committee adopts RDA recommendations with
addit
ional analysis
•SCU pilot with intention to implement long term
23

Specialized Care Unit (SCU)
24 Implement the Specialized Care Unit Pilot using all of the recommendations from Research Development Associates (RDA) and the SCU Steering Committee as a road map
Evaluate SCU Pilot
Continue to partner with SCU Steering Committee, Mental Health Commission, and community members in implementation
Develop and implement a finance strategy for SCU long-term stability

Budget
Funding Reimagining Work
25

FY23-24
Reimagining
Public Safety
Budget
Analysis
26 As part of the FY23-24 budget
process, additional funding sources
available to support the reimagining
public safety process include the
City Manager’s proposal to defer
five (5) Sworn Officer positions,
resulting in $1.6M in addition to
other salary savings from vacancies.

Important Matters to Consider
27

Closing Remarks
If Council decide to move forward with
recommendations in this report, it is
necessary to:

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

2. Implement the SCU Pilot.

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

4. Establish the Office of Race
Equity and Diversity.

5. Complete Police Staffing
Assessment and Beat Structure
Analysis.

6. Seek funding opportunities to
support the reimagining public
safety process for Berkeley.
28

29 Thank you.

CITY MANAGER’S
OFFICE

Office of the Mayor
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7100 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.7199 E-Mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTAL

AGENDA MATERIAL
for Supplemental Packet 2

Meeting Date: March 10, 2022

Item Number: # 1 and # 2

Item Description: Consideration of the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force’s Response to the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform recommendations & Presentation and Discussion of Reports Submitted by Reimaging Public Safety Task Force and
National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform

Submitted by: Mayor Arreguin, Vice-Mayor Harrison and Councilmembers Bartlett and Hahn

The attached Supplemental material includes a report: 1) recommending that the Council reflect and reaffirm its unanimous commitment to reimagining public safety in Berkeley; 2) comments on the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) and Reimagining Public Safety Task Force reports (“Task Force”) and where they align and do not align with the original referral (Resolution 69,501-N.S., July 14, 2020); 3) high level comments on prioritization and requested analysis of NICJR and Task Force recommendations for City Manager’s forthcoming report; 4) recommendations on additional resources needed to implement next phase of reimagining work.

In addition, the Supplemental also includes two spreadsheets presenting the NICJR and Task Force recommendations with detailed comments on prioritization and recommended future action. These spreadsheets compare the NICJR recommendations with the votes and recommendations of the Task Force and are meant to assist the Council and public in its review of the various reports.

WORKSESSION
March 10, 2022

1 To: Honorable Members of the City Council and City Manager From: Mayor Jesse Arreguín
Vice-Mayor Kate Harrison
Councilmember Ben Bartlett
Councilmember Sophie Hahn
Subject: Reaffirmation and Further Direction on Reimagining Public Safety Process, NICJR and Task Force Reports

1. Reflect on and Reaffirm the City Council’s vision for reimagining community safety adopted on July 14, 2020, outlined in the omnibus motion and Council Referral “Transform Community Safety and Initiate a Robust Community Engagement Process” (Attachment 1)
On July 14, 2020, after hearing from over 130 speakers, and receiving numerous written comments, the City Council adopted an omnibus motion to advance various proposals to reimagine community safety in Berkeley and launch a robust community process to develop a new approach. This action came two months after the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police, and in response to a growing movement for police reform. On June 6, 2020, over 7,000 Berkeley residents marched in the streets to call for transformative change in law enforcement not just nationally, but also here in Berkeley. Berkeley, like many cities throughout the United States, is not immune from the dark history of systemic racism, including state-sponsored actions such as violence against people of color and redlining and discriminatory housing practices. To this day, there are widening inequities based on race and income, including in housing affordability, health outcomes, academic achievement, and criminal justice. At the same time due to the lack of government programs to support wealth building, in addition to rising housing costs and gentrification, the Black community has decreased from 20% in 1970 to 8% today. If Berkeley is to truly realize its reputation of being a progressive, equitable community, we must recognize and tackle systemic racism head on in every aspect of our society - law enforcement, housing, health, education and other institutions.

We also need to recognize that law enforcement as traditionally defined is not the only method of advancing public safety. How we define safety should focus on protecting property and persons today and preventing crime in the future through

2 violence prevention and upstream investments in our social safety net. We must provide compassionate behavioral health care and social services and create policies and resources to close racial disparities in health, education and economic access. Our goal should be creating a truly safe community - reducing crime, and investing in the health, wellness and success of all of our residents.

The goals of this process were to create a new paradigm for policing and public safety that is holisitic and anti-racist, while making upstream investments to address social determinants and create a healthy, safe and equitable community.

In 2020, the City Council adopted a series of goals by way of Resolution No. 69,501-N.S. Two years later, as we advance to the next phase of this work, it is critical that we revisit and reaffirm these goals to guide our work.

We committed to:

i. A transformative approach to community-centered safety and reducing the scope of policing, by re-defining our
understanding of safety to be holistic and focus not just on crime prevention but health, wellness and economic security for all of our residents. While the focus has been on reducing the footprint of policing, we recognize that police play a critical role in our society, and we must determine the right size, focus and function of our Police Department to prevent and respond to crime, while exploring alternative response models and
upstream investments in social services to create a healthy, safe and equitable community.
ii. Equitable investment in the essential conditions of a safe and healthy community, especially for those who have
been historically marginalized and have experienced
disinvestment, and
iii. A broad, inclusive community process that will result in deep and lasting change to support safety and wellbeing for all Berkeley residents.

In addition to these original goals, we are committed to:
iv. Reducing the impact of current Police expenditures on our General Fund through investment in alternative response models

3 to minimize the impact on police, managing overtime expenses, and ensuring we have an adequately staffed and deployed Police force.
v. Reimagining health and safety, considering allocating resources towards a more holistic approach - one that shifts resources away from policing towards health, education and social services, and is able to meet crises with a variety of appropriate responses.
vi. Providing meaningful safety, continuing critical health and social services, and committing to, and investing in, a new, positive, equitable and community-centered approach to health and safety that is affordable and sustainable.
vii. Determining the appropriate response to community calls for help including size, scope of operation and powers and duties of a well-trained police force.
viii. Identifying alternatives to policing and enforcement to reduce conflict, harm, and institutionalization, introduce alternative and restorative justice models, and reduce or eliminate use of fines and incarceration.

4 Areas where these reports have been responsive to meeting original goals:

National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) Report A clear principle outlined in both Item 18d, “Transform Community Safety and Initiate a Robust Community Engagement Process'' and the Omnibus Motion, is that any transformation of public safety must be based on analysis of our current structure and community needs. While other communities rushed ahead with big changes, Berkeley first took a step back and initiated this process to understand what we have, what we need, and to where we want to go. The research and recommendations developed by NICJR have gotten us closer to understanding those questions in several key areas.

First, the calls for service analysis completed by the City Auditor and NICJR provides an essential foundation for developing a more specialized and appropriate system of responses for non-violent requests. It is clear that by reducing BPD’s focus on non- criminal and low level calls for service, the Department can improve its response, investigation, and prevention of more serious crime.

Second, the proposed Community Emergency Response Network (CERN), provides a framework for a civilianized responder model that can complement the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) and improve responses and service quality to low-level calls for service.

However, this model needs more refinement to align with our city before we implement a pilot. The task force raised many important points that merit staff consideration. In particular, we are not convinced that CBOs are best equipped to handle these calls and would like to see an approach to a civilian responder model that uses city staff (e.g. code enforcement, mediators, outreach specialists, etc.). Given that the SCU and priority dispatch programs are likely to move ahead while this analysis is underway, we believe the implementation of both programs should anticipate and plan for the integration of additional community responders to deal with other low level calls for service.

Last, the council action highlighted that there is “both a moral and fiscal imperative to restructure the way Berkeley envisions and supports health and safety”. Rather than abruptly cutting the budget an arbitrary amount, the Council directed analysis to discern what the appropriate scope, size and budget of the police budget should be.

Unfortunately, we still do not have a definitive answer to that question. The recent City Auditor’s recent report, as well as NICJR’s demonstration of the potential for alternative responders to handle up to 50% of call types point toward a more efficient and focused public safety system.

5 Reimagining Public Safety Task Force Report
The Reimagining Task Force, originally described as a Steering Committee in the July 14, 2020 Item “Transforming Community Safety”, was envisioned to serve two key functions: (1) To serve as the hub of a robust community process that would inform the definition of a holistic approach to community safety, and (2) to inform the city’s process with a dedicated and diverse range of knowledge, expertise and representation.

The task force report and their meetings over the last year reflect commissioners’ deep commitment to realizing a transformed system of community safety for the City of Berkeley. Commissioners took their charge seriously, and extended their work many months beyond the timeline that they were initially presented with. The task force clearly responded to their charge through their feedback on the NICJR report and their supplemental recommendations.

Many of the task force recommendations present concrete opportunities to reinvest in programs, policies and systems that can improve community health and safety in the short-term while we figure out how to take on the larger economic programs recommended by NICJR. Some highlights include:
● The BerkDOT recommendations, which build on the work of the City Manager and City Council, and provide concrete suggestions to reduce “police contacts, stops, arrests, tickets, fines and incarceration”.
● The gender-based subcommittee spearheaded their own outreach to service providers and subject matters to develop a set of actionable recommendations to increase resources for victims, provide training to faith-based leaders, coordinate and expand prevention education work as well as many ideas to improve police responses.
● The PEERS recommendations draw heavily on both direct community input, as well as research of best practices and emerging models and respond to the goal of reducing police conflict, harm and institutionalization. ● Strong support and additional recommendations for the Office of Equity initiated by Councilmember Kesarwani and a Violence Prevention Program initiated by Councilmembers Taplin and Bartlett.

All of the task force recommendations are worthy of consideration and we look forward to working with the Council, commissioners, staff and the broader community to develop an action plan for implementation.

6 Areas that require additional work
In reflecting on the original vision and direction of the Council and reviewing these reports, there are several areas that require additional work and consideration. As staff and the Council move to the next phase of this work, the following areas merit additional attention:
● A more complete fiscal and operational analysis of our existing police staffing structure, and how it might change overtime with the incorporation of alternative responders.
○ As the City works to build this new network the Council may need to identify additional revenues to establish alternative responses rather than relying solely on vacancies as suggested by NICJR. It is not appropriate to bank on anticipated resignations, nor is it clear that the savings generated through attrition will be sufficient to fund additional staffing and overhead costs. In the short run, we may need to identify additional funding to ensure that we will have the necessary number of officers while we develop our SCU/Community Responder model.
○ This analysis should build on the auditor’s recommendations and explore a structure that integrates civilian responders and provides greater opportunity for the deployment of current beat officers for bike, pedestrian or problem-oriented policing teams. The operational analysis should also evaluate the city’s capacity to respond to surges in calls for service as well as mutual aid agreements.
● Identifying impacts on labor contracts due to shifts in roles and responsibilities and implications for timing of implementation.
● Greater emphasis on how a new system of public safety can improve response and service in addressing low-level non-violent issues. ○ For example, page 16 of NICJR’s report identifies a list of call types for which to pilot civilian responses. Currently, some of these calls such as for an abandoned vehicle, blocked driveway, or noise complaint may not currently receive a prompt response due to their relative low-priority. With dedicated civilian responders, residents should expect improved and more rapid responses.
● Expand on the task force recommendation to review the Berkeley Municipal Code as it relates to transportation to all identify violations that currently require a police officer to enforce, but could safely be addressed by unsworn personnel.

For example, the mask and smoking ordinances currently require police enforcement but the BMC could be amended to enable code enforcement.

7 ● A strong public outreach campaign to inform the community whom to call and what type of response to expect with a new set of responders.

2. Provide feedback in the form of high-level prioritization and requested analysis for the City Manager’s forthcoming report.

Attachment 2, has two matrices. The first is a table that combines NICJR’s summarized recommendations, the task force votes and comments, and early thoughts and feedback on additional staff analysis, and potential phasing of recommendations.

Columns A-I are copied from the NICJR and Task Force final reports. Columns K-0 are added to organize thoughts on analysis, phasing and additional commentary or potential direction.

The second table is an expanded summary of the task force recommendations.

Columns A and B were included on pages 36-38. The rationale statements are pulled from the body of the report and reflect the Mayor’s Office's best effort to summarize each recommendation. Columns D-I provide initial thoughts, analysis, and potential phasing of recommendations. Given that all the ideas presented are aligned with the initial vision expressed by the council, these priorities are based on the recommendations that are most ready to move forward towards implementation. These suggestions could change with staff feedback, and in some cases staff input is required before any phasing can be suggested.

We request that the City Manager complete an initial evaluation of all task force supplemental recommendations to identify their potential cost and staffing and recommend phased implementation.

3. Acknowledging need for additional resources and community input A. Budget Referral for a Senior Project Coordinator or similar position as defined by the City Manager to ensure at least 1 FTE is available in the City Manager’s Office to coordinate the implementation phase of this project.

B. Input from Staff on the preferred approaches to continued community engagement during implementation.

Attachments:

1. Council Referral: “Transform Community Safety and Initiate a Robust Community Engagement Process” and Resolution No. 69,501-N.S. (July 14, 2020)

2. Consolidated Spreadsheet of Reimagining Public Safety Recommendations

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No Environmental Impact.

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

1. Resolution

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

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

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

12 Attachment 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

RECOMMENDATION:

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

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

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

REDUCE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

ii. Reason behind the complaints.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OUTCOMES AND EVALUATION

Councilmember Ben Bartlett
City of Berkeley, District 3

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

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

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

ATTACHMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

Reduce
Reduce Improve Reinvest
SHRINK
THE BEAST:

A Framework for Transforming Police

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

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

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

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

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

CERN Crisis Intervention
Specialists would respond to
all other calls.

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

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

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

Investigation Units should
also remain intact.

Violence reduction teams should
be created or remain intact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All other force must be absolutely necessary and proportional.

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

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

Use aggressive, progressive discipline to root out bad officers.

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

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

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

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

REPORTRESUMES
ED 015 988U0 004 752

SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN BERKELEY--THE SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT REPORTS.

BY- SULLIVAN, NEIL V.

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

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

SUPERINTENDENTS, JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS,

COMMUNITY COOPERATION, BUS TRANSPORTATION, STAFF ROLE,

ELECTIONS, INTEGRATION PLANS, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

DESCRIBED IS THE HISTORY OF THE EFFORTS TO DESEGREGATE

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

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

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

JOB OF IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN ANC BEGAN HIS EFFORTS BY

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

IN THE CITY REQUIRED THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN WHITE SCHOOLS

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

IT IS FELT THAT THE REQUISITES FOR SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL

DESEGREGATION ARE FULL COMMITMENT BY THE SCHOOL

ADMINISTRATION AND THE BOARD, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WITH AND

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

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

/7111732-
u,/
SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IN BERKELEY:

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

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

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There also was a sweeping change in the school administration.

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

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

new administrationwas to make-it WY k.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The benefit of integration extendsto children of all races.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administration was instructed to develop plans for total integration.

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

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

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

Meanwhile both local and national endorsementswere pouring in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conslidated Spreadsheet of Reimagining Public Safety Recommendations NICJR Recommendations w/Task Force Comments 1 NICJR Recommendation NICJR Estimated Cost
& Explanation
NICJR
Identified
Funding
Source
NICJR Timeline Vote by Task
Force Reason for vote Proposed Narrative Summary for report Request Additional staff analysis?
No Action
Necessary
Phase 1?
(Implementation
2022-2024)
Phase 2?
(Implementation
2024-2026)
Additional Comments
u
1 Establish tiered
dispatch/CERN model (p.14)
$2,532,000, plus some
costs associated with
training for Dispatch
Current BPD
Vacant
Positions
Issue RFP 30 days
after City Council
approval, select
vendors 90-120
days afterward,
and begin pilot six
months after City
Council approval.

More analysis
needed

1.Who determines, and at what point in time, which calls are handled by whom (e.g., by CERN, BPD, SCU)?

2.What is the system (or multiple systems) for both receiving calls and routing the responses?

3.How does one system (e.g., CERN) mix and match with other programs under discussion (e.g., SCU, BerkDOT)?

4.Who will provide and staff these non-police responses (i.e., City staff or contractor, professional credentialed or community responders) and if contractors, under what color of authority will they provide City service?

5.When will staffing, and at what staffing level, be available to change, if at all, the allocation of calls for service -- whatever the merits of replacing police, we cannot replace something with nothing?

6.What system is in place should the nature of the call change (i.e., what is the back-up system in case seemingly benign calls turn violent and/or criminal)?

7.Is BPD involved (e.g., as co-responder, as back-up, etc.) or are they required to be separate from these non-police responses?

8.What liability issues do these new responses present to the City; (ix) what impact, if any, does reallocating some percentage of calls for service from police affect the minimum police patrol staffing necessary to perform their function of focusing on and responding to calls for service involving crimes and or violence?
Overall, the Task Force supports the idea of a community-based response as an alternative to an armed response that would decrease the footprint of the police department. As presented, commissioners are concerned that the co-responder model proposal by NICJR would not decrease the footprint of the police and could have the consequence of having the community see CBOS as an extension of the police. In addition, commissioners need more clarity on how CERN would work with other new models like SCU, BerkDOT and dispatch.

Yes, see task force inquiries on
pages 69-78 of the task force report X
Support a communiy responder model that
takes on calls for serivce beyond what SCU
is expected to tackle. The design of SCU
and implementation of the SCU and our new
dispatch should anticipate a set of
community responders to deal with other
low level calls for service. Additional
analysis as suggested by the Task Force is
necessary to further define a community
responder pilot, which can evolve and
expand over time.

Additionally, want to ensure that our
dispatch is centralized so that residents
know who to call as well as providing a
unique phone number for those reluctant to
call the police.
2 Contracting with local CBOS
for Tier 1 CERN response
More analysis
needed

1. Which CBOS? (Where is the landscape analysis that was promised by NICJR?)

2. Has the City dialogued with each CBO to confirm their interest in providing responders and their timeframe to make responders available, including hiring new staff?

3. What will the pay structure to CBO responders be; does each CBO set their own rates, or will the City set rates?

4. How will all responders be trained to achieve a systematic SCU non-police response for calls for service?
The Task Force would need more analysis to understand the investment that it would take for the city to ask CBOS to take on this responsibility, including training, the infrastructure a CBO would need, and skills needed for the types of cases in the new model.
^See above
Not convinced that only CBOs are best
equipped to tackle this work. Would like
to see an approach to a CERN model
that uses city staff e.g. code enforcement
to address these calls for service
3 Evaluate CERN (p. 19-20) (did not vote on
this)
4 Full implementation of Tiered
Dispatch/CERN Pilot Program
and reduction of BPD patrol
division of 50%
$7,596,000
Reduction of
BPD Patrol
Division by
50%
Two years after
implementation of
the pilot
More analysis
needed
No analysis was provided by NICJR for how police department would be reduced by 50%, especially if NICJR recommends no officer layoffs, and reductions through attrition only. Is full implementation dependent on the department reducing by 50% and when would this occur? See analysis above X Further analysis is required to determine
apprpriate staffing levels and funding
sources
5 Reduce BPD budget through
attrition only
and no layoffs (p. 20)
Reject This recommendation is unresponsive to the goal of reducing the police department by up to 50% to make resources available for other programs.

Yes, additional anaylsis is required to
understand the adequate staffing
structure that BPD could manage, as
well as the possibility of shifting patrol
officers to increase investigation
capacity
Do not support any reduction of the police
department through layoffs. Attrition will
need to be tracked and planned to ensure
minimum staffing of BPD while alternative
responses are implemented and their effect
on overall community needs is analyzed.
6 End pretextual stops (p. 24) Reject The Task Force is fully in favor of the elimination of pretextual stops by BPD - this work is already well underway and thus does not constitute a useful recommendation. In 2020 the Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group recommended that BPD focus on “the basis for traffic stops on safety and not just low-level offenses” and that they minimize or de-emphasize as a lowest priority stops for low-level offenses,” and in February 2021, Council unanimously approved the Working Group’s recommendations for adoption. Plans are currently underway for implementation, with quarterly updates being provided to the Police Accountability Board. (based on analysis from Liza Lutzker's report to RPSTF, linked to in the Improve & Reinvest Subcommittee’s Feedback document posted January 6, 2022)
X
Agree with Task Force comments that this
work is already underway. Staff should
continue to prioritize the implementation of
the FIP recommendations.
7 BerkDOT (p.25) Accept with
Conditions

1. This is in NICJR Report but is not mentioned in the Implementation Plan grid.

2. This needs MUCH more analysis, much like Dispatch changes required by CERN implementation, which NICJR does not detail.

While the Task Force is glad to see that NICJR sees the value in the creation of BerkDOT as a strategy to reduce the footprint of policing in Berkeley, the description provided for BerkDOT is inadequate with respect to the components of and motivation for BerkDOT (the NICJR report describes BerkDOT as a moving of traffic enforcement away from BPD). Because the BerkDOT creation process is moving forward separately, a complete description and analysis of BerkDOT are not necessary, but at a minimum, the NICJR recommendation ought to accurately describe what a proposed BerkDOT would consist of and provide the rationale for pursuing this approach beyond simply reducing the staffing and budget of BPD.

Specifically, BerkDOT needs to be described as a consolation of all transportation-related work being done by the City and would entail combining the current Public Works Department’s above-ground street and sidewalk planning, maintenance, and engineering responsibilities with the current transportation-related BPD functions of parking enforcement, traffic law enforcement, school crossing guard management, and collision response, investigation, data collection, analysis, and reporting.

See Recommendations in Task Force
Report

IMPROVE
8 BPD Become A Highly
Accountable
Learning Organization (HALO)
(p. 26)
Reject 1. Not credible that this change comes at "no additional cost"

2. RPSTF focused on spending less on BPD, not more

3. More training does not necessarily lead to changes in police culture

4. This process is not about re-imagining police
Overall, commissioners did not think there was enough information provided in the NICJR report that allowed an accurate assessment of the program and also disagreed with NICJR’s indication that this recommendation would come at no cost. Some commissioners felt strongly that any programs that potentially increase funding to police should not be prioritized, and more training will likely not lead to changes in police culture or address the racial disparities that continue to persist in the city.

These ideas merit future consideration.

However, BPD should priortize
implementing the Fair and Impartial Policing
recommendations as well as its response to
the City Auditors recomendations.
9 BPD join ABLE program Joining ABLE is free of cost N/A Within six months of approval from
City Council
(Did not vote
unless this is part
of the HALO
program)

1. HALO, EPIC and ABLE might be good programs, but what cost to join/enact? Recordkeeping alone would be a cost.

Same analysis as item 8
See Above
10 Expand EIS to assess all Use
of Force
No additional costs N/A Within six months
of approval from
City Council
Reject 1. In general recommendations limited to police reform and requiring additional funding were not seen as ideas in the spirit of re-imagining public safety

2. Side question: Is Fair & Impartial’s EIS measuring new best-practice gauge of proportionality? Not relying only on officer reporting & citizen complaints through PAB. Not being "de-fanged" by Union during implementation? See Univ of Chicago/Ron Huberman work: https://polsky.uchicago. edu/2021/06/08/benchmarking-police-performance-for-early-intervention-evidence-based-solutions/ The Task Force supports an EIS. However, this work is already well underway and thus does not constitute a useful recommendation. The EIS was recommended in 2020 by the Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing Working Group and in February 2021, Council unanimously approved the Working Group’s recommendations for adoption. X
High Priority recommendation. Support this
recommendation to expand the EIS work to
include all uses of force. The PAB should
take this into consideration when reviewing
the revised EIS policy.
11 BPD Expand current
Personnel and
Training Bureau OR Create
Quality
Assurance and Training
Bureau
Reject Rejected, similar to the reason in item 8. The Task Force did not believe that additional investment in training would create the change needed to change police culture and the racial disparities that continue to persist in the city.

This merits future consideration. Nearer
term priority should be implementing FIP
and auditor recommendations.
12 Transfer 5 officers and 2
civilian staff
to new Quality Assurance
and Training
Bureau (p. 32)
No additional costs N/A Within six months
of approval from
City Council
Reject Rejecting #12 above, so rejecting this related item, which is yet more additional training/QA cost. 13 BPD provide semi-annual
reports to public (p. 32)
internal re-organization can
achieve this goal without
additional costs
N/A First Report should
be issued by July
1, 2022
Accept with
Conditions

1. Data should be available on a real-time basis, all the time.

2. Build a dashboard that is constantly updating.

Data should be provided to the community through a dashboard, in real-time. Reports can be helpful, and should be provided, in addition to real-time data.

X
Agree with Task Force that real time data
should be available and presented in an
acessible platform for the community and
analysis of trends completed by the
Department.

Conslidated Spreadsheet of Reimagining Public Safety Recommendations NICJR Recommendations w/Task Force Comments 2 NICJR Recommendation NICJR Estimated Cost
& Explanation
NICJR
Identified
Funding
Source
NICJR Timeline Vote by Task
Force Reason for vote Proposed Narrative Summary for report Request Additional staff analysis?
No Action
Necessary
Phase 1?
(Implementation
2022-2024)
Phase 2?
(Implementation
2024-2026)
Additional Comments
14 Develop a Bay Area
Progressive
Police Academy (BAPPA) (p.
35)
An analysis of police
academies throughout the
Bay Area found that the
cost per student range is
roughly $4,300 - $4,600 per
student, with a significant
proportion of costs eligible
for reimbursement through
the Commission on Peace
Officers Standards and
Training (POST.) The
development of the BAPPA
would include certification
through POST in order to
satisfy State requirements.

NICJR recommends that
collaboration with Albany
and potentially Oakland be
explored.

Reduced BPD
budget through
eliminating
patrol positions
through
attrition,
revenue from
partner law
enforcement
agencies
Launch two years
after City Council
approval
Reject RPSTF is focused on reducing BPD spending, not increasing.

2. BAPPA is dependent on a great deal of inter-agency agreement, sharing and teamwork, which don't already exist. Would take many man-hours to get others on board, agree scope of work, convince all to start contributing.

3. Very high staff and overhead costs.

4. BPD regularly states they have top-notch training and sourcing for sworn and non-sworn personnel – it is not clear that a Berkeley-run academy would solve any hiring difficulties.

5. Instead of spending on this, RPSTF recommends spending on creating a Public Safety & Community Solutions Institute.

The Task Force recognizes that many cities are gearing up to provide a robust, expert non-police response to citizens in need, but that this type of workforce does not yet exist in a coordinated fashion.

Berkeley can be in the vanguard of cities creating this workforce and expanding best-practice training beyond paid professionals and offering it to the general public, interested groups, students, and the like. The Public Safety & Community Solutions Institute can bring together crisis intervention and situation calming, triage, medical response, mental health response, peer counseling, city and county services offerings, case work, data capture, and follow up with compassionate, trauma-centered delivery. The Institute’s trainings and coursework will be created by experts at Berkeley's SCU and the division of Mental Health, and tailored for other relevant audiences, e.g., BerkDOT. The Task Force feels this would be an exemplary area in which to spend time, money, and other resources to provide citizens with resources and support.

In addition to the reasons outlined in the
report, the benefits of a progressive
academy include the opportunity to "export"
Berkeley's model to neighboring
jurisdictions and ensure regional alignment
on training. However, the resources and
coordination for this project would be
significant. Moreover, resources will be
needed for training for our SCU, dispatch
and any additional community responders
that would be part of a new model of public
safety. It is therefore prudent to prioritze
those projects and try to work with the
County and other regional training agencies
to seek improvements in their curriculum.
15 Increase diversity of BPD
leadership (p. 36)
Accept with
conditions

1. What is the plan for achieving diversity?

2. What are the numerical definitions of diversity?
The Task Force agreed that diversity in leadership alone would be insufficient to change an entire police culture. However, commissioners do acknowledge the importance of diversity and having responders who are from the city and the taskforce recommends making diversity a priority for all employees, including leadership.

X
16 Increase Standards for Field
Training Officers (p. 36)
Needs more
analysis

1. Need numbers about what % of officers have more than 2 complaints or 1 sustained complaint in a 12- month period?

2. How does race & gender data map with complaints data?

3. How do we assess whether implicit bias has played a role in complaint data figures? What are steps required for
implmetation? Could this be
integrated into the EIS policy? The
threshold should be amended to
focus on substantiated complaints.

X
Would not accept a 2 unsubstantiated
complaint criteria. This should be
considered by the PAB.
17 Revise BPD's Use of Force
policies
to limit any use of deadly
force as a last
resort to situations where a
subject is clearly
armed with a deadly weapon
and is using a
threatening to use the deadly
weapon against
another person
Training Costs
Savings from
eliminating
patrol positions
through
attrition
Within six months
of approval from
City Council
Reject 1. Use of Force policy was revised a year ago. Did NICJR read it and is this different than most recent version?

2. Use of Force policies are complex, making changes is a lengthy process. Shouldn't change what has been recently agreed upon without good reason.

This was rejected because this work has already been done and is covered by a different process and does not need to be duplicated in this process.

X
Agree with task force analysis. Use of Force
policy was recently and comprehensively
addressed by Council.

REINVEST
18 Launch a guaranteed income
pilot program (p. 37)
$1,800,000
General Fund;
federal funding
already
received or
forthcoming
from the
Infrastructure
Bill; or raised
through
philanthropy
akin to the
approach in
other cities
Within six months
of approval from
Council
Accept with
Conditions

1. Strong support for the program

2. Addresses root causes

3. Strong preference for unconditional funds that puts trust in people to use the money as they see fit

4. Unclear who is responsible for administering pilot

5. Unclear how families will be selected

6. Informed by completed/ongoing pilots in Stockton, Fremont, Richmond, etc.

Members strongly support this type of program and note that other communities have implemented these programs successfully. More information is needed to understand how families would be selected, and the city should consider whether other groups, like the AAPI or Indigenous community, should be included in this program.

X
This is an idea worth pursuing. The Council
and staff should work to identify
philanthropic and state grants to establish a
UBI program. The focuus in the near term
should be the development of the alternative
response system.
19 Launch a community
beautification employment
program (p. 39)
$1,250,000
5% of County
Criminal
Justice
Realignment
funds allocated
to community
services for
Berkeley
residents
Launch one year
after approval from
City Council
Accept with
Conditions

1. General support for employment programs

2. Current recommendation is specific to previously incarcerated folks, and funding source is based on that, and could be expanded to include other funding sources, and serve other communities e.g., youth, unhoused population

3. Remove the word beautification that is superficial

4. The program should be responsive to skills and talents of folks

5. Program could benefit from integrating professional development, pipeline to employment, especially folks who are generally left out of the workforce

6. Program should aim for goals and results that are transformative Members are very interested in increasing job skills and opportunities. However, programs should be centered around the interests of the target group. The Task Force therefore rejects the idea of simply a beautification program but fully supports programs that focus on professional development, and serve as a pipeline to employment, especially for those who face additional barriers like a criminal record.

Any program should have the goal of being transformative. X Agree with the Task Force question as to
why this is limited to just beautification?
What other innovative models for jobs
programs exist?
Perhaps we can look at increasing jobs or
apprenticeships in our parks department to
focus on envrionmental design ?
20 Increase funding for CBOS in
one of two ways:
(1) increase grant amounts by
25%, or
(2) create local government
agency/ department
(Department of Community
Development) (p. 40)
$25,605,492.50
Measure W
funds, when
the BPD's
budget is
gradually
reduced; the
infrastructure
bill; and
concerted
efforts to
increase
philanthropic
dollars
FY 22-23 Accept with
conditions

1. Unclear where the funding is coming from, some of it is coming from Measure W

2. Recommendation is too general, and funding of CBOS should be prioritized based on RPS goals and improving social determinants of health

3. Strong disagreement with approach that proposes across the board funding for CBOS

4. Preference for a recommendation that includes a new department could play a role in visioning and tracking of CBOS and funds, and oversee increased funding While members generally agree with increasing the capacity of community-based organizations as a way to improve public safety, funding should be targeted and focus on the goals set forth in the enabling legislation for reimagining public safety. Members also note that this recommendation does not explain where the additional funds would come from, as NICJR does not propose any layoffs to reduce the police budget. Members are very interested in creating a city division that could continue this work and focus on issues of equity.

X
Would prioritize a more targeted approach
to upstream investment in community based
orgs focused on the social determinents of
health and safety.
21 Launch the Advance Peace
Program
$500,000 General Fund
Launch in first
quarter of FY 2023,
on going for at
least 3 years
Recommendation
was not in draft
report, therefore
task force did not
vote
N/a Appendix 6 provides a collection of resources on violence prevention programs. The task force informally voiced their support for these kinds of efforts repeatedly throughout their process.

Request an update on the status of
the existing violence intervention
referrral. Are there significant
differences on what the city is already
working on and the advance peace
model?
X
Notes
Grid is based on pages 39-40 of NICJR Final Report, titled Implementation Plan and the table on Pages 10-17 of the Task Force Final Report Recommendations highlighted in orange indicate items not listed on the grid in the NICJR Final Report